Originally from: Farmtalking
                        
– Royal Society Inquiry into FMD –
The Science Group – Open Meeting

This Science Group held an open meeting at The Shepherds Inn, Carlisle on 1st November at 7.30.

When I first learned of the three Government Inquiries, I have to admit I was skeptical, however, I decided that I should attend the meeting in Cumbria with an open mind. Especially as this seemed to be an excellent chance for those affected to submit questions to the Science Group that needed investigation, in the hope that a much better alternative to the slaughter policy, based on accurate science would be recommended for the future.

The following is written from rough notes I made at the meeting. I tried to write down the questions and points that were made, especially those that grabbed my attention. It is by no means a verbatim account of what occurred and I have added the thoughts that occurred to me at the time and comments on my reflections since.

On arrival, we were asked to 'sign in' and write our name on a badge and wear it. We were told they expected 150 to attend but my estimate of the audience was slightly less than 100. I'm told the meeting was very poorly advertised in the County, which is a great shame. When one considers that Cumbria is the worst affected County, would it not have been essential for the Inquiry team to spend some considerable time seeking the opinion of those affected and not limit the allocation to two hours?

Present, were some members of this Government appointed Inquiry team and they were:

The Chairman – Sir Brian Follett, The Epidemiologist – Angela McLean, A veterinary surgeon from Cumbria – David Black, Peter Allen, a farmer, Karl Linklater, Principal of the Scottish Agricultural College and Ian McConnell, Principal of the Veterinary School at Cambridge. Also included but seated in the audience was Jenny Mumford from the Animal Health Trust and two other gentlemen, Mr. Mc Michael and another whose name I didn't catch! Taking notes, possibly in shorthand, was Geoffrey Findlay the Secretary for the Inquiry team. No tape recorder was in evidence, which I had expected believing recording the proceedings would have proved useful to the Inquiry team.

We were told their brief from the Government was to 'Focus on the Science' and find a 'Clear steer on the science" in the event of future outbreaks of FMD and/or similar epidemics, such as Swine Fever etc. The other two Inquiries would be responsible for the 'future of farming' and the 'lessons learned' from this outbreak.

They expected to have completed their task by mid-summer next year and to provide the Government with a way forward from the science point of view.

Sir Brian explained that they knew the strategy used in the attempt to combat this outbreak was over 100 years old. They had studied the Northumberland report (1968), (issued as a result of the Inquiry held following the outbreak of 1967/8), and concluded that although some aspects were outdated, they had to admit being surprised by how 'modern' some of the recommendations were. My immediate thought was why were those recommendations not implemented? I have a feeling most of the audience were thinking the same thing! We were told the meeting was to be divided in to three strictly timed sessions of thirty minutes each to discuss 'Surveillance & Diagnosis', 'Epidemiology & Modeling' and 'Vaccination'. It was hoped the remaining half-hour would give some time for questions.

I had wondered when I would be able to ask the carefully prepared questions/comments that I had with me which were as follows:

1.Given changes over recent years to production, marketing and trading practices is it any longer viable – technically and economically – to maintain a susceptible population of animals in developed countries – as envisaged under the terms of the current 'definition' of 'disease-free'?

2. Globalisation and human and veterinary public health seem to be at odds – are the free trading practices at the heart of globalisation policies compatible with maintenance of human and animal public health?

3. Should we not be thinking more about how to avoid/prevent another epidemic than how we would handle another epidemic?

I decided to wait until vaccination was the subject discussed before raising my hand!

Before discussion started, Sir Brian waived his copy of the Private Eye supplement, 'Not the Foot & Mouth Report', saying this had been published by the satirical magazine and was 'full of truths and half truths'. He stressed that his team of inquirers were not responsible for what had happened during the crisis. He certainly came across to me as very 'defensive' in this regard. Which I have to say I found amusing. One is not usually 'defensive' unless attacked, except, of course, if one knows one is guilty of something and anxious not to be accused! Perhaps there is some truth in that as Royal Society members are behind it all, from the Chief Scientist, the modeling team, the three Govt Inquiry teams and Sir Brian himself! Dare I ask if their brief includes the protection of fellow members of the Royal Society from criticism?

Carl Linklater opened the discussion- Diagnosis & Surveillance. He told us vaccination teams had been on standby in Scotland, early in the outbreak in case they were needed. I couldn't help thinking, what a shame they weren't used!

He explained that the disease had spread so rapidly due to increased livestock movements and stressed the importance of assessing risk and managing it. Drawing our attention to the risks posed by internationally developing diseases that must be identified quickly, he stressed the responsibility of farmers in this regard, adding that if they had been more observant FMD would not have spread so rapidly.

