Volume 3: The Early Years, 1986-88
2.
Dissemination of information
Dissemination of information - a chronology
June 1987
July 1987
August 1987
September 1987
The eve of the election
2.50 Parliament was dissolved on 18 May pending a General Election on 11 June.
2.51 On 1 June Mr Carl Johnson of the Wye VIC sought permission from Tolworth to speak about the early cases of BSE with which he had been concerned (see paragraph 1.34) at the BCVA meeting on 7 and 8 July. 1 The private vet involved, Mr Whitaker, a BCVA council member, intended to speak in any event. The secretary of the BCVA had accused MAFF of 'covering up', and Mr Johnson expressed the view that the situation had developed to the point at which BSE was not a secret any more and to refuse to speak would show the VI Service in a bad light. 2
2.52 On the same day Dr Watson suggested to Mr Rees that Ministers should be informed of BSE. 3 A submission from Mr Rees, dated 5 June, was addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Donald Thompson. This did not reach Mr Thompson until 15 June, after the Election. In the meantime the matter was dealt with by the Permanent Secretary at MAFF, Sir Michael Franklin. The submission was copied to the Deputy Secretary for Land and Resources at MAFF; the Director-General of ADAS; the MAFF Under Secretary responsible for the Animal Health Group; the ACVO Scotland; the Veterinary Adviser to the Welsh Office Agriculture Department (WOAD); and among senior colleagues at the CVL and elsewhere in MAFF. 4
2.53 By this stage, the disease had been detected in seven different herds. After summarising what was known about the disease and emphasising the limitations of this knowledge, Mr Rees advised:
There is no evidence that the bovine disorder is transmissible to humans. In the absence of such evidence, and in the absence also of the epidemiological knowledge or of a definitive test to establish the disorder's presence in a live host, it does not seem appropriate to impose restrictions on affected farms or on the sale of produce from cattle in affected herds. Irresponsible or ill-informed publicity is likely to be unhelpful since it might lead to hysterical demands for immediate, draconian government measures and could lead other countries to reject UK export of live cattle and bovine embryos and semen.
2.54 Mr Rees went on to report that there was pressure for discussion of the disease at a forthcoming meeting of the British Cattle Veterinary Association (BCVA) on 7 and 8 July. The BCVA had asked for a speaker from the VIS. Since there was bound to be publicity, Mr Rees thought it preferable to agree to provide both a speaker from the VIS and a representative from the CVL. Such a move would provide an opportunity to present a sober and measured appreciation of the situation. It would also make it harder for MAFF's critics to accuse the Ministry of a cover-up. The submission ended:
In view of our very uncertain knowledge of the disorder it does not seem appropriate at this stage for MAFF to issue general information other than, perhaps, of a technical nature in a publication such as the Veterinary Record. Officials will consider this possibility further and are also considering urgently what other official action in the realms of research, surveillance and veterinary control may be appropriate. A submission can then come forward to Ministers as soon as it is possible to make recommendations on these matters. The political implications of this development could be quite serious, particularly if not handled correctly, and I would welcome the opportunity of an early meeting with the Secretary to discuss the matter. 5
2.55 This note was not forwarded to the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland (DANI). Mr Cruickshank of MAFF explained to us that he believed Northern Ireland was aware of BSE before June 1987 because 'in practice there was rather more contact with Northern Ireland than there was with Scotland and Wales'. 6 Mr Ron Martin, Deputy CVO of Northern Ireland at that time, stated: 'In 1987 and 1988 we were aware that a new disease - BSE - had appeared in GB.' 7 The Permanent Secretary of DANI, Dr Bill Jack, told us:
I am afraid it is not possible to state exactly when we became aware of it. I am quite clear in my own mind I was aware of it in about 1987 . . . I must have got that from some of my veterinary colleagues because we had lots of veterinary difficulties in 1987 and 1988 and I was in almost daily, certainly weekly contact with them. 8
2.56 Meanwhile, on 2 June Dr Watson asked Mr Bradley to coordinate work on BSE within the CVL and to be the single point of contact for him on it. Thereafter Mr Bradley led what he described as 'the BSE Group', which comprised Mr Gerald Wells, Mr Mike Dawson, Mr Tony Scott, Mr John Wilesmith and Dr Vernan Wijeratne. 9
Meeting with the Permanent Secretary
2.57 In response to Mr Rees's note, on 10 June Sir Michael Franklin held a meeting with Dr Watson, Mr Cruickshank and Mr Rees. Mr Rees expressed concern that irresponsible, alarmist publicity could do much harm and might also jeopardize the export trade. It was decided that they should take the following steps:
- participate in the BCVA's meeting, providing a low-key, scientific speech;
- ensure that investigations were under way into the possibility of any link with human disorders;
- speak informally about BSE with Mr Ralph Baker of the National Farmers' Union before the BCVA meeting;
- contribute a short factual report to the Veterinary Record; and
- put forward a short note to Ministers explaining the position. 10
2.58 On the return of the Conservative Government on 11 June, Mr John MacGregor was appointed Minister of Agriculture and Mr John Gummer his Minister of State. Mr Thompson retained his post as Parliamentary Secretary.
