Subject: BSE: the internet discussions

From: [email-masked] (J Ralph Blanchfield)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 07:30:46 GMT

Hello All,

The past two weeks have seen a ferment of discussion and debate on
BSE, on newsgroups and internet mailing lists; and that is excellent. 

Those who are familiar with newsgroups and mailing lists are not
surprised to find that, among the postings, would be some that are
seeking information, some that are providing information, but also
some that offer ill-informed emphatic opinions,confused or garbled
retailing of rumour, mixed-up recollections offered as facts ("I seem
to remember having heard some time ago that ...."),  preconceived
notions, the outpourings of zealots for and against various theories
and of conspiracy theorists. 

Nothing new about that.

What I find of serious concern is that some contributors to the
discussion on BSE, whose signatures indicate that they are scientists,
are making contributions that --

- fail to adhere to the requirements of the scientific method
- are long on assertions, but short on (read devoid of) substantiation
- state supposed findings but fail to provide scientific references
     even when asked.

These practices waste bandwidth and everybody's time. May I appeal to
all scientists to act as scientists, at least on the science
newsgroups.

******************************************************************
J Ralph Blanchfield
Food Science, Food Technology & Food Law Consultant
Chair, IFST Member Relations & Services Committee
Web Editor, Institute of Food Science & Technology
IFST Web address: http://www.easynet.co.uk/ifst/ 
******************************************************************

---

From: [email-masked] (Ellie Ettehadieh)
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 22:01:46 -0800

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (J

> all scientists to act as scientists, at least on the science
As a person who has posted articles asking for help I can tell you that I
would grasp for any bit of information that I can get about my problem. 
Yes I do act like a scientist meaning that I read the reply to my post and
think about it before I go to the bench wasting my time.  I hope that your
critisism of this medium has not discouraged people from stating their
appinion.

Ellie Ettehadieh.

---

From: Oz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 07:54:25 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, Ellie
Ettehadieh <[email-masked]> writes
>critisism of this medium has not discouraged people from stating their

I wouldn't have thought that Blanchfield's post applied to you. He was
specifically referring to information posted from academic locations or
>from  people whose headers or signatures suggest that they are academics.

He was suggesting that a debate was a good thing, but those with
academic credentials should keep to the facts and not say things that
have been shown to be untrue, or misrepresent what is said in papers.

Unfortunately there have been a few cases of this here of late.
Doubtless they think it is a good prank to unnecessarily scare people.
In the situation as we have it at the moment it is downright stupid to
do this IMHO.

So, please keep posting!

------------------------------- 
'Oz     "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
        the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"

---

From: [email-masked] (J Ralph Blanchfield)
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 16:02:28 GMT

>In the situation as we have it at the moment it is downright stupid to

Hello Ellie,

Oz is absolutely right in his assessment of what I intended.

Keep posting.

Regards

Ralph

---

From: [email-masked] (Gaz)
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 12:43:21 GMT+1 (BST)

>From: [email-masked] (J Ralph Blanchfield)

>BSE, on newsgroups and internet mailing lists; and that is excellent. 

Indeed.

>- state supposed findings but fail to provide scientific references

It may be due to good reason. I know and talk to many dairy farmers, I went 
to school with some and count them as friends. I have also 
previously worked for a number of years in the dairy industry. Regardless of 
what others may think farmers and dairy workers are not fools or unobservant. 
They write no papers or offer any scientific proof for what they see or 
experience. Should I then ignore what they say or feel.  

****NO****

The arrogance of scientists that only believe a supposed "fact" when it is 
proven in the lab amazes me. If we listend to the people at the sharp end more 
we would save ourselves much pain, time, energy and scarce research money.  

I strongly belive you are wrong in your above statement. People who look 
purely at "science" through papers and exeriments tend to have a blinkered and 
restricted understanding of science as a whole. The truly brilliant scientists 
tend to be able to marry their complex ideas simply into the real world as we 
see it. Good scientists are not afriad to take their ideas into the real 
world, to throw ideas around, or to explore the less likely options.  

References and good scientific method are very important, but they are 
not the be all and end all in science. 

>all scientists to act as scientists, at least on the science

I would also appeal to those of you who are not scientists not to believe at 
face value supposed experts. Find out all the views, even if they can't quote 
you a nice paper on the subject before you make up your mind. Scientists are 
human, they make errors, do bad work, publish poor research, and defend 
bitterly views (backed up by papers and research), that on occasion are 
clearly wrong. This does not happen too often I hope, but all too often to 
ignore the possibility. 

Believe everything written in a paper at your own peril, not all of us are so 
nieve or foolish.

Gaz

Dr. G Salter.

