Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280
- 299)
WEDNESDAY 1 APRIL 2009
PROFESSOR CHRIS
GASKELL, DAME
DEIRDRE HUTTON
AND PROFESSOR
SIR MICHAEL
RAWLINS
Q280 Dr Gibson: I have some experience
of lots of committees and the ability to keep dissidents off them
seems to be number two on the first agenda, because they can slow
things down, they have absolutely ultra views in terms of the
establishment's view about scientists. If we think about the Human
Embryology Authority, there were people on there who you would
describe as dissidents in terms of the forward movement of human
embryology research, and so on, but they always resisted putting
them on there, and that created in the public a kind of suspicion
of the organisation. Would you put a dissident on your committee,
or allow them to go forward, or encourage them so that you had
that view up there in lights, in front of the public, and you
would argue it out open openly, or would you, like happens in
a lot of arenas, try and keep them off? Do you agree that that
happens?
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
I think there is a temptation for it to happen because it is easier
to chair, but on the other hand, you have the broad views of a
range of interests, and the ACMD is a classic example of police
officers on the one hand, very senior police officers, judges
and people in voluntary organisations at the other extreme, and
it is very important for all those views to be heard. What the
ACMD has never done, and I think, on balance, it is right, it
has never had substance misusers as members of the committee as
service users, if you like. It has been suggested, but it has
never done that, and I think that is probably right.
Q281 Dr Gibson: Chris?
Professor Gaskell: I think it
is important to be open as a Council, as I said earlier, to inconvenient
views. We actually have debated this on the Council. The trouble
is one personalises this if one is not careful, but we do have
members on the committee who make a point of being contrary in
order to demonstrate the debate, and we have also had the debate
about how we represent uncomfortable views across the spectrum
of science to the Chief Scientific Adviser in the advice we give
him, because it is inappropriate and improper to provide a modified
and sanitised view of the scientific evidence. If there are strongly
held but sometimes minority opposing views, they need to be taken
into account as well as part of the advice you offer up. I like
to think that we are robust and that we do not shy away from inconvenient
truths or inconvenient views.
Q282 Mr Boswell: It is a bit like
a Civil Service submission, is it, to a minister. It does say,
this could be (a)—
Professor Gaskell: But you should
know ... ..
Q283 Mr Boswell: —but you should
know (b) and (c).
Professor Gaskell: Yes.
Q284 Chairman: You do not have any
dissidents on the Food Standards Agency?
Dame Deirdre Hutton: We cover
a broader range than embryology, for example, so it would be difficult
to pinpoint the particular dissident that would be appropriate
on the board, but I do, quite deliberately, as Chair, set out
to make sure that I have people who are difficult, because actually
it makes for a better debate and it challenges you and stops complacency.
However, in any subject that we are dealing with which is current,
you will almost certainly have working groups, or steering groups,
or whatever it is, set up. We will always make a point of including
"the opposition" on that, because it is much better
on the whole to have that debate in-house and hear it and deal
with it rather than to have people shouting over the barricades.
Q285 Mr Boswell: Can we go to the
question about how you determine the topics you are looking at
as independent advisory committees and who sets the terms of reference
for them? Perhaps I will ask that question first. If you start
with a clean piece of paper, how do you fill it? What topics do
you select, who marks your card as to what you should go on, and
so forth? I will perhaps start with Michael, if I may.
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
The issues come to the ACMD from mainly two sources. Ministers
specifically ask specific questions, and that is quite right and
proper, but also issues are raised through members, and they come
from various sources. For example, the police may raise issues
with us that are concerning them from their intelligence, and
so on and so forth, and then we may use that as the starting point
of a topic. It comes from a number of different sources but, broadly
speaking, either from ministers or from the council members themselves.
Professor Gaskell: Defra SAC is
interesting in that it is an evolving Council with an evolving
agenda, which I think is quite proper. When we were first established
we were there, I think, to support as well as challenge, and perhaps
the emphasis then was to support Howard Dalton as a relatively
new breed of CSA coming in from outside, coming in from academia
four days a week, carving out a niche with his own agenda. So,
for example, we helped him look at issues like quality assurance
of the science, how science moved through into policy—there
were a number of issues there that we took on on his behalf—but
the formal answer to the question is that the agenda is set for
the Council by a mixture of advice asked of us by the CSA (Chief
Scientific Advisor). Bovine tuberculosis would be an example where
we have offered him advice.