Mr Wells's article for the Veterinary Record
2.59 In addition to the short paper for Vision, Mr Wells had been working on a paper for the Veterinary Record, the journal of the BVA, reporting on the clinical and pathological observations of the new disease. 11 Dr Watson had asked him to prepare this some months earlier. The first draft had been rejected by Mr Rees. Mr Wells told us he was not surprised at this, as it was an incomplete draft pending further work, particularly on the control brains. 12 In mid-June, Mr Wells circulated his second draft.
2.60 The first half of the article described the histopathology and the clinical symptoms. The second half of the article compared these to those of other TSEs, namely scrapie, chronic wasting disease and transmissible mink encephalopathy. Dr Peter Dawson minuted Dr Cawthorne inviting him to read the draft and advising him that Mr Rees would not sanction it beyond 'the line on page 3'. That line was drawn between the two halves of the article. 13
2.61 Mr Wells was about to go on leave. On Friday 12 June, before he left, he prepared a situation report for Mr Bradley. This began:
Short Communication for Veterinary Record approved by Director, CVL and cleared by CVO but with condition that all reference to Scrapie be deleted. This was unacceptable to myself, Mike Dawson and Tony Scott and when discussed with R H Kimberlin he also considered it scientifically incompetent to publish the information without discussing the findings in relation to the major disease (Scrapie) of the spongiform encephalopathy group. Dr Roberts agreed and Dr Watson sees both points of view. The issue was discussed between Dr Watson, Mike Dawson and myself and Dr Watson discussed it with Dr Peter Dawson who is supporting the CVO's viewpoint. I and Mike indicated that we could not and would not be party to modification of a scientific article for political purposes. Withdrawal of the paper, or delay in publication until such time as the inference of association with Scrapie is public, leaves the CVO without an immediate vehicle for scientific announcement of the disorder, except that is for the BCVA meeting. I will return to this point below. 14
2.62 Mr Wells then referred to certain developments which cast some doubt on the similarity of BSE to scrapie. In particular Dr Hugh Fraser of the NPU, who had considered a set of sections from one animal with BSE, had reservations about Mr Wells's conclusions.
Returning to the question of association with Scrapie and the concern which the CVO has regarding scientific statement however tentative of such an association. I propose on reflection of the information we have to date that it would indeed be prudent to reserve public comment at present. We need more time to assess the pathology especially against the background of possible common epidemiological denominators which may emerge. The SAF evidence must also be more substantial. Because the preliminary evidence suggesting similarity to the transmissible spongiform encephalopathies has been so convincing I think we need to take stock and attempt before any experimentation to test rigorously the hypothesis that it is similar to scrapie on pathological grounds.
The Veterinary Record short communication could then on my return be modified to accommodate discussion of other possible aetiologies or pathogeneses which might suggest a less biased view toward the transmissible spongiforms.
Co-authors have, as yet, not been sent final drafts of the Veterinary Record paper and nor will they have been told of any decision to hold for a while.
I suggest that, as I understand is normal practice with emerging diseases, a statement about the new disorder is made on monthly VIC reports as soon as possible. That way Vets in practice get to know, the flack will start, but the CVO can defend the current position by indicating that investigations are in progress and we are not ready to make a scientific statement at this time. In particular the epidemiological investigation must be completed and analysed before we go any further.
