Volume 2: Science
Part 2: Commissioning and funding of research, 1986-96
Funders
The Agricultural and Food Research Council (AFRC), 1986-94
The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), 1994-96
The Medical Research Council (MRC)
Summary

The Agricultural and Food Research Council (AFRC), 1986-94

6.51 The AFRC comprised a Council of appointed members and a scientific administrative staff headed by a Director-General. Its role was to support research in its field, by means of:

1. financial support (eg, to university departments); and
2. facilities (ie, laboratories and specialist research units),

and to develop and oversee research programmes. To do this, it supported a network of 'roughly 30' ¹ research centres and institutes, employing scientists based in them and in universities.

6.52 The Chairman and members ² of the AFRC were appointed by Ministers: most by the Secretary of State for Education and Science, ³ but four by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (generally, the Grade 2 Deputy Secretary for Land and Resources, the Chief Scientific Adviser, and the Chief Scientists for Agriculture & Horticulture and for Food were members), and two by the Secretary of State for Scotland. In addition, the Chief Veterinary Officer attended meetings as an Assessor. ⁴ The MRC was represented by an observer at the AFRC Council, an arrangement reciprocated on the MRC Council for the AFRC.

6.53 Professor Sir Thomas Blundell told the Inquiry that:

. . . all major decisions coming before the AFRC Council were influenced by MAFF. [Its] four representatives . . . were able to scrutinise and influence AFRC research policy and indeed did so quite frequently. ⁵

6.54 However, relations between the AFRC and MAFF could sometimes be tense. In 1991 Dr Peter Bunyan, then MAFF's Chief Scientific Adviser, was accused by the ABRC's Chairman of advocating that the Ministry 'wished to make the Councils creatures of MAFF', because he had expressed the view that the AFRC and the Natural Environment Research Council:

. . . were not using enough of their own funding to commission relevant basic science in order to underpin the specific applied research which. . . the Ministry required, in order to be sure of achieving the best value from its own R&D spend, including that on BSE. ⁶

6.55 Dr Bunyan told the Inquiry that this episode:

. . . did not contribute to good relations between the Ministry and the Research Councils, which were already under strain over the issue of the appointment of a BSE research co-ordinator ⁷ and the climate of financial constraint and change. ⁸

6.56 From the mid-1980s, the AFRC started to refocus its work, reflecting changed views on priorities. Professor Blundell said that:

. . . there was a general feeling in Mrs Thatcher's Government, and certainly those connected with the AFRC felt strongly that this was [the Government] view, that . . . there had been enough agricultural research . . . we had more food than we needed, and therefore the research needed to be refocused and the funding decreased. So although there is a formal independence of the Research Council, there was clearly a strong pressure from Government to [reorientate] . . . There was a general move from production-related research towards greater concerns for quality of food . . . [and] the environment. Underpinning that an increased emphasis towards basic science should have research which might not be immediately agricultural; in other words, in cell and molecular biology. ⁹

6.57 The AFRC also implemented significant changes to its organisation and its network of research units. These developments were prompted by three factors:

1. the 'Rothschild transfer', described above, of funding away from the AFRC itself to MAFF;
2. the Government's decision, also described above, to withdraw from involvement in near-market research; and
3. the Financial Management Initiative in Whitehall, ¹⁰ with its stress on clear objectives, targets, and lines of accountability.

6.58 Sir Dai Rees, at that time Secretary-elect of the Medical Research Council, told the Inquiry that in his view the AFRC was under pressure in the 1980s to switch its spending away from its research units towards universities, and hence there had been a need to rationalise the former. ¹¹

6.59 The Inquiry was also told that there was considerable uncertainty at this time about the AFRC's role and focus. Professor Blundell said that:

The pressures from Government were in many ways reflected by the large presence of MAFF on the Research Council, which always caused some problems as to what our proper relationship should be as a council with an independent charter . . . We set out strategic views . . . We commissioned research . . . In that sense, we were a customer. But the position was confused, because after the Rothschild transfer, a large amount of the research that had originally been within the [AFRC] was transferred to MAFF.