I was astounded by this remark as having spoken to several Vets during the early days I had learned that even they were finding the disease hard to detect the disease in sheep. In fact, at that time, if a Vet was unsure of his diagnosis, the apparently affected animals were destroyed but samples were taken from their lesions and tested. Only on a positive result were the rest of the herd/flock slaughtered. That method of obtaining an accurate diagnosis soon ceased for the simple reason that there were no laboratories that could cope with the number of tests being requested.

We were told it might be feasible for modern diagnostic PCR tests to be developed for use in the field. A member of the audience queried the Government's failure to take advantage of the offer to use and validate the Smart Cycler machine from the USA. However, the panel stated that there were problems with the diagnostic capabilities of the Smart Cycler and the procedure used was not as simple as we are led to believe. They confirmed that this was a problem Professor Fred Brown admitted. This came as a surprise to the audience, many of whom had been present when the Professor visited Cumbria some weeks ago. At that time he had told them that he was delighted with the accurate results the machine had provided. I thought it a great shame Professor Brown not able to attend this meeting to counter these remarks.

Another member of the audience told us that we import meat from as many as twenty-seven countries including Botswana and Namibia. As the possibility existed that the infection had entered the Country via imported meat, she suggested tighter controls should be imposed at points of entry and that all meat and food products should be labeled with their Country of origin. The panel seemed to agree with this in principle but said, Sir Brian, "Tighter controls were easier to talk about than carry out in practice".

Carl Linklater told us that prior to 1967 FMD came from South America, the '67 outbreak was believed to have come from buried meat and the latest from illegally imported meat. Unless a guaranteed alternative could be found the slaughter policy should be maintained! I thought his words indicated a definite 'mind set' on his part!

A questioner wanted to know when the disease first manifested itself during this outbreak. Sir Brian immediately countered with the information that the Science Inquiry would not be focusing 'backwards' but invited the Vet, David Black, to answer the question. Immediately David told us that it was detected in an abattoir under most 'unusual circumstances' by a very vigilant vet. He failed to elaborate on the 'unusual circumstances'.

I felt it was becoming obvious this 'science enquiry' team was prepared to accept what they considered 'acceptable' and were far from 'open minded' concerning the 'science'. They appeared to have no intention of undertaking any inquiry whether 'forwards' or 'backwards' if they thought it might lead to, what for them, would be unacceptable answers.

A question was posed to Angela McLean concerning the proposed slaughter of sheep that were not Scrapie resistant, pointing out that if all such animals were slaughtered we would lose sentinel stock. In reply, it was admitted that some animals might be resistant but still carry infection. I was a little puzzled by this but no further discussion continued concerning this subject.

Returning to the question of diagnosis, a member of the audience asked why the opportunity to validate the Smart Cycler machine had not been taken during this outbreak of FMD. Ian McConnell countered with the remark that the time for validation was before an outbreak not during it!

Now came the turn of the second subject for discussion, ' Epidemiology & Modeling'. Although I have to say that up until now 'discussion' was not quite the word I would have used to describe the proceedings!

Angela McLean told us that as an epidemiologist her task was to aid the Science Group in identifying the gaps in knowledge, finding out what was new in Epidemiology and looking at the role played by 'modeling'. For instance, can models be adapted to operate tactically?
Thus they would discover the knowledge base that needs to be in place.

A farmer from Dumfries requested the Group investigate the validity of the 3km cull introduced on 16th March, and whether cattle should have been culled at all. (I made no note of it but believe some mention must have been made of the fact that slaughter was ordered by Head office in London and not a decision taken by vets in the areas affected. Sir Brian told us that London had explained to him why they thought it essential they take control, however he didn't enlighten us as to their reasons!) Another question concerned the danger of virus spread via smoke plumes from the pyres. I'm afraid I made no note of the reply, but a friend tells me there was a comment but no reply to this query. I can only hope it will be investigated.

A farmer from Bewcastle suggested the team look into the part played by physical and geographical barriers as well as disinfecting procedure. Sir Brian countered with the remark that Biosecurity was very important and critically important for farmers.

A lady in the audience explained that the NFU did not represent the majority of farmers and therefore thought they should not have been so instrumental in persuading the Government not to use vaccination. She added that vaccination had been successful in other parts of the world including Europe so why hadn't we used it? Sir Brian immediately reiterated that they were not responsible for what had happened, their task was to see what new structures needed to be put in place!