2.64 On 15 June Mr Bradley sent to Dr Shreeve a lengthy minute headed 'Publication Situation'. This began:
New information mainly acquired by Mr Wilesmith & Mr Wells plus a lengthy discussion with the latter on Sunday has led to a reappraisal of publication procedures to 'the world at large' via the Veterinary Record. This coupled with the decision of the CVO not to sanction publication of the article prepared by last Friday whilst reference to scrapie remained in it led to a meeting between the CVO & myself on Monday am 15/6/87 which was also attended by Mike Lamont representing the VIS.
The following points were made:
1. MAFF had a responsibility to inform the following of essential information pertaining to the discovery:
i. In the UK:
A MAFF diagnostic veterinarians (VIS, Lasswade, Pathology Depts)
B Researchers with expertise in slow infections
C Veterinary Practitioners. 15
2.65 The minute went on to refer to the controlled supply of information that was being made within the UK to researchers and veterinarians within and outside MAFF to meet these aims. It stated that wider publication to veterinarians elsewhere, which was to be achieved by the Veterinary Record, was to be delayed for an indefinite period, perhaps three to six weeks.
2.66 The minute summarised the 'new information' referred to. This consisted of certain pathological observations and epidemiological reports which cast some doubt on the conclusion that BSE was a TSE.
For these reasons (+ only having 1 SAF +ve) it might be prudent to delay publication until at least we have more epidemiological data and further opinion from Barlow. The CVO agrees and it overcomes the other reason not to publish (which is not acceptable to any researchers at CVL) namely restriction if scrapie is mentioned.
Caution has been exercised though some feel it is only delaying the inevitable, ie criticism for permitting exports to continue whilst we have knowledge of BSE (though not its transmissibility). This is however the responsibility of the CVO not research staff. A subsequent paper that may become acceptable could include a broader exposure to potential aetiologies including toxic, genetic, metabolic as well as transmissible. There is nothing to prevent publication of the present paper if the CVO changes his mind but because of the powerful export implications & his experience this is unlikely.
'Veterinary political reasons'
2.68 Mr Bradley minuted Mr Wells and the other authors of the paper to inform them that publication approval had not been forthcoming for 'veterinary political reasons'. 16 He continued:
Furthermore a number of new observations, facts and opinions obtained over the weekend have convinced Mr Wells, myself and others that it would be prudent to reserve public comment until further information is available. We have fully taken account of individuals' desire to publish but feel:
a) that it is better to be right than quick, and
b) the veterinary political viewpoints must be respected.
We too are keen to publish promptly and will seek to do this at an early opportunity and particularly when more epidemiological data currently being collected and analysed are available.
We have addressed the question of how we discharge the responsibilities of communications to VIOs and MAFF pathologists, research workers and practitioners and these have been or are being dealt with. It is intended that a verbal and written paper will be presented at the next BCVA meeting in July led by Carl Johnson. 17
2.69 A few days later, Mr J Gallagher, a Senior Veterinary Investigation Officer (SVIO) at the Starcross VIC in Devon, wrote to Dr Cawthorne at Tolworth enclosing a copy of a brief article he had proposed for the Veterinary Record. Following a telephone discussion with Dr Cawthorne, Mr Gallagher made the following points:
You will see that it is a perfectly innocuous note, merely implying that this condition with its characteristic clinical signs had been picked up by the VI Service network and was now being explored by specialists at our Central Laboratory. In an attempt to gain perspective on this condition we were asking for information on its possible frequency.
