Volume 11: Scientists after Southwood
4. The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC)
Role of SEAC
Initial expectations as to SEAC's role
SEAC's role in practice

Initial expectations as to SEAC's role

4.65 As noted in the above section on the 'Establishment of SEAC', both Departments initially envisaged that the new group would maintain an overview of research and provide, 'a continuing source of independent expert advice on policy'. ¹

4.66 A written statement was submitted to the Inquiry by members of SEAC. According to this, SEAC was expected primarily to:

. . . spend time going in depth into issues of diseases in various species and evaluate specialised work such as epidemic modelling or molecular biology. It would also receive data from the monitoring of disease in animals and in man and give its views. It turned out that in addition SEAC was expected to give rapid opinions on questions which concerned government and which arose with little or no advance notice. ²

4.67 Dr Tyrrell, in his oral evidence to the Inquiry, described the initial expectations of members of SEAC:

I do not think we were really expecting to say much which would go straight into the public realm, no. I think we were - the others can correct me if I am wrong - but we were more, sort of, to use the jargon, to be a back-room group. I mean, we were not even meant to be dealing with the practicalities of the science. We were not directing research programmes or analysing data. We were meant to be one step back from there, reviewing it in, we hoped, an academic and a judicious way, and passing our main findings on for those who had to deal with the real life issues which impinged. ³

4.68 The members of SEAC explained in oral evidence that the work required by virtue of their membership was far greater than they had expected. Dr Tyrrell stated:

I thought it was going to be a committee which met to provide an expert analysis of the background science, and advice on a few points. Of course, there were other things added to that and things changed quickly. The number of meetings, as the others have said, turned out to be much greater than we had expected . . . it did grow to be a substantial part of my life . . . If I had been trying to do my previous job, I think it would have been quite impossible. ⁴

4.69 Dr (later Professor) Will said:

. . . I do remember the original letter of invitation to serve on the original SEAC Committee, which I think said it would not be a very onerous task, and it would probably be meeting once or twice a year. It certainly did not turn out like that. I think there were quite a number of meetings, as you can see from the minutes, but I think it is also true that there was quite a lot of background reading in relation to many of the documents that we were sent prior to the meetings, and there was reading the minutes subsequently. So I think the time that was spent on SEAC was slightly more than I had expected originally. ⁵

4.70 Dr William Watson stated: 'I perhaps anticipated spending two days a month on SEAC business.' ⁶ He then went on to say that two days was not enough and continued:

The background reading alone - having been in the field I wished to keep up with the science as it was developing - that rapidly expanded to make it a major task. ⁷

4.71 When Mr David Pepper discussed his expectations when he was appointed to SEAC, he said:

I needed to consult my partners [in veterinary practice]. I consulted them on the basis of three or four meetings a year, and assumed that is what it would be. As it turned out, the commitment was a lot more than that. The amount of paperwork to read was impressive, and the number of meetings were sometimes more frequent than that and sometimes less, though as the game hotted up, of course - and as you know from your records - the number of meetings and frequency increased. Therefore it has been a considerably greater commitment than I originally imagined or originally envisaged for the future. ⁸

4.72 Professor Fred Brown commented that:

I did not consider hours or anything like that, or days or whatever, I just thought that I would try to help where I could. ⁹

4.73 On the likely number of SEAC meetings per year, Dr Painter stated:

But it was at least an order of magnitude greater than the four meetings a year, I was led to believe. ¹⁰

4.74 Sir John Pattison also observed in oral evidence to the Inquiry that:

It was described as a committee which met perhaps three or four times a year to discuss mainly research findings that were published in the literature, or which were directly commissioned research. I felt that I could just about cope with that additional workload. ¹¹

4.75 However, he added that this prediction was in fact not correct 'by a very long way'. ¹²

4.76 A minute from Mr Lowson on 27 February 1990 records a meeting with Dr Pickles at which several topics for discussion with Dr Tyrrell were identified:

(i) Working methods. We look to the Committee to respond to specific requests for advice from the two Departments, though the Departments would obviously consider the Committee's own suggestions for work to be pursued. The Committee needs to sort out how best to organise itself to respond rapidly to requests for urgent advice, and to consider its readiness to give advice to the media when independent scientific views are sought. We need to agree with the Committee a method for keeping them abreast of developments.