I'm afraid I can't remember but it may have been in this context that Sir Brian expressed the opinion that there had been a 'narrow scientific base' and the 'need for political expediency'. He told us there were four 'models' all very different and all competing with each other, their knowledge being rather robust at making macro predictions. He also mentioned a sophisticated article that had been published but failed to tell us where and by whom! At this stage of the proceedings I fear I had slightly lost interest and failed to take better notes!

At last it was the turn of vaccination. To keep you in suspense no longer, sitting in the second row from the front, (where Sir Brian could easily see me), although I raised my hand at every opportunity, he failed to invite my question!

Ian McConnell led this section and explained that he was a vet, immunologist and specialist in viral diseases in sheep. He told us huge studies had been undertaken into immunology and for some reason mentioned the fact that although Europe vaccinated against rabies, we chose not to do so. I couldn't help thinking that at least in the case of rabies we have a choice! If I want to trot off to Surgery and request my vet to vaccinate my dogs & cats against rabies, I can!

Mr. McConnell continued to say the FMD vaccine was not reliable, quoting an incident that occurred some years ago when animals became infected following the use of improperly 'killed' vaccine. No mention was made of the excellent vaccine available today. He added that although they had used vaccination in Argentina they had recently suffered another severe outbreak of the disease. He failed to mention this was because they had ceased vaccinating to acquire 'FMD free status', thus allowing them to export to Australia and Japan. He did not tell us, what many of us already knew, that as soon as the outbreak occurred they had had returned to a vaccination policy. Furthermore, he made the extraordinary statement that vaccination might be possible if a vaccine could be developed that would protect for the life of the animal. I don't disagree with this but as far as I know, there is no vaccine, human or animal that guarantees lifelong immunity, although I don't think enough research has been done in this field! To my mind the fact that a vet who is the principal of a vet school, should appear so set against FMD vaccination was astounding.

A member of the audience asked the Group to look into the influence such companies as Nestle might have had in persuading the Government not to vaccinate. Sir Brian mentioned that he thought it might be possible for us to adopt vaccination in about ten years time.

Another member of the audience, who told us she was a practicing homeopath, said she had successfully prescribed preventative homeopathic treatments for farmers during this outbreak. She requested the Science Group to look into the efficacy of such treatments. Perhaps not surprisingly, although they agreed to do so there was no doubt in my mind they regarded the request of little importance. I hope I'm not mistaken but Ian McConnell seemed to say that homeopathic remedies couldn't be subjected to the controls required for conventional medicine!

As Sir Brian brought the meeting to a close a member of the audience complained that it had only lasted for two hours and asked who had agreed it should be so limited. Sir Brian replied tetchily, 'I suppose we did!'

I estimate that of the two hours set aside for this meeting's duration, the audience were actually allowed less than thirty minutes in which to pose their questions and requests for inquiry of the Science Group. The remaining time, taken by Sir Brian and his team all too often, to 'preach' their obvious beliefs in a patronizing manner.

After the meeting coffee was supplied for the audience although many seemed to leave for home quite soon. Members of the Science Group chatted to a few over their coffee and I can only hope they learned something from these conversations. Apparently during this time one of my friends asked Sir Brian if he could point out the 'untruths' published in the Private Eye supplement but Sir Brian declined!

As for me, after talking to a few friends for a while, (two of whom had only been voices on the phone until then!) the Secretary, Geoffrey Findlay, approached me and asked was I pleased with the meeting? I had to tell him I was extremely disappointed. He looked mildly surprised and said, 'Don't you believe we are open minded?'

I leave you to draw you own conclusions as to my reply. As ever, I sincerely hope I'm wrong!

Jane Barribal – Farmtalking.com

Members of the Science Group are:
Professor Sir Brian Follett (Chairman) FRS University of Oxford and former Vice Chancellor of the University of Warwick Mr. Peter Allen Farmer and Chairman of the National Farmers' Union Less Favoured Areas Committee Professor Patrick Bateson FRS Provost of King’s College, University of Cambridge. Mr. David Black Practicing Veterinarian
Professor Fred Brown FRS US Department of Agriculture, Plumb Island Animal Disease Centre. Mr. Roger Eddy Senior Vice President of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Ms Suzi Leather Deputy Chair, Food Standards Agency
Professor Simon Levin Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University. Professor Karl Linklater Principal, Scottish Agricultural College.
Ms Jeanette Longfield – Co-ordinator of Sustain Professor Ian McConnell Dept of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge. Dr Angela Maclean Department of Zoology, University of Oxford. Professor Andrew McMichael FRS Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Oxford. Dr Jenny Mumford Animal Health Trust, Newmarket.
Professor Robin Weiss FRS Windeyer Institute of Medical Science, University College London.