Header imageLink to The BSE Inquiry Home pageLink to Key to footnotesLink to Who's Who sectionLink to Glossary sectionLink to Chronology sectionLink to HelpLink to Search page
Volume Specific - Index | Glossary | Who's Who

Volume 11: Scientists after Southwood
5. Challenges to the Government's approach
Dr Harash Narang
The touch test

Return to top of page

5.172 Dr Harash Narang is a microbiologist who was employed by the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) at Newcastle General Hospital from 1973 to 1994. In his statement to the Inquiry he told us that he had spent some 30 years of his professional career studying spongiform encephalopathies. The emergence of BSE was naturally of particular interest to Dr Narang. A policy decision was taken that the PHLS should not be involved in investigating the potential implications for public health. Because of this there was no scope for Dr Narang's employment to embrace research into BSE with the Neuropathogenesis Unit (NPU). He was, however, permitted to carry out such research at Newcastle in his own time.

5.173 Unfortunately a dispute developed between Dr Narang and the PHLS which resulted in Dr Narang's suspension. We have not been concerned with details of that dispute. What we have been concerned with are allegations that Dr Narang was unfairly treated by MAFF and that potentially valuable scientific advances made by Dr Narang were disregarded, or failed to receive the support that they merited.

5.174 Dr Narang has, from the time of the emergence of BSE, had his own theory as to its cause, based on earlier research into scrapie. Unlike those who espouse Dr Prusiner's 'protein only' theory, Dr Narang believes that nucleic acid is instrumental in producing TSEs and has coined the term 'nemavirus' to describe the agent which he considers responsible for the disease.

5.175 The claims made by or on behalf of Dr Narang have related to lack of support for three different tests of the presence of a TSE, which Dr Narang contended could be of practical value in diagnosing BSE or CJD. These were:

    1. a post-mortem 'touch test' involving taking brain slices and placing carbon-coated grids onto the cut surface of the slice. Following several processing steps the grids are observed under an electron microscope. Diagnosis of BSE would be confirmed by the presence of abnormal tubulofilaments, which Dr Narang considered to represent the infective agent. 1
    2. a test involving the isolation of a single-stranded DNA(ssDNA) which, in BSE-infected brains, was claimed to have particular features that did not occur in unaffected brains; Dr Narang considered that this test would enable both ante-mortem and post-mortem testing.
    3. a live test involving concentrating the urine from patients suspected of having CJD and detecting the infective agent using electron microscopy.

5.176 We propose to examine some of the evidence relating to the consideration given by MAFF to requests from Dr Narang for assistance in developing these tests. The object of doing so is not to explore the technical aspects of Dr Narang's work, but to consider the allegations that MAFF was at fault in failing to support this. At their most extreme, these alleged that MAFF were motivated by a reluctance to develop a test which would disclose the extent to which BSE was present in apparently healthy cattle.

5.177 We have not sought to set out a comprehensive account of dealings between MAFF and Dr Narang, but to give a sufficient account to give a fair illustration of the attitude of MAFF officials and Ministers to Dr Narang's requests for assistance, making reference to internal documentation, including drafts for proposed correspondence about him.

Return to top of page
The touch test

5.178 During 1985 and 1986, Dr Narang and his co-workers claimed to have developed a post-mortem diagnostic test for spongiform encephalopathies, in particular scrapie, and a description of this work was published in 1987. 2 The test, which we refer to as the touch test, offered potential for rapid routine diagnosis of SEs as an adjunct or alternative to histopathology (the study of microscopic changes in diseased tissues). Although the test had not been developed specifically with BSE in mind, Dr Narang told us that it could 'provide a rapid means of diagnosis of BSE with very little handling and risk of exposure'. 3 Similarly he considered that it could be used to diagnose CJD. 4 The test methodology is described in more detail in vol.2: Science.

