Volume 11: Scientists after Southwood
3.
The Tyrrell Report
Development of the Report
Preparation for the second meeting
Consideration during the second meeting
Further development of the Report following the second meeting - discussion of priorities
Allocation of priorities
The research projects
Preparation for the second meeting
3.4 Dr Pickles sent Dr Tyrrell a draft research plan soon after the first meeting, which included everything on the existing CVL/NPU programme, everything suggested by the Southwood Working Party, and 'a few more [projects] for good measure'. At this stage a total of 44 possible research projects had been identified, to which Dr Pickles suggested adding codes to indicate which projects were either in progress, actively being planned, or merely proposed. 1
3.5 Dr Tyrrell suggested the 'research questions document' could be split into three categories: a statement of the role of the research being done; a summary of the questions to be asked in broad terms; and the third part along the lines of Dr Pickles's draft. He too suggested inserting an index, or code numbers, into the third part to indicate whether the work had been or was being done; or was proposed (with the related documents seen by the Committee being set out); or was one of the ideas that the Committee had come up with. Further, the questions in section 2 could be coded to indicate which research projects they related to. 2
Consideration during the second meeting
3.6 At its second meeting, the Committee considered the research questions and potential research programme as agreed by Dr Tyrrell and Dr Pickles beforehand. Dr Tyrrell suggested the document could form the basis of the final report, and that an introduction should stress that the number of questions identified by the Committee were far too numerous for them all to be answered, because of the shortage of skilled staff and facilities. Accordingly, the approach was to decide upon the most important ones. 3
3.7 The draft document was split into three sections:
- Section 1 discussed the role of the different sorts of research being done (as drafted by Dr Tyrrell);
- Section 2 covered in broad terms the questions that could be asked. At this stage, there were 17 questions with references to the studies that might be able to answer them (as drafted by Dr Tyrrell); and
- Section 3 set out the studies, with codes to indicate those already under active consideration and by whom (as drafted by Dr Pickles). At this stage, no attempt had been made to allocate priorities. 4
3.8 During the Committee's consideration, a number of comments and suggested amendments were made, with the result that the draft needed further expansion and recasting. 5
Further development of the Report following the second meeting - discussion of priorities
3.9 Dr Pickles presented a revised draft copy of the Report to Dr Tyrrell on 19 April 1989. The draft reflected the changes decided upon during the Committee's second meeting. The number of research questions had grown to 20, with sub-questions, and the research programmes now numbered 47. 6
3.10 Dr Pickles explained to Dr Tyrrell that she was having difficulty deciding the right format, owing to the lack of guidance the Committee had been given as to whose perspective was relevant when deciding priorities. For example, it was not clear whether the perspective of the sponsoring Departments, the relevant Research Council, or industry should receive particular attention. It was also difficult to balance work to protect animals against work which might have a remote chance of benefiting humans. She pointed out the importance of these issues given that the Committee would need to indicate how the priorities had been allocated.
3.11 Dr Tyrrell told the Inquiry that such issues were not formally resolved. He said that when considering projects, the Committee tended to focus mostly on the understanding of the epidemic and the risks to human beings. When allocating priorities, it did not use set or explicit criteria, but rather worked on a consensus basis. Accordingly, if the Committee agreed upon something, it might not be explained in logical and consecutive terms. 7
3.12 In her minute to Dr Metters of 2 May (see paragraph 3.2 above), Dr Pickles sought guidance on how priorities should be indicated. 8 Dr Metters replied that 'it would be helpful if the Committee could give an indication of priority and feasibility in the present state of knowledge'. He asked Dr Pickles to 'manoeuvre members' so that the report gave a clear indication of their views on priority. 9
The star ratings
3.13 The Committee drew up its star ratings as follows:
3.14 The Committee recommended that all projects rated ** or *** be funded urgently.
3.15 The day after the Committee's final meeting, Dr Pickles sent a 'clean version' of the Report to Dr Tyrrell to help him with preparation of the final version. The recommendations on research appeared with their star ratings for the first time, which reflected consensus reached during the final meeting. In this draft, 28 research projects were recommended, compared with 47 in the previous one. Some of the projects had been merged; Table 3.2 lists those projects that were omitted completely. Of the 28 remaining, 14 were listed as high priority, 5 medium priority, 3 low and 6 unclassified. 10
3.16 Dr Pickles circulated a further revised draft to Committee members on 24 May. It took into account redrafting of sections by Committee members subsequent to the third meeting. She suggested that if further significant changes were required, particularly to the priority ratings, another meeting might be necessary. 11
3.17 On 27 May 1989, Dr Kimberlin expressed some concern over the lack of explanation of the priorities. He reviewed the ratings given to each of the projects and suggested a number of changes, of which all but two were taken up in the final report. 12 He also suggested that they might like to include 'an explanation of why the final ratings have been set as they are'. 13
3.18 Dr Tyrrell conveyed these concerns to Dr Pickles, and explained that Dr Kimberlin was suggesting that the starring be explained by additional sentences after each section. Dr Tyrrell thought this might be very difficult to do well, and could substantially lengthen the text. Furthermore, another meeting would probably be required to sort the matter out. 14 As a result, this suggestion was not taken up.
3.19 The full schedule of research projects recommended by the Committee is set out in Table 3.1. The recommendations included all of the research areas identified by the Southwood Working Party bar the feeding of the scrapie agent to cattle.
Table 3.1: Tyrrell Committee propositions for research into spongiform encephalopathies
Table
3.2: Propositions
for research into TSEs omitted from final Report a
a
'Propositions omitted' refers to projects that appeared in the draft
considered during the Committee's final meeting, but which did not
appear in the final report
1 YB89/03.20/1.1
2 YB89/3.29/1.1
3 YB89/4.11/2.3-2.4
4 YB89/4.00/8.1-8.9
5 YB89/4.11/2.4-2.5
6 YB89/4.19/2.1-2.39
7 T6 (Tyrrell) pp. 113-14
8 YB89/5.2/1.1
9 YB89/5.4/1.1-1.2
10 YB89/5.9/3.1-3.25
11 YB89/05.24/1.1
12 Dr Kimberlin gave project B1.a - study of the clinical features in cases of BSE with particular emphasis on methods of early diagnosis - a one-star rating. It was rated between two and three stars in the final report. He gave project D1.e - effect of PrP on neuronal function and gene regulation - a one-star rating. It was given two stars in the final report. See Table 3.1 below for full details of the final priority ratings
13 YB89/5.27/1.1-1.3
14 YB89/6.2/1.1
© Crown Copyright 2000. Legal notice.
Any part of this report may be reproduced subject to acknowledgement.