Examination of Witness (Questions 1 -
19)
TUESDAY 27 JUNE 2000
PROFESSOR MALCOLM
GRANT
Chairman
1. Professor Grant, welcome to the Committee.
For the sake of identification we will just note that you are
Professor Malcolm Grant and you have been appointed the Chairman
of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, so
a new star in the constellation dealing with GM. Professor Grant,
your Commission has not yet met but at some stage it will do.
If we look at the members of that Commission it would be very
easy to say that they are delegates for different interest groups,
indeed some people are very clearly identified with a specific
point of view about GM products. If this were the first meeting
of your Commission and as Chairman you were laying down the ground
rules about how you would behave and how you would reach your
decisions and collective responsibility, what would you be saying?
(Professor Grant) Thank you, Chairman,
and thank you to Members of the Committee for inviting me to meet
you this morning. Before I turn to your specific question it might
be useful if I emphasise that my appointment is only three weeks
old, the Commission has not met, it will meet next week in Cambridge.
Anything that I say this morning is therefore going to be heavily
tempered by caution because nothing that I say must be taken as
in any way the view of the Commission and I certainly do not want
to provoke a row at my first meeting by having pledged myself
to things in front of this Committee that my fellow Commissioners
would feel unhappy about. My starting point at the next meeting
with the Commissioners, its inaugural meeting, I think is going
to be to try to persuade all members of the Commission that it
is their Commission, it is not the Chairman's Commission. It has
to be a Commission that is owned by its members. I think my first
and most important obligation is to develop within the Commission
a sense of common purpose. Each member of the Commission represents,
as you have said, Chairman, an interest in the debate about the
biotechnology and there is a tremendous range and diversity of
interests. It is clear also that each of them has been appointed
in their own right. I do not regard them as being appointed as
spokespeople for a particular constituency. I do not regard them
as having been appointed as delegates on behalf of organisations
which they represent. I shall propose to them that in their meetings
they are there in their own capacity and, therefore, in an intellectual
debate to meet the challenges that are posed to them by other
members of the Committee and not simply to recite the views of
a constituency to which they belong. I think fundamental to that
is that I shall also propose to them that we do not have a system
of members of the Commission inviting delegates to appear in their
place when they are unable to attend themselves. I do believe
it is fundamental that they represent their own views.
2. There are 20 members of your Commission,
I think, looking down this list.
(Professor Grant) That is correct.
3. That is almost twice as many as the Almighty
needed, is it not? Do you not think it is rather large? Are you
not slightly fearful that just about every point of view that
could be found is represented here and you have been given the
impossible task of trying to find some way through?
(Professor Grant) You put it very well, Chairman.
It is a large and almost unmanageable Commission but therein also
lies its great strength. If in making these appointments Ministers
have been able to capture all the component parts of this debate
then they will have succeeded very well in creating a Commission
which has on it the necessary representation to move forward.
I think that 20 is a large number and I must emphasise at the
beginning that I had no part at all in the appointment of the
members of the Commission. That is actually not a bad thing. It
does mean that no member of the Commission in any way owes me
anything for being on the Commission, nor am I in hock to any
member of the Commission. So it is no bad thing to be appointed
by Ministers and then told "you have a Commission of 20 and,
incidentally, here are their names and their backgrounds".
As I said earlier, the way to ensure that the Commission achieves
something is to foster a sense of ownership of the Commission's
work by those 20 members of the Commission.
4. The remit is very wide, is it not?
(Professor Grant) Indeed.
5. Is it your intention at least at the beginning
just to try to define a narrower focus for your early work in
order to develop this sense of corporate ownership you are talking
about? How do you intend to make sure that you do not suddenly
find yourself going off in all directions simultaneously, almost
all of which could be accommodated by your rules of engagement?
(Professor Grant) Next week we shall be considering
the work programme. The work programme is going to need to be
realistic. I think it is going to need to have in mind some issues
which can be considered relatively early. It is going to need
to have in mind also the fact that the Commission has been set
up not just to produce one report but to produce a number of studies
over a period of time. We need to be able from an early stage
to stage ourselves realistically.
Mr Todd
6. Without asking you to betray any views yourself,
what do you feel has been the quality of information available
for public debate on biotechnology and agriculture?