---

From: [email-masked] (David Nicholson)
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 11:35:08 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (J Ralph Blanchfield) writes:
>Subject: BSE: the internet discussions
>Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 07:30:46 GMT

What I find of serious concern is that my government consistently LIED to me 
about the risk of BSE mutating and being transmitted to ME and MY children in 
our food simply for the sake of saving money.

If a few of us die and the industry is preserved that's all to the good - well 
it bloody well isn't.

My advice to J.Ralph Blanchfield is to join the legal profession where points 
of principle are persued with vigour and morality (or the lack of it) is 
irrelevant. 

David

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 13:18:51 GMT

>>- state supposed findings but fail to provide scientific references

I do not work on prions or TSE's, I have made this point several times. 
However, it is often useful to hear OPINIONS from "the educated layman" 
(layperson?) from outside the field. So for anyone who may have been 
confused that is all my posts are - opinions. Since very little has been 
proven so far there is little other than opinion. The available opinions fall
into three categories, 
1 - opinion of those working on TSE's and in particular BSE (since work on 
other TSE's will not tell us what we need to know).
2 - opinion of other biologists
3 - others 

All of these categories are of worth.

My viewpoint (a number 2 opinion!):

I think that the chances of being infected by eating beef / cheese / milk 
products is low (relative to a lot of other risks that we take every day). I 
can easily live without eating beef and so while there is doubt about its 
safety I will not eat UK beef. However, my enjoyment of cheese outweighs /my/ 
perception of its risk so I will continue to eat cheese and drink milk in my 
tea.

I would not like to be in the position 10 or 15 years from now, if things turn 
out for the worse, of having on my conscience that I had reassured people 
about eating beef products. We all have to make that decision for ourselves 
and in some cases for our families. Scientists are lucky, they have a basic 
grounding on interpretation of results and are in a better position than most 
to form an opinion. I would be very interested to hear the opinions of other 
UK scientists in particular whether or not they have stopped eating beef as a 
consequence of recent (or not so recent) events. People are unlikely to post 
their views on this or any subject if it is implied, by an apparently 
self-appointed "moderator"  that they must have a scientific reference for 
each point that they make.

>****NO****

Quite right. What scientists may forget is that farmers are experts too. 
It is the farmer that is relied upon to spot odd behaviour in his cow and to 
bring it to the attention of the vet. Farmers usually lack the forum to bring 
their observations to the world in the way that scientists can. Different 
disciplines of science are often guilty of ignoring one another, a fact that 
has obviously slowed progress in the past (several recent advances in my filed 
have come about as a consequence of collaboration between biologists and 
computer scientists for example). Scientists are even  more guilty of 
disregarding non-scientists, and even worse of talking about their work in a 
way that excludes non-scientists. But I digress...

>we would save ourselves much pain, time, energy and scarce research money.  

And maybe lives.

Because the research in this area is ongoing my opinions are fluid, not set in 
rock like some peoples seem to be. That is one of the reasons why other 
peoples opinions are important.

Haze.

----------------------------------------------------------
|          Dr Hazel Marie Davey   [email-masked]         |
|Sefydliad y Gwyddorau Biolegol*Inst. Biological Sciences|
|Prifysgol Cymru               *      University of Wales|
|        ABERYSTWYTH, Dyfed, CYMRU / WALES SY23 3DA      |
|            http://pcfcfh.dbs.aber.ac.uk/index.htm      |

---

From: [email-masked] (J Ralph Blanchfield)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 07:34:02 GMT

On Wed, 3 Apr 1996 11:35:08 GMT, [email-masked] (David Nicholson)

>>Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 07:30:46 GMT

Hello David,
>What I find of serious concern is that my government consistently LIED to me 

I cannot be responsible for what your government did or did not do (or
what you think it did or did not do).  I am not a government
scientist, and, while I am about it, may I  also state that, whether
directly or through my consultancy clients, I have no interests in or
involvement with, the meat or milk producers..

On a voluntary basis, and in my spare time [what spare time :-)] I am
the Internet spokesperson of the Institute of Food Science &
Technology (IFST). 

(IFST) is the independent professional qualifying body  for food
scientists and technologists. It is totally independent of government,
of industry, and of any lobbying groups or special interest groups.
Its professional members are elected by virtue of their academic
qualifications and their relevant experience, and their signed
undertaking to comply with the Institute's ethical Code of
Professional Conduct. They are elected solely in their personal
capacities and  in no way representing organisations where they may be
employed. They work in a variety of areas, including universities and
other centres of higher education , research institutions, food and
related industries, consultancy, food law enforcement authorities,
and in government departments and agencies.  The nature of the
Institute and the mixture of these backgrounds on the working groups
drafting IFST Position Statements (including that on BSE, posted here
on 28 March), and on the two Committees responsible for finalising and
approving them, ensure that the contents are entirely objective.