So, in a sense, the Research Council became the representative for the institutes, and carried a contractor role. So there was a great deal of confusion . . . [as to] whether we were effectively an independent Research Council with a charter, and were customers, or whether we were playing the role of contractor and responding to Government pressures, mainly through MAFF policy changes. ¹²

6.60 In 1985 the AFRC 'published a discussion paper on a long-term view of the Agricultural and Food Research Service' ¹³ and decided:

. . . following the principles of the Government's Financial Management Initiative, to introduce a less centralised organisation whereby, within a centrally-determined broad strategy and allocation of resources, Directors of Research will have greater control of the resources they deploy and will delegate more fully responsibilities within their own institutes . . .

. . . to aggregate the existing research stations into a smaller number of institutes, and give each new institute a defined remit that avoids unproductive overlap, in order to give an improved management structure and a more efficient use of resources. ¹⁴

The existing species- and commodity-based units became eight discipline-based institutes. ¹⁵ Between 1985 and 1990:

A staff of approximately 6,500 in the institutes was reduced to 3,500 with considerable re-orientation of scientific programmes and re-prioritisation. ¹⁶

6.61 One change was significant in the context of BSE: the amalgamation of four laboratories, including the Neuropathogenesis Unit (NPU), into a single Institute for Animal Disease Research (renamed the Institute for Animal Health, IAH, in 1988). The development of the NPU is described separately later in this chapter. A factor behind the reorganisation was the high administrative overhead cost of maintaining so many different sites. The need to reduce costs was an ever-present background to the work of the IAH and the NPU throughout the period with which the Inquiry is concerned.

6.62 Professor Biggs, Director of the IAH from its establishment until his retirement in 1988, told us:

There were severe reductions in the funds supporting animal disease research and desperate responses to adjust to this situation. ¹⁷

He added that:

. . . the funding then began to concentrate on zoonoses and welfare and anything that did not come under that umbrella was not supported as strongly. That was particularly a MAFF approach. ¹⁸

6.63 His successor, Professor Bourne, told us that because the IAH focused on animal disease pathogenesis, it moved into the area of applied research and found itself to some extent in competition with the CVL for MAFF funding. In his view, this stifled collaboration and the interchange of ideas. ¹⁹ Dr Bunyan, the Chief Scientific Adviser at MAFF from 1990 to 1995, noted a related tendency in 1991:

. . . for part of their [the Research Councils'] work to move closer to the market as they seek to widen their search for funds into the more commercial areas. ²⁰

6.64 The AFRC's involvement in the development of the TSE research programme and with the Consultative Committee on Research (the Tyrrell Committee) and the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) is described later in this chapter.

The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), 1994-96

6.65 The changing focus of the AFRC's work away from production-oriented research was reflected in 1994, when it was merged with parts of the Science and Engineering Research Council to form a new Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). This was part of a wider reorganisation of government science announced in a White Paper published during the previous year. ²¹

6.66 Like the other Research Councils at that time, the BBSRC was explicitly committed to working towards 'enhancing the United Kingdom's industrial competitiveness and quality of life', ²² and was:

. . . expected to develop close links with biologically based industries outside the medical and health and environmental fields, which will remain within the remits of the Medical Research Council and the Natural Environment Research Council. ²³

6.67 The BBSRC's maximum membership was reduced to 21 from the AFRC's maximum of 23. All appointments were to be made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. ²⁴ One member each was nominated by MAFF, DTI and the Scottish Office, while the others were intended to provide a balance between scientific disciplines, sectors (eg, farming, pharmaceuticals, food processing - a total of five members from 'industry') and the universities (six members). In his letter appointing the Chief Scientific Adviser of MAFF to the BBSRC, the Chancellor indicated that:

I would like all Council members, whatever their background or affiliation, to conduct themselves on Council as full members contributing corporately to the Council's overall mission, rather than seeing themselves as representatives of particular disciplines, sectors, institutions or organisations. ²⁵

The Medical Research Council (MRC)

6.68 The MRC was similar to the AFRC in that it comprised a Council of appointed members and a scientific administrative staff headed by a Secretary (from 1993, a Chief Executive). The Council determined its overall corporate strategy, the roles of its subordinate Strategy Committee and Boards, and the allocation of resources. Scientific strategy and policy were determined by the Strategy Committee, while up to five Boards ²⁶ reviewed its scientific portfolio, evaluated long-term research programmes, and assessed proposals for funding. ²⁷

6.69 During the BSE period, the DHSS (from 1988, DH) and the SHHD were represented on the MRC: DH by the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientist (from 1991, the Director of Research and Development) and SHHD by the Chief Medical Officer for Scotland. ²⁸ The Chief Scientist of SHHD attended as an Assessor. ²⁹ Between 1988 and 1992, the Director of the Public Health Laboratory Service, then Sir Joseph Smith, was also a member. From 1993, appointments were made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

6.70 The MRC employed its own research staff in a variety of institutes and units. With the AFRC, it funded the Neuropathogenesis Unit (see below). The number of units fell from 56 in 1985 to 48 in 1993. Most of the remainder of the MRC's income was spent on grants to universities (later, Higher Education Institutes) and their medical schools, and on training schemes. ³⁰

6.71 By far the greater part of the MRC's income was grant-in-aid; its share of the Science Vote allocated annually by Parliament. Other sources of income included DH and SHHD; other Research Councils; charitable income from collaborations with medical research charities and the MRC's own Private Fund portfolio; the European Union, World Health Organisation and other international sources; and collaborative agreements with industry. ³¹

6.72 The MRC's primary objective in 1986 was 'to advance knowledge that will improve the health of individuals in the community'. ³² By 1994, this was set out more explicitly:

To promote and support, by any means, high-quality basic, strategic and applied research and related postgraduate training in the biomedical and other sciences, with the aim of maintaining and improving human health.

In doing this, it was expected to 'meet the needs of users and beneficiaries (including the providers of health-care, and the biotechnology, food, health-care, medical instrumentation, pharmaceutical and other biomedical-related industries)' and hence to contribute to 'the economic competitiveness of the United Kingdom, and the quality of life,' and also:

To provide advice on, and disseminate knowledge and promote public understanding of, research in the biomedical sciences. ³³

6.73 The reversal of the Rothschild transfer described earlier in this chapter was reflected in the formal Concordat, also mentioned earlier, between the MRC and the Health Departments:

. . . to develop and maintain an effective partnership for the promotion, funding and management of medical research in the UK . . . jointly to address ways of meeting the research needs of the [Health Departments] and the NHS and to use their particular skills and experience to best effect in areas of overlapping responsibility. ³⁴

The 'overlapping responsibility' was in respect of applied research, including health services and applied clinical research. Basic medical research (biological or clinical) was for the MRC, while operational research and health-related surveillance was generally for the Health Departments. ³⁵

6.74 Hence, one aim of the Concordat was to ensure that the research activities of the MRC and the Health Departments were complementary, allowing each to focus on their own strengths (eg, DH concentrating on health service needs while the MRC addressed the exploitation of scientific opportunity), and thereby to achieve the best value for public money. Another aim was to ensure that the Health Departments' policies and priorities were informed by scientific advances and opportunities, and that their research needs were understood and addressed by the MRC. Finally, the Concordat sought to ensure that NHS and public health perspectives were understood and taken into account by the MRC in decisions on research funding, and that the needs of MRC research for NHS support were understood and addressed by DH. These objectives were pursued at annual 'stocktaking meetings' between the MRC and the Health Departments.

Summary

6.75 In summary, the main UK government funders of TSE-related research outside MAFF and DH were the AFRC (later the BBSRC) and the MRC.