Return to top of page
First demonstration of the touch test by Dr Narang

5.179 Dr Narang was invited to the AFRC/MRC Neuropathogenesis Unit (NPU) in September 1987 to demonstrate the test. He told us that the demonstration had been successful:

Preparation and examination was carried out on six randomised scrapie and normal brains and correct results were recorded on all six brains within two and a half hours from start to finish. 5

5.180 On 14 January 1988, Dr Narang presented a paper on the touch test to the 74th meeting of the British Neuropathological Society. 6 Among the other papers presented to the meeting on that day was an early paper on BSE by Mr Gerald Wells and Mr Tony Scott from CVL entitled, 'Neuronal vacuolation and spongiosus: a novel encephalopathy of adult cattle.' 7

Return to top of page
Mr Bradley updates Dr Watson on the touch test

5.181 In a minute of 19 January 1988 updating Dr Watson on various BSE issues, Mr Bradley mentioned the paper given by Dr Narang at the meeting of the British Neuropathological Society, and his subsequent requests for assistance from SVS staff:

He has since contacted a large number of SVS staff including VIC and CVL staff. Gerald Wells has spoken with him and he also spoke to Tony Scott . . . He is particularly active in EM [electron microscopy] diagnosis (rapid) using fresh brain material directly onto grids - a halfway house between SAF studies and TEM of sections. These are called 'Touch Preparations' I believe. He is after some fresh brain material for trying his technique and also for purifying BSE DNA. I instructed Gerald Wells not to commit to collaborative studies and not to pass up fresh material until we had your/CVO's agreement but to develop a working relationship for discussion purposes . . . 8

5.182 On 12 August 1988, Dr Narang contacted CVL from the USA, to propose the use of the touch test for diagnosing BSE. 9 He offered to talk to the CVL in Weybridge about his test. Dr Watson replied on 23 August, inviting Dr Narang to Weybridge to discuss the progress he had made. 10 He asked him to contact his deputy, Dr Brian Shreeve, on his return to the UK to arrange an appropriate date.

5.183 Dr Narang said in evidence that he did not receive this information at the time and that he did not hear from MAFF until 11 months later, when they invited him to come to Weybridge in August 1989. 11 We are satisfied that Dr Watson sent the letter. It is unfortunate that it seems to have gone astray.

Return to top of page
CVL decide to collaborate with Dr Narang

5.184 Based on Dr Narang's proposals, on 2 February 1989 Mr Wells, Mr Dawson and Mr Scott produced a minute entitled, 'Summary of tentative proposals/requested collaboration with Dr H Narang'. 12 It detailed potential benefits to CVL/MAFF. These included the acquisition of a rapid diagnosis of BSE cases and, subject to the sensitivity of the test, a way of screening brains at the abattoir. The minute invited comment from Mr Bradley. The summary noted that conditions for collaboration had been raised by and discussed with Dr Narang.

5.185 Mr Bradley responded on the same day recommending that the CVL 'immediately initiate' experiments to enable Dr Narang to demonstrate his 'touch preparation method'. Mr Bradley commented 'overall this seems too good an opportunity to miss with many potential benefits for CVL/MAFF'. 13

5.186 On 8 February 1989, Mr Wells wrote to Mr Michael Dawson at the CVL Virology Department to discuss a project application from Dr Narang to the MRC, which Dr Narang had sent to Mr Wells for comment. 14 The application was to fund the development of the touch test. Mr Wells explained that Dr Narang was in a hurry to get the application sent off. He said that:

I am unhappy about the lack of medical purpose behind the project application - it seems purely a veterinary aim. Harash may have specific reason for not including it but he did tell us that he saw a future for the touch preparation method in diagnosis of CJD.

5.187 Mr Wells also said:

I find it difficult to support whole heartedly, as written, because it suggests that the technique is vital to us, which is really not the case. It would, however, be a useful additional diagnostic and research tool.

5.188 On 13 February 1989, Mr Dawson wrote to Dr Narang, incorporating comments from Dr Wells and Mr Bradley on his MRC project proposal. 15 They concluded that 'the case would be more comprehensive and better balanced if there was more emphasis on the potential benefits for CJD diagnosis'.

