Volume 11: Scientists after Southwood
4. The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC)
Research
Coordination

Coordination

4.637 As noted in the section on the establishment of SEAC (paragraphs 4.1-4.10, above), it was initially envisaged that SEAC would maintain an overview of the Government-funded research programme into BSE and CJD.

4.638 At the first SEAC meeting on 1 May 1990, Dr Pickles explained that it seemed likely that there would be one overall joint coordinating committee to oversee SE research sponsored by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and Agriculture and Food Research Council (AFRC) SE research. Cross-representation between SEAC and this committee would be important, but Dr Pickles said there was a place for SEAC to have an overview of the entire research programme. ¹ The minutes also recorded that the future work of the committee included further consideration of arrangements for oversight of research. ²

4.639 On 22 June 1990, the idea of appointing a research 'supremo' or 'task force' was raised at a meeting between Sir Donald Acheson and Mr Andrews. Sir Donald 'advocated very strongly' the idea of a task-force approach to BSE research. ³ Noting that 'Dr Tyrrell had been frustrated by the lack of progress on some parts of the BSE research programme', he referred to the success of the directed research programme into AIDS and proposed that a single director, with ministerial backing and possibly a single budget, could take on the role of coordinating the SE research effort between MAFF, the AFRC and MRC. Sir Donald believed that this would assist in making progress on crucial experiments by cutting through the red tape. Sir Donald and Mr Andrews agreed that MAFF would consider the matter before the issue was progressed any further. ⁴

4.640 Sir Donald Acheson's proposals were discussed at a follow-up meeting between Mr Andrews and other MAFF officials. The conclusion reached was that the proposal for a 'task force' was not appropriate, but that there was advantage in an individual (ie, 'supremo') who was not just a 'progress chaser', but someone who would ensure that work commissioned by MAFF was being carried out, and to see how this fitted in with work carried out by the MRC/AFRC. The 'supremo' would need to take account of work carried out by universities and abroad to see if any of this work needed to be duplicated by the Government. It was envisaged that the individual would report directly to Mr Andrews (as the person responsible for the proper use of research funds), who could then consult the AFRC and MRC on any problems. It was recognised that any new arrangements would not be effective without the prior agreement of the AFRC and MRC. ⁵ MAFF envisaged the coordinator being someone eminent in the field of animal health research, one possibility being Professor Biggs, formerly Director of the Institute for Animal Health.

4.641 On 5 July 1990, Mr Stephen Dorrell, the DH Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Commons), wrote to Mr Gummer proposing that their Departments jointly appoint 'an eminent research specialist enjoying both the confidence of the scientific community and at the same time of Ministers'. In view of the Research Councils' interest, Mr Dorrell felt this selection process must involve DES. He added that 'it will clearly be important to take David Tyrrell along with us in these arrangements'. ⁶

4.642 At a meeting between the MAFF and DH Permanent Secretaries on 27 July, it emerged that the MRC preferred a coordinator with a human health background and had proposed Sir James Gowans, their former Secretary. It was agreed that Mr Andrews would speak to Mr Caines, Permanent Secretary of the Department of Education and Science (DES), ⁷ 'to see whether MRC could be persuaded to accept Professor Biggs'. ⁸

4.643 Mr Andrews contacted Mr Caines. Having made enquiries, DES officials advised that there might be 'misunderstandings between the various parties about what is intended'. They had misgivings about the proposal, considering that 'with the emphasis on priorities for the use of resources it looks . . . very politically sensitive', and that they would have expected it to have been agreed by Ministers collectively, including Treasury Ministers. They advised that a written description should be prepared of what was proposed, which officials could discuss at a meeting. ⁹ When writing to Mr Caines on 10 August, Mr Andrews agreed that a meeting should be held 'to discuss the terms of reference for the individual and how he would fit in with other existing institutional arrangements'. ¹⁰

4.644 On 16 August 1990, a meeting was duly held between MAFF officials and representatives from DH, DES, MRC and AFRC, with Mrs Attridge of MAFF in the chair. It was agreed that the coordinator's role should be that of a collector of information but under no circumstances should he/she direct the research taking place. It was also agreed that he/she would provide feedback of information from SEAC to the research project leaders. Further, the coordinator's terms of reference and reporting arrangements would need to clarify his/her relationship with three Departments and two Research Councils. ¹¹

