31/07/2012 Newsnight

Tonight, will Olympic athletes soon have genetic engineering at their

fingertips. This unexpected gold medal has won top one top swimming

coach suggesting one -- this might be already a possibility. Can such

engineering even been done. Better, stronger, faster, it is possible if

you are a mouse, but humans? If we know what the key genes are, and

many people in sports genetics believe they have a list of around

100 genes they think are very important, theoretically, they

could all be manipulated. scientist, an athlete, and bioet

cyst, discuss what kind of modification is happening and

whether we can test for it. Also tonight, we have been given

new figures of the scale and causes of anorexia, does that change the

way we see its victims. I would make myself run in the snow when I

have chill blains, and I wouldn't touch food in case it went through

my skin. A writer recovering joins the chair of the health Select

Committee. Was there it all a Romney shambles, as his foreign

tour jets home from Poland, what has it told us of the foreign

policy of the man who could be US President in a few weeks time. Ye

Shiwen has done it again, tonight she won gold in the 200ms medley,

with the shockwaves still rerating from her gold in the 400 individual

medley. In that race she took five seconds off her previous best time.

Resulting in one of the US senior coaches labelling her performance

immediately after heroin as "disturbing", there was no evidence

of doping, and according to the chair of the Olympic Association in

Britain, the swimmer deserves recognition for her talent. She

also has particularly large hands and feet, which is not a crime.

Imagine in the future if athletes could be genetically modified. We

have news into research into this field? In the midst of this row,

the idea of genetic manipulation, or gene doping in sport has sur

Fayeed. We looked at this last -- if you are faced, we looked at this

last week, some of the enhancing coming along in the future, the

idea of epigenetics, a road athlete turning up or down useful genes. It

turns out this very idea of how our genes and our environment interact

will be the legacy of the Olympic testing lab. The Olympic testing

lab, where they look at all the samples of athletes, we should hear

from the Government tomorrow, will become a multimillion pound medical

research centre, where we will look at the interaction between our

genes and environment, to try to find new treatments. The way that

our genes and environment interact determines how well we respond to

certain treatments. So, for the time being, this lab is going to be

focusing on keeping these Olympic It looks like it will be Ye Shiwen.

Tonight Ye Shiwen was in the pool again, winning her second golgd in

the final of the women's -- gold, in the final of the women's 200ms

individual medly setting an Olympic record not a world record. The row

was fuelled by outspoken reaction to that performance, byed leading

American swimming coach, who described it as "unbelievable",

today there has been huge support for the young young swimmer, by

officials and athlete. These are athletes competing at the highest

level, we have seen records broken all over the place. In terms of

athletes themselves, as you know, in the final, the first five

athletes are tested, compulsory, and two others. It is really well,

we have a very, very strong drug testing programme, we are very

confident if there are cheat we will catch them. As we already have

done. This morning, the head of spwrin's Olympic Association backed

up that position. -- Britain's Olympic Association backed up that

position, saying Ye Shiwen had passed WADA tests. She has insisted

there is no problem with her performance, because the Chinese

sticks to the strict antdy doping policies. But there is another

possibility, the idea that such outstanding performances might be

the product of some form of genetic His is a lone voice, and US

officials have today distances themselves from his views. But is

genetic manipulation in sport possible, can we test for it? And

is it happening. When people talk about gene doping in sport, they

are not talking about designer babies, with genes hand-picked to

create the superathlete of the future. What people mean by gene

doping at the moment, is either adding genes to particular cells or

organs of an athlete's body, say to increase oxygen uptake in their

lungs, or the new science of epigenetics, turning up the power

of any useful genes an athlete happens to have been born with.

Tweaking genes can work in animals, Tweaking genes can work in animals,

the mouse at the front has been manipulated from birth to carry

extra genes to make it run faster, but also to want to run faster too.

It might work in mice, but how might human athletes improve their

performance by tweaking their genes. The two areas, strength and

endurance. The strength we have genes like insulin growth factor 1,

shown in animals, able to increase strength and power of animals

models. That is a possibility. The second is the gene you get more of

when you go to altitude, we have seen individuals who have mutant

genes in that area, they have also enhanced performance in humans,

that also would be a possibility. Tim Speckor carries out unique

studies on twins, he's looking at how the outside world can help our

how the outside world can help our genes being expressed in our body.

