Üjf199ÝOral evidenceÌTaken before the Innovation, Universities and Skills CommitteeÊÈon Wednesday 5 December 2007ÌÜjf27ÝMembers presentÌÜjf27ÝMr Phil Willis, ChairmanÌÜjf55ÝDr Roberta Blackman-WoodsÈMr Ian CawseyÈDr Ian GibsonÌDr Evan HarrisÈDr Brian IddonÈDr Desmond TurnerÌËÜjf22ÝÜjf50ÝÜcf2ÝWitness: Ücf3ÝProfessor Sir David King, Ücf1ÝGovernment Chief Scientific Adviser, gave evidence.ÌÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ1 Chairman:Ì It is a great pleasure to welcome Professor Sir David King, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser_for the first time in front of the new Innovation, Universities and Skills Committee, but an old friend of the Science and Technology Select Committee. Sir David, I would like to put on record our thanks to you both as a contributor to the select committee process, particularly to the Science and Technology Select Committee, but also for your work as the Government Chief Scientific Adviser. We are, as a group of MPs from different parties_or certainly from two parties_very grateful and appreciative of the work you have done. I would like to put that formally on record. Thank you very much indeed.ËÜjf65Ý5 December 2007	Professor Sir David KingÌÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý Thank you for those very kind words.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ2 Chairman:Ì Over the years you have obviously had a chance to redefine the role of the Government Chief Scientific Adviser. Has it changed much? Has the role as you have seen it, the one you accepted all those years ago, changed from what it is now to the role you are handing over to your successor?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý Yes, I think it has. I think it would be fair to say that the role of Chief Scientific Adviser and the way it is carried out is going to be very dependent on the person who occupies the position. I have looked at how it has developed under different people over the last 25 years and I think it is fair to say that each individual has left their own imprint on the position. I have developed, perhaps more than has been there before, the challenge role. That is really the way I operate in my own research laboratory as a scientist: to challenge all of my post-docs and PhD students on each piece of their work, because the final result, if it sustains the challenge, is going to be more robust. I think it is fair to say that I have been utterly ruthless in challenging every piece of work if it is seen to be critical, from whichever part of government it emanates. Let me say something about the challenge: it has little to do with the status of the person you are challenging. Every scientist knows that when you have finished writing a paper_and I certainly feel this_the work that you have just finished writing is the best thing since sliced bread, then you send it off to be published and back come the referees' reports and that is the most sobering moment in a scientist's life, when somebody sitting in a more objective state than you have been for the last three or four years working up this piece of work has found a few flaws, a few things that do not quite match up. You are very close to the coalface; these people are standing back from it. No matter how bright the person, no matter how good the scientist, the challenge process is an essential part of seeing how robust it is.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ3 Chairman:Ì Are you saying that depends on your personality, that you are able to do that across government? Should that not be a right of whoever is being GCSA, to be able to challenge robustly the evidence gathering and assimilation process wherever it occurs?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý I think you are right. I would very much hope that this challenge function continues into the future. Within government there has always been a bit of nervousness about my appearing and seeming to be critically challenging, but that turned around, so that, for example, the Chief Veterinary Officer in Defra would herself come round to my office and say, Could you please challenge me on this piece of work I have done?" In other words, people began to realise that there is a real advantage in having the challenge process check the robustness of a piece of work. There is another interesting point: I am probably better at challenging if it is outside my own direct area of expertise. That may sound a little bit contradictory but I have discovered that. For example, to take foot and mouth disease, as a chemical physicist I was fairly far removed from virology and epidemiology but I had to talk to the experts. They accept that I can ask dumb questions and, at the same time, I find that I can start challenging the experts, who probably have not stood back from their field for some time. When it comes to nanosciences, which is my own research area, I find that as soon as I am surrounded by experts they can all position me from my known published position in nanoscience, whereas when I am talking virology and epidemiology there is no prior history that I come in with and so I have a much more objective position.ËÜfbÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ4 Chairman:Ì Does that not lead really to the accusation that is sometimes made that you have become the story rather than the science: that you have become so powerful, if you like, in this challenge function that people stop challenging you and you become the story? Is that a danger?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý I think that has only happened once_and we will probably come across that, because it is very topical_where, as a result, I have been accused of either being in the farmers' pockets or in the Government's pocket. I believe the scientific argument that I am making should always be examined. This should not be a question of personalities, it should be a question of: How strong is the argument that is being made on the simple rational science base?ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ5 Chairman:Ì When we interviewed you as a witness in our scientific evidence, the Government inquiry, we were very, very anxious in terms of asking those questions that, across government, the departmental Chief Scientific Advisers should in fact adopt a similar role to you of being able to speak out independently. Do you feel that has been achieved or do they wait for you to speak out?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý We are now discussing the very sensitive position that any chief scientific adviser would be in: you need to keep the trust of the public. In my view, that is first and foremost the most important part of the role, but at the same time you need to keep the trust of the ministers, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet you are working with. Treading that line is the biggest challenge of the job. In other words, if the Chief Scientific Advisers went straight into the public domain being critical of other parts of government, maintaining the trust of the government system would become really problematic. At the same time, I do not want to duck your question. I think there is more to be done in establishing the independent voice of science from within government. I think you are on the right track.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ6 Chairman:Ì You are going to School of Enterprise and the Environment, which is a fantastic new opportunity. Will that build on the core elements of your work as the Chief Scientific Adviser, or is that going to take you in very new directions?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý It will certainly build on my work, both as a scientist and as a government employee and a scientist in government. The School of Enterprise and the Environment is, I believe, worldwide uniquely establishing for itself a niche around three areas: the private sector; government; and the environment. It is really a matter of moving away from marginalising environmental issues, of creating green" as the adjective that appears in front of any environmental issue. The object is to mainstream environmental issues into all parts of Oxford, including economics, politics, et cetera; mainstreaming it all but, also, by bringing in the private sector, indicating that environmental issues are crucial to the private sector as well. We will certainly not be labelling the private sector as an enemy_which I think sometimes appears through green terminology. Mainstreaming the environmental issues for the 21Ücf5ÝsÜcf1ÝÜcf5ÝtÜcf1Ý century is really the object of this school.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ7 Dr Gibson:Ücf1Ý We have known each other some time and I have always thought that your success in many things is because you are political. You are not just a chemist, you are not just the Chief Scientific Adviser to government, but you have politics written in your bones: you kind of understand how the system works and where the arrows might come from and how to fire them back. In that, you have had high moments and low moments and some moments where you cannot decide whether they were high or low_but that is how politics is. When was your highest moment and when was your lowest moment in terms of the job you did? How did you get into that position? Did it just creep up on you or was it spontaneous?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý First of all, let me say I am flattered by your comments.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ8 Dr Gibson:Ücf1Ý Just take it, as it is there.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý Thank you. I would have to say I have enjoyed every minute of this job and a very big part of that is the interaction with the political side: the interaction with this Committee has always been absolutely fruitful and energising and enjoyable and at the same time with ministers across government. In that sense, I must be a bit of a political animal. I really enjoy the atmosphere. The high moment would certainly be establishing a position within the Cabinet for science, demonstrating that science could deliver in real time a solution to a massive national problem. Of course I am referring to the foot and mouth disease outbreak, where the Cabinet was at a loss as to what to do. The outbreak was increasing exponentially: it began on Feb 20, 2001; on March 21 it was still climbing exponentially and 45 new infected farms were reported on that day. We produced computer models which showed exactly how to turn that into exponential decay. That was implemented because nobody else had come up with a solution, and the data points fell. It was a tremendous demonstration that complex phenomena can now be modelled, even in real time, with powerful computers, powerful understanding. In epidemiological modellers we had world leaders. They are considered now to be world leaders. We demonstrated what British science could do.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ9 Dr Gibson:Ücf1Ý Did the politicians you interacted with understand that?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý Massively. I said, It will bring it under control in two days" and in two days the curve followed through. And, of course, the Prime Minister declared an election date based on the computer printouts that I was giving. That was a first as well.ËÜnbÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ10 Chairman:Ì So it was not the Ücf2ÝThe SunÜcf1Ý that did it?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý June 6 was chosen on the basis of a linear plot which appeared to be approaching zero but, of course, one infected farm a week is still quite a long way to go.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ11 Dr Gibson:Ücf1Ý Have you written that up?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý No, I have not.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ12 Dr Gibson:Ücf1Ý You will though.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý You asked me about the low point. I suppose the low point and, as it turned out, the high point, would have to be where I was invited_this is the high point_by the American Association for the Advancement of Science to deliver their plenary lecture at their big meeting in Seattle, the winter meeting of February 2004. Their magazine Ücf2ÝScienceÜcf1Ý asked me to write an article to boost my lecture before it was delivered. In that article, buried in the article, was a sentence saying that global warming was a more serious threat to mankind even than global terrorism, and let us say that by the time I arrived in Seattle it was clear that some people in government thought I had overstepped the mark.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ13 Dr Gibson:Ücf1Ý Who was that?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý In Seattle I certainly had the biggest audience I will ever have. I would imagine it was 3,000 or 4,000 people. I could see what a politician feels like when addressing a large crowd of people. The people came to listen. I think it was the most receptive audience I could have imagined. That was the plus side. But I was almost kept out of the media. There was an attempt to muzzle me. Who was that? That, it is well known, came from Number 10. That would be the low point and the high point as well, because that statement, let me remind you, before Al Gore began talking about this subject, raised the profile of the threats associated with climate change globally. I have since that time given 500 or 600 talks on climate change threats around the world, including to parliaments around the world. I have talked to parliaments as far afield as the Australian Parliament, the Rwandan Parliament and the Finnish Parliament on this subject by invitation. The result of that statement turned out to be also a high point but at the time it was not quite so good.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ14 Dr Gibson:Ücf1Ý If you write the book, how did you get the idea of climate change? Did you wake up screaming it in the night or did some PhD student in Cambridge talk to you in a pub? We know how ideas emanate in the intellectual world. How did you come to that conclusion that climate change was Ücf3Ýthe Ücf1Ýissue? It has not always been up there in lights.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý It was not up in lights. Quite simply, I was Head of Chemistry at Cambridge for seven years. The Chemistry Department at Cambridge had a remarkable expertise_and there is an interesting story underlying this_in the stratospheric ozone and ozone depletion. The remarkable story is that one of my predecessors won a Nobel Prize for work on this little molecule ozone which was of no interest to anybody, it was just an esoteric molecule. He did flash photolysis on it and won a Nobel Prize. But that meant that the Department of Chemistry at Cambridge was the residence of experts in ozone, so, when the ozone layer was beginning to be chewed up and we understood the threat, my department started modelling this. We became the experts for modelling the stratospheric ozone. A follow-through was then to look at climate change. There are 120 chemical reactions occurring up there and this was all modelled by these teams in chemistry at Cambridge. I was more than aware of this as a big problem. Certainly when I took the job, I told people I knew that this was the issue on which I really wanted to raise the profile. It was not quite an accidental meeting.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ15 Dr Gibson:Ücf1Ý For the record, do you remember a town called Cromer in North Norfolk which was once called Ozone City_come and get your ozone here". They took the sign down.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý Yes. Ozone in the lower atmosphere is very unpleasant but we need it in the stratosphere.ËÜjf12ÝÜcf3ÝDr Gibson:Ücf1Ý Chemistry is quite useful. I am convinced.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ16 Dr Turner:Ì I seem to remember that in some of the evidence which you gave to our predecessor committee you made the statement that you regretted the fact that many people with scientific qualifications and experience within the Civil Service felt it necessary to keep that background and expertise under wraps in order not to prejudice their chances of advancement. This would seem to say something rather unfortunate about the culture of our Civil Service and its upper echelons and presumably it is not conducive to good scientific involvement in government policymaking. In your experience, has that created difficulties?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý Regrettably, I would have to say yes. I think that the position of scientists within the Civil Service is such that those people who are working in laboratories are in a perfectly satisfactory situation, but when it comes to rising up through the senior Civil Service and into positions, permanent secretaries ultimately, I think the pathways to promotion are bleak for scientists. I was referring really to that. The net result is that in the upper echelons of the Civil Service it is a constant battle to see that wherever possible the scientific evidence is put before the policy advice system. When I say it is a constant battle, I think my successor is going to have to continue to battle on with that process. Within government departments, I am afraid, it is also possible that Chief Scientific Advisers can be marginalised because the policy advisers feel uncomfortable with that side of it. There is a culture which I think is changing or may be going to change there. I began to get the respect of policy advisers on what science could deliver, so the culture is changing, but it is very slow and we are going to have to keep going at it. Really the best way forward is to co-ordinate all parts of the policy advisory system to accept that a firm knowledge base can be achieved from science, from social sciences, from economics and even from law, so it would bring together the sound aspects of the knowledge-based system. I think that would strengthen it enormously. We are also proposing to have a big campaign, which I am sure my successor will pick up and run with, to raise the profile of science advice within government departments in the way that has been done so successfully for law. The programme that raised the profile was called The judge over your shoulder". That was a very good catchphrase and it was simply saying to every civil servant: Think if law might be helping your advisory system." We need to get that idea into science as well. One of my challenges is: Please give me an example of government advice where you think science is not relevant. I still have not found an area where this is the case.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ17 Dr Turner:Ì You have put yourself at the forefront of trying to achieve evidence-based policymaking.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý Yes.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ18 Dr Turner:Ì In so doing, where have you found most of the difficulty? Is it the senior civil servants? Are ministers more receptive or less receptive to scientific evidence-based advice?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý Interestingly I think I would say that ministers seem to get very interested and very excited about what science can do. I run the Government's Foresight programme. Within that programme I must have worked with at least 30 ministers and each and every one of them, once they have discovered what it is all about, have become really excited about it. I do not wish to blame the Civil Service: it is a culture that does find science rather difficult. In other words, the culture seems to think that a scientist should be wearing a white coat and be in a laboratory and then there are the policy advisers who stand above this and lean into the laboratory and pick out the information they think is relevant. We have to take science out of the box. We have to have it right there, at the shoulder of the senior civil servants.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ19 Dr Turner:Ì Do you think that perhaps what is missing in the culture is insight? Working scientists have an insight which is almost unique to the process of a working scientist. Would you agree with that?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý Yes. I would also say, Some people don't get it." Should we have a discussion about whether or not the earth is flat? It is probable that not many people around Parliament or the Civil Service would think is a worthwhile discussion to have, but on some other issues you would think they were flat-earthers" really.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ20 Chairman:Ì If you take this week's announcement about the international league tables in terms of literacy and numeracy, where suddenly we have gone down the league tables, before there was any analysis as to why the use of computers in schools was becoming the culprit for that happening without any shred of evidence to support that. This is something which frustrates ourselves as a committee. It perhaps says that at the end of the day political imperatives outweigh the scientific evidence.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý Yes. I would take it even a little further. People's gut reaction to a situation is what they spill out immediately. A scientist, as you have indicated, would sit down and analyse. And this takes time. You do not get an immediate sound bite. If somebody comes to me and says, What are the issues underlying our fall in this table?" I would say, I will be able to give you an answer in a year's time and certainly no sooner" and so there is a little problem with time limits of response. The Foresight programmes, which I am very proud of, take two years. We work with a minimum of 100 scientists and engineers, social scientists, et cetera, on each one of them in depth, producing thousands of pages which are distilled down into an accessible report. That is robust. That means that we have the best of evidence-based analysis going forward. But two years is sometimes a long time to wait. I have noticed that ministers seldom last the full two years.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ21 Dr Turner:Ì The Chief Scientific Adviser's Committee includes all the departmental CSAs. What is it intended to achieve? How effective has it been? Just as an aside: Have you ever felt it necessary to go to the aid of a departmental CSA when he is having difficulty with the rest of his department?