IFST recognises that research is constantly bringing new knowledge.
However, collectively the profession is the repository of existing
knowledge in its field. It includes researchers expanding the
boundaries of knowledge and experts seeking to apply it for the public
benefit.

>our food simply for the sake of saving money.

No risk has been demonstrated by direct scientific evidence. It is
conjecture arising from the recently recognised pattern of 14
anomalous CJD cases in the UK (until recent weeks, nobody could have
lied about it because it was not known, and only came to light as a
result of the work at the CJD Surveillance Unit in Edinburgh).

Two possible cases that fit the anomalous pattern have
just been reported, but this time in Germany (!), one of them having
been a lifelong vegetarian (!!).  Only press reports so far. 
And by the way, It was reported on Sunday that Dr Gareth Roberts,
examining the 8000 human brains in the Corsellis Collection at Runwell
Hospital in Essex, UK, has found some instances of anomalous CJD cases
pre-dating the arrival of BSE, He is reported as saying that this
throws serious doubt on the recent SEAC conjecture that BSE is linked
to CJD. This is only a press report and I would be the last to rely on
the accuracy of any media report. It will be interesting to see what
emerges when his research is published.

>of principle are persued with vigour and morality (or the lack of it) is 

Thanks for that advice David, but having devoted  half a century to my
highly honourable and worthwhile profession, I do not intend to
change to any other now. 

My advice to you ,David, is not make the mistake of assuming that you
have a monopoly in morality.

Regards

Ralph

---

From: Oz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 10:02:10 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] writes

>their observations to the world in the way that scientists can. 

What observations do you have in mind in this case. I am not trying to
'catch you out', I am genuinely interested. I have good contact with a
number of UK dairy farmers.

>>we would save ourselves much pain, time, energy and scarce research money.  

As an example?

>rock like some peoples seem to be. 

Agreed, although 'fluid' is not a very good description. We are not
certain, we are getting more certain, and although IMHO unlikely this
could change rapidly if contrary evidence is produced. We are however
quite a few years down the road at this point, and a lot of good papers
have been published. It is clear that the prime source of infection is
cattle brain and spinal cord, no infectivity has been found in muscle
and milk. So if there was a serious risk it ought to have been up to
1988 when there were no controls on offals. This is now some seven years
down the line and given the epidemiology of TE's one would be expecting
cases to have occured in genetically suceptible people before now. So
far, you must admit, the research has completely supported SEAC's
original viewpoint (which was based on much less evidence, but they
allowed for this) in 1987, despite many who disagreed with them.

>That is one of the reasons why other 

Trouble is that there is opinion, and opinion. Other people's opinion is
important where it is *based* on facts, and IMHO not when it isn't.
Otherwise we are back to the dark ages, with witchunts and burnings.
Perhaps we should get a priest to exorcise BSE from British cattle?

---

From: Oz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 09:32:41 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, Gaz <[email-masked]> writes

>>Blanchfield:
>It may be due to good reason. 

I am astonished you are an academic. Your misquoting (I am charitable
here) was quite unprofessional and I hope you are ashamed.

>I know and talk to many dairy farmers, I went 

If you have any suspicion that your farmers in Wales are covering up BSE
cases you should have reported it immediately. I don't believe you have
any evidence at all. Similarly you should repudiate your statement,
which is clearly incorrect, that cases are rising. It may well be that
you have listened to too much student gossip, it is unwise to base your
evidence on them, particularly for an academic. It is even more unwise
to post it in a scientific group.

I also have up to date contact with many dairy farmers. All have had a
dramatic fall in cases, most have had no cases for a year, and many for
two years. None would be surprised if one of their older cows went down
tomorrow, there has to be a last case and it typically arrives at the
most inconvenient moment. None would even contemplate covering up a
case, even if they could. It is simply too important to eradicate this
disease and to ensure the population has confidence. Remember that to a
British farmer his word is still his bond, old fashioned I know, but it
still works like that in the UK. Maybe that is why we appear to have so
many cases, they are all reported.

>we would save ourselves much pain, time, energy and scarce research money. 

Eh? You call yourself a scientist? What are you a scientist of? Do you
understand the scientific method? I apologise on behalf of scientists
everywhere on your behalf. What do you teach at Aberystwith, by the way?

>world, to throw ideas around, or to explore the less likely options.

Yes. But they don't quote their unproven guesses as true until they have
evidence. They certainly do not arbitarily misquote in order to 'prove'
their case. They do not quote their own unsubstantiated opinions as
fact.