We know what the key genes are, and sports people believe they have a

list of 100 genes they think is important. Theoretically they could

all be manipulated and tuned up or down, using these epigenetic

methods. He thinks rogue athletes might one day be able to turn these

up or down by taking a pill. Scientists at the Olympic testing

lab say they have made it harder to cheat, and authorities have banned

genetic manipulation. Whether it is being done I think is unlikely. I

would show the evidence occurring from gene therapy, where we have

tried for over 20 years to make it work and cure diseases like cystic

fibrosis, and it is very hard. In practice we know how to do it,

actually making it work is very hard.

In the end, as other swimmers have said today, it is perfectly

possible for a young swimmer to suddenly shine in this way.

I'm joined now by Ruta Meilutyte, a bio ethicist in Scotland, and one

of the first to write about gene doping.

And a Professor of human geneology. And from Stratford, by the former

world champion swimmer Karen Pickering, who has competed at four

consecutive Olympic Games. First of all, that tremendous performance

from Ye Shiwen, as we have said, she has been absolutely cleared. Is

it inevitable that there will be talk of manipulation, when there

has been such a stunning victory, taking five seconds off her record

on Saturday. It is a bit of a shame, actually. I watched that

performance, my first thought was what an incredible swim it was by a

young girl that we have watched swim for a couple of years now, we

have been waiting for her to do something quite impressive. It is a

shame, and slightly cynical of some people, that they will look at that

performance and think that it's not quite legitimate. That wasn't my

first thought. We have seen a lot of amazing performances in the pool.

Some much more spectacular than her's was. But I think part of the

problem is that it was a little bit of sterotyping and a little bit to

do with China's history of doping, the reason why she is being singled

out. Do athletes expect it? We just heard in the film there, athletes

are being tested all the time, so the whole atmosphere round

enhancement is very live? I think that we know, unfortunately, there

are always going to be some athletes who want to get an unfair

advantage, whether that is through doping or through this new idea of

gene doping, you know, there is always going to be some people who

will try. You have been in the fifth Olympics,

seventh, you are watching it very closely this idea that the very

thing Karen said, there will always be athlete who is want to get ahead,

for all sorts of reasons. That desire to get ahead is legitimate,

can it be legitimately met through genetic engineering, or is it

always something that will be banned? The challenge for athletes

is we put them in a position where they are expected to go faster,

higher and stronger, yet restrict the means by which they can do this.

I think it is revealing that in 2006 the British Government

launched an inquiry into human enhance. Technologies into sport,

not anti-doping. It speaks to this broader culture of human

enhancement that surrounds the world of sports. The give us an

idea of something that would enhance an athlete's performance if

it was genetic engineering? Not so much genetic engineering, but the

kinds of enhancements are similar. Endurance and power are the two

main things. Laser eye surgery is an example, it is one of those

modifications that the world of sport can't really ban, but you and

I can use them and athletes can use them, it could enhance its

performance. That is the bigger challenge sport face, there will be

an explosion of enhancements athletes can use. Test or not test,

ban or not ban? Medically supervised enhancements is the way

to go. I disagree with that, it is fundamentally against the nature of

sport. That is why we have the Olympic here in London to sell rate

that. The world anti-dope -- celebrate that, the World Anti-

Doping Agency is clear about it, it has added gene doping to its list

of banned substances for a good reason. Can you test for gene

doping, there are 100 different genes said to possibly enhance or

improve an athlete's performance, how do you test? The first question

is, is anybody doing it, do we have any evidence that anybody is

actually using, what effectively is, gene therapy techniques. Do you

have the tests to know? The tests are being developed. There are

developments in analytical chemistry, sell later and molecular

biology, developing all the time. In eight years time, with a blood

sample, there are likely to be genetic fragments, traces of the

investigateors used to get genes into sis -- vectors that are used

to get genes into systems. It might be possible. I look forward to the

future in seven years when all the medals will be distributeded to the

true winners. It seems to me that is the scenario athletes could face.