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý The answer to your final question is absolutely. I have done that very often and I am still going to be doing it right up until the last day that I am in office. The Chief Scientific Advisers who have been parachuted in from outside government are a close-knit group of nine people and I think we function very well together and we help each other. We cover a broad range of disciplines. That is, I would say, working very well. The first part of the question was: Does the Chief Scientific Adviser's Committee work well. The Chief Scientific Adviser's Committee includes those nine people plus the Chief Scientist in every part of government. For example, yesterday we met at the Food Standards Agency and the Chief Scientist Andrew Wadge represents the Food Standards Agency. By the way, I think he is doing a tremendous job. He produced a Chief Scientist's annual report for the first time and I think that is an exemplar for Chief Scientists in government departments. It is a tremendous report. It is worth your Committee having a look at it. Andrew Wadge has also begun to develop a public voice, so he has had quite a bit of press recently on his various statements, which have been very, very sensible, science-based statements on food safety.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ22 Dr Turner:Ì You have referred to the Foresight programme and also to the fact that ministers tend to change before you have come to the end of the piece of work, so there is a slight difficulty in translating the outcome of Foresight's policy. How much has the political side of government listened to the outcome of the Foresight work?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý That is very, very important. The best case example is that of flood and coastal defences. Almost immediately the sum of money spent on our flood and coastal defence management in the Environment Agency went up from #300 million a year to #600 million a year. We are now at #700 million a year with a commitment to go even further up. That is exactly what we said was necessary in the Foresight report. We had floods this summer and there were queries about whether we were moving fast enough. I am afraid it is going to take quite a few years to manage the flood defences of the UK. Basically, this involves re-jigging every city's sewerage and drainage system. London will be complete by 2014. Going around city by city is going to be a very lengthy exercise, but we are on the road and we are the first country in the world to be dealing with climate change impacts. That is the good example. There are several examples that have not gone down so well. They are in the area where we were looking for opportunities on the horizon for wealth creation in the UK. Cognitive Systems and The Electromagnetic Spectrum are two of those where we could see enormous strengths in the UK, where there were real opportunities for wealth creation. I would say the follow-through has been very good on the Research Council side in establishing new ventures but almost non existent on the old DTI side, where there is a difficulty with the notion of not picking winners. I happen to think that that notion needs to be seriously re-examined. In Britain we have a world-leading position in a technology that could wipe out silicon chip technology and could convert photo-voltaics into easily accessible materials at a much cheaper price, and I am taking about plastic electronics. We now have three companies in plastic electronics that have patented almost every single electronic component of a modern PC. You print the plastic components using an ink-jet printer in air; you do not have to use ultra high vacuum. It is exactly the sort of disruptive technology that will completely sweep aside existing technologies. I would like to see Britain do what South Korea did with broadband. A South Korean invented broadband and the government poured money in to establish broadband technology in South Korea and now it has become a massive winner for those companies. I feel it would be tremendous to see us pick plastic electronics as a platform to develop a UK area of expertise in an area of manufacturing which would be high value-added but which would really take over an enormous potential market.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ23 Chairman:Ì That is what the Technology Strategy Board is for, surely?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý Yes. The Technology Strategy Board, if it is going to go down that route, would have to pick winners and not spread its money thinly over a whole range of projects.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ24 Dr Turner:Ì Certainly the old DTI had a long history of doing this, and this cannot be unconnected with the long period of this country's poor performance in turning innovations into reality.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý Just to say one more word on that: picking winners was bad news at the time when we were saving some of our car industries, and eventually they went to the wall anyway. That was not picking winners; that was picking losers and trying to sustain them. I am talking about a new industry that really has the opportunity for being the big break-through industry of the 21Ücf5ÝsÜcf1ÝÜcf5ÝtÜcf1Ý century. We are talking about big winners on the basis of current technology and what it can offer.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ25 Dr Harris:Ì Sir David, has the Government's use of evidence improved in the last 10 years?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý Yes, I would have to say I think it has.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ26 Dr Harris:Ì What evidence do you have to back up that statement?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý Why did I know that Evan Harris would follow that up in that way! I would like to give you_and you might not accept this_an anecdotal response.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ27 Dr Harris:Ì I will accept that because I have some as well. We will swap them.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý I would just run through a whole series of issues, starting with foot and mouth disease I_the two book-ends of my Chief Scientific Adviser position_and foot and mouth disease II and the lessons we learned from that. Avian flu: the preparation for a pandemic very, very driven by the science advisory system. I could go on. If we look at high-profile, high-risk issues, we have now embedded science in that process. I would like to mention the post-9/11 preparations that we did. Immediately after 9/11 I formed a panel who were taken through the security system so that we could receive advice from the intelligence services. This was formalised as the Science Advisory Panel for Emergency Response by the Prime Minister and through that panel we have worked with all our intelligence services. I think there is no question: they all respect that we have raised the profile on not only what the CBRN sciences can deliver but also the social sciences. Our greater degree of robustness: all the way from the preparations of first responder police_who are from now in almost every police force_we have been checking that all of these are in the most robust state.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ28 Dr Harris:Ì Could I respond with a couple of other examples at the lower end, because I think there is no doubt that when the risks are high governments take scientific advice and it could be argued they do that more. Looking back, would you say it is a satisfactory situation that, for example, it took so long to persuade the Government and the Department of Health to be permissive on the question of hybrid embryos (something on which this Committee did a report)? Would you be happy that now, for the first time ever, the Medicines, Health and Regulatory Authority allows homeopathic provings_which are no scientist's version of evidence_to be considered as evidence of efficacy for the regulation of those sorts of products? I am suggesting that there are anecdotes from the other end that suggest in certain departments things have not got that much better.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý I am going to have to agree with you. The issue of homeopathic medicine leaves me completely puzzled. How can you have homeopathic medicines labelled by a department which is driven by science? There is not one jot of evidence supporting the notion that homeopathic medicines are of any assistance whatsoever; therefore, I would say they are a risk to the population because people may take them expecting that they are dealing with a serious problem. You and I would agree that is the danger.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ29 Dr Harris:Ì Previously I asked what process there was to analyse this in a more rigorous way than the citing of examples_which is essentially what we have been doing_and you identified that your department-by-department review of science was a good way of doing that. That is published. But, in the interim_because that is-department by-department_I asked you previously what is wrong with commissioning some outside research which is at least as independent as that of the Chief Scientific Adviser, to analyse whether policy that claims to be evidence-based is indeed evidence-based and what the strength of that evidence is and whether policy which should be evidence-based, such as the regulation of medicines or the regime around embryo research, at least as far as the science is concerned, is based on evidence? Can you give me any comfort that that is something which could be considered, which outside researchers might be invited to do? Because they would need government co-operation, obviously, would they not?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý I am not rejecting your idea, but just in defence of the views of the science in government departments I do bring in external assessors to conduct those reviews. For example, we are currently doing the Department of Health_you may raise your eyes at that.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ30 Chairman:Ì That should be interesting.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý Of course we will look at homeopathic so-called medicine. These external advisers I think carry the weight of objectivity that you are looking for in your idea.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ31 Dr Harris:Ì It should be possible for a department's response to a report of the Science and Technology Committee_because I think the clue is in the title_to be looked at for whether it makes assertions that are rationale in scientific terms. The following example did not come from me, our clerks have written it. When we said that there was concern that access to abortion was delayed because of perceived barriers such as the need to collect two doctors' signature_and, in the context of people who will not help, conscientious objectors, that might be difficult_the Government's response was as follows: Current evidence does not indicate that the requirement for two doctors' signatures is causing delay: the latest data, for 2006, show  ...  