4.645 The DH representative, Mr Murray, briefed his medical colleagues, Dr Metters and Dr Pickles, saying that:

Mrs Attridge caused considerable upset on the part of the MRC, AFRC and DES when she showed some ignorance of the relationship between these bodies. This left MRC and AFRC with a suspicion they still retain that the BSE research supremo is a backdoor means of Central Government directly interfering with MRC/AFRC autonomy. They will therefore be very sensitive to any suggestion the new postholder will be 'directing' research, or making assessments of individual projects. ¹²

4.646 Dr Pickles subsequently concluded that:

The past history of bad feeling between the research councils over the NPU ¹³ will make research coordination a very difficult, if not impossible, task . . . It will take an exceptional individual who can smooth over the rivalries and tensions between the various factions. ¹⁴

4.647 In its own summary of the situation, the Advisory Board for the Research Councils noted: 'MAFF . . . wanted a coordinator who would be responsible for and report on a national coordinated programme of research to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.' ¹⁵

4.648 In a draft paper to Mr Andrews setting out thoughts on the possible method of working for such a coordinator, Mr Lowson suggested that it would not be necessary to establish formal relationships with each of the Government Departments and Research Councils; rather that the coordinator could attend the individual coordination committees of each organisation, and would likely be a member of SEAC. The lines of reporting would be to the MAFF Permanent Secretary and CMO. ¹⁶

4.649 However, at a meeting on 12 October, Mr Meldrum (the CVO) was concerned that such an appointment 'would result in too much coordination ¹⁷ - and also that:

. . . there would be pressure to appoint Professor Murray, a molecular biologist . . . If this post were created, it should be filled by a vet.

The note of the meeting records that Mr Meldrum 'argued that if coordination was required, this should be carried out by the Tyrrell Committee [ie, SEAC] which would be able to pull the various strands of the research together and give advice to Ministers'. ¹⁸

4.650 Mr Andrews was recorded as agreeing with the CVO that:

The responsibility for coordination should not pass out of the Ministry's control. If [SEAC] were to take the responsibility for overseeing research on BSE, it would need to have available to it information on the programmes being carried out. ¹⁹

4.651 It was agreed that Mr Andrews would raise the issue with Dr Tyrrell and that 'once [he] had spoken to Dr Tyrrell he would need to consider how to handle the Chief Medical Officer'. ²⁰

4.652 The note records that Mr Andrews consulted Dr Tyrrell on 15 October 1990, indicating that the job would involve keeping the total programme under review and ensuring that the available resources were used to best effect, and that the AFRC and MRC had their own coordination arrangements and it would be for SEAC to examine the work in hand and to say whether any changes were needed. Its role would be to advise the Departments, and through DES to advise the Research Councils - it would not have any executive functions. Mr Andrews hoped that the Research Councils would listen to its advice.

4.653 Dr Tyrrell's recorded response was that this was a difficult request for him to be presented with. Everything would depend on the remit that his Committee was given and how much time would be taken up in this role. He therefore wanted to be clear exactly what commitment would be involved and asked Mr Andrews to put down on paper and send to him the remit that he was being asked to take on. He would then consider how this remit could be carried out and would come back to the Mr Andrews on whether he thought he could put the proposal to his Committee.

4.654 On 16 October 1990, Dr Pickles minuted Sir Donald Acheson observing:

[I]t appears MAFF are backtracking and Andrews has been approaching Dr Tyrrell about his group dealing with research coordination. In view of the other pressing matters they have to deal with, this can not be realistic, although the research supremo could report to us (MAFF and DH) through the Tyrrell group. ²¹

4.655 Nevertheless, agreement was reached between MAFF and DH that it would in fact be appropriate for SEAC to take on this task. Sir Donald Acheson suggested two alterations to the terms of reference: first, that if SEAC were charged with monitoring BSE research the Committee must be able to survey the whole field; and second, 'That it should have a clear remit to report gaps, delays or other problems in the research programme direct to Ministers'. He noted that 'Without these provisos I fear we will continue to have difficulties'. ²² Mr Andrews agreed that there was a need for SEAC to report to Government Departments with one caveat. He believed that the Committee should not report direct to Ministers as much of its work in this area concerned management not policy, while MAFF Ministers had committed themselves to publish any advice they received directly from the Committee. ²³

4.656 On 16 January 1991, Sir Donald Acheson wrote to Sir Derek Andrews on this matter. He said:

I was unhappy with the way in which you proposed to leave the reporting arrangements for the Tyrrell Committee. In my view it is too open.

But I am sure that we would all agree that the important thing now is to give Dr Tyrrell and his colleagues their new remit. In the interests of getting this moving, I should be prepared to go along with the formula . . . you propose, on the clear understanding that in practice reports would come to me at the Department of Health as well, no doubt, as to MAFF, wherever else they may go. There are clear potential public health implications as we all know. ²⁴

4.657 On 5 February 1991, Sir Derek Andrews wrote to Dr Tyrrell about whether SEAC might maintain an overview of research into SEs. Sir Derek said that he was aware that coordination machinery had already been established to cover particular parts of the publicly funded programme, but noted that there was no single person or body in a position to take a view of the programme as a whole, and to offer advice both to sponsoring bodies and to researchers on possible improvements in the work that was already being done. He added that it might be appropriate to consider creating a research subgroup for this purpose and to seek participation from the MRC and AFRC. ²⁵ An attached description of the task noted:

The Research Councils and commissioning Departments need to have their attention drawn to any delays, gaps, overlaps, and deficiencies in the work for which they are responsible. They and researchers need guidance, subject to the requirements of confidentiality, about work in which they are not directly involved. ²⁶

4.658 Draft terms of reference also included in the description noted that this was to be achieved 'working with the existing coordinating machinery in MAFF/DoH and the Research Councils'. ²⁷

4.659 At the seventh meeting of SEAC on 7 March 1991, the Committee considered recent correspondence between Sir Derek Andrews and the Chairman. ²⁸ The minutes of the meeting record that Dr Tyrrell had made contact with the MRC and AFRC coordinators. Experience suggested that there was an important coordination job to be done; there was a danger that funding could be directed to institutes without sufficient expertise in the field and that important work could be given too low a priority because of an over-emphasis on molecular biology. However, the Committee did not have the resources to get a close first-hand view of the work being done by individual experimenters. A workable approach could consist of members of the Committee familiarising themselves with work at particular institutes; consultations involving Mr Ray Bradley, CVL BSE research coordinator and SEAC observer, Professor Jeffrey Almond of the School of Animal and Microbial Sciences, University of Reading, and Professor Sir Kenneth Murray of Edinburgh University; and occasional seminars (no more than one per year) involving a wider spread of workers in the field. ²⁹

4.660 Dr Tyrrell wrote back to Sir Derek Andrews on 27 March 1991. His letter included the following:

My Committee is certainly ready to play its part in this process; in fact I do not believe we could do our job of providing advice on the spongiform encephalopathies without maintaining an overview of research in the field. On the other hand it would not do anybody any good if we said that we would try to do more than we honestly felt we were able to do. We do not have the time or resources to do the kind of detailed monitoring that is reflected in places in the note that you sent me; indeed you may not feel that this is so important in view of the existing machinery that I mentioned above [that the funding bodies had set up their own co-ordinating machinery]. However, even though this would involve asking the Committee members to take on an additional burden, we believe that we could make a useful contribution to advising on the overall objective of drawing attention to delays, gaps, overlaps and deficiencies in the work that is being commissioned.