I feel very strongly, as do the other veterinary staff at this Centre, that now with the delay in the publication in The Record, some note must be put in The Record along these lines if we are to retain credibility as a service, charged with the important functions of disease surveillance and the gathering of intelligence on new diseases, rather than suffer the embarrassment of what appears to be a total suppression of all information on the subject, whilst both numbers of practitioners and farmers know full well of the occurrence of this condition. Our embarrassment will be considerable when, as will inevitably occur, some other source will claim the surveillance trophy by reporting and detailing the condition first. 18
2.70 The details described the clinical symptoms of the new disease, and included a reference to the pathology: 'examination of material by a Neuropathologist at CVL has shown an encephalopathy'. On the same day, Mr J Todd an SVIO at the Bristol VIC, wrote to Mr Bradley in relation to his minute advising the authors of the draft paper that publication approval would not be forthcoming. Mr Todd expressed his disappointment - while accepting Mr Bradley's view that it was 'better to be right than quick' - but added that he believed if the CVL was not quick, it would not be first. He continued:
Here is a golden opportunity for the Veterinary Investigation Service and CVL to demonstrate to the world that we are performing the function of identifying and investigating new conditions in farm livestock. It would be a great pity if we did not receive the recognition. It would be worse if another group appeared to be successfully carrying out our function. 19
2.71 Both Mr Gallagher's and Mr Todd's letter were passed on to Dr Peter Dawson (the ACVO) who consequently suggested publishing a slightly amended version of Mr Gallagher's letter in the monthly report section of the Veterinary Record (see paragraph 2.77 below). 20
2.72 From mid-June onwards, both formal and informal contacts between the NPU and the CVL were established. Before that time, the work of the two organisations had overlapped only slightly in the field of scrapie diagnosis, but now close collaboration was established in relation to the new BSE research programme. 21 Dr Kimberlin of the NPU met various members of the CVL on two occasions in June to discuss how the NPU could best assist the CVL. 22 In turn, Mr Wells visited the NPU in late July. 23
2.73 In late June, Dr Peter Dawson sent a copy of Dr Jeffrey's proposed paper on his nyala research (see paragraphs 2.15-2.18) to Mr Rees. Mr Rees discussed the paper with Dr Watson and replied to Dr Peter Dawson that Dr Watson would look at the draft and see if they could 'avoid comparing the condition directly with scrapie' until more was known about the aetiology of the disease. 24
2.74 Dr Watson discussed the paper with Mr Bradley. From this conversation, Mr Bradley understood that Mr Rees would not authorise publication of Dr Jeffrey's paper because of references to scrapie. 25
2.75 A brief reference to a scrapie-like disease in a nyala appeared in the CVO's Report Animal Health 1986, which was published in June 1987. 26 Mr Rees told us that, although he drafted the foreword, he did not draft the whole report and had not seen it when it was published. The CVL, VFS and VIS each drafted their own sections of the Report in December and January for publication the following June. 27
2.76 Also in June, Mr Wells gave a detailed briefing on BSE to Mr John Wilesmith, Head of the CVL's Epidemiology Department, to assist him in his investigations into the source of the new disease. 28
2.77 On 30 June 1987 in a minute to three SVIOs - Mr Hunter, Mr Spence and Mr Pill - Dr Cawthorne indicated that several SVIOs had expressed concern over what appeared to be the suppression of information on the subject of BSE and the effect this might have on the VIS's credibility as an organisation for the investigation of new and emerging diseases. The minute said that the following statement was expected to be published in the Veterinary Record as part of the VIS 'Monthly Summary (Cattle)' for April:
A previously unreported slowly progressive neurological disorder of adult cattle has recently been identified in four Friesian/Holstein herds from widely separate locations in England.
Clinical onset has invariably been between 4-6 years of age, is insidious, and characterised by hyperaesthesia and incoordination of gait. Apprehensive and aggressive behaviour become striking features. Signs worsen and necessitate slaughter within 1-6 months.
The nature of the disorder remains undetermined at this time. 29
2.78 This was the article that had been drafted by Mr Gallagher (see paragraph 2.69) save that the last line replaced his reference to an encephalopathy. This statement was published in the Veterinary Record of 11 July. 30
2.79 Dr Cawthorne confirmed that once the statement appeared, SVIOs would be free to include similar notes in their newsletters, drawing attention to the condition and seeking information on its possible occurrence. Information on past and future cases was to be passed on to Mr Bradley at the CVL. 31
2.80 Also 30 June 1987, Dr Cawthorne forwarded to Dr Peter Dawson a reference slip with the manuscript of Mr Johnson's proposed presentation on BSE at the BCVA meeting on 7 and 8 July. Dr Dawson replied on 1 July 1987. He wrote a note on the reference slip which read: 'Discussed deletions with C Johnson by phone 1/7/87'. 32 These deletions were as follows:
. . . which morphologically closely resembled those described originally by Merz and others (1981) and designated scrapie-associated fibrils . . .