68% of abortions taking place at less than 10 weeks, and 89% at less than 13 weeks." We had an interaction in the evidence session with the minister where it was challenged that that was not a response. Because it might be better_it might be even better, essentially, we do not know, but that is not an answer. That was challenged in evidence yet it is just repeated here. I think that is embarrassing, in a response to a science report, for that assertion to be made. They might just say, We don't know. There's no research. Sorry," but instead they have contested it with a non-scientific answer. Is there is a mechanism you would have thought ought to be in place, so that these government responses to Select Committee reports on science should be vetted in some way to pick out that sort of area?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý I would have to say that is thoroughly embarrassing. Of course the Chief Scientist in the Department of Health needs a mechanism to see that that sort of statement_it is a Ücf2Ýnon sequiturÜcf1Ý that statement_is not put up as a response. It is quite unacceptable.ËÜjf12ÝÜcf3ÝDr Harris:Ì I will quit while I am ahead, Chairman.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ32 Dr Iddon:Ì In May 2001 you expressed concern about the scientific capability of government departments and said that you were going to focus on improving their capability to deal with scientific evidence and policy based on that. Have you managed to do any of that?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý In terms of raising the profile of science in government departments?ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ33 Dr Iddon:Ì Making them more efficient and giving them a greater capability to judge the evidence and use the evidence in policymaking. Have we made a lot of progress in your time?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý Enormous progress in some departments. For example, in Defra there is a complete acceptance that science plays a key role at the highest level in that department. Successive secretaries of state have developed a very good relationship with their Chief Scientific Adviser and their Chief Veterinary Officer in a way that I do not think existed before. In other words, the policy advisers played that role but now we have the Chief Scientists playing that very role. That is my best case example. DCMS has still not appointed a Chief Scientific Adviser. In my view, unbelievable. DCMS funds, for example, the Natural History Museum. That has a very large R&D budget_I am sure issued well, but would it not be good if the Government could mine into that knowledge-base being developed in the Natural History Museum for its own benefit. DCMS is not an intelligent customer of what is being done in most of its NDPBs. There is an example at the other end, where I am afraid I have not had the impact I would like to have had. I think it will change but these things just percolate slowly through the system. We have mentioned the Department of Health. I would be surprised if the review that emerges was not critical of the use of science in that department. For example, the R&D budget in the Department of Health that is left once bedpans have been purchased out of the original R&D budget is probably smaller than the R&D budget for advising Defra on animal health. For advising on human health, we probably spend less money.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ34 Dr Turner:Ì I think it was you who instigated OSI reviews in the departments. I do not know how many of these we have had now. I have certainly seen two or three.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý We have completed four.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ35 Dr Turner:Ì Have they been taken seriously by the departments? Have those departments that have been reviewed by OSI taken any notice of your criticisms?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý The immediate answer has to be in terms of DCMS. We reviewed them and did not have much success. For all the other departments we have reviewed, which includes HSE, our review has been treated very constructively.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ36 Dr Turner:Ì What do we do about DCMS? Whose job is it to sort DCMS out? Is it the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister, the Chief Scientific Adviser? Who is going to check the situation there?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý The Head of the Civil Service. I think it is an issue for the Civil Service, the permanent secretaries.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ37 Chairman:Ì The Permanent Secretary said he did not see a need for a scientific adviser, so how do you overcome that?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý He and I had quite a long chat in which it was quite clear we were never going to agree.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ38 Dr Iddon:Ì You mentioned the squeeze on departmental research development budgets. That happened in Defra which you have already cited as one of the better departments under your term. How do we stop departments using the scientific budget, the research and development budget, as an easy way of cutting their expenditure when they are under pressure from the Treasury? Do we ring-fence the money?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý Yes. I would seriously like to see the R&D budgets for each department ring-fenced and each permanent secretary would seriously not want the R&D budget ring-fenced. The permanent secretaries want the freedom to use their budgets in order to achieve what their secretaries of state appear to be driving them to achieve. In that case, we are always led towards short-term solutions. The argument that pressure for delivery means that we buy bedpans rather than research that will feed back into much better delivery of health services in the future is one that seems to swing almost every time. There is an issue here with the political system_that is really what I am trying to say. The minister/secretaries of state need to understand that short-term delivery may be the pressure that they are under from the House but it can sacrifice a long-term capability. To use the example again of Defra: the recent foot and mouth disease outbreak was driven out of the Pirbright laboratory which I think it is fair to say many of us feel should be rebuilt. That will cost money. We need an up-to-date facility. We have tremendous scientists at Pirbright_absolutely superb_but they are working under conditions which probably ought to be replaced.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ39 Dr Iddon:Ì Some of the departments_Defra putting money through NERC, for example_support long-term research, like collecting data, now using satellites, earth observation satellites. This Committee has been rather concerned about the collection of that kind of data. Do you think that should be taken out of the departmental budgets and run centrally in some way so that there is the protection of earth observations? That is only one example of several long-term commitments that the Government in our view should be making.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý I think there is quite a strong argument for creating a central pool fund, which might even be to create a central laboratory for government, in which you might have very large scale computing facilities, for example. At the moment the Met Office no longer has a top 100 computer_and it always used to be a top 10_it is not even any longer a top 200 computer, and this is the world's leading weather prediction service and climate prediction service. We need a central pool_I believe there is a strong argument for this and it needs to be examined_and quite possibly a central laboratory that could serve all government departments. We would then have the cross-cutting capability that we are all looking for. The problem is that within government it is extremely difficult to set something up that is not fixed within a department, with one permanent secretary who is responsible for the budget. At the moment it is a challenge too far but I think it is well worth looking at.ËÜjf12ÝÜcf3ÝDr Iddon:Ì Thank you.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ40 Dr Blackman-Woods:Ì Has the creation of DIUS, the new Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, been a good thing for science? Within government first of all and then perhaps more generally.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý I think the answer is yes. I was a proponent for setting up the department. My suggestion was Department for Science, Innovation and Skills and it emerged as Universities" instead of Science", but then my justification for that is that my use of the word science" is pre 1850. I regard science as all of knowledge" but not many people see it that way. Yes, I was in favour of bringing together the university sector, the skills sector, the science sector, the innovation sector. In time I think this becomes a very powerful inducement for delivering from the strength of our science base_which is simply superb_that innovation and wealth creation agenda that we all want to see. A big part of that, by the way, is the skills sector. We need to concentrate much more on raising the profile of the super technician in the UK. My example of this would be Denmark, where, if you go to a university, the super technician has the same status as a professor and they really deliver. I would like to see the hands-on skills raised in status and profile. I think by bringing universities and skills together we have that opportunity. I think it is very exciting.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ41 Dr Blackman-Woods:Ì You must know there is a great deal of concern within the scientific community about the loss of Science" from the title of this department. How will we convince people that science really has not disappeared or in some way is not being valued as it was before?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý It is interesting. I think there is a misunderstanding. When the Arts and Humanities Research Board approached us and said, Would you take us on as a research council?" I was delighted. We now have all the knowledge base funded through RCUK, including particle physics. I think that was a very good move. I said to the AHRB executive, Would you want us to change the name of the, then, Office of Science and Technology?" and they said. Not a bit of it." They were perfectly happy to bring Arts and Humanities under the umbrella of science because they thought it would raise their profile not lower it. I am ashamed that we did not keep Science" in the title.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ42 Dr Blackman-Woods:Ì Do you have any concerns about the split between the Government Office for Science and the rest of the OSI?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý The Government Office for Science is in an ambiguous position but so was the Chief Scientific Adviser's Office in the DTI. By that, I mean Government Office for Science is a very strong group of civil servants, about 87 of us, and we quite clearly are seen by DIUS as having a ring fence around ourselves. In one sense that is very good, because we have a cross-departmental function and because the Chief Scientific Adviser reports to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet_and of course I report also to the Secretary of State for DIUS as the spokesperson for science in the Cabinet but also as head of my department_but the confusion is then that DIUS is not quite sure what this beast is within its walls. I hope that the synergies that the Government Office for Science could develop with DIUS become developed over the near future, but at the moment it does not look like happening.