. . .

(iii) Topics for advice. It is likely that the Committee will be asked to advise on what measures should be taken in advance of proof of vertical transmission of BSE. That apart, the Committee might be asked for a view on whether it wanted to recommend any other areas which the Departments might ask it to consider. ¹³

4.77 The minute also referred to the need to take into account any developments since the Southwood and Tyrrell Reports. ¹⁴

4.78 Mr Keith Meldrum, Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO), felt it should be made clear to the new Committee 'that they are only required to advise . . . on the encephalopathies. We must ensure that they do not claim a right to be consulted before, for instance, we publish results relating to BSE'. ¹⁵

4.79 In early discussions with Department officials, Dr Tyrrell had indicated that he expected the new Committee to play an active role in the coordination of relevant research, including analysis of the activities of the various research bodies (such as the MRC and AFRC) and input into the structuring of their research programmes. ¹⁶ He had also indicated that the draft agenda for the first meeting should lay maximum emphasis on the Committee's role in overseeing relevant research and giving advice only on the basis of such results of research work as were known to them. ¹⁷

4.80 On 6 April 1990, Dr Pickles wrote to Mr Lowson, offering comments on the agenda for the first SEAC meeting. She noted: 'We must make sure committee members feel they can raise on the agenda items of concern to them'. Dr Pickles also considered that the agenda should invite the Committee to consider whether 'any other new information alters the perception about animal or human health risks as given in the Southwood Report'. Further, that future agenda items should include 'a timetable of expected research results and a review of the international situation'. ¹⁸

4.81 At the first meeting on 1 May 1990, SEAC agreed that:

It was not expected that the committee would be issuing formal reports, although there may be occasions when advice to the Departments might be made public, say by quotation in press releases. Whilst individual members of the committee might be asked by MAFF/DH to be able to give advice on behalf of the group, say when needed urgently in the face of press enquiries, it was felt all members should have the opportunity to make an input, and at the very least the Chairman should be involved. The exception was when members could be asked as individual experts to grant applications for the Ministry/Department. If approached direct, members were free to speak to the media and, with permission, refer specific questions on to fellow members. ¹⁹

4.82 At SEAC's third meeting on 13 June 1990, a paper setting out the following approach to offering advice was agreed:

The Committee was created to advise MAFF and DOH on matters related to Spongiform Encephalopathies. All the advice which it produces will, therefore, go to both Departments in the first instance. There is no set format for such advice, but the assumption must be that all of it will be made publicly available in one way or another. It is up to the Departments to decide how this should be done, but will naturally take account of the Committee's views on the best way.

The minutes of meetings are not intended as part of the Committee's advice to the Departments, although the Departments see them and may want to take account of views reflected in them. ²⁰

4.83 The minutes of the meeting recorded SEAC's own view on the limitations of its advice:

It was recognised that its [the Committee's] job was to assess scientific data and opinions as objectively as possible, then to set down judgements on these in writing. It was important to communicate the message that science was not absolute and it was for policy-makers to decide what measures to adopt; what action might be appropriate depended not just on what the science indicated but also on what the policy objective was. ²¹

SEAC's role in practice

4.84 SEAC's statement to the Inquiry explains that as new scientific findings emerged, SEAC would 'assess and interpret them but we had no power to commission research though we could suggest what needed to be done and comment on proposals'. ²² It added:

We certainly were not experts in 'selling' the need for new measures to the general public and interest groups; that was the business of the administrators, elected members of parliament and ministers. Our job was to advise on science, and that was hard enough.