(Professor Grant) I think that is almost impossible
to answer because the quality of the information has varied enormously
depending upon the source from which it has come. I have been
astonished coming into this debate at the extent of the polarisation
of the views that have been expressed. It is a polarisation which
goes across the whole of the community which is involved in the
debate. It is a polarisation which in some respects reflects the
campaigning ambitions of some of those who are participating in
the debate, hence the use of emotive language to characterise
the genetic modification of crops and plants. There has been a
struggle, I think, by Government and by its advisory committees
to put as objective a view as possible of the debate into the
public arena but, so far, not entirely successfully. We have seen,
I think, something of the struggle that has caused over the recent
events involving the Advanta seeds and their importation into
the country. Polarisation is an enormous problem. I think it is
a very real challenge for this Commission to try to identify what
it is that drives people into corners on this debate, not necessarily
to reconcile those who hold different views from often positions
of quite deep conviction, but to challenge them.
7. Would you therefore see as one of your roles
the raising of the quality of the debate? You have emphasised
that perhaps beyond the comprehension of many people this issue
has become extremely polarised. Is there a way at least of defining
the areas of difference and also defining the areas of potential
consensus?
(Professor Grant) I think that has to be one of the
fundamental tasks of the Commission certainly. That is one reason
why the Commission has been set up with these people on it, because
those different corners of the debate are very well represented
on the Commission and if these intelligent and talented and articulate
people cannot work together to identify the differences and the
reasons for them then I shall not feel that we have made a lot
of progress.
8. Personal experience does not always indicate
intelligence leads to that outcome. One last point: will you be
able to commission research for yourselves as a Commission if
you feel that this is lacking on particular subjects?
(Professor Grant) We shall be able to. I would like
at this stage simply to express a reservation about that because
we do not have unlimited resources. Research in this area has
a tendency to be expensive. I would hope to be able to rely as
far as we can on the expertise of the members that we have got
to help us develop our thinking corporately. If we believe that
it would make sense to spend some of our limited resources on
research then we shall certainly have the capacity to do so.
Mr Öpik
9. It is really a request in the form of a question.
Do you feel that the Commission will be robust enough to report
the distinction between those who are being objectively rational
and those who are being subjectively emotional and those who are
being primarily motivated by self-interest you intimated, even
accepting that making those distinctions would probably be uncomfortable
reading for those interest groups who express at least two of
those three motivations?
(Professor Grant) I have no doubt of the potential
robustness of the Commission. I think it will be a measure of
our success that we are able to operate in the way that you have
described. I do not under-estimate the difficulty of the Commission,
given the way that it is structured, in producing reports that
meet those qualities.
Mr Drew
10. Two very quick points. Clearly you have
got no-one from the industry itself, do you see that as a possible
weakness? Secondly, we have been talking a lot about GMOs, presumably
you will be looking at other issues like hormones in beef, BST
in milk and functional foods, in other words you are not going
to be obsessed by GMOs?
(Professor Grant) Taking the first question first,
representation of the industry depends on how you define "industry".
We have got representation from the plant breeding industry, for
example, from SCIMAC, and, of course, we have got scientific representation
to some extent doing work which is industry relevant. Hence, there
is representation although not from the four or five major multinationals
involved in genetic modification of plants and crops. Secondly,
I suspect that GM is going to be a major part of our work programme,
certainly from the beginning, because that just happens to be
the major area of public concern at the moment. Some of the other
items that you have referred to probably fall more naturally within
the remit of the Food Standards Agency, the BSE related issues
for example. However, there are aspects of biotechnology, particularly
biopharming, with a "ph" rather than an "f",
that I anticipate will fall within our remit.
Mr Paterson
11. Professor, can I first say good morning
and apologise, I am going to have to leave shortly, I have another
Select Committee to attend. It obviously was not easy setting
up the Commission because it was announced in May of last year
and you and the other members were only appointed on 5 June. What
persuaded you to take it on?