Tell me, if there was something like the laser eye surgery, which

actually makes an Archer see better, and it is open to everybody else on

the planet. Do you mean to say athletes can't take it because it

will give them an unfair advantage? There is a clear distinction

between medal exemption for different conditions. What about

actively trying to make your performance better? It is a grey

area. We could have the same debate about someone, for example, who has

a mutation in their mystaten gene, for example, which we know,

enhances muscle mass. Do you ban these individuals, who, through no

fault of their own, have a genetic mutation. I think you don't. I

think actually the future of sport will wrestle with this problem, and

find it very difficult to restrict people from participating. On that

point, you were saying that there will always be some athletes who

want to get ahead. What if the advances in genetic engineering are

such that athletes can get a -- ahead in a legitimate way. Using it

to repair muscles and make them stronger. Do you think that should

be outlawed? I think it is up to WADA, the IOC, for governing bodies

to look at what those roles r it is our duty as athletes to abide by

those rules. We have to hope and know that our governing bodies will

do what is ried right, will make the right decisions and -- right,

will make the right decisions and clear up that grey area and we

stick to the rules. It is unfair to athletes if there is a grey area.

If things are changing all the time. Athletes, through no fault of their

own, could fall foul of the rules there must be a fear about that?

Absolutely. But never going to be black and white. There will always

be situations. You have had now in terms of medications as well. If

you just have to take, for instance, athletes who are asmathic, and

legitimately need some medication, that may be banned in being taken

in other ways. I think that there iss always going to be areas that

need to be looked at, and unfortunately it is never going to

be black and white. But we just have to hope that, with the

advancements in technology, and the science behind, and as well, using

intelligence testing, as much as possible, to understand what is

going on out there, because athletes do hear about things,

people do talk, and the knowledge is spread, we just have to hope

that using all those techniques we can catch those people and stop

them. You are talking about the knowledge being spread, one of the

many legacies of the Olympics, is this testing lab for dopg, and

presumably for gene testing, is going to be something that will be

used, not only for athletes, but for the general population. The

point is, science is moving so fast and coaches know, athletes are

always on the look out for these things, is it policable? The bigger

challenge is five years from now it could cost less than �1,000 to map

a genome. There will be such a strong public argument by then from

everybody, to have their genome map, that conceivably we will all have a

24-hour look at it. And presumably for parents if your kids are going

to be good at eightly thes. If there is genome therapy, you can't

ban that? Athletic performances are such a beautifully integrated

performance, so many factors are involved, it will be incredibly

complex to tease out the genetic factors, we don't have gene that is

can accurately predict performance, they are only loosely associated

with performance. A long way to go. We will see what happens over the

next seven years and look at those testings.

Anorexia is a killer and dreadful death. It is not too harsh to say

it has been dismissed in the past that it is a disease that affects

self-obsessed teenage girls. We have news that eating discords are

costing billions. And anorexia sufferers are presenting younger,

even below ten. And brain scans intricates a strong predisposition

to the disease. Doctors are warning that budget constraints are

preventing people being referred early enough to get to the root of

the problem. This report contains some explicit images.

One of the saddest things that my brother, who is 16 now, doesn't

remember me without this illness. I feel I have lost my innocence, it

has taken everything. Ffion Jones last had a birthday cake when she

was 11, that is when she developed anorexia. Now 22, it stole her

childhood. At first I felt like I was in control, I felt like it was

something that I could have as my own. That I was good at, because

nobody else could not eat. I felt quite invincible and powerful at

that point. That changed really quickly. I just felt like

completely consumed, I got taken over. Not only did she stop eating,

to the alarm of her family, she refused to drink. I developed all

these obsessive tendencies, I was a compulsive exerciser, I would make

myself run in the snow when I had chillblanes, I wouldn't eat or

drink, I became phobic of food, I wouldn't touch food in case it got

be a surbed through my skin. She is being treated at one of the

specialist centres at Cotswold House, intensive support is helping

her eat regularly. The latest research suggests a strong genetic

predisposition of anorexia, she will always have to live with its

consequences. I have a lot of long- term implications which I was quite

ignorant of and didn't want to acknowledge as part of the illness.

They are a lot of serious side- effects, it is not a case I will

not eat for a while and put on weight. I got diagnosed with

osteoporosis at 18. I went for an X-ray on my spine, my back is

crumbling because of calcium depletion, and my spine is

crumbling. I'm not sure if I can have children or note. By the time

people are diagnosed with anorexia, their weight is so low, their

general health is severely compromised. They are at risk of

organ and heart failure. This is especially true in younger patients.