5.189 On 18 March 1989, Mr Bradley wrote to Dr David Shannon, with copies to Dr Watson and Dr Kenneth MacOwan, about the BSE research and development programme. In relation to the proposed collaboration with Dr Narang on the touch test, he said:

This clearly has a potential benefit to MAFF and this and other work would be funded from his sources but the provision of material would remain with us . . . We should allow £10K for our expenses to support Dr Narang. 16

5.190 In June 1989 Mr Bradley chaired the third BSE research and development progress meeting at the CVL. 17 In addition to others from CVL, the meeting was attended by Dr Hope and other representatives of NPU and by Dr MacOwan of the Chief Scientist's Group. Collaboration with Dr Narang was briefly discussed. The note of the meeting recorded:

This so far had been of limited benefit. The poor success achieved on the initial examination of 'touch preparations' places the scientific merit of continuing the exercise in question. Dr Narang had reported that he had been unsuccessful in his application for funds from MRC. Dr Hope's opinion is that the single-stranded DNA demonstrated by Dr Narang is an artefact. Further collaboration would not be encouraged. Dr Narang may seek funding from MAFF Chief Scientist. 18

5.191 Dr Narang told us that in August 1989 he visited CVL to present a seminar on his 'touch technique'. 19

Return to top of page
Dr Narang's application for funding from MAFF is turned down

5.192 Dr Narang telephoned Mr Bradley on 7 November 1989 to request funding from MAFF for further studies and access to more cow brains, both infected ones and controls. Mr Bradley informed him that the CVL had no funds, and advised Dr Narang to discuss this with Dr MacOwan of Chief Scientist's Group. On the request for the provision of further brain samples, Mr Bradley said that he would discuss this with Dr Watson and others at CVL. 20

5.193 On 16 November, Dr Narang submitted a research proposal entitled, 'Development of routine diagnostic test for BSE as an alternative to histopathology', to Dr MacOwan under MAFF's Open Contracting scheme. 21

5.194 The minutes of the fourth BSE research and development progress meeting on 21 November 1989 record some discussion about Dr Narang's request for access to brain tissue from three animals and abattoir controls. 22 The minutes said:

While CVL wished to be helpful he had caused some upset there when he visited and they did not want him using CVL facilities or the CVL name in relation to his work. Mr Dawson pointed out that he had at present no funding and Mr Bradley said this material would only be required if funding was forthcoming. Dr MacOwan said Narang had applied to the Chief Scientist for minimal funding and that if his request for money was granted any information his work produced would be for the Chief Scientist. While to date it was unheard of for the Chief Scientist to stop work being published this was possible. The contract made with the Chief Scientist when funding was granted was to protect the customer. Dr MacOwan asked the meeting to be more specific in their dismissal of Dr Narang's work as this had a bearing on the result of the request for funding. Mr Dawson said he [Dr Narang] had come to CVL at his own request to show them the technique he had developed for finding fibrils using the electron microscope. He had used animal necropsy facilities, the senior electron microscopist and his deputy all day and had treated CVL personnel like servants. They had been understandably annoyed. Out of a whole day's work he had found only 2 fibrils, 1 of which was on the first grid. He had only reported this first, immediate result and ignored all the failures. Mr Dawson said the technique was extremely insensitive even in Dr Narang's hands for the diagnosis of clinical BSE. 23

5.195 The meeting agreed that 'material should be released to him but no other facilities provided'. 24

5.196 On 27 November 1989, Mr Bradley wrote to Ms Claire Goodson and Mr Mark Hawkins of the Animal Health Veterinary Group (AHVG), to secure surveillance funding for costs the CVL would incur in cooperating in a proposed study with Dr Narang. 25 In his minute Mr Bradley commented:

. . . there is some scientific merit in initiating a small study under the supervision of MAFF staff who alone will do the histological diagnosis perhaps on 5 control and 5 diseased animals in the first instance. We will not accept Dr Narang here but will try to help in a suitable way eg. via a local VIC. 26

5.197 Mr Bradley's proposal differed from that for which Dr Narang had sought funding on 16 November 1989. 27 Dr MacOwan told us:

The small study proposed was for the diagnosis of five control cattle brains and five BSE infected cattle brains. Mr Bradley was seeking funding from the AHVG surveillance budget for the costs which would be incurred by the CVL in supplying material to Dr Narang and in carrying out the histological diagnosis on the ten cattle brains to confirm Dr Narang's results. Dr Narang obtained funding from a private individual, Mr Ken Bell, in May, 1990 and at that stage approval was given for funding of the CVL's costs, I believe out of the AHVG's surveillance budget. 28

5.198 Dr MacOwan said in written evidence that Dr Narang's proposal of 16 November was considered at an appraisal meeting early in 1990, which was attended by the Scientific Liaison Officers responsible for managing MAFF research, the Deputy Scientist and the Chief Scientist. 29 He explained that these meetings considered large numbers of projects across the whole spectrum of MAFF's work, and only brief minutes outlining the action points were prepared by administrative attendees from the Research and Development Division. Mr Bradley was later to explain that although he had proposed a blind trial, it seemed that the Chief Scientist's Group decided not to fund the project since it did not fit in with Tyrrell proposals to develop a test in the live animal. 30