Q286 Mr Boswell: Just to be clear,
because you were talking about your reporting into the CSA, you
will not, as it were, get a ministerial fiat that says, "You
will look at this", you will get a CSA request that you should.
Professor Gaskell: We serve the
CSA, and that is, I think, a point worth re-emphasising because
it is not the model across the whole of government; but we will
also set our own agenda and sometimes it will be a mixture of
debate. For example, we have just done a significant piece of
work on the use of social research, social science, within Defra.
We were concerned, and we voiced these concerns, that Defra, in
part, was seriously lacking in the evidence base around social
science. Indeed, in some areas it was not even an intelligent
customer, it did not even know what questions to ask, let alone
how to use the evidence. So we forced that through and we have
made a number of recommendations which, I think, have been very
helpful to Defra. Recently an agenda that we are now picking up
on is Defra's handling of data and its use of modelling. That
is something that has emerged from the committee. We feel that
we want to look at that and we have told the CSA that we are going
to do it, and we will do it. Equally, I mentioned bovine TB, but
in the past he has requested evidence from us around epidemic
diseases in animals, around contingency planning, for example,
and that has been a sort of symbiotic relationship of challenge
and advice at the same time.
Q287 Chairman: In terms, for instance,
of the development of Pirbright and the need to have Level Four
facilities for large animals, was that something that you have
looked at?
Professor Gaskell: We have looked
at the way in which Defra has responded to the foot and mouth
outbreaks, and we have challenged them in that context, and as
part of our commentary on the management of the last outbreak,
we talked tangentially about the need for there to be the strongest
science base to inform the policy and the contingency plans. We
have not been directly drawn into the debate between Defra and
DIUS over the funding and the management of Pirbright and other
science facilities around epidemic diseases.
Q288 Chairman: Is that not rather
sad? Is that not something you should be doing?
Professor Gaskell: I have talked
to the CSA off-line, as it were, about it, and I think there is
a level of frustration, as there is quite widely, around the situation
we find ourselves in, and I think it is not unlikely that the
Science Advisory Council will be asking some questions of the
CSA at its next meeting.
Q289 Chairman: Dame Deirdre.
Dame Deirdre Hutton: We are just
in the process of drawing up our next strategic plan for 2010
to 2015, and one of the activities we have been engaged in, in
terms of food safety, is HACCP [1]
for the whole food chain), that is a hazard analysis starting,
effectively, with the pig and going to the sausage and working
out where the difficulties are. If I give you one example, we
have increasing levels of food-borne illness from campylobacter.
If you look back up the food chain, you can start to see where
that campylobacter emerges: it is a problem in poultry. So using
that type of tool, we are trying to be very rigorous about, hence,
where we put our resources going forward. So that is one approach.
We have instituted a new scientific committee, which we call the
General Advisory Committee on Science, which is chaired by Professor
Colin Blakemore, and one of the functions of that committee is
to do horizon scanning for us, both in the UK, but also in the
science community around the world, to give us an indication of
what might be important and what we should look at. Our chief
scientist does an annual research report on research. It is difficult
to pin down one way in which you decide what to do, but there
is quite a robust process for gathering in information and disseminating
it. We currently have out for consultation our strategic plan
for that 2010/2015 period, and I would be delighted to provide
you with a copy of it if you would find that helpful.
Q290 Mr Boswell: I think it would
be. Thank you. Probably in the interests of time, trying compress
this a bit, can I try some shorthand on you and see your response?
It seems to me from those three responses you are, in effect,
moving from a responsive mode collectively, where you are reacting
to ministerial or CSA requests, to one where you are striking
out a little more on your own. Is that something you see as being
proper and something you are resourced for? To put it another
way, slightly following Ian's line of thought, rather than dealing
with a dissident, if a minister was not happy with how it was
going, would he make sure you had not got the resources to do
the inquiry that you wanted to do? How do you feel about that?
Dame Deirdre Hutton: The first
important point to make is we are funded directly from the Treasury,
not through the Department of Health, which is a significant point.
I would say that the Food Standards Agency has always been fairly
proactive about the way in which it has chosen to do science.
