Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280-299)
PROFESSOR JOHN
BEDDINGTON
5 NOVEMBER 2008
Q280 Dr Harris: Let us say Parliament
takes a view that something is legal, should go ahead, is happy
that it should go ahead, do you think that when it is a science
matter, in terms of the freedom of academics to research in a
certain area, there should be any other constraints placed on
scientists by government outside of statute essentially?
Professor Beddington: Yes, I think
there obviously should be controls on particular activity. Animal
welfare would be the obvious one that one would think about, and
that seems to me to be one that has proper legislation and controls
on. Beyond that, in terms of taking into account public opinion,
the other area one might argue about, some aspects of public opinion
are in the GM crops work where essentially a subset of the population
believes that GM crop research is inappropriate and is actually
breaking the law by interfering. How one deals with that seems
to me to be the normal processes of the law. The Government and
the public have decided that it is perfectly legitimate to do
research into genetically modified organisms, subject to appropriate
constraints, and those constraints are there. If a subset of the
public believes that that should not be the case and they break
the law in dealing with that, then it is a legal matter and not
a scientific matter.
Q281 Dr Harris: Where there is government
policy and Parliament does not seem to mind (and GM is a good
example) but there is a media storm, do you see it as part of
your role to be out there advocating Parliament and the Government
and the evidence-based position, or would you leave that to others?
Professor Beddington: It would
depend on the detail of the issue. For example, I have been asked
on a number of occasions in the media about GM crops, and my answer
has been (I think a made a similar answer to a question to the
committee) that it is a case by case thing. You have got to worry
about the environmental and health implications but in no way
should you actually ban using genetically modified organisms or
researching them.
Q282 Dr Harris: That is helpful but
it is about your role in the media. You just said, if you are
asked you give an answer, and we would expect that, but do you
see your role as proactively leaning to say, "I am happy
to discuss this if something comes up"?
Professor Beddington: Yes.
Q283 Dr Harris: So if Prince Charles
says something and the Today programme ring you and say,
"Will you come on and give you your view?"
Professor Beddington: Yes. In
that particular case, I do not know if you read—. I gave
an interview to The Independent.
Q284 Dr Harris: Yes, I have read
it.
Professor Beddington: I think
I was asked whether I agreed with Prince Charles on GM crops,
and I said not entirely.
Q285 Chairman: Not entirely.
Professor Beddington: Yes.
Q286 Dr Harris: Where do you agree
with him, since you raised it?
Professor Beddington: I think
my "not entirely" was said in the spirit of Evelyn Waugh's
Scoop when Lord Copper made a statement that was incorrect. His
editor would say "Up to a point, Lord Copper."
Q287 Dr Harris: So, basically, you
are willing to be proactive.
Professor Beddington: I am indeed.
Q288 Dr Harris: And call up the media
and say, "Look, I want to counter this"?
Professor Beddington: I think
it would depend on the circumstance and how important it is. Yes,
in principle, of course. I think the issue that I was very concerned
about, which I have had a relatively high media profile on, was
food security and bio-fuels and I have been active in soliciting
the media and saying, "Get this out". Taking it in that
form, GM, I was fairly proactive in suggesting to the Royal Society
that they had a study on how bio-technology can contribute to
the food security problem, which would include looking at GM organisms.
That is in hand and I will be involved in that and thinking about
that. The Foresight Study on Food is addressing these things generally,
but it is outside that also. Take the issue of the nuclear area.
Dr Harris: I will be back in a minute.
Q289 Mr Boswell: Two quick comments
on that. The first one is: do you recognise at all, and this is
not an oblique way of trying to criticise ministers or anyone
else, that there may be occasions where we as politicians may
have a certain view but you as Chief Scientific Adviser will have
a certain credibility and, even if our views are coincident, you
may be actually the person to establish those views. I think I
will settle on that one.
Professor Beddington: I am sorry?
Q290 Mr Boswell: I am just saying
that there may well be cases where governments, ministers of different
parties, are advised by their scientific advisers—certainly
I have had this experience in government—and there is a
perfectly coherent case which is accepted, but in terms of the
credibility of that case it may be better rehearsed or advanced
by yourself as CSA, or your colleagues, because of your scientific
background, than it would be by mere lay persons who might be
said to have a political or other interest in it?
Professor Beddington: I think
the clear case, I would expect, for the various chief scientific
advisers and myself is that we would be prepared to speak on any
of these issues and indicate what the evidence base is, indicate
if the evidence base is extremely strong in one direction or,
indeed, if there are uncertainties. I think that is part of the
job.
Q291 Mr Boswell: If there are issues,
there may be a different view which may not be particularly strongly
evidence-based, do you at least accept that there may be a case
for proper evaluation of that if no evidence is produced as part
of the analysis? I am thinking, for example, of issues about organic
farming which I have had some experience with in the past. I used
to say, even if there may be no particularly firm evidence, at
least it is worth putting some research effort into seeing whether
there is such evidence.