5.199 On 25 January 1990, B Woodbridge of MAFF Chief Scientist Group wrote to Dr Narang to inform him that his application had not been selected for funding. 31

Return to top of page
Dr Narang receives private funding: reaction from CVL

5.200 On 30 May 1990, Dr Narang wrote to Dr Joseph Smith (later Sir Joseph Smith), Director of the PHLS, at PHLS Headquarters to inform him that he had not been able to carry out his research into work for a test for BSE, because MAFF had turned down his application for funding. Dr Narang informed Dr Smith that he had been approached by a private individual who was willing to provide up to £20,000 to the development of the test. He added that he hoped that 'the necessary co-operation from all concerned will now be forthcoming'. 32 The source of Dr Narang's funding was Mr Ken Bell, the owner of a substantial food business and for whom the PHLS were undertaking private work at the time.

5.201 Dr Narang copied the letter to Mr Bradley, who circulated it to Mr Meldrum and others in MAFF, adding in a manuscript note that 'this will undoubtedly lead to requests for brain material. We should decide how these should be dealt with'. 33

5.202 On 5 June 1990, Mr Crawford wrote to Mr Meldrum to inform him that there was much media interest in Dr Narang's private funding from Ken Bell and that the CVL would be cooperating with Dr Narang. They would provide him with fresh brain sections from five BSE-suspect cattle and five 'normal' cattle. 34 Dr Narang would then identify the BSE-infected samples and inform CVL of his diagnosis within half a day of receipt of the samples.

5.203 A minute sent by Mr Bradley to Dr Shreeve and others on 25 June 1990 described in detail the arrangements whereby Dr Narang would receive material from CVL, as agreed in November 1989 (see paragraphs 5.193-5.195). 35 On 29 June 1990, Mr Bradley sent a minute to Mr Holden of the CVL finance department, copied to Mr Shreeve, about the arrangements for collaborating with Dr Narang. He asked for any necessary costing and invoicing arrangements to be put in place, and advised that 'Dr Narang on past evidence is likely to make a large number of demands upon us'. 36

Return to top of page
Progress with validation of the touch test

5.204 On 23 October 1990, a formal meeting was held to peer review Dr Narang's work. 37 The review was set up by Dr J Smith, Director of the PHLS, in response to a request from Dr N Lightfoot of PHLS Newcastle, who was concerned that Dr Narang was working in isolation, with no peer review and without expert help. Dr Lightfoot supported Dr Narang's work and wished to see the test validated with the help of others working in the same field. Dr Smith invited external experts to assist in the review - Professor H Smith from the Department of Physiology, University of Birmingham as Chairman, Professor Edwardson of the MRC Neurochemical Pathology Unit, Newcastle, and Dr Bostock of the IAH. 38 Dr Smith attended for the PHLS, and Dr Lightfoot and Dr Narang attended for part of the time.

5.205 The note of the meeting indicates that the discussions were wide-ranging. In relation to the collaborative work with CVL on the validation of the touch test, the notes record that 'Dr Narang has been offered and received material from Weybridge but failed to give results'. 39 The meeting broadly endorsed continuing the work, using external funding, to validate the touch test. 40

5.206 On 8 November 1990, Mr Ken Bell wrote to Dr Lightfoot, asking why he had not been informed of any progress on Dr Narang's work, even though it had been six months since funds had been made available. 41 He said that:

You will realise I will be very annoyed if anyone is wilfully holding up this work, I am being pressed by interested parties waiting for your report of progress.

5.207 Dr Lightfoot replied on 13 November, stating that 'I wish to reassure you that no one is holding up Dr Narang's research work and that at a recent review his work was supported'. 42 He added that a full report was being prepared, which would include details of expenditure and would be forwarded to him within the next few days.

