Letter dated 20 November 2007, from Professor
John Bourne CBE, Former Chairman of the Independent Group on Cattle
TB
RE: BADGERS
AND CATTLE
TB: EVIDENCE SESSION,
WEDNESDAY 24 OCTOBER
2007
I was asked by the Chairman how I reacted to
Lord Rooker's comments when our report came out. I replied that
I was not sure that the comments reported in the Farmers' Guardian
(29 June 2007) could be attributed to Lord Rooker.[1]
However, I have since been reliably informed that they were an
accurate transcription of tape-recorded comments. Similar comments
made in the House of Lords (26 July 2007) have also been brought
to my attention.
Since these comments from the Minister directly
relate to the conduct of the ISG and the output of the science
programme on which ISG advised Ministers, I would agree with the
Chairman of Efra that they warrant a response.
The essence of Lord Rooker's reported comments
was that "we" (Defra Ministers?) were not adequately
informed about the scientific findings presented in the report
and our interpretation of them; that scientific targets with respect
to "—the extent of TB in the badger population, how
badgers transmit TB to cattle, that we might have a vaccine"
had not been met. Lord Rooker also apparently criticised the ISG
for "deviating off into practical and financial issues, which
was not really what we were asked to deal with"; and also
"not providing cost benefits"!
I wish to make the following comments on the
particular issues raised by Lord Rooker:
1. Communication of scientific findings to
Ministers
This has been fully covered in our response
to Efra. Documents clearly demonstrate that emerging scientific
findings were shared and discussed with Defra officials and reported
to Ministers throughout the period of our work. Our final conclusions
were reported to Ministers almost four weeks before our report
was published. My letter to Mr Bradshaw (Ref TBX 284; 23 May 2007;
now released to Efra[2])
included the statement that "On the basis of a careful review
of all the available evidence, we conclude that badger culling
is unlikely to meaningfully contribute to the future control of
cattle TB in Britain" and "We therefore recommend that
future control strategies focus on cattle measures...". This
is consistent with advice presented to Ministers following the
release of data from proactively culled RBCT areas to Ministers
in late 2005.
It would appear that Lord Rooker was not informed
of these exchanges.
2. Route of Transmission
Understanding the route of transmission of disease
was not a specific objective of the trial, though it was recognized
it would be helpful particularly with respect to providing advice
on biosecurity aspects of disease control and was covered within
our wider recommendations to Defra on associated research.
It was identified as a key question in our first
report to Ministers (Bourne et al, 1998), albeit the last
of a long list of questions that would need to be addressed, in
Paragraph 1.8 (page 3) and with an appropriate caveat:
"A further key question, which would
be extremely difficult to answer, relates to the route of transmission:
if transmission of M. bovis from badgers to cattle occurs, is
it by—
— aerosol as a consequence of close
proximity, or
— contamination of pasture or other
cattle feed"
In our second report (paragraph 2.12 D, Bourne
et al, 1999), the last of a long list of questions asked,
"What are the possible and most probable routes of transmission
of infection to, within and between cattle herds—urine,
faeces, respiratory discharge?"
Direct transmission experiments could not be
conducted in badgers since no facilities were available for this
work. However studies, funded by Defra, were conducted in cattle.
One of these studies involving the contamination of food stuff
was uninformative, but others, particularly pathogenesis and pathology
studies in cattle and badgers, have provided useful evidence of
actual and likely transmission routes. These findings were routinely
reported to Defra by the scientists involved. They were also presented
and commented on in Bourne et al (2007) chapters 4, 7 and
Appendix I, and in Jenkins et al (in press). It is surprising
that Lord Rooker was not aware of these reported findings, which
were discussed in detail with Defra colleagues prior to publication.
3. Vaccine development
In its second report to Ministers (Bourne et
al, 1999) the ISG "recognized the need for effective
vaccines and strongly supports the implementation of the vaccine
research programme". We added "Although the vaccine
programme is being undertaken by leading experts in the field,
we would caution that success cannot be guaranteed, even in the
long term".
In a further report commissioned by Defra (Bourne
et al, 2003), we comment (paragraph 1.11) "The option
of the use of vaccines should in our view be retained—we
have identified areas of research that we believe are necessary
to ensure that progress towards taking a vaccine into the field
is optimised. It is, nonetheless, clear that there is no quick
fix or short cut that can be taken to speedily put in place a
vaccine control policy option. In the short, or even longer term,
alternative control options will need to be adopted in order to
achieve better control of the disease in cattle".