Professor Beddington: Yes, I think
the answer is if there is an important question on which scientific
evidence is required, subject to resource constraints, we should
actually look at it.
Q292 Dr Iddon: Finally, let us raise
a couple of those issues. I will raise one and Dr Harris will
raise the next one. Let me come to badgers, first of all, which
is a topic, I am sure, dear to your heart John. Professor David
King endorsed the culling of badgers as a means to eradicate bovine
TB and then was ignored by the Government more recently. Do you
think that has damaged the Chief Scientific Advisor's role to
government?
Professor Beddington: In terms
of the scientific evidence on badgers, there was a lot of publicity,
but in fact the report of the ISG Group and the report that David's
group produced are virtually identical in scientific content.
There is really no disagreement on science. It was characterised
that there was a major disagreement, but I do not think that in
terms of the science there was any real disagreement. Where there
was disagreement was, I think, between the economics and the practicalities,
which were not part of David King's terms of reference for his
study, but in terms of the science, it was the question I asked
very early in January when I came through, "Are there any
fundamental scientific disagreements between the group that Sir
David led and by the ISG Group?", and the answer was none.
Indeed, there is a report which I think was shared with the EFRA
Committee, which was a joint meeting between Sir David and the
ISG and a number of the ISG members. Essentially that report says:
"This is where we agree", and the areas of disagreement
were effectively either trivial or zero. So the science case is
very clear there. Twenty-twenty hindsight is very easy, but I
think that the EFRA Committee commented that they felt it would
have been better if Sir David's group had engaged earlier with
the ISG group; and I had this discussion and I think I would agree
with that. As I say, I would qualify that by saying twenty-twenty
hindsight is a wonderful thing but also I think the evidence base
is growing. New evidence accumulates and, I think, as that new
evidence accumulates, the Defra science team, under Bob Watson,
are looking at it. I am not involved at in that at the moment,
except in the sense that I talk to the Defra scientists who are
actually working in this area and monitor if there is any new
evidence coming up.
Q293 Dr Iddon: So you would be recommending
to the Government, "Cull the badger to control bovine TB"?
Professor Beddington: No, I think
I am saying this is the scientific evidence. This is the implication
of culling badgers. This is the effect on the peripheral areas.
The evidence indicates that there will be an increase in the herd
incidence on the peripheral areas, but the level of decline in
the incidence is this. I think that evidence is there. It is not
a recommendation to cull badgers. It says, if you cull them, this
is what is going to happen, and I think that is the appropriate
way to phrase it. I do not think it is appropriate for me to recommend
whether you cull or do not cull badgers. I should say, if you
do, this is what we believe the scientific evidence will tell
you will happen.
Q294 Dr Harris: Do you think the
NHS should spend money by homeopathic treatments?
Professor Beddington: Again, you
have been reading The Independent. I find homeopathy a
difficult thing. The question is: is there any scientific evidence
beyond the placebo effect that homeopathy works? I know of no
such evidence.
Q295 Dr Harris: I will come back
to my question. Do you think the NHS should be spending money
that could be spent on evidence-based treatments on homeopathy?
Professor Beddington: It depends
on the extent of the placebo effect, of course, does it not? It
is not just in terms of homeopathy, but, I suppose, less conventional
medicines. There does seem to be some evidence that they are effective.
In terms of homeopathy, as I have said, I see no evidence beyond
the placebo effect that it works, but, again, the point I would
answer is slightly similar, Dr Harris, to the way I answered Dr
Iddon. I can make that point to government and say that there
is no evidence that homeopathy works. The decision on whether
you wish to fund homeopathy as part of the National Health Service
has other factors which are beyond science.
Q296 Dr Harris: As you know, homeopathic
remedies have no molecules of the "active" ingredient
in them, yet you can pay quite a bit for this water; so why not
just give people, for the placebo effect, water free, tell them
its homeopathy and save the money for the NHS? It is a serious
point.
Professor Beddington: It is a
serious point but not a scientific one. I think this is more policy
than science, Dr Harris. I am quite firm with this. I see no scientific
evidence that homeopathy has an effect beyond the placebo effect.
The question that you ask is a reasonable one, but I think it
is possibly better posed to the Department of Health rather than
me.
Q297 Dr Harris: What about the issue
of the Department of Health insisting that the MHRA, which controls
drugs, accepts homeopathic provings as evidence for the labelling
of homeopathic medicines as medicines?
Professor Beddington: I would
say again, I think there is no evidence base for homeopathy, so
the implications are fairly clear, that there is no evidence base
to continue to use it.
Q298 Chairman: Why is not the Departmental
Scientific Adviser at the Department of Health saying that?
Professor Beddington: It is not
an issue I have discussed with Sally Davis. I am not aware whether
they have or have not said anything.
Q299 Dr Harris: You have got the
Science Review at the Department of Health?
Professor Beddington: Yes.
| 