We would propose, if you agree, to do this as follows:

members of the Committee would establish contacts with the Research Institutes involved to discuss the work that they are doing in this field, and report to the Committee;

I and my colleagues would bring together the research coordinators periodically for discussion of the whole research programme on spongiform encephalopathies.

we would organise, in consultation with the coordinators of the government-funded programmes, large-scale seminars (no more often than once a year) to involve a wider group of workers in the field to consider research results and possible new initiatives. ³⁰

4.661 Sir John Caines, Permanent Secretary at the DES, wrote to Sir Derek Andrews explaining that his Department would not be able to agree to Dr Tyrrell's proposals until he was sure 'that the AFRC and MRC really were content'. ³¹ He also requested that, as the sponsor Department for the Research Councils, DES should receive papers routinely, and that his Secretary of State should be involved in any Ministerial decisions affecting the interests of the Research Councils. In reply, Sir Derek Andrews acceded to these latter requests, and confirmed that the SEAC secretariat would be asked to ensure that the relevant papers were forwarded. ³²

4.662 However, Professor Fred Brown, a member of SEAC, had perceived a lack of coordination of research on BSE. He wrote to MAFF, DH and Research Council officials in April 1991, expressing his concern:

Although we are kept fully informed about the epidemiology of BSE by Ray Bradley and the Weybridge group, we have no information regarding the research work being conducted on such important topics as diagnosis and the nature of the agent. Indeed it seems that the MRC and AFRC are hardly working together on the problem . . . ³³

4.663 He continued:

I found it particularly ludicrous that the MRC should set up a committee of eminent scientists whose unifying credential was their lack of knowledge of the disease of the causal agent.

Since BSE is so important, not only as an economic problem for British Agriculture and world trade in general, but also as a potential threat to human health, it is unthinkable that the two Councils cannot provide a united approach. There seems to me to be an urgent need for the appointment of a co-ordinator who really knows the field and commands respect, not only of national but also of international scientific opinion. ³⁴

4.664 The various replies to Professor Brown's criticism sought to point out the extent of cross-representation among the committees advising on scientific issues. Professor Sir Thomas Blundell of the AFRC set out the range of mechanisms that were already in place including coordination between MAFF and AFRC (such as the BSE R&D meetings) and between MRC and AFRC. ³⁵ In addition to MRC and MAFF representation on the BSEP Working Party, AFRC was represented on the MRC Coordinating Committee on Spongiform Encephalopathies. ³⁶ Also, an MRC assessor had been appointed to the AFRC Animals Research Committee. The Jarrett Working Group considering Science Budget research funding included two MAFF observers and also Dr Tyrrell and Professor Allen, a member of SEAC.

4.665 However, Sir Thomas Blundell pointed out that the AFRC was not represented on the Tyrrell (SEAC) Committee, although Professor John Bourne, Director of Institute of Animal Health (IAH) had been a member of the original Tyrrell Consultative Committee on Research. ³⁷ He believed this applied to IAH and CVL representatives as both were 'heavily involved as contractors' of research. However, the CVL had observer status on SEAC through Mr Bradley. Sir Thomas Blundell said in his statement to the Inquiry:

A continuing problem for the AFRC was its lack of membership of the Tyrrell Committee. I did write several times concerning the overall coordination and pointing out that the AFRC was at a disadvantage if my organisation had no representation on the Tyrrell Committee. ³⁸

4.666 Sir Donald Acheson replied to Professor Brown's concerns on 3 May 1991, indicating that he believed that an agreement had been reached on the role of SEAC on coordinating research, and that 'new encouragement has been given to Dr Tyrell to get his committee more actively involved in this area'. Sir Donald added that if the Committee was concerned by the lack of progress after a few months, he hoped it would make those concerns known to him. ³⁹

4.667 The minutes of the eighth meeting of SEAC on 10 May 1991 record that:

The Chairman had been in touch with the MRC and AFRC coordinators of work on SEs, who were willing for information to be exchanged with the Committee. Arrangements for consultation and coordination were becoming established; these fell short of the unified expert guidance that would exist with a directed programme but it would not be realistic to pursue such an approach. ⁴⁰

4.668 Some problems identified by the Committee regarding the existing research structure were:

1. the need for monoclonal antibodies for a number of different experiments;
2. the lack of facilities other than those at Edinburgh for processing CJD-infected material; and
3. further delays in the improvement of facilities at NPU (about which the Committee were particularly concerned, as it had been suggested that the whole range of slow virus work could be compromised).