The histological finding of a spongiform encephalopathy together with fibrils present on electron microscopy suggested that this syndrome may be similar to Scrapie in sheep or to a chronic wasting disease reported to occur in deer in the USA. 33
2.81 The month of July saw the first notification of BSE to new Ministers and limited publication of information relating to the disease.
BSE update
2.82 On 3 July Mr Bradley sent the CVL's BSE Group an update, which included advice about dissemination of information:
Though the 'Group' has retained information 'In Confidence' there is apparently quite a lot of knowledge known to individuals including scientific staff at CVL. This would seem to be inevitable as there are many routes to gather information. It is important however that the Group itself operates responsibly and particularly ensures that information to which it is privy is not communicated directly or indirectly outside the Group and particularly not to non-MAFF personnel. Some such approaches have been made. Knowledge outside the Group is variable, incomplete and likely to be inaccurate . . .
At present there are three levels of knowledge:
a) Knowledge - available to the 'Group'.
b) Specialist selected knowledge, available to MAFF pathologists, VIOs, AP Dept staff, and pathology and other support staff. The nature and depth vary with individuals needs.
c) Other knowledge. Gleaned by the grapevine.
It is anticipated that as events unfold and particularly after open discussion at the BCVA presentation on 8 July we may be able to make further information available. 35
The nyala paper
2.83 On 1 July Dr Jeffrey and Mr Wells received a memorandum from Mr Bradley in respect of the paper on the nyala. Copies were sent to Dr Watson, Dr Shreeve, and Dr Peter Dawson. It read:
SCRAPIE-LIKE DISORDER IN A NYALA
Paper for Veterinary Record - draft
A draft of this paper has been seen by the CVO and at the present time this is not authorised for publication even with the manuscript amendments already presented.
Publication authorisation for this as with others on the subject of spongiform encephalopathy will be by the CVO or delegated Heads of Service.
It is unlikely that approval will be given to publish if comparisons are made with scrapie or this is mentioned. It is anticipated that authors would not wish to publish without such mention or comparisons being made and I have so informed the Director. Authors have the choice of re-submitting in amended form for approval or of awaiting a more favourable time to publish. At present I cannot say when this will be.' 36
2.84 Dr Jeffrey told us that early in 1987 he had become aware of an embargo on references to scrapie in the context of BSE. However, he was not prepared to amend his paper to delete references to scrapie. 37 'It would have been negligent to try and publish that without a reference to scrapie'. The published article commented that the pathological findings warranted 'a provisional diagnosis of a scrapie-like disease'. 38
Submission to Ministers
2.85 On 7 July, a submission was sent by Mr John Suich of MAFF's Animal Health Division to Mr Donald Thompson and copied to Mr John MacGregor, Mr John Gummer and Baroness Trumpington, the Parliamentary Secretary (Lords); to Sir Michael Franklin, the Permanent Secretary; to Professor Ronald Bell, Director-General of ADAS; and to various officials at MAFF, the SVS, DAFS and WOAD. 39 This was the first notice that Ministers other than Mr Thompson had received about the new disease, and the advice given focused on public handling. 40
2.86 Mr Suich's covering minute said:
The attached submission informs Ministers of the discovery by the State Veterinary Service of a hitherto unknown disorder of cattle and recommends a careful approach to publicity aimed at providing information in a responsible fashion without so far as possible giving rise to an alarmist reaction. 41
2.87 The attached submission was essentially in the same form as Mr Rees's note dated 5 June (see paragraphs 2.52-2.54). On publicity it said:
In the meantime it will be important to ensure that any publicity is responsible since ill-informed publicity could lead to hysterical demands for immediate draconian Government measures. This in turn could alarm other countries and lead them to prohibit imports of cattle, semen and embryos from this country. 42
The subject is being discussed at the meeting of the British Cattle Veterinary Association on 7-8 July where the Ministry will be represented by a speaker for the Veterinary Investigation Service and a representative from the Central Veterinary Laboratory. This will provide an opportunity for the State Veterinary Service to present a sober and measured appreciation of the situation and the work which is being undertaken. A factual report of these proceedings will appear in the Veterinary Record. The Chief Veterinary Officer also plans to meet representatives of the National Cattle Breeders' Association and of the British Friesian Society, together with the Chairman of the National Farmers' Union's Animal Health and Welfare Committee to tell them about the disorder. Publications of further technical information by the State Veterinary Service will be considered in the light of development in our knowledge of the disorder.