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ43 Dr Blackman-Woods:Ì Is there anything to be gained from replacing Government Office for Science within DIUS?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý Yes, there is. Because the science innovation and wealth creation agenda is so important, I think to say that the Government Office for Science was not part of that would be to miss a very important part of the story. We have a tremendous piece to deliver into that agenda but at the same time I have to play this cross-departmental role. Your predecessor committee has always argued that the Chief Scientific Adviser's Office should be in the Cabinet Office. I think there is still quite a strong argument behind that. We are in a funny state now.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ44 Dr Blackman-Woods:Ì Changing tack and going back to plastic electronics very briefly, I found what you were saying very interesting because it is of relevance to some research in my constituency. What can be done to raise this issue up the Government's agenda so that it understands the amount of money that has to be put into developing plastic electronics for the future? RDAs are funding some of this. I think you are suggesting that it needs to move to a different scale.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý Yes. I think we need to recognise that a very significant level of funding is required to develop an enterprise which is entering a domain where hundreds of billions of pounds a year are being spent. We are talking about very big bananas here. To raise the profile, I have used this venue as a means of raising it. I have used many different venues. I think people are beginning to listen. The Technology Strategy Board's budget is currently only #200 million a year. I would like to see us look at our overall profile of Government purchasing and see if we cannot pare some of that off for supporting an enterprise of this kind. I think the payback would be so big. But there is a resistance, and the resistance, perhaps largely from the Treasury, is around this idea of supporting winners_and I am talking about the Treasury civil servants.ËÜjf12ÝÜcf3ÝChairman:Ì Talking about big bananas, GM obviously has to raise its head today and I am going to come back to Brian.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ45 Dr Iddon:Ì You do not shy away from controversy: you have mentioned climate change already. I would like to ask you why you have chosen to re-enter the controversy on GM as almost your final battle as Chief Scientific Officer.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý It is my penultimate battle, not the final one. Quite simply I think this is the opportunity to revisit the issue of GM in the UK and in Europe. We have had a further seven years of GM crop technology being used around the world. There is considerably more evidence there available on both the human health issues around GM crops and also biodiversity issues around GM crops. We have a much better information base. At the same time, it is becoming more and more apparent that because of population expansion_our expectation of having to plan for 9.5 billion people on the planet by mid-century and the impacts of climate change_we are going to have to develop new crop technologies. We need a third green revolution to manage to feed that growing population of people from our restricted planet. More crop per drop" is essentially what is going to be required. GM technology can deliver that. We have the science, we have the technology, but we do not have a society which is accepting of that. On the one hand, we have considerably more evidence and, on the other hand, the nature of the problem to be tackled is very apparent. The problem is_and here is a self-fulfilling circle in the Soil Association's argument_that Monsanto is not particularly interested in doing work down this area of feeding the world. Monsanto makes a lot of money for itself but I do not see it doing the kind of research that would be needed to move us towards that third green revolution. It is British companies and British science that is potentially in the world lead in that regard. I think we have a massive opportunity. Molecular biology was invented here; we still have a top range of scientists in this field; and we could make a very big difference on the international scene. There is no evidence_and here I contradict what the Soil Association is claiming_of any human being suffering from eating food products from GM plants, and at the same time there is certainly plenty of evidence of people starving for lack of food. Let us get a proper perspective on GM as we re-approach that public debate. I am very, very keen to see that we reopen it. There is a massive opportunity there for Britain to make a big contribution.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ46 Dr Iddon:Ì Do you think the GM Nation debate was worth doing? Did we learn anything from it or was it just a waste of money?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý We learned how not to conduct debates of that kind. I mean that seriously because, as a result of the GM Nation debate, in my office we began a programme called Science Wise" which is a proper mechanism for interacting with the public on high-profile issues. We have used the topic of nanotechnology to float that whole programme.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ47 Dr Iddon:Ì What would you say to the media as a parting shot on issues like GM which the more sensitive media have handled quite carefully but, in general, the headlines for GM crops are Frankenstein Food" type headlines.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý Through their brilliant journalism_I mean, the use of the word Frankenfood" by the Ücf2ÝDaily MailÜcf1Ý I would have to say was a brilliant piece of journalism_they brought through all of the gut fears people have about tinkering with the genetic code and about these mad scientists in laboratories with bolts through their arms (which we all have_as you know). It brought through all those public fears and it played through so beautifully. Having a Frankenfood Watch" in the Ücf2ÝDaily Mail: Ücf1ÝWe are watching out for these scientists producing these awful things". We have to say it was a brilliant campaign but to the editors of those journals and to John Humphrys: what a massive shot in the foot that was for the UK economy. It is probably costing us currently #2^#4 billion a year in lost revenues to companies like AstraZeneca and Unilever who are amongst the leading technologists in this area. They were going for third generation GM crops which would produce advantages to human beings. Not doing a Monsanto, they had carved out a particularly good niche. We have lost that. No congratulations to those campaigners in terms of the outcome they have achieved for Britain.ËÜjf12ÝÜcf3ÝDr Iddon:Ì Thank you.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ48 Dr Harris:Ì When you came before us on scientific evidence you explained that there was a plan within government to try to talk to the media. You reported that you had had a meeting, it is not clear if it was lunch or a long lunch, but a meeting with the editor of Ücf2ÝThe Guardian,Ücf1Ý and that there was some progress there, and I raised a question about whether you were working your way up to the Ücf2ÝDaily Mail.Ücf1Ý I was wondering how far that progressed and, again, whether you have the beginnings of some metrics to see whether there has been a change, whether due to the efforts of people like yourself and others working in this area or a change anyway?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý I am writing down your phrase: working your way up" you said to the Ücf2ÝDaily Mail."ËÜjf13ÝÜcf1ÝÜcf3ÝQ49 Dr Harris:Ì Yes, because they are the pinnacle. If you can convert them or change the way they do things, you will have achieved a lot. I agree with you there: superb journalism, but I sometimes think in the wrong cause.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý I have had a private conversation with the editor of the Ücf2ÝDaily MailÜcf1Ý since that time. The other campaign that the Ücf2ÝDaily MailÜcf1Ý ran, supported by the Ücf2ÝTodayÜcf1Ý programme, was on MMR vaccines. My charge there is that their highly successful campaign has potentially led to a situation where we could have 50 or 100 children dying of measles in the UK. That is still my expectation. If measles continues to develop in the way it is now, we could still see a significant fatality rate amongst children. There is every bit of evidence_not no evidence, there is every bit of evidence_to support the notion that the statistical probability of your child getting autism if they have an MMR vaccine is no different from if they do not have the vaccine. That is the basic message that every parent needs to get and I would love the Ücf2ÝDaily MailÜcf1Ý to put a headline in the paper tomorrow morning admitting that. By the way, I would be very surprised if that should happen.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ50 Dr Harris:Ì Indeed. Do you think there is a role for people who are charged by Parliament and, indeed, the Government with leading and providing scientific advice to be more proactive? For example, if a lot of MPs sign an early day motion that implies there is evidence that mobile phone masts cause harm or, indeed, misquote the Stewart Report, where the early day motion says, The Stewart Report says that mobile phone masts should not be built near schools" which is not what the Stewart Report is saying, do you think someone from science or, indeed, the author of the report should write a polite letter pointing that out? Or should we just leave these members of Parliament or, indeed, the people who make statements in the media in ignorance of what scientists think about their views?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý I think your proactive way must be the right way forward. There is a serious point here. I only have 85 staff in the Government Office for Science and keeping tabs on what every member of staff is saying is quite a tall order.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ51 Dr Harris:Ì What do you do when someone like William Stewart himself, the Chairman of the Health Protection Agency, when it comes to a Ücf2ÝPanoramaÜcf1Ý programme on wi-fi gives a view that at least is scientifically controversial and which most people would not share? What mechanisms are there for the Government and public scientific advisory regime to provide some counterpoint to that? Otherwise, it is just left there, and pressure groups can say, The Chairman of the Health Protection Agency says that wi-fi is a danger to health or that something needs to be done"_and I do not want to misquote him.