4.85 Members of SEAC initially sought to resist requests to provide policy advice. At the fourth SEAC meeting on 2 July 1990, in the context of a discussion on a draft SEAC paper, 'The Control of BSE in Cattle' (explaining the scientific background to the Committee's decision on breeding from offspring), it was noted:

. . . the objective in this and other cases was to produce 'opinions' which set out clearly what was implied by scientific knowledge. It was for others to decide what policy decision should flow from this. These 'opinions' could be backed up by more detailed notes setting out their scientific basis. ²³

4.86 SEAC's reluctance to advise on policy appears from a minute from Mr Lowson to Mrs Attridge on 4 July 1990:

The group has not yet been able to establish a crisp and businesslike way of working; the production of documents and advice is cumbersome and as a result inadequate attention has been paid to some issues. The Committee (and particularly the Chairman) obviously feel uncomfortable about offering firm advice on specific measures and from now on may well try to avoid doing so, preferring to describe the scientific situation and explicitly leaving the policy decisions to Ministers. It was only with some difficulty, for example, that they reached a clearer conclusion in writing on the issue of the removal of head meat than that contact between meat and brain or spinal cord should if possible be avoided.

Discussion is not well structured and this is hardly likely to be improved if more members are added.

4.87 Mr Lowson also referred to the 'soured relations' between Committee members and CVL staff, because of the Committee's view of the CVL's epidemiological work as inadequate. ²⁴ He added that:

The Committee is very keen to involve outside experts in discussion of BSE epidemiology and of the molecular studies that they believe need to be undertaken . . . I think that this goes beyond what they were set up to do and if they go ahead we will need to be very careful about the status of any material which emerges from them. ²⁵

4.88 Mr Lowson commented in oral evidence to the Inquiry:

I think the committee at the start felt nervous, probably rightly, about saying in detail what official Government action should flow from their advice as scientists. It was for them, as they believed it, to express their scientific opinion and for the Government to do what they wanted to do in the light of that scientific opinion.

I think during 1990 the distinction did become quite blurred because, for example, of Mr Gummer's quite clear and explicit statements along the lines 'We ask SEAC what we should do and then we do it'. And that was not the way at the start SEAC would like to have seen their job. ²⁶

4.89 By the time of Professor Pattison's appointment as Chairman of SEAC in November 1995, SEAC's work and remit had evolved from the early days. His statement to the Inquiry outlined three categories:

Surveillance - Regular reports are received concerning the details of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in cattle and exotic ruminants in zoos, feline spongiform encephalopathy in domestic cats and captive big cats, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD).

Research - The Committee regularly received lists of relevant scientific publications (the monthly TSE research updates produced by MAFF). Members are circulated with photocopies of papers of particular interest. At each meeting the Committee is updated about the interim results of long-term experiments commissioned by MAFF. SEAC has from time to time been allowed to see pre-publication manuscripts containing important scientific data. The Committee continues to comment on any gaps in the TSE research programme although this remit has been shared with other groups in the funding Departments and Research Councils.

Operational Issues - SEAC is constantly asked for its advice on aspects of various procedures in agriculture, the production of human food, medicines and procedures and the disposal of waste. These items may be referred from Government Departments or agencies or commercial concerns. ²⁷

4.90 Mr Packer told us that, during his time as Permanent Secretary at MAFF, it was the expectation amongst the public and within the Government that any advice given by SEAC would include a recommendation as to any policy measures which should be adopted. ²⁸

4.91 Although it was not initially envisaged that SEAC's role would include the production of formal reports, two such reports were published: the 'Interim Report on Research' in 1992, ²⁹ which endorsed the measures in place since BSE was identified; and a second report entitled 'Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies: A Summary of Present Knowledge and Research' in September 1994, which stated as its objective, 'to summarise, in accessible language, what is now known about the transmissible spongiform encephalopathies'. ³⁰ Both reports were sent to the relevant Ministers, the libraries of both Houses of Parliament, and made available to the public. ³¹