All that has happened, in a sense, is that we are getting better
at the way we scope that out and the sources of information. It
would be fair to say that the agency, as well as food safety,
started working on nutrition some years ago, and that is a subject
which has become of increasing interest to government. So, certainly
in terms of our nutritional work going forward, we do co-operate
with the Department of Health, because it would be very stupid
if we were using public resources to do the same thing, but that
is process of collaboration and making sure that our agendas are
working alongside each other rather than being told what to do.
Professor Gaskell: I think you
are right in the sense that, as I said, we were evolving and that
we see our challenge role as very important, as, indeed, I have
to say, does Bob Watson. He is constantly challenging us to challenge
him, which is a good relationship to have. I do not think we would
ever see ourselves moving away from the mode of advice as well.
If CSA wants advice, then he should be able to ask for it and
we should be able to provide it or provide a mechanism for providing
him with independent advice, independent of the advice that he
may be getting from within the department. So he can do a sort
of, "Can you let me know that what I am hearing inside the
department is kosher, that it does stand up to external scrutiny?"
That, I think, is a very important facet for him. The issue about
resources is interesting. We are resourced from within the department.
There have been occasions where resource has been tight, but then
the department has been under the financial cosh anyway. That
is not a continuing problem. I also think that it is proper for
us to emphasise, and I think Defra accepts that there is enlightened
self-interest in this for them, that they have enlightened self-interest
in there being a perception that their science is good. That may
be in part because of a historical reputational baggage that they
had, but certainly I think Defra gains considerable pleasure from
the fact that on occasions its SAC is held up in government, and
it has been by the OST in reports on science within Defra, as
a model for useful work.
Q291 Mr Boswell: Sir Michael.
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
During the ten years I was Chairman of the ACMD there was never
an occasion where we were precluded from doing something because
of lack of resources.
Q292 Mr Boswell: That is very helpful.
Thank you. I am just trying to wrap this bit up. I will ask two
questions. One is evaluation of your impact. Do you have mechanisms
for doing that? The second one—perhaps it is related—is
the question of open meetings. Do they add value to your consideration
and, perhaps going on from that, have you thought or, indeed,
have you embarked on e-consultation about something ahead of considering
or invited people's submissions as to what you should be considering?
Dame Deirdre Hutton: In terms
of evaluation, it happens to us in quite a number of ways. The
agency is currently part of the Go Science Review and we are expecting
that report fairly soon. We are also evaluated by the Better Regulation
Executive in terms of our approach to regulation. We have also
just had a report produced from Consumer Focus, called Rating
Regulators. So there is quite a lot of evaluation that goes
on to us. We are also very keen on self-evaluation and we do an
awful lot of it. After every major food incident, for example,
we have an evaluation of how we did that. Do you want me to go
on to the second question?
Q293 Mr Boswell: If you can, quickly,
yes.
Dame Deirdre Hutton: On open meetings,
we are, I think, becoming increasingly transparent. For example,
our board meetings are web-streamed and we find now that people
are moving more to watching on the web than coming in person.
We do constantly try to think of different and better ways in
which we can do that. A further committee which we have established
is an advisory committee on consumer engagement, which is composed
of experts in that world, which is there particularly to tell
us smarter and better ways of talking to consumers, for example
electronically, we have set up citizens' juries, et cetera. So
we are always looking for new ways of communicating.
Professor Gaskell: In terms of
impact, as I mentioned before, we have reviewed the percentage
in crude terms of our recommendations that have been accepted,
and we are comfortable with that. There are some that have not,
and you might want to explore how we do or do not deal with that.
There are other things where I think we have got a more subjective,
though partly objective, interpretation of, impact. For example,
we looked at risk, we looked at Defra's assessment of risk within
its business and our report was well received and led to the establishment
of a Centre of Risk Excellence and Development with EPSRC. We
were glad of that in two contexts: that was a centre for risk,
as we had suggested, but also it was working between research
councils and Defra, which is always to be applauded. We have it
on our agenda later this year to more formally audit our effectiveness
by getting in external agents to assess and then report back to
us on our effectiveness. Social science: there is an increased
number of social scientists in Defra; I think we have made an
impact there. So I think we are making an impact, and that is
something you can test through others as well. Open meetings:
one of our four meetings each year is an open meeting. We have
had considerable discussion about this. It is an open meeting
in the context that the public are allowed to come and observe
the meeting. There are also question and answer sessions at the
end of the morning and at the end of the afternoon, but they do
not partake of the business itself. They have worked well in terms
of feedback. We have had very good feedback. We have had well
over 100 people and every time we have had an open meeting we
have had more people than the last time; so we are impressed by
the uptake of that and the feedback. Our last open meeting, if
I am very critical, I do not think went as well as it should.