4.669 The minutes also record that:

The Committee would be happy to invite observers from the Research Councils to participate in relevant discussions, as indeed had been intended from the start. They did not however want to see the permanent membership of the Committee expanded. ⁴¹

4.670 On 16 May 1991, Mr Lowson minuted Sir Derek Andrews advising on letters which had been received from the secretaries of MRC and AFRC. He stated:

What I think that both are saying in their different ways is that the Tyrrell Committee can do what they like but that the Councils are already satisfied with the way their spongiform encephalopathy work is organised at present. This may indicate that some problems of cooperation will arise in future. ⁴²

4.671 Professor Brown sent a number of replies to those who had responded to his letter of 5 April 1991. In his reply to Sir Donald Acheson he said, 'I am interested to learn that you seem to be re-assured that coordination will be achieved by the arrangements you describe. I am less optimistic but we shall see what transpires.' ⁴³ In his reply to Mr Meldrum he said, 'I think you are expecting too much if you think a group of people, meeting every two months or so, can coordinate the work on BSE'. ⁴⁴ To Dr Dai Rees, MRC Secretary, Professor Brown replied:

Frankly, however, I would be hard pressed to devise a more inefficient way for studying the problem and ensuring practical messages come out of the work. It seems to follow the traditional English method for studying a problem by first forming a committee of amateurs . . . Clearly my suggestion of a coordinator who knows the field does not come into your plans. I hope your strategy works. We shall see. ⁴⁵

4.672 At a subsequent meeting between the Departments and the AFRC and MRC, it was made clear by MAFF that the primary purpose of SEAC performing the role of overseeing research on SEs, was to ensure that it gave properly informed advice to MAFF and DoH on the policy issues related to public and animal health. However, it was envisaged that SEAC might also wish to form opinions about the balance of effort in the national programme and the progress being made, and advise on gaps or overlaps. Further:

It was only now that the Tyrrell Committee had emerging [sic] from the large number of policy issues which it had been asked to address and had time to look at the totality of the publicly funded programme. It was always envisaged that AFRC and MRC would be invited to serve as observers on the Committee when appropriate and that time was now approaching. ⁴⁶

4.673 However, the AFRC indicated that it had no formal way of providing information to the Committee and pressed for permanent observer status. ⁴⁷

4.674 The issue of permanent observer status for the Research Councils was raised again at the ninth SEAC meeting on 28 June 1991. It was noted that:

The Committee still wanted to keep attendance to meetings as restricted as was consistent with their need for information and was likely to continue to be asked to consider ad hoc policy questions, when the attendance of Council representatives might not be appropriate or productive from their point of view. It was agree that the Committee had no objection to representatives from the Councils participating by invitation in future meetings. ⁴⁸

4.675 At the same meeting, a draft paper was tabled which set out a possible framework for a report by the Committee on research into SEs, including a draft section by Dr Tyrrell. The second Interim Report was intended to summarise the Committee's conclusion on research that was now completed, in progress or commissioned. ⁴⁹

4.676 At its tenth meeting on 6 September 1991, SEAC discussed the second interim report. They felt that three questions needed to be addressed:

1. had the recommendations of the first interim report, ie, the Tyrrell Report, been implemented?
2. did the scientific evidence support the action being taken by the Government?
3. were there gaps in the scientific work or scope for better coordination?

4.677 SEAC's conclusion was that it should work on two papers, the first dealing with the implementation of the Tyrrell recommendations and the second being a thorough review of the scientific work being undertaken and what evidence was emerging. The second would be a longer term project than the first. ⁵⁰

4.678 However, the Research Councils remained sceptical of SEAC's ability to coordinate their affairs. At another meeting between the Councils and the Departments to discuss prevailing arrangements for coordinating TSE research, it was agreed that:

There was considerable scope for improving the contribution made by the Tyrrell Committee. It had been set up to advise on the implications of SE for public and animal health, and to review SE research activities. It was well placed to act as a forum in which to exchange information about research activities and to advise on practical issues such as the production of common reagents; but it was not competent to formulate the directions in which future research should go or to direct programmes of research;

It was doubtful whether the present arrangements, whereby Research Council assessors on the Tyrrell Committee were invited only for those items in which it was thought they had an interest, enabled them to play a full part in the Committee's work. For example they would not be well placed to advise on whether experiments were likely to have politically sensitive results if they had not been involved in the Committee's wider discussions. ⁵¹

4.679 On 7 October 1991, Dr Pickles wrote to Professor Michael Peckham, DH Chief Scientist, about a meeting attended on his behalf with representatives from the Research Councils. Dr Pickles noted that SEAC intended to undertake a detailed review of the science 'that the Research Councils, with good reason in my view, take objection to and which they argue the Tyrrell Committee lacks competence to conduct'. ⁵² Dr Pickles also reported on a proposal at the meeting for a couple of existing SEAC members to be dropped in favour of observers from the Research Councils.