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý My response to that could be that as Chief Scientific Adviser I would sit down and meet with the individual who had made the statement that I did not think was robustly supported by science.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ52 Dr Harris:Ì Have you done that in this case?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý In this case I have not, no.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ53 Mr Cawsey:Ì Professor, I would like to ask you something about animal health. We discussed foot and mouth earlier in today's proceedings. Your work in that was widely praised, and rightly so, whereas your more recent work on badgers and bovine TB has been disputed as being politically motivated rather than being based on science. It is pretty much an open secret that when the ISG's report was received at Defra there were people in the department, perhaps politicians as well as civil servants, who were not best pleased by what it said and believed it had extended beyond its remit. Is it not the simple truth that, as a result of that, you had had your card marked and you were required to gather people around you to write a report that was more acceptable to the department?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý Here is the position of the Government Chief Scientific Advisor: there is a major annual disease in the UK. This is our biggest endemic disease problem in farm animals in the UK today. If it was a disease that spread as quickly as foot and mouth disease, nobody would be even questioning the policy I am backing right now. In other words, we would move in with a cull policy because there are no vaccines available and we would be dealing with the issue. But it is spreading slowly. It has now taken 30 years to develop, since that time when the 1972 Badger Protection Act was enacted. The problem for the Chief Scientific Adviser is: if we ask an external body to oversee a group of experiments to establish whether or not badgers are responsible for some of the outbreaks of TB in cattle in the UK and that group then reports back saying, Yes, definitely"_which is their conclusion: they say at least 40% of the herd breakdowns in TB derive from badgers: it is a very clear conclusion_but then the same body, I think stepping outside its domain of expertise, says: However, we do not think badger culling should be used, we feel more intensive cattle culling should be conducted," and if I as Chief Scientific Adviser then said to you, That is not going to solve the problem," why do I say that? It is very simple. Imagine yourself now to be a dairy farmer down in Devon or Cornwall and your cattle have had TB and one by one they are taken out_today we are taking out 20,000 cattle per annum at a cost of #80 million per annum and that number is growing year on year. Your herd is finally removed because the TB has become endemic in the herd. You know there is a badger set on your farm and you know from car accidents with badgers and the analysis of the badgers that have been killed in that way that there is bovine TB prevalence in the badgers in your area, would you restock your farm with dairy cattle? The reason I have asked the question in that way is because I think we are talking about the future viability of cattle farming in the UK. The National Farmers' Union, in response to my advice to government once it was published, came out with an analogy. They said, Only culling the cattle and not dealing with TB in badgers is just like leaving the leaking pipe in Pirbright and just culling the animals with foot and mouth disease in the vicinity." I think that is a very good analogy because the reservoir of TB is the wildlife reservoir basically in badgers.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ54 Mr Cawsey:Ì But the Pirbright pipe does not move, does it? That is the problem here, is it not?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý That is also a problem.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ55 Mr Cawsey:Ì The science says that if you cull badgers you cannot get them all and what is left moves on to a different area, spreading the disease still further. That did lead to the ISG saying badger culling cannot meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB in Britain.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý That does not follow from their own analysis. If you look at their figures showing that if you increase the area of the cull to 300 square km, for example, then boundary effects become completely overwhelmed by the positive effects you have generated.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ56 Mr Cawsey:Ì You would have to get every single landowner within that area to agree to that.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý No, you do not. They have never had more than 70% uptake of landowners and they still found a 40% reduction in TB breakdown in cattle inside those areas. The second point of the advice I have given is: let us go beyond that and let us say that every area where we would take out not only cattle but also badgers should be bounded by hard boundaries_that would be big rivers, ocean, large motorways_and soft boundaries_so you could have arable farms where there are no cattle, so there can be no peripheral effect if there are no cattle on neighbouring farms. If you devise a policy like that, which would be up to Defra officials, then you would very substantially reduce the boundary effect. I am not saying you would eliminate it but you would reduce it. Now take a look at the report of the ISG, when they look, as a function of time, at the breakdown in cattle herds in the peripheral region. The biggest breakdown occurs in the first year of the cull of badgers. Basically, I do not understand the biology behind that, because TB is a very slow-spreading disease. How come in the first year of disturbing badgers they get the largest increase in the cattle? That is not discussed in the report. Scientists are saying, That doesn't sound biologically sensible" but by the fourth year, the peripheral effect, according to their own data, has virtually dropped to zero. I believe there are subsequent data which will become available in those peripheral boundaries after the culling which will show that that zero peripheral effect continues for some time afterwards. The single first conclusion that may be read out of that report does not follow from the science that the report contains.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ57 Mr Cawsey:Ì You must understand that for scientists who have spent many years working on this and peer reviewing their work, to have it taken apart by you on the back of a few weeks work with a few hand-selected people_ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý This is nonsense. This is utter nonsense. My whole function is to challenge scientists, as I said at the beginning. I do not believe that a group of scientists who had been at the coalface for seven years cannot be challenged from outside by a group of people coming in objectively analysing what they have done.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ58 Mr Cawsey:Ì Of course they cannot but you can be challenged as well.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý Let me look at another example of challenge: whether or not any of our sheep that were falling over with scrapie had BSE. Seven years analysis by an international team of scientists. They arrived here. I said, Has anyone done a DNA test?" No DNA test had been conducted over that period of time. That was me asking the dumb question.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ59 Mr Cawsey:Ì No-one is challenging your ability to challenge what has been said. It is just the basis on which it is being done. You will no doubt have seen what the ISG said with regards to your work to the EFRA Select Committee where they described it as using incorrectly interpreted_ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý Can you give me one example of criticism that they gave? One example.ËÜjf12ÝÜcf3ÝMr Cawsey:Ì I have several. Would you like to hear them?ËÜjf12ÝÜcf3ÝChairman:Ì Can I just allow Ian to ask his question.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ60 Mr Cawsey:Ì It incorrectly interpreted the significance of statistical competence intervals; excluded important data about justification; failed to consider ecological data which supported ISG's conclusions; called for badger culls in areas which are too small to be beneficial without finding scientific evidence to support the advice. And Professor Mollison described your work as inexpert, unbalanced, one-sided, muddled, wrong, untrue, inadequate as a basis for government action and said, Had you had the courtesy to discuss your concerns with the ISG scientists themselves you would have generated more light and less heat." That is fairly strong stuff.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý It is very strong stuff but there is not one word in there that I would say, if I had written a paper on this_as I have done_that it came back as a referee's criticism that I could respond to, because it is only throwing mud, it is not throwing light.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ61 Mr Cawsey:Ì Why did you not therefore think it was appropriate to discuss your concerns with the people who had done the work?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý I am sorry?ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ62 Mr Cawsey:Ì Professor Mollison said that you should have had the courtesy to discuss the ISG work with the scientists themselves.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý I did discuss the work with the scientists themselves and this was before the ISG report was published. I am about to see them again. I will then write back to the EFRA Committee by giving my response to those criticisms. But let me say for your benefit here: if you read that conclusion and also read it in the light of the report itself, you will see that I am not challenging the basic tenets of the science in that report. I am not doing that. I am saying to you that their own plots indicate that the peripheral effect is substantially reduced over four years and there is no explanation for why there was a high peripheral effect in the first place. Secondly, their own plots demonstrate that if you simply increase the area then the beneficial effect completely wipes out the peripheral boundary effects in terms of the overall benefit. Thirdly, there is the use of hard boundaries and soft arable boundaries. That is the argument. I want to hear if anyone objects to what I am suggesting is a way of handling the biggest endemic disease in farm animals in Britain to date. If somebody else has an alternative plan, please come up with it. But the Chief Scientific Adviser needs to advise government on how to handle this problem.