>not the be all and end all in science. 

No. I rather supposed that you didn't hold scientific method in much
respect. Hey, sometimes it disproves your pet little idea, how sad.

>face value supposed experts. 

I take it that you wouldn't consider yourself an expert in this field
then. That would explain a great deal.

>Find out all the views, even if they can't quote 

>Believe everything written in a paper at your own peril, not all of us are so 

With over 300 papers published in this area, the evidence is rather
strong. What is NOT acceptable is to quote papers that do NOT support
your view as if they do, or to misrepresent them.

I must point out that the vast majority of UK academics would support
the scientific method and would not dream of quoting unsubstantiated
opinions as facts or misrepresenting papers. Just as there is the rare
bad paper, there is the rare unscientific academic.

It would have been better to have posted a brief apology, allowing your
reputation to remain intact.

---

From: [email-masked] (J Ralph Blanchfield)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 16:40:40 GMT

>experience. Should I then ignore what they say or feel.  

Hello Dr G Salter (Gaz),

Your paragraph above relates to the animal health aspect., to which
farmers can indeed contribute practical knowledge.  But just how many
farmers do you "know and talk to"? Five? Ten? A hundred? A thousand?
Ten thousand? More? 

Of course if you talk to a farmer with BSE in his herd, and he (or his
neighbour) gets one or more new cases, he will say "It's increasing".
This does not negate the overall dramatic decline in the numbers of
new cases. In any case, as (presumably) a scientist you should be well
aware of the unacceptability of anecdotal evidence alone as a basis
for a conclusion..

You should also be aware that it is irresponsible for some scientists
(to whom my appeal was addressed) to lend their apparent authority to
the peddling of rumour and erroneous information under the guise of
supposed fact.
>we would save ourselves much pain, time, energy and scarce research money. 

Now you are referring also to the human health aspect, to which
farmers have no special knowledge or expertise to contribute.

Whether you like it or not, the scientific experts, the collective
custodians of the present store of scientific knowledge, and active
participants in its continuing expansion by  relevant research, are
the real resources available to society on this matter. Reliance on
these resources, rather than the aforesaid peddling of rumour and
erroneous information, is the only sensible way to go. 
>world, to throw ideas around, or to explore the less likely options. 

You are creating a ridiculously false picture in order to decry it, an
elementary debating trick well-known and used by politicians but
unworthy here.

Moreover good scientists do not present their speculations about "less
likely options" as though those speculations were established fact.

By the way, how else, apart from laboratory experimental research,
would you be able to discover whether or not BSE infectivity can be
found in muscle meat or milk or gelatin from BSE-infected cows?
(Actually, not found in any of these,). How else would the anomalous
brain histopathology of the brains of the anomalous CJD cases have
been discovered?  By talking to farmers? By intuition?

>not the be all and end all in science. 

Nobody said they were the be all and end all (again you are setting up
a false picture in order to decry it). . But they  are particularly
important as a means of challenging the aforesaid peddling of rumour
and erroneous information under the guise of supposed fact. People who
sign themselves as scientists must expect to be ready to substantiate
their statements when asked to do so. 
>clearly wrong. This does not happen too often I hope, but all too often to 

Quite right, especially when a few individuals peddle unsubstantiated
rumour and erroneous information etc etc. (see above).

As for research papers, have you never heard of peer review, intended
to guard against just the bad work mentioned? The main  danger of the
kind you mention, is in  papers that are not peer reviewed;  in books,
which are virtually never peer reviewed before publication, and which,
in a fast-moving subject area, are inevitably out of date even before
they appear in print; and in some postngs on newsgroups.  
>Believe everything written in a paper at your own peril, not all of us are so 

Now you make an implied condemnation of all research. How utterly
perverse and ridiculous, not to say "arrogant" :-).

Rather,  do not believe the postings of individuals who sign
themselves as scientists but include  irresponsible assertions, or
conveniently  ignore new knowledge, generated by research, that does
not happen to fit in with their preconceived notions.

Returning to your  "the arrogance of scientists",  your comment
applies only  to those (fortunately, relatively few) who who stick
like glue to their preconceived notions regardless of new knowledge.
Apart from that, the phrase is  utter nonsense.

 In discussion of any topic where various special or "vested"
interests may be promoting  those interests,  it is important for
people to make it clear "where they are coming from" and equally
where they are _not_ coming from.