Newsnight has seen new figures from the charity, Beat, which reveal the

true costs. In the UK more than 1.5 million people suffer an eating

disorder. Most cases start in adolescence, affecting seven out of

1,000 girls, and one in a thousand boys. In England their ill-health

costs �1.26 billion, a figure expected to double over the next 20

years. Of all the psychiatric illnesses, anorexia is the most

deadly. It kills more people than depression, and alcohol and drug

addiction. Half the people who get it doesn't recover, while a fifth

will die from it. This is a few years later.

This is rosary Marston, during her 30 -- Rosemary Marston, during her

30-year struggle with the illness. I thought I was living a lifestyle

that suited me. Today she says she's finally recovered. In one

crisis, when her funding support specialist treatment was withdrawn,

she expected to die. I saw my reflection in the mirror, and took

photographs of my reflection in the mirror. I thought this is what I

want to leave behind, that people know that this illness isn't just

about vanity, it is not about looking good on the beach. This is

serious. I then went into a coma. I was taken into hospital that day.

Stopping the symptoms themselves, damaging the brain more, is very

important.... Her consultant, a world renowned

expert in eating disorders, explains why people with anorexia

are simply unable to think straight. The symptoms themselves, because

they interfere with nutrition, that means the body and brain are

damaged, because the brain is one of the hungryist organs in the body.

It uses more calories per gram than muscles even. If you are depriving

the brain of calories, it doesn't function as well. The brain is the

focus of ground-breaking research into possible genetic causes for

the illness. Professor Bryan Lask says photo imaging technology, has

allowed his team to study part of the brain, the insula, which in

anorexic patients is not working properly, changing our

understanding of the disease. so long people thought this was

just people choosing to go on a diet and rather manipulating people

around them, by saying they are footoo fat. It was seen as this --

they are too fat. It was seen as spoilt middle-class girls getting

it. It is not like that at all. It is not a choice. You inherit a

particular profile of genes, not one gene, there isn't an anorexic

gene, but a combination of genes, that render you vulnerable to the

development of anorexia, when exposed to other factors.

Figures for those with anorexia are stable, but clinicians report they

are seeing younger patients, some below the age of ten, making

earlier intervention and treatment vital. It is definitely not taken

seriously enough. You could talk to any number of parents who have a

daughter with anorexia, and they will tell you about the struggle

they have, not only with trying to help their daughter themselves,

which is another story, it is so difficult for parents, but getting

informed help. They so often get palmed off with it is just a phase,

or they will send her to a dietician, they are wonderful if

you need one, but this isn't about what you eat, it is about what you

can't eat. We are really depriving our children of an essential

treatment. This specialist centre is run by

the private sector for younger patients. Traditional treatment of

anorexia involves restoring a sufferer's weight. But it is

recognised it takes far more to restore a healthy attitude to

eating. To avoid the disruption anorexia brings to a young person's

life. Eating will have left them with a lot of high emotions, high

levels of anxiety, feeling very angry, post-meal support is about

sitting with a young person after a meal, for a period of time, so they

can go past the most dangerous part of that anxiety. But the most

complex cases require long-term treatment. This centre include an

Ofsted-approved school toe try to replace the education that is -- to

try to replace the education that is sometimes otherwise lost. The

average stay at this home is about 20 months. Such specialist centres

are, of course, expensive, it is worth it, say staff, if repeated

hospital admissions can be avoided. But the pressures on health budgets

means people are much more ill, their weight much less, before they

can be referred to places like this. Clinicians warn of a revolving door,

where patients are pushed into and out of treatment, to save money.

will see more revolving door cases because we're not getting to the

root of the problem, we are addressing the symptoms quite

effectively, but we're doing so over and over again. In turn, as I

said, that will mean that a certain percentage of those cases will keep

coming back, and I think that actually a well intended strategy

to keep people out of hospital, will actually lead to more chronic

and severe and enduring cases. People say you are not thin enough

to need specialist services, and that's awful, that, you know,

people have to get more ill before they warrant specialised services.

So I think that needs to be changed, the fact that early signs and

intervening before people need intensive care, such as in-patient

care, is very important. Last year, Bryan Lask noted a

dramatic fall in referrals for in- patient treatment, caused by cuts

in spending. He was alarmed by the effect on patients. So the cutbacks

are leading to really deteriorating patients? Absolutely. The cutbacks

have not only deprived the children of treatment, but they have

actually made them worse. As a young woman, Rosemary Marston

didn't recognise she had an illness. This is her at 37. By then,

anorexia had her in its grip. would go into hospital, my weight

would be restored, but I left not feeling too much better about

myself or my prospect. And so, it was only a matter of time before I

would be back in hospital again. As I got older, the periods of time

between admissions were shorter and shorter. I think I worked out that

in the last 20 years of the illness, I spent 18 years as an in-patient.