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ63 Mr Cawsey:Ì What would you say in response to the leader of last month's Ücf2ÝNatureÜcf1Ý, which, under the subheading A government that asks for independent scientific advice best be ready to take it" says, The mishandling of this issue by David King, the UK Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, is an example to government of how not to deal with such advice once it has been solicited and received." It concludes: It would be a good idea if Defra had based its policy on the unfettered advice offered by joint committee. This would be deeply appreciated not just by badgers but by scientists in all spheres who choose to participate with painstaking and vital processes in the earnest belief that their advice will actually make a difference to government policies."ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý Would you give me the courtesy of also reading out at the same length my reply that was published in Ücf2ÝNature.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf1ÝÜcf3ÝQ64 Mr Cawsey:Ì I do not have that.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý I see. That seems like you are taking up a position.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ65 Mr Cawsey:Ì No, I am giving you the opportunity. You are here, they are not. You have the key seat, not them.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý What you would see if you read the following issue of Ücf2ÝNatureÜcf1Ý is a full copy of the letter that I gave in response to that with an apology from Ücf2ÝNatureÜcf1Ý following it. I need you to look at that issue in Ücf2ÝNature.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf1ÝÜcf3ÝQ66 Mr Cawsey:Ì So you do not agree with the comments that they make in that.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý If you read my reply you will see that I do not agree. There was not one piece of science contained in that editorial attack. It was a purely personal attack and they have apologised for that.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ67 Mr Cawsey:Ì I have obviously taken out most of that. I have just relied on the bit where they say that governments which seek independent science advice, if they want to keep the confidence of the science community ought to make use of it.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý Let me deal with one detailed point. They say that the key part of the ISG report had been published in Ücf2ÝNatureÜcf1Ý and of course they had therefore subjected it to good refereeing. I agree with that. There are two points, however. Because a paper is published in a journal, even a journal with the standing of Ücf2ÝNature,Ücf1Ý does not mean that it cannot be challenged. Scientists continually challenge published work that has been refereed. The second thing is that the conclusion that you read out from the ISG report was not published before. That conclusion has never been challenged through the referee process. Ücf2ÝNatureÜcf1Ý misunderstood the nature of my own challenge_and, by the way, it turns out that they had not read my own paper before they wrote their own story.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ68 Mr Cawsey:Ì The general principle was, basically, that, if governments go to the length of bringing in independent scientific advice, to then toss it out of the window is not good for the science community.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý I was not throwing the science advice out of the window. I was throwing out the piece that goes beyond the science advice. That conclusion goes beyond the science advice.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ69 Mr Cawsey:Ì If we try to be more positive, then, it is true to say that you will now subsequently to publishing your comments be discussing it with the ISG.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý I will be discussing it with the ISG. I would like to find out what further data the ISG have because I believe there is further data which, again, does not support the conclusion.ËÜjf12ÝÜcf3ÝMr Cawsey:Ì I feel I am starting to exhaust the patience of the Chairman if not yourself.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ70 Chairman:Ì Not at all. I think you have demonstrated the importance of something which this predecessor committee was constantly trying to assert; that is that if you are making policy you should in fact have an evidence base on which to make that policy. It does not necessarily follow that there could not be two policies as a result of looking at the same evidence. That is the point you were basically trying to make. I am trying to be friendly to everybody, hopefully.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý Thank you for that comment, but could I also leave you with this thought: we have a spreading disease that began in the peninsula of Devon and Cornwall. It has spread through Herefordshire, it has spread up into South Wales, and it is going to spread east and north across the country until we bring it under control. If we want to bring it under control, we will have to take more measures than simply removing cattle. Of course we have to remove cattle but I simply do not understand the argument that says, Stop there" because it will continue to spread.ËÜjf12ÝÜcf3ÝChairman:Ì I am sure we will return to that. Could we turn to avian flu.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ71 Mr Cawsey:Ì You spoke earlier about being driven by scientific evidence and I think you mentioned avian flu. Do you think the UK are doing enough now to contain and prevent further outbreaks of avian flu?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý And we are staying in this question with avian flu, not the human version of it?ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ72 Mr Cawsey:Ì Perhaps you could tell us something about both.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý In terms of avian flu, H5N1 is what we are all concerned about. The vector for distribution of the virus is very largely wild bird driven. The recent case in Norfolk was a case that looks as if it is wild bird driven because it matches wild birds in Germany that have been found with avian flu. One would have to conclude that it is highly likely that it was a wild bird arriving with the disease that spread it into local poultry. At the same time, wild bird surveillance continues in the UK and we have found no evidence for H5N1 in wild birds, so it might have been one wild bird that arrived and unfortunately brought the disease. There is no way we can stop wild birds arriving in the United Kingdom. We need a rapid response every time there is an outbreak in the UK. I think the response has been very well contained in each case. I think we have a good policy in place. Should this virus become an H5N1 human to human virus; in other words with a high infectivity rate between humans, then, wherever it happens in the world, within three months we would have a worldwide pandemic and the pandemic may well have the fatality rate of the 1918 so-called Spanish flu outbreak, which, as everyone knows killed more people than the First World War. We are planning for a fatality rate in Britain of around 300,000 over a three-month period and that three-month period occurring within three months of the first signal going up by the WHO that this has begun. The disruption to our economy and to other economies would be likely to be substantial. The disruption to life in Britain would be very substantial. I believe it is a low probability event that it becomes an H5N1 virus, but, nevertheless, because the outcome is so dramatic, the Government is treating it as our number one risk and so we have spent considerable time on the science of our defences. I have certainly spent a lot of time working with mainly the Department of Health officials on this, but also on exercises: exercises dealing with mortuaries and dealing with how we handle the fatality rate; exercises dealing with whether or not children should continue to go to schools; and what the consequences are for maintaining supermarkets so that we have normal service. All of those exercises are being conducted in government. Quite simply, on the scientific side we have examined in fine detail_and the Cabinet Office has recently published our analysis_the three levels of defence that we are looking at closely. One is stockpiling antivirals. The use of antivirals is likely to cut down on the fatality rate but antivirals are a medicine: they are only good as long as you are taking them. Therefore you have to use them carefully. They have to be applied very early on in exposure and the disease beginning for any individual, but, on the other hand, if you take them as a precaution, if there is an outbreak you may lose your stockpile of antivirals before people become ill. The use of antivirals themselves has to be very carefully governed. The second is preparing pre-pandemic vaccines. This is using the avian version or one of the clades of the avian version of the H5N1 virus as a means of generating a vaccine using the very modern development of adjuvants, so that the vaccine has a broader impact on the virus, so as the virus changes this vaccine may still have efficacy in defences for the people being vaccinated. This would be a question of preparing to apply pre-pandemic vaccine to the entire British population. The third level of defence is to place orders for a pandemic vaccine. It is likely that the first wave of the pandemic would hit our shores before the pandemic vaccine itself had been developed, so we need those other two lines of defences, but a second wave may come along and, by that time, we would hope to have had the actual pandemic vaccine.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ73 Mr Cawsey:Ì Do you think we have got better at the work we need to do at looking at these sorts of diseases that may be coming our way; with blue tongue being the fairly obvious one that came this year? I met some horse owners this week who were telling me dire things about African horse disease which may be moving towards our shores. In your time in the job, have you found that we have improved our ability to prepare for these events?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý I think this is the area where we have improved our ability probably more than any other. For example, during the foot and mouth disease epidemic in 2001, COBR sort of stuttered into existence only a month after the epidemic began. For foot and mouth disease in 2007, COBR was called within a day of the outbreak. Several of us who had just gone on holiday were flown back in. I think that is exactly the right response. In other words, the entire government system is brought to bear on a problem early on. We stopped animal movements around the United Kingdom very quickly so all of the measures were taken to see that it was globally contained and that was successful.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ74 Dr Turner:Ì In your valedictory lecture to the Royal Society last week you said that science has the ability to address climate change effectively but of course there are many question marks as to whether that will happen. Clearly the political process has tremendous question marks surrounding it. Another question which I really want to get your view on is whether the technology relating to the science is there in sufficient quality and quantity to deploy any if the political will is there to do it.