So, for my part, let me state that  I am not a government scientist,
and , whether directly or through my consultancy clients, I have no
interests in or involvement with,  the meat or milk producers. On a
voluntary basis, and in my spare time [what spare time :-)] I am the
Internet spokesperson of the independent professional Institute of
Food Science & Technology, to membership of which food scientists are
elected in their personal capacities, and which is independent of
government, or industry, or pressure groups  or lobbying groups of any
kind. (Please see the account of exactly what IFST is and how it
ensures that its objectivity is maintained, at the end of the IFST
Position Statement on BSE, posted here only a week ago). 

Any Statement issued by IFST has been very extensively peer reviewed
by food scientists (other than the drafters) from a variety of
backgrounds. 

We are not interested in promoting a point of view. Our position
follows neither of the extremes of complacency or doomsaying, nor the
viewpoints of vested interests of any kind (including at those
extremes), but is strictly objective, based on the present accumulated
knowledge available.

Our Statement  recognises that --

"The whole BSE/spongiform encephalopathy scenario is extremely
complicated and difficult to understand.  There can be no definitive
scientific opinion until all the work currently being carried out (and
probably a lot that has not even been started or thought of yet) has
been completed and the results assessed. "

and, at the end of the Summary --

"While that sums up the present state of knowledge, scientists always
have to keep open minds. They have to act on existing knowledge while
recognising that further research will bring new information and
knowledge, which may in turn lead to revised conclusions. We welcome
the undertaking to devote substantial extra resources to research in
this field.".

"Arrogance"? Come off it, Gaz, and think again. 

And yes, I have said a lot of this elsewhere including on other
postings, but it evidently needs repeating.

Regards to all

Ralph

---

From: [email-masked] (Douglas B. Kell)
Date: 4 Apr 1996 12:20:22 GMT

I see that there has been some bandwidth on this. The shortage of facts from 
Ministers and others on the dangers of acquiring CJD from eating beef is 
unsurprising in view of the lack of funding of this aspect of the problem and 
the consequent paucity at this stage of reliable epidemiological and other 
evidence. 

As to currently established facts about TSEs, however, for those with access 
to the Web a useful URL is at the Institute for Animal Health which is a 
leading UK Centre for work on TSEs:

http://www.iah.bbsrc.ac.uk/institut/public/reports/1995/3wtse.shtml

A summary by Prusiner, the best-known expert on prions, may also be read on 
the Web at http://www.nmia.com/~mdibble/prion.html

---

From: Leslie Coveney <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 1996 08:21:34 GMT

Whilst generally happy with the statements made by the IFST on the 
BSE issue (I am a food professional and an IFST member), Ralph's 
complaint about the nature of the debate does highlight flaws in the 
application of the so called scientific method.

Whilst science may have helped us to make methodical statements about 
the proven connections between BSE and CJD that may be technically 
supportable, it appears to have failed us completely when it comes to 
the bigger picture. Has science, supposedly based in the 
observation of nature, queried the distortion of nature that has been 
neccessary for us to produce foods in the nature and volume that we 
have demanded? Has science logically and systematically pointed out 
that the consistent strain and deviation we have placed on natural 
resouces is a process of experiment from which we do not yet know the 
final outcome?

What BSE, amongst other exanples, highlights is that in our unbridled 
consumer society science has been been our lackey not, ulitmately, our 
protector. We should not wholly blame scientists, nor even poilticians 
(except where actually personal dishonesty can be shown of course) 
without acknowledging that all of us have been paert of this.

The ultimate irony is that, with widespread shortage of food in the two 
thirds world, we are considering destroying a vast quantity of it 
because we have lost confidence the processes that have allowed us to 
produce the huge surplusses we have enjoyed (no, I am not suggesting 
that we send food of dubious quality to the two thirds world).

---

From: Oz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 21:16:13 +0100

In article <[email-masked]>, Leslie Coveney
<[email-masked]> writes
>protector. 

No. Science is impartial. People use it for good or ill. Fire can be a 
blessing, or a weapon. The Greeks understood this very well some 3000 
years ago. They had a story called Pandora's box. Blame not our own 
failings on yet another convenient scapegoat.

>We should not wholly blame scientists, nor even poilticians 

Correct. I know it's not very fashionable, but why do we have this urge 
to 'blame' someone all the time? Can we not, as a society and species, 
simply identify our errors as fast as we can, and the DO something about 
them? Blaming something, or someone, tends to have the unfortunate 
effect of *encouraging* things to be covered up. Sometimes, amazingly 
enough, things happen and no-one is really 'to blame'. Or perhaps all of 
us are 'to blame', but what purpose does it serve?

>that we send food of dubious quality to the two thirds world).

Um. Surpluses? What surpluses? Have you taken a look at the world food 
stocks lately? One bad harvest by a major producer and world food 
supplies are going to be very very tight.