TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 1999

PROFESSOR JOHN BOURNE, DR CHRISTL DONNELLY AND DR ROSIE WOODROFFE

  180.  So when do you think the experimental results will be available?
  (Professor Bourne) The results will start coming in PDQ, like now, because the trigger point for breakdown data from the trial was the end of the proactive period.  I think if your question is: when will we start analysing that data? we have agreed within the Group—and this is indicated in our initial report—that we would do a first analysis after 100 breakdowns or after 12 months.  My own view is that it should be after 100 breakdowns because we had experienced this delay.  I would expect 100 breakdowns to occur about this time next year.  That is when we start doing the purposeful first analysis.  We have then suggested that we would re-analyse on a six-monthly basis thereafter.

  181.  On the basis of what you know, when do you think that means that you will be able to reach definitive conclusions on the basis of the whole experiment?
  (Professor Bourne) With respect to some of the risk analysis, what we are advocating and putting in place is a re-analysis of old data to give us some idea; to see if that can give us a better idea of risk factors and quantity.  That data should be available.  The big problem is collecting all the old data and putting it in an appropriate databank for analysis.  I would be optimistic that we may get something out of that within 12 to 18 months.

  182.  The point of my question was that farmers were told that it was a five-year experiment.  They thought it was beginning about a year ago so in four years' time from now there will be a definitive answer on the table.  Will there be an definitive answer in four years' time? The answer is no.
  (Dr Donnelly) It is obviously going to depend on the magnitude of the reduction.  There is a huge—and I am getting smiles—if there is a huge reduction we will be able to detect it and get a quantitative, not just qualitative, answer more quickly.  But the five years was given so that we would have power to detect differences of as low as 20 per cent.

  183.  It must be at least five years by the end of next year because you had a five-year trial for the last triplet, did you not?
  (Dr Donnelly) That will be balanced a bit by additional data that we have acquired in the first two years.

  Mr Mitchell: The smiles were not cynical.

  184.  You understand the point I am making.
  (Professor Bourne) Yes, I do, but it is important for us to emphasise that it is not qualitative data we want but quantitative data.  There is qualitative data there now which people use for their own ends, either to suggest that the badger is implicated or it is not.  It is the quantitative data that we need and it will take time to achieve that.  Whether it is five years or seven years or four years, we do not know.  It depends on the strength of the data.

  185.  If you get a significant answer, will that be the point at which to end the experiment, and not go beyond the full five years or ten years or whatever?
  (Professor Bourne) I cannot answer that.

  186.  Why?
  (Professor Bourne) It does depend on the strength of the data.  If the data is strong enough we could perhaps terminate this prematurely.  It does depend on the strength of the data.

  187.  I suspect you are not a gambling man, Professor, but if we were to ask you to gamble as to when you think you might be able to reach that conclusion, when do you think it might be?
  (Professor Bourne) Well, I will not gamble.

  188.  No.
  (Professor Bourne) I think the hand of farmers on the one hand in blaming the badger has been overplayed and the hand of conservationists on the other hand has been overplayed.  There may be some surprising answers at the end of this trial.

  189.  I shall await that with interest.  One final question for me.  A lot of people have said you could spend the money, it will cost £11 million, more sensibly in other ways like vaccine research or improvements in husbandry.  What is your reaction to that?
  (Professor Bourne) Money is being spent on vaccine research, of course.  Again it is limited, it is not a question of throwing money at the area, it is a question of identifying the appropriate questions and getting groups who are able to do the work to do it.  I am persuaded that is now happening.  There is also a large amount of work in the human field which can be piggy-backed on.  You are probably also aware that development in the human field has not been that staggering so I think to pin your hopes on a vaccine within the period that has been suggested is probably asking for too much.  With respect to the husbandry factors, fine, we do not know what those risk factors are.  They have been guessed at and it makes common sense that farmers are advised to do this, that or the other to protect cattle from badger excreted urine or God knows what.  No-one has been able to say this is a high risk, that is a low risk and that is of quantitative significance.  That is the very point of what we are doing.

  190.  How about experiments for testing the transmission mechanism?
  (Professor Bourne) How would you do that?

  191.  You are the scientist.
  (Professor Bourne) I ask you the question simply because we have asked the same question of ourselves and of the scientific community.