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý The answer to your question is that if we had acted rapidly after Kyoto 1997 and taken action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, I think we could have managed this scientifically and technologically by moving to low carbon technologies and that might have been the end of the story. It is too late for that now. We still need to mitigate. We need all of that aspect, as it were, but we are already flirting with dangerous climate change events. My worry is that it is going to get very difficult to manage the impacts from climate change around the world as we move forward in this century. I think the inertia in the political systems around the world_and perhaps it is not surprising_has left us now in a very difficult situation. This is the week of Bali, so it is very appropriate that we should be thinking: What are we expecting out of Bali?" My own thinking is that we really need to be aiming to keep our gross overall global emissions down to the level where we do not exceed 450 parts per million if we want to reduce the impacts that we are going to have to manage to their minimum. If we are going to get that, we need action even before 2012. It is good that the European Union is acting. It is good that Britain is acting, but the real action is required from China, the United States and other countries. We are almost bound to be disappointed by Bali. Bali is going to set up a process. It is talks about talks, if you like, and that process is to provide by 2012 a replacement of 1997 Kyoto. But, hang on: how much has 1997 Kyoto reduced emissions? A reality check would be: let us go beyond the process and ask what we have done to manage the problem? To date the record is very poor. We need a sea change in political understanding of what needs to be done. I have been travelling around the world as unofficial ambassador for the Prime Minister on this issue and I would have to say we need a big move in the position of Japan, the United States and China to see that we can begin to manage this problem. Politically, we still need considerably more science and technology can do".ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ75 Dr Turner:Ì But we already have increasing scientific evidence that even the difficult to achieve target of 60% by 2050 reduction in the Climate Change Bill is inadequate, and that the advance industrial nations like ourselves will need to achieve at least 80%. You have been criticised for sticking with the 60% target in public so far. Are you reviewing your position on that?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý I have been criticised by George Monbiot and his criticism has been picked up as if it was the Bible. Let me take this opportunity to say that the Government's policy has been 60% but in any presentation I have given on this_anyone who has heard me will verify this_I have always said, We have policies in place to reduce our emissions by 60% by 2050 but I expect that as international agreement comes into place we would need to turn that around into an 80% reduction." I think it is perfectly reasonable for the British Government to take a leadership position by announcing 60% reduction, but let us see the rest of the world come on board and then we turn this into an 80% reduction. More recently the Prime Minister has also indicated very clearly that we will need to move on to a 70% to 80% reduction, meaning, I believe, that if our partner nations come on board we will accept this greater responsibility.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ76 Dr Turner:Ì You support that position.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý I do. And always have done.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ77 Dr Turner:Ì I know. We have talked about this privately. I am also well aware that, while not necessarily a proponent or advocate of the role of nuclear power in moving to a low carbon economy, you nonetheless support the development of a new generation of nuclear power stations in the UK. Do you think that the scientific argument for that is compelling, especially given the timescale? They will not be making any contribution before 2020.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý The scientific argument is absolutely compelling. As we move to 2050 and we have this now more ambitious potential target of reducing by 80%, we will certainly not manage that without nuclear new build. I cannot see how we could manage that. Compare the position of Britain and France in terms of emissions of carbon dioxide per person per annum. For Britain it is 11 tonnes per person per annum and for France it is 6 tonnes per person per annum. What is the big difference between the two countries? It is the amount of electricity produced from nuclear. France is 80%, we are now down to 19%. That is the difference. Let us take the second argument_and to me this one is just as important as the first. We have enough plutonium and uranium stockpiled up in Cumbria as a result of reprocessing to provide all of our fuel needs with nuclear-fission power for at least 50 years. If we do not reprocess, it would fuel three one gigawatt power stations operating for 50 years_that is the uranium and plutonium. If, however, we convert the uranium and plutonium to MOX_in other words, set up a MOX manufacturing station_we not only remove plutonium from its condition that it can be used in nuclear weapons_you cannot unmix MOX and recreate plutonium for nuclear weapon use, so you remove that problem_but you also then generate waste from high-level activity plutonium and uranium, which means that we can manage that large stockpile. Not only do you get free fuel for at least 50 years but, if you reprocess, you could generate virtually all of our electricity requirements from existing fuel stocks in the UK for the next 50 years. You either treat the plutonium and uranium as waste, in which case it is going to cost billions of pounds to manage, or you treat it as a fuel, in which case you save billions of pounds and you generate relatively carbon-dioxide free energy. I do not think there is much argument against building new nuclear power stations.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ78 Dr Turner:Ì There is a residual concern, of which I am sure you will be well aware_and the technological case you make for it is pretty sound, although the timescale is a problem_and that is the potential for nuclear build and nuclear investment to displace renewables, so that, instead of having renewables and the nuclear contribution, there may not be an and" but to a degree an and/or", so we may not achieve the full contribution which renewables potentially can make. Would you agree that there is a potential conundrum there? What would you advise we do to avoid getting into that situation?ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý I would say that the Government is precisely avoiding the need for that situation. We have a renewables obligation on the grid and renewables do not include nuclear, and that obligation runs at the moment through to 2023. There is no question that the obligation to the utilities to place renewables on the grid exists out to 2023. That also is an obligation from the EU position of 20% renewables on the grid of all the EU countries by 2020. We have a guarantor for renewables coming on the grid. By the way, that is providing the public is accepting of the further generation of wind turbines around the UK, so we do have a planning problem there. Secondly, we are not going to manage this problem unless we look at it holistically. We need to look at transport; we need to look at the built environment; we need to look at generating combined heat and power systems; we need to look at micro-generation. I think we need every tool in the bag if we are going to manage a massive turnaround in our dependence on fossil fuels. There is no easy solution. To stay with nuclear for a second: one form of travel depends virtually entirely now on electricity. That is rail travel. If we can generate much of our electricity from nuclear, then we have a big part of our surface transport system which is non COÜcf6Ý2Ücf1Ý producing as well. I think there are some very real advantages in taking the nuclear new build situation to quite a high level, by which I would mean 30% to even 40% of maximum demand level. I would not go beyond that on the grid.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ79 Dr Turner:Ì One of the tools in the box is hopefully going to be marine energy, not just offshore wind but wave and tide at sea particularly, which is very slow to develop and to deploy. Also marine science and marine ecology is a very important part of the science of climate change. We have looked at that in the past and recently and decided it needs more support. Both of those things need a lot more support. Could you tell us of your involvement in these areas as Chief Scientific Officer, adviser to the Government, and whether you plan to work to promote these areas in you are new role as director or the institute.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý Thank you for that question. When I came into government, I set up a group to look at the current state of energy research in the UK. That was back in the year 2000. We discovered_no surprise now_that energy research in the UK had collapsed as a result of the privatisation process of the gas and electricity boards. Immediately we realised that we need to rejuvenate, re-energise the whole process of energy research in the UK. The outcome was that I formed the Energy Research Partnership, which continues, in which government members and all the players, such as the Carbon Trust, meet with the private sector to discuss how we need to tackle this very problem of generating low carbon energy sources and all the associated problems, carbon capture and storage and so on. The most successful outcome of the Energy Research Partnership_which, by the way is co-chaired between Paul Golby and myself, and Paul is the Chief Executive of E.ON UK_has been the establishment of the Energy Technologies Institute, which is a #1 billion venture. The person who is currently Technical Director at Rolls Royce is going to take over as Director of the Energy Technologies Institute. It is going to be initially established on a site at Loughborough University and by next summer this will be up and running. That institute is going to be market-facing. That is the point in having half of the funds coming from the private sector. They need to take these new energy technologies out to the market-place. For those small companies developing tidal energy, wave energy that you were referring to, the idea is to pick the best of them and pull that through to the market-place using the Energy Technologies Institute. Let me give my own view: tidal, very good; wave, very dilute. It is going to be quite difficult to generate a significant amount of electricity from wave. That is not to say we should not try.ËÜjf13ÝÜcf3ÝQ80 Chairman:Ì On that note, I am going to leave the rest. We could have gone on for some time, Sir David. Could I thank you for your forthright responses to the Committee this morning and wish you well with the institute at Oxford. Thank you again for your contributions to the Committee.ËÜjf14ÝÜcf2ÝÜcf4ÝProfessor Sir David King:Ücf1Ý Chairman, I am going to miss this Committee. It has been absolutely tremendous to work with it and the members of the Committee.ËÜjf90ÝÜjf22ÝÜte