Future Action
Ministers will be kept informed of the results of the investigations and studies which are currently under way. Recommendations will be made in the light of these results as to what further action may be considered appropriate. Meanwhile, with our current incomplete state of knowledge no action by MAFF is recommended beyond attempting to ensure that publicity is well-informed and not unduly alarmist. 43
2.89 The submission informed Ministers that there were nine confirmed cases in seven herds with circumstantial evidence of other past cases. 44
2.90 On 8 July Mr Johnson and Mr Whitaker made their presentation entitled 'A Neurological Syndrome' to the meeting of the BCVA. Mr Whitaker had prepared a paper and a series of slides for the meeting. Prior to the presentation he was asked to submit his paper to officials in MAFF who:
requested that I do not use the words 'Scrapie-like' which I had on one of my O.P. slides. They did not give a reason and after a lot of discussion, in deference to Carl [Johnson] who worked for MAFF, I agreed. 45
Mr Sibley, President of the BCVA, told us that relatively few veterinary surgeons attended the meeting. The proceedings were published by the BCVA but were not circulated for several months, as was the norm at the time. 46 Mr Bradley attended the meeting and reported that all questions were answered satisfactorily. 47
2.91 On 10 July Mr Bradley minuted senior CVL colleagues about the proposed article for the Veterinary Record. He explained that:
Following the BCVA Conference there is a need to communicate information to the Veterinary Profession promptly i.e. target to publish . . . in two weeks. The basis for the article should be that of the previous draft updated as necessary and taking a broader view of the potential aetiologies . . .
It will be necessary and appropriate to include reference to spongiform encephalopathies of other species (including sheep) but emphasis on them and in particular to ovine scrapie should be avoided. I think this can be done without difficulty. There will be opportunity to develop this line of communication as more information becomes available in the future. 48
2.92 Further developments in August concerning the proposed article are described below. In the meantime, on 11 July 1987 the statement based on Mr Gallagher's article was published in the Veterinary Record (see paragraphs 2.69-2.71 and 2.77-2.78).
Cattle breeders informed of BSE
2.93 On 13 July Mr Rees chaired a meeting of MAFF officials with the British Friesian Society, the British Holstein Society, the National Cattle Breeders' Association and the National Farmers' Union (NFU). Mr Rees outlined the history of BSE, including the symptoms of the disease and the action taken to date. It was emphasised that although BSE had 'parallels' in other animals, including sheep and humans, this was quite different from being the same disorder. The industry and NFU representatives indicated that they would probably alert senior colleagues to the matter but would not go beyond that stage. 49 Mr Rees made it clear that MAFF wanted to avoid a media reaction out of scale with the problem so far identified. He noted that export trade could be adversely affected by exaggerated press speculation. To a question of whether it was appropriate to make the disease notifiable the reply was given that it was not because 'it didn't meet the basic criteria for taking such action.' 50
2.94 At a tripartite UKASTA/BVA/ADAS meeting on 14 July 1987, Dr Watson outlined information currently available on the condition and confirmed that a scientific paper would be published shortly. 51 In a minute to BSE Group members dated 20 July, Mr Bradley noted that the meeting had been attended by the Director (Dr Watson), who had:
corrected the statement made in the minutes of the previous meeting that scrapie was occurring in cattle and gave sufficient information to correct any views in that direction.