Tests like this one, used by Bryan Lask's team, are used to identify

some of the characteristics associated with anorexia, like a

tendency to obsessiveness, and attention to tail. They hope it

will lead to new treatment -- detail. They hope it will lead to

new treatment, and prevent the illness becoming chronic,

interrupting people's lives. Even now, those of us who work in the

area of eating disorder, with this younger population, we are

struggling with the idea that once their weight is restored they are

cured, it is nonsense, they are not at all. I realised how rich an

illness it had been. Rosemary describes the process of recovery

as being harder than the illness, she works as a mentor with others

with eating disorders. I know there are God knows how many other people

out there going through exactly the same thing that I did. I'm no

different to them. If all I can do is offer them the hope that

whatever they see in me, as being recovered, and something that they

would like, then it is doable. It is possible.

Ffion is planning to go to university next year, to train as a

psychiatric nurse. I want to be able to order a take-away, or have

a meal, without a panic attack in the toilet. I want to be able to

eat a box of popcorn without having to count out how many of them are

in my hand. I don't want to be a rocket scientist, or rich, I just

want to be "normal", I suppose really, if there is such a thing.

Joining me now are Stephen dor reel, the chairman of the Select

Committee, and the Times columnist who suffered from anorexia, author

of An Apple A Day. First of all, recovering from

anorexia, do you recognise that you genetically had a predisposition?

didn't develop anorexia until I was about 19. I certainly wasn't born

with it. But I think that the genetic predisposition must come

into it, having seen obviously the research from Professor Lask. It is

absolutely fascinating for someone like me. I think that there is a

variety of things that come together, the stresses and the live

expeerences and then going on a diet, and starting to lose weight,

and then I think the genetic thing is part of that. I don't think it

is you are born with anorexia, but when we see the brain imaging,

there are cognative differences in people's brains with anorexia. That

does not change after you have restored your healthy weight. That

insula, there is still abnormal blood flow to the insula after the

weight has been restored. It proves it is not a lifestyle choice.

fundamental difference with this research is it shows, often

anorexia has been dismissed as a teenage girls obsessed with their

looks, narcissism and so forth. This shows it is a mental disorder?

Yes, and indeed to a degree, a physical disorder, an identifiable

one, according to Professor Lask's research. This is relatively new

research, we have to work through the implications from a policy

perspective. The thing that strikes me about this from a health policy

point of view, is how similar it is to other conditions, where the

opportunity is there to identify a condition early, to intervene early,

and to deliver care that is not only better from the point of view

of the patient, because it avoids the acute incidence of the

condition, but it is better value for the taxpayer, because it

doesn't cost as much in pounds. It is a win-win. Actually, the policy

is wrong at the moment, because Bryan Lask is saying the cutbacks

are not only depriving children of treatment, they are making them

much worse, and that Professor Janet Treasure, saying people are

not referred to specialists because of the cuts because they are not

thin enough. You are stoking up far more problems financially, because

you haven't the right policy to intervene early, and have, as it

were, a holistic approach, to dealing with anorexia. It is a

familiar problem in the health service, that you put it off.

