Volume 6: Human Health, 1989-96
9. Bovine eyeball dissection
Introduction
Overview of Education Departments: remit and players
Relations between the different groups of players in the Department
Key players in the bovine eyeballs story

9.1 In this section we look at the way the issue of advice on bovine eyeball dissection, in relation to risks from BSE, was handled by Education Departments in England, Scotland, Wales (and Northern Ireland). ¹ This episode is a self-contained part of the BSE story. Our main purpose in presenting it here is to illustrate the systems and processes in place for the development of advice on occupational risks in Government Departments, particularly those where occupational risks are only one of, and usually peripheral to, their core responsibilities. ² In particular, we look at the lessons to be learned in this regard and return to these in the conclusions of this section.

9.2 Before the emergence of BSE, dissection of bovine eyeballs for educational purposes was carried out in many schools and other places of learning. There was a possibility that schoolchildren might cut themselves while performing dissections, or that they might already have cuts on their hands. Once BSE emerged, did this practice carry with it a risk of transmission of the disease and, if so, how should that risk be addressed?

9.3 The Southwood Working Party's assessment of the risks of transmission of BSE from cattle to humans was that:

The greatest risk, in theory, would be from parenteral inoculation of material derived from bovine brain or lymphoid tissue. ³

9.4 Eyeballs are connected to the brain via the optic nerve. Although questions about their use in schools were raised within MAFF during the second half of 1989, they were not included in the ban on specified bovine offal (SBO) which came into force in November 1989, as described in Chapter 3 of this volume. ⁴ The SBO ban prohibited the use of certain parts of cattle carcasses for human food; as eyeballs were not used for human food, there was no need for them to be included in the ban.

9.5 Nevertheless, eyeballs posed a risk to humans as a result of their use for dissection purposes in schools, and it is this risk and the response to it that is the main focus of this chapter. To some extent it was illogical to question the use of bovine eyeballs for dissection purposes, while at the same time allowing them to be eaten. As we shall see in the account that follows, Mr Raymond Bradley (Head of Pathology, Central Veterinary Laboratory (CVL)) drew attention to this illogicality.

9.6 In March 1990, shortly after the SBO ban came into effect in Scotland, the Scottish Education Department (SED) issued guidance to Directors of Education in Scotland advising them to cease all eye dissections. These developments in Scotland prompted Dr Hilary Pickles (DH) to seek advice on the use of bovine eyeballs for dissection from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC).

9.7 In July 1990, SEAC advised that the eyes of cattle more than 6 months old should not be dissected in schools. ⁵ Later that month, SEAC's advice was sent to the Department of Education and Science (DES) for implementation. ⁶ It was 2½ years later, in December 1992, that the Department (by now the Department for Education: DfE) issued advice to Chief Education Officers (CEOs) and others to avoid the dissection of bovine eyeballs. ⁷

9.8 Following research by the Central Veterinary Laboratory (CVL) in 1995 demonstrating BSE infectivity in the retina of bovine eyeballs, and the decision to ban the removal of brain from bovine heads, the skull, including eyeballs, was designated as SBO in August 1995. ⁸ This prohibition on the harvesting of eyeballs from bovine skulls put an end to their use in schools.

9.9 Before setting out a chronological account of the development and issue of advice on bovine eyeball dissection, we look briefly at the remit of the Education Department in England and the accommodation of pupil/student safety issues within that remit. We also look briefly at the dynamics of the different groups of players within the Department as well as the key players who feature in the account that follows.

Overview of Education Departments: remit and players

9.10 The main objective of the Education Departments in the UK is the development and promotion of national education policies. While the overall remit of the Education Department in England changed during the period 1986-96, it still retained this core responsibility throughout. In 1992, as the DES, it lost its role of fostering the progress of civil science (now with Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)) and became the DfE; and in 1995 it gained employment activities and became the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE). ⁹

9.11 In a memorandum to the Inquiry, DfEE told us that the Department had no statutory responsibilities for pupil health and safety in educational establishments during the period 1986-96. The relevant legislation was the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992, which are the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The memorandum continued:

Nevertheless the Department accepts that it has a responsibility to provide guidance to educational establishments on health and safety issues that affect them. ¹⁰

9.12 As we shall see in the account that follows, when advice was given by SEAC on the issue of bovine eyeball dissection in 1990, the Department (DES at the time) - Schools Branch 3 - accepted responsibility for its implementation. This Branch was responsible at that time for, among other things, development and implementation of the national curriculum, including legislation and guidance, curriculum development, resources, school books and libraries. ¹¹

9.13 In 1995, health and safety in schools became the responsibility of the new Pupils and Parents Branch (Safety and Appeals Division). ¹²

Relations between the different groups of players in the Department

9.14 In 1990 staff in DES comprised policy administrators and inspectors of schools; in addition the Department received advice on medical matters from DH medical advisers, one of whom (Dr Ernaelsteen) was based at DES. Each of the three groups of players contributed, in different ways, to the eventual issue of advice on bovine eyeball dissection. In June 1988, Dr Ernaelsteen sought advice from the schools Inspectorate (which at that time was an integral part of the Department and therefore its eyes and ears in schools) about the extent to which bovine eyeballs were used in schools for dissections. Later, following a request for views on this practice from Dr Pickles in early 1990, Dr Ernaelsteen sought further advice from the schools Inspectorate. After advice was received from SEAC, the policy administrators became involved in the development of guidance for schools.