It is the duty of all of us to correct such false statements or opinions which could be damaging to the cattle industry either directly or by informing senior staff as appropriate. The Veterinary Record article should assist in the process. 52
2.95 On 29 July Mr Rees submitted to the Parliamentary Secretary (Mr Thompson) a paper on BSE prepared by Dr Watson. This included the statement:
Some importing countries already take a serious view of scrapie in sheep and knowledge of the existence of BSE in GB could result in a ban on cattle exports to these countries. 53
2.96 Mr Rees's covering minute stated:
Eighteen farms are now under investigation and the volume of data being generated is considerable; the size of the 'team' has therefore been increased to expedite the work. The possible genetic pre-disposition to the condition and implications for the wide spread use of high quality bulls in AI [Artificial Insemination] could present a problem; we are therefore alerting, in confidence, the veterinary surgeons involved in AI - in the MMB [Milk Marketing Board] and associated organisations - of the lines of our enquiries. 54
Neuropathogenesis Unit confirms the similarity to scrapie
2.97 Mr Wells visited the NPU in late July and met Dr Kimberlin and Dr Fraser. Histopathology of several cases of BSE was considered. Dr Fraser's earlier doubts were dispelled and he concurred with Mr Wells's view that the pathology resembled that of transmissible encephalopathies, and more specifically, scrapie in sheep. 55
2.98 The VI Service 'Monthly Summary' for July referred to 'cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. This is a novel neurological disorder of adult cattle which has recently been recognised in Southern England.' 56
2.99 August marked a change in attitude to publication of references to similarities between BSE and scrapie. On 4 August Mr Wells wrote to Dr Watson enclosing a revised draft of the paper for the Veterinary Record. He referred to input from Drs Kimberlin and Fraser at the NPU and said:
Now with even more confidence than formerly we can draw similarities with scrapie of sheep and I feel that scientifically this cannot be avoided. I shall be interested in your views and, with your approval, those of the CVO. 58
2.100 On 5 August Dr Watson wrote to Mr Rees enclosing the revised draft. He advised that, following Mr Wells's visit to the NPU, Dr Hugh Fraser and Dr Richard Kimberlin were 'entirely convinced of the similarities to scrapie and it is really not possible to produce a scientific paper without reference to this.' 59 Mr Rees accepted this advice, but asked that a paragraph should be added to the article stating:
It should be emphasised that at the present the etiological basis of the disorder recognised in England remains unknown and no connection with encephalopathies in other species has been established. 60
2.101 Dr Watson minuted Mr Wells on 6 August asking him to send the article direct to the editor of the Veterinary Record 'referring to my discussion with him as this will expedite its publication'. 61
2.102 In response to a question from the Minister about international awareness of BSE, Mr Rees minuted Mr Donald Thompson that the CVL was planning to publish an article in the Veterinary Record 'in the next few weeks'. He commented that the Veterinary Record was a journal that was circulated in many countries and 'it would be surprising if the condition was not being discussed in international circles within the next few months'. 62
2.103 On 17 August the approved article was finally submitted to the Veterinary Record for publication. By 2 September, Mr Wells had still not received acknowledgment of this article and so contacted Ms Veronica Simmons, the subeditor. He was advised that even with prompt processing, it was likely to be two months before publication. 63 It was eventually published on 31 October.
2.104 In the meantime, Mr Wilesmith and Mr Bradley were proposing various studies aimed at increasing their knowledge of BSE. They were in favour of an experiment to test their hypothesis about transmissibility, followed by a breeding experiment. Analysis of breeding information could possibly determine whether genetics played any role in the pattern of the disease. They suggested that transmission studies in mice, rats, cattle and possibly mink should begin immediately. 64
2.105 On 4 September Mr Bradley advised Dr Watson that there was likely to be at least two months' delay in publishing Mr Wells's paper and suggested that Dr Watson might wish to intervene when Mr Edward Boden, editor of the Veterinary Record, returned. 66 In a Progress Report to Mr Donald Thompson on 16 September, Mr Rees included his expectation that the article would be published in 'the next week or so'. 67 On 21 September, Mr Bradley informed Dr Watson that the paper had been approved, with minor alterations. He did not know, however, when it would be appearing in the Veterinary Record but expected it to be soon. 68
2.106 In September, the farming newspapers began to show an interest in the subject. Dr Fraser recalled discussing BSE with Farmers Weekly but could not recollect the outcome of the conversation. 69
2.107 On 21 September a Protocol for suspect BSE cases was circulated by Gerald Wells to VI Service staff. This gave instructions on the action to be taken in respect of suspected cases of BSE, including the submission of samples to the Pathology Department of the CVL. 70
2.108 On 24 September Big Farm Weekly published a short article about BSE, entitled 'Mystery Disease'. 71
2.109 At the BVA Congress meeting in Warwick on 8-11 September, information about BSE was made available at the VI Service stand. 72 Mr Rees spoke about BSE to Mr Ralph Baker of the NFU. Mr Baker believed that the NFU should be distributing information on the problem to its county secretaries to enable them to be in a position to answer questions posed by farmers. He asked Mr Rees to provide some background information on BSE to assist with this. Mr Rees anticipated that the NFU would publish the information at the same time as the Veterinary Record paper was published. However, because of enquiries made by Big Farm Weekly and Harlech Television, he forwarded that information to the NFU before the publication of Mr Wells's article, under cover of a letter in which he said:
As you know our aim has been to present this finding in a sober way to prevent any unnecessary hysteria which could have a damaging effect on our exports if importing countries were to misunderstand the situation. 73
2.110 In the course of September the Epidemiology Department of the CVL began to issue weekly summaries of suspected BSE cases, identifying the number of these which were confirmed.