just to press you on this, as a result of this fairly new research,

very new research, you do think there should be a change in policy

towards anorexia? I absolutely think that in anorexia and other

conditions as well, there ought to be ach greater emphasis on

identifying the tell tale signs that show where a condition is

going to rise, interintervening early, that is where you deliver

better care and better value care. Later you deliver savings later,

but tell me about the importance of early intervention? I always say to

people, you know if you have a problem. And deal with it as soon

as you can, because if you wait ten, fifteen years down the line, it

becomes part of you. It becomes part of your identity. Did you, you

were quite, in a sense you were quite old at 19, did you know, were

you able to go for help quite early, I imagine if you are 10, 11, 12 it

is a really difficult thing for parents? That is the problem with

early intervention. Teenage girls go on diet, young girls

increasingly are worried about their weight. The majority of them

won't develop anorexia. The 10% or less than that will develop

anorexia. There is a problem with early intervention. You need people

trained to know the real signs. didn't know, I didn't really talk

about it at all until I was, I started writing my column in my

early 30s, for the Times. That was coming out about it. I didn't get

help for the first couple of years. It is a terribly shameful illness,

there is something terribly hidden about it. Is there a way that

actually, you know, that anorexia, we know from the statistics, that

1.5 million, are suffering from it just now. Many more. It is

essentially hidden, and really not fully diagnosed. That actually

because it is such a dreadful thing, by and large that it hits younger

people, it should be a priority for this Government? I think it should

be a priority for any Government, and for the people who decide the

priorities within health expenditure, which is the

Government at a global level, but it is actually decisions taken at

the local level. The provision of service. The other key thing here,

is public health information. So that families and individuals can

identify with it. The revolving door is costing more. Can I tell

but the waiting lists, the waiting lists to get cognitive behaval

therapy for anorexia is absolutely horrendous. I have gone out of the

health service. The waiting lists would be different in different

parts of the country? I stopped having psychotherapy four years ago,

and started begin two years ago, I was able to get on a trial, and my

waiting list was only six months. It can be much longer than that,

six months to a year for people who are seriously ill. I agree with

that. The point is that if you wait and delay the intervention, it is

back to the resolving door. -- the revolving door is bad and expensive

care, it is unaffordably bad. You are on recess, but you will go

straight back to the health select in the new research? It is

something that will come up with the health Select Committee, it

doesn't meet when parliament is in recess. If you want details of

organisations which offer advice and support on eating disorders, go

He could be the leader of the free world in matter of weeks. But after

a mini-three-country tour, gaffes and all, are we getting a flavour

of what Mitt Romney's foreign policy will look like. He upset

Palestinians by comparing their weak economic performances to that

of their Israeli hopes. On a visit to London he warned our Olympic

Games running the risk of becoming a flop. Beyond the insults, what of

his grand vision, and how might he contain countries like Iran.

The Republican challenger has been racking up air miles, with a

foreign tour intended to bolster his credentials as a statesman. His

first stop was Britain, where a remark about preparations for the

Olympics was deemed insulting by his critics. It is hard to know

just how well it will turn out, there are a few things that were

disconcerting, the stories about the private security firm not

having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and

customs officials, that obviously is not something which is

encouraging. But that was a relatively minor

faux pas, the striking thing about the Romney campaign, is it's focus

on the US economy, and other domestic issues, has so far

prevented the world from getting much of an idea about how far a

Romney foreign policy might differ from President Obama's. Mitt Romney,

until last week, had had only delivered one foreign policy speech

of the campaign, that was nine months ago. He doesn't have a

senior staffer whose portfolio is solely foreign policy. He had had a

foreign policy spokesman who lasted just two week, this is not a

priority for Romney. It conveys a lack of seriousness, both on his

part, but also in tune with his party, when it comes to America and

the re- of the world. That, is quite a substantive difference with

Barack Obama. It was on the way to his second

stop, Israel, that things started hotting up. On board the flight,

Romney's spokesman told reporters that they would back an Israeli

strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Once there, he

delighted the Israeli right with a pledge to relocate the US embassy

to Jerusalem. I think it is long been the policy of our country to

ultimately have the embassy in the nation's capital, Jerusalem. The

decision to actually make the move is one, if I were President I would

want it take. Perhaps the most revealing statement on his trip was

the candidate's observation that the disparities in wealth between

Israelis and Palestinians could be One American politician said a

gaffe is when the politician tells a truth, a gaffe is when a

politician reveals what he really thinks. I think there was something

revealing in that remark of Mitt Romney, it did suggest a kind of

colonialist mentality that some how seemed to think that the oriental

people, Palestinians, were some how culturally inferior, to the

Israelis, who are more western and more like the Americans.

headlines from the Palestinian comment followed the candidate to

Poland. REPORTER: Governor Romney do you have a statement for the

Palestinians. The press vented their annoyance at

getting so little access to him. And quickly put down by Romney's

staff. This is a holy site for the Polish people, show some respect.

That was unfortunate, and has left even those on the right questioning

the achievements of Mr Romney's trip.

In terms of sending out very clear messages about what kind of foreign

policy president he would be, strong support of Israel, very

concerned about the Iranian issue, strong supporter of their allies in

Eastern Europe, strengthening that relationship. Strong believer in

the special relationship between Great Britain and the United States.