It is disingenuous to us and to scientists engaged
in these projects for Lord Rooker to have made such ill-informed
and unhelpful remarks.
4. Practical issues
"The RBCT was designed to test the effect
on the incidence of bovine TB of two different approaches to badger
culling, each of which represented a potential practical
policy option—two culling strategies implemented under field
conditions and in a way that could be extended into a viable policy"
(paragraph 1.4, Bourne et al, 2004).
The complex relationship between badger abundance
and cattle TB risks, as revealed by our work, means that the practical
issues—which determine how, where, when, and on what scale
badger culling might be conducted—are absolutely critical
in determining whether culling would reduce or increase the incidence
of cattle TB.
We consider it was not only a clear part of
our remit, but our responsibility, to comment and advise on a
number of culling approaches that might be considered to cull
badgers. I have no doubt that we would have been criticized had
we not done so.
5. Economics
The issue of "Would these badger control
strategies be cost effective?" (paragraph 1.6, Bourne et
al, 1998) was discussed by the ISG with MAFF (now Defra) before
the RBCT was launched. The outcome of this was the subsequent
appointment by the Minister of an agricultural economist to the
ISG, with a responsibility for economic matters. The need for
economic evaluation and the research requirements associated with
it were considered in detail in our second report to Ministers
(paragraph 7.7.1 and appendix D, Bourne et al, 1999). The
Group had a clear remit from Ministers to take into account an
economic assessment of "—possible sustainable TB control
policies". Lord Rooker, then Mr. Rooker, made this appointment.
Throughout our work we aimed "to present
Ministers with a range of scientifically-based policy options
which will be technically, environmentally, socially and economically
acceptable" (Bourne et al, 1998).
6. Extent of TB in the badger population
Evidence on the extent of TB in badgers in trial
areas and in the counties adjacent to trial areas is considered
in detail in several papers and summarised in the ISG final report
(Bourne et al, 2007) with detailed pathology characterised
in Jenkins et al (in press). As with other trials and associated
datasets, this was previously made available to Defra and it is
surprising that Lord Rooker was unaware of it.
In the light of the ISG's consistent practice
throughout of developing its work in close association with the
relevant officials and scientists in MAFF and Defra, and discussing
its findings with them, I find it inexplicable that Lord Rooker
could be reported as having made such a number of ill-informed,
and misleading, comments that reflect badly not only on the ISG
but also on other scientists engaged in work for Defra.
REFERENCES
Bourne, FJ, Cheeseman, CL, Colston, MJ, Donnelly,
CA, Eades, S, M, Fine, P, Grenfell, BT, Hewinson, RG, Houghton,
S, Morrison, WI, Pollock, JM, Simmons, AG, Woodroffe, R, and Young,
DB (2003) Development of vaccines for bovine tuberculosis: Report
of the ISG vaccine scoping sub-committee Defra http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/pdf/vsssc.pdf,
London.
Bourne, J, Donnelly, C, Cox, D, Gettinby, G, McInerney,
JP, Morrison, I, and Woodroffe, R (1998) Towards a sustainable
policy to control TB in cattle—A scientific initiative.
First Report of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London.
Bourne, J, Donnelly, CA, Cox, DR, Gettinby, G, McInerney,
JP, Morrison, WI, and Woodroffe, R (1999) An epidemiological investigation
into bovine tuberculosis—towards a sustainable policy to
control TB in cattle. Second Report of the Independent Scientific
Group on Cattle TB Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,
London.
Bourne, J, Donnelly, CA, Cox, DR, Gettinby, G, McInerney,
JP, Morrison, WI, and Woodroffe, R (2004) An epidemiological investigation
into bovine tuberculosis—towards a science-based control
strategy. Fourth Report of the Independent Scientific Group on
Cattle TB Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,
London.
Bourne, J, Donnelly, CA, Cox, DR, Gettinby, G, McInerney,
JP, Morrison, WI, and Woodroffe, R (2007) Bovine TB: the scientific
evidence Defra www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/isg/pdf/final—report.pdf,
London.
Jenkins, HE, Morrison, WI, Cox, DR, Donnelly, CA,
Johnston, WT, Bourne, FJ, Clifton-Hadley, RS, Gettinby, G, McInerney,
JP, Watkins, GH, and Woodroffe, R (in press) The prevalence, distribution
and severity of pathological lesions in badgers naturally infected
with Mycobacterium bovis. Epidemiology and Infection.
1 Farmers' Guardian, 29 June 2007, "Rooker
`open-minded' on badger cull despite report". Back
2
Not printed. Back
|
