By ED JOHNSON
Associated Press Writer
LONDON- Gooey toffee guns, high-powered water pistols and sniffer foxes. As Britain looks for new ways to fight terrorism after deadly attacks on London’s transit system, some high-tech weapons considered over the past 25 years never made it past the drawing board.
Following the terror bombings last month, the government said Monday that its scientific development branch was currently designing a highly sensitive scanner to detect explosives, better body armor for police and more sophisticated surveillance equipment.
But among the weaponry tested and ultimately rejected by the Home Office’s team of 200 scientists are ideas that would excite even James Bond’s gadget man “Q.”
Records show that in the past 25 years, the branch worked on a special gun that blasted a toffee-like foam at a suspect. Although it was effective in immobilizing a potential criminal, the project was abandoned when researchers found the sticky goo blocked people’s airways.
A supercharged water gun, complete with a strap-on water tank, was also among the list of failed inventions. The portable water cannon did not make it past trial stage because the highly pressurized stream of water tended to knock the user off his feet.
Among the proposals from private inventors and commercial manufacturers was a cannon that fired tennis balls at high speed _ notably less lethal than a gun, but lacking in accuracy. A 12-gauge shotgun firing bean bags, or small sacks filled with sand, suffered the same defect.
The development branch, which prides itself on keeping police one step ahead of the criminal, also tried to tap the talents of Britain’s wildlife. After two foxes were seen digging up a corpse on a golf course in northern England, scientists tried to harness the creature’s superb sense of smell by training foxes to become sniffer dogs.
The idea was shelved when the foxes kept biting their handlers and eventually chewed through their enclosures and escaped.
“New technologies are constantly assessed and this may include evaluation of innovations from scientists, inventors and commercial companies against clear policing operational requirements, said the Home Office in a statement.
“However, a new policing technology concept may not make it past the first stage for safety or efficiency reasons or if there is no current requirement.”
Science is a vital tool in tackling crime and terrorism, says Charles Shoebridge, a security analyst and former counterterrorism intelligence officer with London’s Metropolitan Police. But with science comes the need for practical tests, he says.
Research is under way on closed-circuit camera systems that would automatically recognize a suspect’s face, or trigger an alarm if a package was left unattended, he said.
“The security services and police are among the keenest users of technology in the country,” he said. “They are certainly aware of the potential of research and development. As technology becomes increasingly expensive, there are advantages from friendly nations pooling their technological resources and expertise.”