We have reviewed that and we will work out why, but we do hold
those open meetings and we think they are valuable. We have not
had any e-discussions. It does raise the question (and we have
discussed this too) as to what is our role in Defra's promulgation
of its science? We do not see ourselves as part of Defra's science
PR machine; we see ourselves just advising and challenging. People
can come and watch us do that to get confidence in what we are
doing, we publish everything that we do on the Web, but we are
not there as part of the science PR machine for Defra.
Q294 Mr Boswell: Before Sir Michael's
response, perhaps I should say, I had the chance to come and sit
in as a silent observer of a NICE meeting with a number of colleagues
and found that very valuable and quite reassuring actually.
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
The Home Office has undertaken evaluations of the ACMD. That will
be the sort of tri-tarts(?). Of course, the much more important
thing is what has happened over the last, nearly 40 years since
the ACMD was established. On one view you could say it has been
a disaster because, by and large drug, drug consumption has risen
very substantially over the past 40 years—of course, it
might have been worse if it had not been there—but some
things have changed and it is tempting to think it happened as
a result of what the ACMD did. The consumption of cannabis fell
30% after we made it Class C. You might think that is a perverse
consequence, but actually there is quite a lot of evidence of
social sciences that actually reducing the classification stakes
made it much less attractive for young people. It is no longer
cool to smoke cannabis because now it is only a Class C drug.
It is perverse and it emphasises the dangers of thinking that
the classification system sends out a message. Anyway, that is
a bit of the by-the-by.
Q295 Chairman: I think we might come
back to that.
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins:
Open meetings have gone very well, and I think the Scientific
Advisory Committee meetings ought to be held in the default position,
they ought to be open, and there should be very special reasons
why they should be closed. The ACMD has part-closed meetings,
because ministers have asked that the decisions should be made
in closed meetings so that they are provided to ministers before
they get into the public domain. That is an argument you can have
with ministers, but that was their request. The open meetings
also have one other advantage in that it does allow you to use,
as it were, the presence of the media to get messages across.
For example, when we were discussing the use of anabolic steroids
at the ACMD, I used that occasion very clearly so that the media
could pick up the fact that anabolic steroids make the testes
atrophy, produce male enlargement of the breasts. It is not all
about getting a six-pack from anabolic steroids. I think one can
use it that way too and so it has another advantage.
Q296 Dr Harris: Just a quickie to
Professor Gaskell. You say you report to the departmental Chief
Scientific Adviser. Let us say, for some reason, I am sure it
would not happen in your case, you were traduced, attacked in
the media unfairly and they called you a nutter, or something,
because of your declared view on something, would you expect the
departmental Chief Scientific Adviser to issue something, assuming
he agreed, saying that he disagreed with the criticism and you
were a good chap and he had confidence in you, or would you be
not surprised if no-one said anything from the people who you
reported to?
Professor Gaskell: I think, if
that criticism arose as a result of a specific event, in other
words an interview one had done or something one had written,
it would depend on whether you had written that or said that in
your role as Chair of Defra Science Advisory Council or whether,
for example, as principal of the Royal Agricultural College, who
are the people who pay my daily rate.
Q297 Dr Harris: If you were attacked
by the press, wherever it had come from, in your role as a Defra
independent adviser.
Professor Gaskell: I would not
go bleating to the department saying, "I need your support
here." I think in my role I may well be saying something
that the CSA finds uncomfortable.
Q298 Dr Harris: I understand, but
if you are attacked by the media unfairly, do you think science
speaks volumes if no-one from the department to whom you report
comes to your aid and says, "Actually we still have full
confidence in Professor Gaskell even though The Daily Mail
has had a go"?
Professor Gaskell: Oh, The
Daily Mail. Yes; okay.
Q299 Dr Harris: When I said media,
I did not mean Nature, I meant The Daily Mail, a
non-peer reviewed paper?
Professor Gaskell: Yes, I think
if the views that I was expressing were those that were being
found useful and were being used and were in accord with the CSA's
thinking, I think I would expect support, yes. I would not go
desperately gasping for it, but, yes, I think one would expect,
if it fitted in with the—
1 Footnote by witness: Hazard Analysis and
Critical Control Point: food safety management system Back
|
