The full posting on ProMed can be seen here - Archive Number 20061002.2821 Published Date 02-OCT-2006 Subject PRO/AH> Foot & mouth disease - UK (03): follow-up diagnostic methodsProfessor Donaldson says in his post,
Extracts:
"As the person who was head of the Pirbright Laboratory during the UK 2001 FMD epidemic I am very familiar with the claims made by Roger Breese and Fred Brown for the rapid diagnostic method for FMD. However, as they were unwilling to provide scientific data to support their claims no real spirit of trust and collaboration was developed between us. ... Subsequently, much time had to be spent by me and colleagues at Pirbright explaining to policy makers and Defra that we were unable to verify the claims that were being made for the rapid test.
By contrast, over 200 scientists, both veterinary and non-veterinary, from other institutions in the UK, other European and antipodean countries came to Pirbright and supported us at different stages during the epidemic. Those friends and colleagues freely and unselfishly assisted us in the true spirit of collaboration. They did sterling work and for their support I will always have heartfelt gratitude. I am glad to record that during the epidemic there was excellent collaboration in the area of molecular virology between Peter Mason and his group at Plum Island and colleagues at Pirbright."
The moderator notes the following:
Source: DEFRA (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs)
Rapid test and comments
-----------------------Various Science Advisory Council recommendations make it clear that the development and use of diagnostic technologies is Defra's responsibility, not IAH [Institute for Animal Health] Pirbright's, and that decisions on policy priorities are the responsibility of the UK Government. Two UK DEFRA documents have been brought to my attention:
Recommendation 13 in
<http://www.defra.gov.uk/science/documents/SAC-ED_04_%207RecomendationsFinalv2.pdf> (2 September 2004) states: "Accurate pen side tests should be developed for the diagnosis of FMD in cattle and pigs. The Department should develop the capability to identify further research needs, including a review of current technology and the identification of novel future technologies." [Why sheep are not included is puzzling as they are the most difficult to diagnose in the field. - Mod.MHJ]and item 14 in
<http://www.defra.gov.uk/science/documents/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20SAC-ED%20_05_%204%20Outstanding%20issues.pdf> (2 February 2005) says: "Defra should set out the timeframe for the development and validation work on pen side tests and provide an estimateof when these tests are likely to be available for deployment." --Martin Hugh-Jones
ProMED-mail moderator[From the start this thread stretched the normal ProMED-mail criteria for posting, but while some might claim that not all questions have been answered, this thread is now cut. - Mod.MHJ]
[See also: Foot & mouth disease - UK (02): follow-up diagnostic methods 20060927.2768
Foot & mouth disease - UK: follow-up diagnostic methods 20060924.2730]...............mhj/mpp/sh FOOT & MOUTH DISEASE - UK (03): FOLLOW-UP DIAGNOSTIC METHODS
OTHER WARMWELL ARCHIVES(opens in new window)