4.680 On 14 October 1991, Dr Metters minuted Dr Pickles regarding her letter to Professor Peckham, noting that 'while coordination and communication may have improved, for [DH] and MAFF the main reason for proposing a research "supremo" remains'. Dr Metters also reminded Dr Pickles that it was 'for the policy colleagues, with MAFF, first to consider whether the Government should be considering a change to the remit of the Committee'. He added 'Within DH, discussions between all those involved with BSE are needed before one-off suggestions are made about possible changes to the Tyrrell Committee or its remit'. ⁵³

4.681 On 15 October 1991, Dr Pickles minuted Dr Ailsa Wight, Senior Medical Officer in the Health Aspects of the Environment and Food Medical Division (DH), to report on a MRC Committee meeting which she had attended. This was approximately the time of Dr Pickles ending her relationship with SEAC and moving into the Research and Development Division under Professor Peckham. She reported that:

It was quite clear from the type of detailed discussion of molecular biology that was taking place yesterday and the wealth of experimental studies now underway that it is not feasible (even were it sensible) for [SEAC] to attempt a detailed overview. I suggest we need to broach this fairly urgently with Dr Tyrrell before these views get fed back to him by another route. ⁵⁴

4.682 DH views on this were communicated to MAFF, who were in basic agreement. Mr Thomas Murray, DH SEAC secretary (who replaced Dr Pickles), minuted Dr Pickles on 25 October 1991 about recent discussion on research coordination. He commented:

I share your views about [SEAC] avoiding getting involved in a very detailed review/evaluation of the SE research programme. For the reasons you mentioned I think it is likely Dr Tyrrell will come to the same view . . . ⁵⁵

4.683 Dr Pickles's reply noted that the draft [MRC] Murray Committee report covered 'much of what [SEAC] had been hoping to do. This will make the task of dissuading Tyrrell from a detailed look at research that much easier'. ⁵⁶

4.684 The research 'supremo' alternative first suggested by Sir Donald Acheson appears to have enjoyed a brief revival of support within DH, but was not supported by MAFF officials. On 23 October 1991, Mr Murray informed Dr Pickles that:

In the improved research coordination situation we now have, and in the light of the MRC/AFRC sensitivities which have been exposed, I think the case for a 'supremo' is now less strong. If CMO and Professor Peckham want to revive the idea we need a hard look at the implications with MAFF colleagues. ⁵⁷

4.685 In reply, Dr Pickles referred to Dr Metters's minute of 14 October 1991 stating that the 'main reason' for a 'supremo' still remained. However, she agreed with Mr Murray that 'the difficulties are so great that I was assuming this idea was being gently dropped'. ⁵⁸

4.686 The matter was finally laid to rest at a DH/MAFF meeting on the research coordination of SEs in November 1991. The minutes of the meeting record:

The general feeling was that the 'supremo' idea as conceived by previous CMO should be left on one side to die a natural death.

Mr Murray felt that Dr Metters would probably allow the matter to drop as long as the Tyrrell Committee are clear that they advise on policy as opposed to research. ⁵⁹

4.687 On 19 November 1991, Mr Lowson suggested in a minute to the Permanent Secretary that SEAC be gently steered away from undertaking a detailed look into research, which might antagonise the Research Councils. A manuscript note on the minute records that Sir Derek agreed with this proposal. ⁶⁰

4.688 The outcome of this episode is perhaps best explained in minute dated 14 February 1992 from Dr Peter Bunyan, MAFF Chief Scientific Adviser and Head of ADAS Regional Organisations, to Dr Kenneth MacOwan, MAFF Scientific Liaison Officer responsible for Veterinary Science, Chief Scientists Group. Dr Bunyan stated:

