Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260-279)
3 DECEMBER 2003
PROFESSOR CHRISTOPHER
POLLOCK, DR
NICK BRICKLE,
DR BRIAN
JOHNSON AND
DR MARK
AVERY
Q260 Chairman: Professor Pollock and
Dr Brickle, we will come to you in a minute. I have a few more
questions for our other witnesses. Dr Johnson, what awareness
did you have at the time of the role that the biochemical industry
was playing in the development of the shape of the trials?
Dr Johnson: They played very little
role in the development and shaping of the trials. Their role,
as I saw it, was largely to provide some of the resources that
would be needed to carry out the trials. They were certainly involved
in the provision of sites from which the Steering Committee could
choose the experimental plots. They were certainly involved in
providing information to farmers about how to manage the GMHT
(herbicide tolerant) crops.
Q261 Chairman: It was our understanding
that the biotechnology companies were involved in the discussions
about the stated objectives of the trials, but you do not believe
that to have been the case?
Dr Johnson: To my knowledge, if
they were involved, there were representations made from some
individuals to me personally about how the trials might be designed.
So far as I recall, there was no direct involvement in planning
the experimental protocol, other than those representations, which
one could either accept or reject.
Dr Avery: That is very much my
recollection, too. I think when you heard evidence from Michael
Meacher, his memory betrayed him a little because I think he suggested
that SCIMAC had a much larger role than certainly my recollection
was that it did.
Q262 Chairman: You never got the impression
that the Department was being leant on or unduly influenced by
those who might have a commercial interest in this experiment?
Dr Avery: There was nothing that
I saw or heard that suggested that.
Q263 Joan Walley: I turn to Professor
Pollock in terms of the next couple of questions. We were wondering
if it is normal and if one would have expected the Steering Committee,
which was set up to oversee a significant body of research, to
have been appointed after the selection of the consortium to carry
out the research. How do you feel about that?
Professor Pollock: That is entirely
logical because there is only a relatively small number of organisations
within the United Kingdom which would have been able to carry
out that work, including my own. It was important that the Scientific
Steering Committee should be independent and, in order to prove
that it was independent, you had to wait until you had selected
the contractors.
Q264 Joan Walley: Do you not think that
the Steering Committee should have had some input into the process
of selection?
Professor Pollock: No, because
I think the Scientific Steering Committee had ample input into
the design and execution of the study. We knew what the "null
hypothesis" was at the time we were appointed. All the appointments
were ad hominem and they were all people who had the expertise
that was necessary to consider the "null hypothesis"
and the proposals of the consortium for addressing that hypothesis
to ratify, to modify and to interact in such a way that the trials
were carried out appropriately.
Q265 Joan Walley: If you were doing this
again, you would do it in exactly the same way; you would not
have any benefits of hindsight?
Professor Pollock: From the point
of view of setting up the terms of reference and establishing
the basic ground mechanism by which the trials were carried out
and then allowing the Scientific Steering Committee to oversee
the process, I would be content if a similar process was followed
again.
Q266 Joan Walley: You would not want
that Steering Committee to influence or have any input whatsoever
into the work of the selection of the research?
Professor Pollock: I think it
would be very difficult to consider a situation where that would
be feasible, given the limited number of contractors that could
apply for work like this and therefore the pool from which you
would want to draw the independent Scientific Steering Committee.
The most important thing about the Scientific Steering Committee
is that we were independent of the industry, of the Department,
of the contractors, and of the farmers.
Q267 Joan Walley: Am I right in thinking
then that the original contract was only ever intended to cover
maize and rape?
Professor Pollock: The issue with
beet, as I understand it—
Q268 Joan Walley: I just want to get,
first of all—
Professor Pollock: I am answering
your question but the other way around.
Q269 Joan Walley: I have not asked it
yet. I wanted to know whether the original contract was just intended
to cover maize and rape only.
Professor Pollock: At the time
that the Scientific Steering Committee was set up, the study covered
maize, rape and beet.
Q270 Joan Walley: It covered all three?
Professor Pollock: Yes.
Q271 Joan Walley: So beet was not added
at a later stage?
Professor Pollock: It was added
at a later stage but that was prior to the first meeting of the
Scientific Steering Committee.
Q272 Joan Walley: How did that change
come about?
Professor Pollock: That was before
I was appointed. My understanding of the situation, which would
have to be ratified by consultation with the records, was that
it was put forward that extending the study to include beet would
be an appropriate thing to do and that, in the end, it was established,
from a funding point of view, that that would go forward on exactly
the same basis as the other two crops. The Scientific Steering
Committee made it abundantly clear that it would only oversee
the beet experiments if they were carried out in exactly the same
way.
Q273 Chairman: That was put forward by
whom?
Professor Pollock: I could not
tell you that.
Q274 Joan Walley: Who could tell us?
Professor Pollock: I think it
is a matter of record. There are papers, I think from within the
Defra website, which provides the rationale for it.
Dr Brickle: The matters of funding
were dealt with by Defra but the issue of the SSC's oversight
of the study is in the early minutes, that they would only oversee
the research if it was conducted scientifically on the same grounds
as the others. That is mintued in about the first, second or third
set of minutes. The matters of funding are probably things to
ask Defra, I would say.
Q275 Joan Walley: Are you saying that
the decision to extend it to cover beet was simply a matter of
getting funding for it? Why was it left out of the initial contract?
Why was it not there?
Dr Brickle: I believe at the outset
there was a proposal for the trials to be conducted on beet with
the initial proposal being that industry would be funding them.
That changed.
Q276 Joan Walley: So it was a question
about whether or not the industry was going to fund it?
Dr Brickle: No. There were questions
of funding that were dealt with by Defra but a proposal was made
that there would be a series of trials on beet with the initial
proposal that those would be funded. It was put to the SSC whether
they would be prepared to oversee the research, to which they
replied that they would on identical grounds to their oversight
of the others. The matter of funding was not an issue for the
Steering Committee, if that makes sense.
Q277 Joan Walley: I was going to come
back to Professor Pollock and ask: in view of your initial response
to my first question, were you happy with the changes that took
place in respect of the amendments to the trials actually to include
beet?
Professor Pollock: As I say, the
position that we were faced with at our first Steering Committee
meeting was that there was a proposal that beet should be included,
and the Committee was content; providing it was done under exactly
the same circumstances as the other two, then it would generate
data of value. Scientifically the four groups, because you have
to break up spring and winter rape, are independent studies.
Q278 Joan Walley: What flexibility did
you have to be able to change, amend or alter any of the scope
of the operations of the trials once you had been appointed? Did
you have any flexibility?
Professor Pollock: Yes, we had
to sign off the experimental design. We were given the basic infrastructure,
roughly as Dr Johnson indicated, and we were involved in every
element of signing off and amending the experimental design for
the trials.
Q279 Joan Walley: Did you receive any
further suggestions from the Department as to changes that they
would like you to make?
Professor Pollock: No. the changes
that were introduced were on the basis of the work of the Committee,
as was minuted on the website. Those were for scientific reasons.
Dr Brickle: If it helps, there
is a reference to sugar beet in the first minutes which refers
to the funding and the Committee's decision to oversee it. I could
read it out.
| 