9.15 Scotland and Northern Ireland had their own Education Departments with similar infrastructures to that of England. This was also the case in Wales (although DES also had some limited jurisdiction there).

Key players in the bovine eyeballs story

Mr M B Baker

9.16 Mr M B Baker was a Head of Division (Grade 5 Officer) in Schools Branch 3 during most of the period with which we are concerned. Mr Baker told us that his involvement with guidance on the dissection of bovine eyeballs began in July 1990 and ended in June 1993, when responsibility for the subject was transferred to another Branch of the Department. ¹³ From January to July 1992, Mr Baker was in Division B of Schools Branch 3. The main responsibilities of Division B involved the implementation of the National Curriculum and matters relating to it. From August 1992 until 1994 Mr Baker was in Division C of Schools Branch 3, and that Division had responsibility for the school curriculum. Mr Baker retired from DES and the civil service in 1994. ¹⁴

Mr Ron Jacobs

9.17 Mr Ron Jacobs was a Grade 7 administrator in Schools Branch 3 reporting to Mr Baker. Mr Jacobs told us that until 14 February 1992 he was the officer with responsibility on a day-to-day basis for preparing the draft submission to Ministers on the issue of advice to schools on the dissection of bovine eyeballs. After that date, this responsibility fell to Ms Elizabeth Casbon. ¹⁵

Ms Elizabeth Casbon

9.18 Ms Casbon worked in Schools Branch 3 reporting to Mr Baker. Ms Casbon took up responsibility for bovine eyeball dissection in late March 1992. ¹⁶

Dr Diana Ernaelsteen

9.19 Dr Ernaelsteen was employed by DH as a Senior Medical Officer (Grade 5). During the period 1983-95 she had a base with an office and a secretary in both DH and DES. She had a wide range of other responsibilities, including advising at DH and DES on safety, hazards and accident prevention in schools. DES was free to accept, act on or reject her professional advice as it chose. While her medical advice would often inform policy, it was not part of her professional remit to implement DES policy. ¹⁷ In her statement to the BSE Inquiry Dr Ernaelsteen described her role and responsibilities:

2. . . . I was at the relevant time the only medical adviser working in and based in DFE, although until 1974 when the responsibility transferred to DH, DFE had up to 14 full time medical advisers working in its employment.

3. My job title as 'Adviser' accurately reflects the nature of the work that I did for DFE. My post as Senior Medical Adviser lay within the Medical Adviser's branch of the DFE, and the branch also included the post holders of Chief Medical Officer, Deputy Chief Medical Officer and the Senior Principal Medical Officer who were based in DH. This was the arrangement for the duration of my employment, until my retirement in January 1995. My role was to provide consistent, soundly-based professional advice on matters concerning education. My area of specialisation has been community paediatrics and specifically mental and physical impairment, disability and handicap including special educational needs throughout childhood. One of the pressing priorities in my DFE work was the provision of an informed medical opinion and advice on statutory ministerial casework . . .

4. Apart from statutory ministerial casework, I had many other responsibilities. I provided medical advice to DFE and OFSTED ¹⁸ (previously HMI) and liaison between DH, DFE and OFSTED. I contributed to Education Policy, Education Acts and Initiatives. At DH and DFE I advised on safety, hazards and accident prevention in schools, and on health education and personal and social education (including sex education) in the National Curriculum. At both DFE and DH I provided paediatric advice on prevention, policy, services and research and casework from infancy for children and young people with learning difficulties and both mental and physical impairments, disabilities, handicaps and illnesses . . .

5. My role as Senior Medical Adviser to DFE in more general terms, was to provide medical advice as required and to liaise across the Government Departments in matters of Health and Education and sometimes in relation to Social Services. I gave advice when requested or when indicated by medical evidence or research, whether from DH or more widely from experts in the profession or from voluntary bodies and DFE was free to accept, act on or reject my professional advice as it chose. I could not force DFE to accept my advice, nor did I have any recourse if they failed to act upon it. I might only reiterate my advice to them or seek further confirmation from the DH special adviser in the subject in the expectation that it would be acted upon; this has been my experience since becoming a civil servant in early 1983. Whilst my medical advice would often inform policy, it was not part of my professional remit to implement DFE policy.

6. I was extremely busy for the whole of my time in the DH/DFE post, my workload was particularly heavy during 1991-1993, because of the volume and breadth of my responsibilities . . . ¹⁹