1 YB87/6.1/2.1
2 YB87/6.4/1.1
3 YB87/6.1/1.1
4 YB87/6.5/1.1; YB87/6.5/2.1-2.2
5 YB87/6.5/2.2
6 T32 p. 88
7 S278 Martin para. 11
8 T75 p. 48, incorporating revisions proposed in S252B Jack
9 YB87/6.3/1.1
10 S126 Rees para. 22; YB87/6.16/4.1
11 Co-authors were stated to be: A C Scott; C T Johnson; R F Gunning; R D Hancock; M Jeffrey; M Dawson; and R Bradley
12 S65 Wells para. 51
13 YB87/6.11/2.1-2.13
14 YB87/6.17/3.1
15 YB87/6.15/1.1
16 YB87/6.16/2.1
17 YB87/6.16/2.1
18 YB87/06.19/6.1
19 YB87/6.19/7.1
20 YB87/6.22/4.1
21 S65 Wells para. 29
22 S95 Kimberlin paras 3.3-3.5
23 YB87/8.4/1.1
24 YB87/06.24/5.1
25 YB87/6.29/3.1; YB87/7.1/2.1
26 M24 tab 2 p. 69
27 T98 p. 42
28 A full account of Mr Wilesmith's investigations and findings is given in Chapter 3 of this volume
29 YB87/6.30/2.1
30 Veterinary Record, vol.121, 11 July 1987, p. 29 ('Miscellaneous Conditions')
31 YB87/6.30/2.1
32 YB87/6.30/7.1; YB87/6.29/7.1-7.20
33 YB87/6.29/7.3-7.4
34 YB87/6.29/2.1
35 YB87/7.3/1.1-1.2
36 YB87/7.1/2.1
37 T25 pp. 32-3
38 Veterinary Pathology, vol. 25, 1988, p. 398
39 YB87/7.7/1.1
40 S302 MacGregor para. 9
41 YB87/7.7/1.1
42 YB87/7.7/1.3
43 YB87/7.7/1.3-1.4
44 YB87/7.7/1.2
45 S7 Whitaker para. 5
46 S421 Sibley para. 3
47 YB87/7.8/3.1
48 YB87/7.10/2.1
49 YB87/7.13/2.3
50 YB87/7.13/2.2
51 YB87/7.14/3.1
52 YB87/7.14/3.1; YB87/7.20/7.1-7.3
53 YB87/7.29/3.4-3.5
54 YB87/7.29/3.1
55 YB87/8.4/1.1
56 YB87/07.00/3.2
57 YB87/7.30/3.1; DM01 tab17 para 31
58 YB87/8.4/2.1
59 YB87/8.5/1.1
60 YB87/8.06/1.1
61 YB87/8.06/1.1
62 YB87/8.7/1.1
63 YB87/9.3/1.1
64 YB87/8.27/1.2-1.4
65 DM01 tab 17
66 YB87/9.4/1.1
67 YB87/9.16/1.1
68 YB87/9.21/1.1
69 S56 Fraser para. 7
70 YB87/10.6/1.1-1.3
71 YB87/9.24/2.1
72 YB87/10.12/4.1
73 YB87/9.30/1.1
© Crown Copyright 2000. Legal notice.
Any part of this report may be reproduced subject to acknowledgement.