In terms it of the public relations and the press managment, it has

been utter and complete amateur hour. There are aspects of the

President's foreign policy over Russia and Iran, that provide

plenty of ammunition to the Conservative who say the incumbent

has made America look weak. But President Obama's stepping back

from foreign entanglements is part of a response to the American

crisis. It will be hard for a Republican challenger to campaign

on a world's policeman ticket, or concede the country can no longer

afford to do that. Mitt Romney has flown home to concentrate on

economic issues. But looking presidential requires a confident

grasp of world affairs too. If the Romney campaign doesn't raise its

game, it will simply give the President a key advantage.

Joining me now from Washington are my guests.

Good evening to both of you. What can we tell from the countries that

Mitt Romney chose to visit? I think when he planned the trip he chose a

deliberate theme. Going to one of our most important allies in Europe,

to the UK, go -- going to one of our most important allise in the

Middle East, and the focus of attention -- allies in the Middle

East, and the focus of attention for Iran, Israel, and Eastern

Europe allies, Poland. Is is it the danger that the gaffes overshadows

any coherent foreign policy direction? Absolutely. They

certainly do not help this trip, that was very finely crafted to be

a possibility and opportunity for Mitt Romney to show off his foreign

policy experience, and for him to appear presidential. He had plenty

of successes on the trips, he had great meetings and great photo

opportunities, he specially at the western wall in Jerusalem. But on

the way home here we are talking about some of the missteps over the

past few days, and the way he snubbed the Palestinian and some

British people. Tell me, do you think there has been something

emerging of the man that Mitt Romney might be in the White House.

Barack Obama was all about diplomacy, is Mitt Romney more

directional, there is more clarity in what he's saying in the

direction he will take America? has said there is. We don't know a

lot about Mitt Romney on the front of foreign policy. We know what he

has said and what he would do, which is calling out China on

currency manipulation, he has talked about bombing Iran, or

stopping that country from acquiring a nuclear weapon. He has

talked about Russia and it being our top geopolitical foe. He has

talked about all these issues and dealing with them within the first

days of office. We don't know exact low what he would do. What would he

do? We very well know at that America cannot be the world's

policeman, he has been slamming Barack Obama for not doing enough

about Iran, but, for example, if he's in the White House, and there

is still an issue in Syria, what exactly would a Mitt Romney foreign

policy in Syria look like, do you think? First of all, let me go back

to the question you just asked Dan. We are talking about this because

you, at the BBC, are asking another reporter for another news magazine,

Newsweek, what you think about the supposed gaffes that Mitt Romney

made on this trip. I think the media of not brilliantly managed on

this trip, but the notion that the American people are quite as

interested and obsessed on this as you are is simply ridiculous.

Unfortunately for me, and you know foreign policy is my business,

foreign policy doesn't enter into the top ten issues for the American

people in this election. The notion that this is some how doing to be a

dispositive question for him, as the American people look at him and

see how he questioned the Olympics and whether there was enough

security is a little bit ridiculous. Let's set that one aside. Doesn't

he have to appear presidential abroad? I think that he needs to

have a good trip, and I think in the large part he did. The notion

that he can't repeat things that the British press itself has

aggressively been putting forward about the Olympics is a little bit

silly. The reaction from both Mr Cameron and Boris Johnson were both

a little bit sensitive, let as say that. That being said, you never

want to get bad press, you want perfect press. On the other hand,

the only thing that leads to perpect press is glibness and lying

among politician, we have rather had enough of that. Let's talk

about Syria? Hang on, the man put out a foo plus, well, let's talk

about the foreign policy question, I'm happy to talk about Syria. The

plan put out a fifty-plus page White Paper, I don't go back and

refer to that eagerly, it is single-spaced and quite long, the

view that he hasn't put out his views on a variety of issues is

really not quite fair. The American people aren't interested in talking

about the Olympic, the Palestinians or Poland at the moment, what they

are interested in talking about is unemployment. Let me deal with the

fact that he has stated his direction, just briefly? He has put

some of these positions on the record. The problem is, none of

these have real beef behind them, he hasn't answered the question of

logistic, would you really bomb Iran if you could, or confront

China on currency manipulation. These are big promises to make,

once you become President, and get in the Oval Office, and get

classified security briefings, a lot of this is receiptor that he

said. We don't have a clear picture -- rhetoric, that what he said. We

don't have a clear picture. Foreign policy is not a major issue, with