(Professor Grant) When one gets to a certain stage
in life I had seen the advertisements initially and had
not been an applicant. It may be known to Members of this Committee
that the bulk of the Commission was actually appointed earlier
this year but Ministers had some difficulty finding somebody foolish
enough to venture into the chair. I was approached and then persuaded
to put in an application, in accordance with the Nolan Rules,
and was interviewed and in the course of it was asked that very
question. I think there is really a simple answer which is that
I regard this as one of the most fundamentally important debates
for science and society of our current generation. I would not
at all under-estimate the significance of the point at which biotechnology
finds itself. Coming back to your question, some people are asking
"is this not all too late, it has taken more than a year
to appoint the Commission?", but I would say the sun has
not yet started to dawn on biotechnology and the potential of
science. That is why this Commission is still at the very early
days. I suspect there are yet huge discoveries and huge advances
to be made. It is so important to have a Commission that can think
strategically and can give Ministers the big picture. The short
answer to your question is it was a heck of a challenge.
12. Why are you particularly qualified to be
the Chairman?
(Professor Grant) I think my qualifications are self-evident,
which is that I have no prior engagement in the debate, that I
am not a scientist, that I bring no baggage to it, that I do not
see it as my job to steer the Commission in any way other than
its members corporately and collectively want to go. I am not
going to steer it pro-science, anti-science, pro-GM, anti-GM.
I think what Ministers and what Commission members expect of me
is a pretty steady neutrality. My major concern is to make sure
the thing works.
13. Who do you take your instructions from and
who are you responsible to?
(Professor Grant) Two different questions. I take
my instructions from the terms of reference for the Commission
which are very broadly expressed. Ministers have the ability within
those terms of reference to ask us to look at particular issues
and we have indeed now received a letter from Dr Mowlam asking
us to look at issues relating to public acceptance of seed impurity.
Ministers also have the capacity to direct us not to look at particular
issues but we have an understanding from Ministers that that is
a power that would be used only in an attempt to avoid us treading
on the toes of our sister Commissions, the Food Standards Agency
and the Human Genetics Commission. When you ask who do we report
to, the answer is we report directly to the Minister for the Cabinet
Office but we also report to the devolved administrations in Northern
Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Of course, we have to have linkages
through the Cabinet Office to MAFF, to DETR and also to Health
and to DTI.
14. How long are you in office for? Is that
the same period as the rest of your members?
(Professor Grant) All of the members have been appointed
for a three year period which runs to the end of January 2003.
That actually raises some interesting questions because it is
not constitutionally ideal to have a Commission all of whose members'
office comes to an end at the same time. I do think on balance
it is probably preferable to have that arrangement than to have
a situation where members are from the beginning appointed on
a differential basis because that simply raises differences between
them which are undesirable and unnecessary.
15. If one resigns, do you have a say in the
replacement?
(Professor Grant) I should hope that my small voice
might be heard by Ministers in that event.
16. How many staff will the Commission have
and where will they be accommodated?
(Professor Grant) We have five staff. They are seconded
from three different Government departments. They are presently
accommodated with DTI as part of the OST establishment within
that Department.
17. Just a final question. I asked the Minister
of State for the Environment last week whether he had sent any
officials to America to look at separation distances on GM and
I must say I was very surprised that he said he had not. Do you
have a travel budget or do you have the ability to take advice
from Americans or Argentines or Canadians who have possibly ten
years' commercial experience of GM?
(Professor Grant) We do not specifically have a travel
budget but we have got a budget. As far as I can see we have got
freedom to set what heads we want to spend it on. I think we will
have to make some rather difficult choices on priorities. Do we
want to spend money on travel? Do we want to spend money on fostering
the public debate? The second part of your question is more fundamental
because in the language of the Government's biotechnology paper
last year that announced the setting up of the Commission there
was very clear reference to not just the national debate but to
the European debate and to the global debate. It is impossible
to envisage this Commission will close its eyes to what is happening
abroad. We must be aware, we must be alert and sensitive to what
is happening elsewhere.
Mr Öpik
18. Just a short question. How do you define
success from the outcome? As you speak with the other members,
what will be the action that you anticipate and over what timescale?
(Professor Grant) This morning I do not want to suggest
success targets that are unrealistic or do not coincide with what
the members of the Commission would wish to see. Our epitaph ought
to be that we made a difference, it ought to be that we commanded
respect, it ought to be that we managed to hold the debate into
an intellectual framework rather than to have fostered its further
fragmentation and polarisation.
Mr Mitchell
19. I am surprised to hear you writing epitaphs
before it is even born.
(Professor Grant) That is not a bad way to think about
a business plan.
|