We have agreed that informal input by AFRC and MRC to the Tyrrell Committee satisfied honour all round. The sensibilities of the Research Councils have thus been soothed and the Tyrrell Committee seems to be less inclined to dabble in areas in which it is ill-fitted. ⁶¹

4.689 Mr Lowson has stated in written evidence to the Inquiry that:

From the start a central concern of Dr Tyrrell was to ensure contacts between different research groups working in the field of SEs, and SEAC worked energetically to facilitate this. Part of my role was to facilitate these contacts, although I did not personally represent SEAC in contacts with research bodies. The difficult interdepartmental discussion which started with the CMO's proposal for an SE Research 'supremo' in June 1990 (a proposal welcomed by MAFF) and ended with agreement that SEAC should be asked to pay particular attention to advising on the delays, gaps, overlaps and difficulties in research programmes, illustrated the problems with this. My role in this process was, in consultation with DoH and DES (as the sponsor Department for Research Councils) to find an approach that satisfied all the research bodies' desire to be overseen only by somebody acceptable to themselves. This required extensive consultation with DoH and DES officials, and frequent advice to the Permanent Secretary, MAFF, on steps in the process. I think it was my idea that SEAC itself was the answer. In practice I found that cooperation between SEAC and the AFRC (the most important non-MAFF commissioning body) was very good, and it was easy to facilitate the kind of open discussion that SEAC wanted. ⁶²

4.690 Regarding the practical consequences of the decision to limit SEAC's coordination role, Dr Tyrrell observed in oral evidence to the Inquiry:

So the compromise was to say, well, whereas MRC and AFRC had come along when it seemed to be of interest, they really ought to come regularly to meetings, send a representative, so they knew actually what things were being said at SEAC. We ought to stimulate a workshop, because one of the great successes of the AIDS directed programme was an annual workshop, which pulled together all sorts of people in all sorts of areas. I thought that could be valuable for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in general. We messed about a bit, but in the end one was set up, and, of course, the special funds went to the MRC and the AFRC and Professor Almond chaired the group which looked after the award of grants. So the sort of jobs which could have been done by a co-ordinator were rearranged and, in my view, most of them were done. What we were left with doing was following on the work which was more directly involved with BSE and with the problem of its spreading to man, which was ample. I mean, there was so much to do there that we would not have done it so well if we had been distracted in looking into basic science. ⁶³

Discussion on research coordination

4.691 The Tyrrell Report had suggested that 'a standing mechanism' might be needed to oversee the 'cooperation and coordination of research'. ⁶⁴ When SEAC was set up to succeed the Tyrrell Committee, its terms of reference were widened to cover giving advice 'not only on research but on other aspects'. ⁶⁵ It was never envisaged, however, that SEAC would perform a proactive role in directing the coordination of research into BSE and CJD.

4.692 Sir Donald Acheson's concept of a research 'supremo' who would direct a task-force approach to BSE research was an ambitious one. The Research Councils were jealous of their autonomy and suspicious of any person or body that might purport to direct the research that they sponsored. MAFF were happy to have a coordinator, provided that he reported to their Minister and was under their control. Great diplomacy would have been required to get agreement to the supremo envisaged by Sir Donald. In the event the project foundered. Dr Pickles was right to observe that MAFF, who had originally supported the proposal, were backtracking. ⁶⁶

4.693 The role that MAFF suggested SEAC should play in overseeing research was over ambitious. SEAC recognised this. The role that Dr Tyrrell agreed to play was no more than that of facilitating interchange between those responsible for research.

4.694 SEAC's proposal to carry out 'a thorough review of scientific work being undertaken' disturbed the Research Councils, which received support from both DH and MAFF in their reaction that this was not a task that it was feasible to undertake. In the event SEAC's Interim Report on Research fell far short of an overview that aimed to identify gaps in research or scope for better coordination.

4.695 From their first meeting, members of SEAC found themselves under such pressure to provide advice on current issues in relation to BSE that they had little time for attempting to identify gaps in research. Both the merits of central coordination of research and gaps that persisted in BSE research are considered in vol. 2: Science.