  192.  I am just Fred Bloggs.
  (Professor Bourne) It is a very, very difficult question to resolve.  It is no surprise to me that we only had one proposal for transmission experiment back to the CSG for us to consider but I think our approach to the transmission will have to be an indirect one.  We do that by a better approach to the post-mortem of badgers and getting some assessment of the likely clinical involvement of TB in badgers.  We are also quantitating TB bacilli in various badger secretions.  In addition we are looking at this with respect to the epidemiological risk analysis.  Ultimately, of course, we will have another tool which we can bring to bear on this and that is one of molecular epidemiology but that is developing slowly.  Again, to use that tool appropriately we need an awful lot of other epidemiological evidence such as density of wildlife populations, TB prevalence and so on which at the moment we do not have.  I have read suggestions, as you have, that we can use molecular biology in a non invasive way to give us all the answers we need, it is poppycock.  It just is not true that one can do that.  It would be nice if we could.

  Chairman: Mr Hurst.  You have just answered several other related questions so we can reassess things.

  193.  Yes, I am trying to think quickly if some of mine are in there.  I think, Professor, the Minister of State is on record as saying, not surprisingly, that this is the most pressing animal health problem apart from BSE.  Assuming the present rate of increase in breakdowns in herds continues nationally, what number would you think we would reach by the end of the trial period?
  (Professor Bourne) I do not know.  This is not our responsibility, as you will appreciate, but nonetheless we are very concerned about it, particularly with respect to the impact it would have/might have on the integrity of the trial.  I am certainly aware and encouraged by the discussions that MAFF are now having with interest groups to put in place a more vigorous TB control programme with respect to cattle testing and cattle movement etc which I think is essential.  As I say, I am encouraged that MAFF are doing that but I would not like to predict what numbers of TB outbreaks there might be in the years 2002/2003/2004, I just do not know.  The increase we have experienced in the last couple of years has been extremely worrying.

  194.  It might be outside your area of comment but one of the questions we are bound to think is is it realistic to expect farmers to wait for these really long periods before there will be some conclusions coming through?
  (Professor Bourne) Sure.

  195.  Whilst they are facing financial risk and in some cases ruination of their herd.
  (Professor Bourne) Indeed.  I must say at the outset that although we were put in place to implement Krebs, it was quite clear, when we spoke initially to the Minister, he wanted us to take on a holistic approach.  Although it was not within our remit to re-examine Krebs, needless to say we did.  We had to convince ourselves that was what we believed to be a realistic way forward.  You have seen the comments we have made in our report to you, we are totally convinced that this is a sensible way forward.  What alternatives are there? We have heard of alternatives but frankly they do not stack up and they will all simply repeat mistakes of the past.  You will get ten years down the line being no further forward than you are now.

  196.  Because there is a natural delay before we have answers and because during that period of time certain farmers are going to suffer, will it be your view that there should be consideration of compensation for those farmers who lose whilst this matter is still under advisement?
  (Professor Bourne) Again you will appreciate that is not a matter for us.

  197.  I do appreciate that.
  (Professor Bourne) It is a matter for Ministers.  Our concern is simply the integrity of the trial.  I do urge upon the Minister—I do not have to urge, he accepts that it is his responsibility to maintain the integrity of the trial; it is our responsibility to ensure that the trial is scientifically based.

  198.  Moving on to another area again which is in the area of ministerial comment, the status of tuberculosis-free herds in Britain is clearly coming under risk as a consequence of the increases we have had.  I believe the Minister of Agriculture recently at an NFU conference suggested that proactive culling outside the trial areas may be necessary.  Do you have a view on that?
  (Professor Bourne) I am not exactly sure what the Minister said.  My view is that he said they would look at a whole range of possible options.  I think he was asked if a proposal of culling outside the trial areas could be one of them, I think he did not dismiss that.  My view is that it is totally inconsistent with current Government policy and that it does reject Krebs.  Worse than that it does impugn the integrity of what we are doing.

  199.  Was your advice or your Committee's advice sought by the Ministry prior to that response to questioning?
  (Professor Bourne) No, before then no, it has subsequently been asked for.  We have yet to respond to that.  We do have a meeting of the group tomorrow and that will be a main item on our agenda.