5.208 A few days later, on 16 November 1990 Professor Edwardson wrote to Mr Bradley, asking for the supply of brain material to Dr Narang to be speeded up. He commented:

. . . I have been a colleague of Dr Narang's for the past ten years and have tried to provide advice and support for him in his relatively isolated research position during this period.
One of the major issues at the PHLS review was the need for Dr Narang to validate his 'touch technique' for the rapid post-mortem diagnosis of BSE in a blind trial, and I am aware of the proposed collaboration which has been set up with CVL to do just this. Yesterday Dr Narang came to see me about the slow pace at which this research is proceeding and after discussion with Dr Lightfoot, his Director, I agreed to write to you. I gather that, since the study was agreed, two brains became available in September, and there have been no more specimens since then. While I appreciate the various factors which need to be controlled for in this study, it is difficult to understand why the provision of tissue should be so slow, given what I understand is the prevalence of BSE locally. 43

5.209 Mr Bradley replied on 27 November 1990. He expressed surprise that Dr Narang had contacted the Professor rather than himself about the slow pace of research. He further stated that:

I have always had (and still have so far as I know) a good personal relationship with Dr Narang and I am very disturbed at the attitude you suggest he is taking. Research success depends upon good working relationships and I am anxious that any deficits are repaired as soon as possible. 44

5.210 He also stated that CVL would be willing to consider supply of material for further study, but that Dr Narang should write to him specifying the requirements.

Return to top of page
Dr Narang's progress in late 1990/early 1991

5.211 Dr Narang told us that he worked on the diagnosis of brain samples supplied by MAFF (CVL) between September 1990 and January 1991:

Between the 22nd September 1990 and the 8th January 1991 I was given 10 brain samples by MAFF to be examined to establish whether they were contaminated with BSE. The delay was caused by MAFF's difficulties in finding ten control brains. The results of these tests were returned to MAFF by me on the day I received the specimens. Several months passed and the people who were interested in my researches were becoming increasingly concerned that MAFF had still not published the results of their tests on the 10 samples of brain. On the 13th March 1991, David Clark M P Shadow Minster for Food and Agriculture wrote to Dr Lightfoot asking why there was a delay. Shortly after this I received a report from MAFF confirming that my tests had positively identified the presence or absence of BSE in 8 out of 10 cattle brains. The test had not identified the presence of BSE in 2 of the brains. Although the score was not 100%, I viewed the results as encouraging. It has to be remembered that the test involved examining potentially infected material in order to identify whether or not Nemavirus/SAF were present. It is possible for the examiner to miss the presence, although the chances of this will be reduced by further refinement of the test and/or by identifying more precisely the areas of the brain to be examined. (The number and distribution of NVP vary from one area of the brain to another.) I had no control over the supply of the material and only very small quantities of material were supplied. If additional samples had been provided from each brain, it is likely that the two additional affected brains would have been positively identified.
Of great significance is the fact that none of the negative samples were identified as positive. 45
Return to top of page
Communications with Dr David Clark

5.212 On 13 March 1991 Dr David Clark, the Shadow Minister for Food and Agriculture, wrote to Dr Lightfoot expressing his interest in the work of Dr Narang, having received information from Mr Ken Bell on his work. He wrote of his disappointment in the 'apparent delay' by MAFF in publishing the results of Dr Narang's tests on the ten brain specimens. He told Dr Lightfoot that he intended to put down a Parliamentary Question to find out why a delay had occurred. 46

5.213 Dr Clark's Parliamentary Question was tabled shortly after this and asked if the results of Dr Narang's test on bovine brains supplied by MAFF were to be published. The reply stated that the publication of the results was a matter for Dr Narang, but that all the material and data requested by him, had been provided by the Department. 47 The response to the PQ was provided by Mr Lowson, who in his covering minute commented that Dr Narang's results 'will show that he only identified three of the confirmed positive cases, and one of these three was originally reported by Dr Narang as being negative'. 48

Return to top of page
Results of the touch test

5.214 On 15 March 1991, Mr Anderson, Senior Veterinary Investigation Officer at Newcastle, sent Dr Narang the results of the histopathology and the analysis of scrapie associated fibrils undertaken by CVL on the ten samples of brains from ten cattle supplied to him. 49 A few days later, Mr Bradley wrote to Dr Narang comparing the results from the CVL diagnosis and the touch test diagnosis on the ten samples of brain. The touch test had failed to identify two of the five BSE-positive brain samples:

BSE was confirmed in each case by brain histology and supported by the finding of scrapie associated fibrils in each BSE case. All studies were done blind as were your own.
In contrast your own studies aimed at detecting tubulo-filamentous structures failed to identify two brains as being from BSE-affected animals. The other animals were correctly identified.
I am quite willing to discuss the results with you but consider that the failure to identify two BSE positive animals seriously detracts from the value of your test as a practical substitute for brain histology in BSE diagnosis.
Please give me a call if there is anything you wish to discuss otherwise I feel we should consider the study concluded. 50

5.215 In his evidence to the Inquiry, Dr Narang said that the fact that the touch test had not identified two brains as being BSE positive was because he had no control over the supply of the material he was given and he was only given very small quantities of material. 51 He said:

If additional samples had been provided from each brain, it is likely that the two additional affected brains would have been positively identified.

5.216 He further said that the validity of the supply of material was a concern. In particular, the dates on the form that arrived with the samples differed from those that were shown on MAFF's final report on 15 March. He therefore thought that there had been a mix-up of specimens in MAFF's laboratory, so that the laboratories were perhaps not examining the same specimens.

Return to top of page
Dr David Clark's letter to the Independent

5.217 On 17 April 1991, the Independent published a letter from Dr David Clark on the subject of MAFF's collaboration with Dr Narang. 52 He mentioned that a private businessman had sponsored Dr Narang after his application for funding had been turned down. According to Dr Clark, MAFF 'then systematically set out to scupper the research.' For example after weeks of delay, samples of cattle brains were offered at £150 a piece for Dr Narang to work on, although the local abattoir would have happily supplied them at £1.50.

5.218 Dr Clark considered that the reason for this hostility was political:

The Government has consistently mishandled the whole BSE affair and is terrified that if a simple diagnostic test became available, random sampling could reveal the true extent of the disease in our cows.

5.219 In response, Mr David Maclean, the Parliamentary Secretary (Commons), wrote to Dr Clark on 18 April 1991, and copied the letter to the editor of the Independent. The letter asserted that an effective post-mortem test for BSE already existed and that when Dr Narang's proposal had been compared to other applications it had not been considered of sufficient merit. He also said:

Although we have not provided funding we have co-operated fully with Dr Narang in his work by supplying brains from confirmed affected and unaffected animals. I believe that results of the study are now available and look forward to their being made public. The charge made only reflected the considerable amount of professional and technical time that went into ensuring he was provided with suitable samples to test his method. Brains straight from an abattoir could not have been used: had they been suitable no doubt he would have used them. 53
Return to top of page
Dr Narang's results are discussed at a joint CVL/NPU meeting

5.220 On 23 April a joint CVL/NPU meeting was held to discuss progress with BSE research and development. 54 The results of the touch test were discussed, amongst other things. In relation to these results, the minutes record:

Despite the difficulties faced by Mr Lowson and others because of questions raised in the House of Parliament on behalf of Dr Narang, the meeting did not think it ethical to divulge Dr Narang's results - that was a matter for him. 55
Return to top of page
Dr Clark continues to press the case of Dr Narang

5.221 On 12 June 1991, Dr Clark wrote to Mr Gummer asking whether the AFRC had received a grant application from Dr Narang. 56 It seems that the application had been submitted by Dr Narang to PHLS Head Office, for onward transmission to the AFRC. On 18 June, Mr Maslin sent MAFF's Correspondence Section a draft reply for Mr Gummer to send to Dr Clark. In his covering minute, Mr Maslin advised that MAFF had no responsibility for grant applications to the AFRC, and continued:

I understand (by simply phoning them) that to date the AFRC has had no application from Dr Narang. It may however still be in the pipeline and I suggest that it is not for us to say so.
No application for work on a live BSE test has been made by Dr Narang under our Open Contracting Fund. 57

5.222 The draft reply to Dr Clark confirmed that the research councils were the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science, and that his letter had been sent on to a Minister in that Department. 58

5.223 On 18 June 1991, Dr Clark wrote to Mr Gummer alleging that Dr Narang had recently completed ten tests on bovine brains which had proved to be 80 per cent successful. Dr Clark made a request that ten more samples of bovine brain tissue be supplied to Dr Narang so that he could carry out another set of tests. 59

5.224 Mr Maslin consulted with Mr Bradley, Dr Macowan (CSG) and others in MAFF about the draft reply to Dr Clark. In particular he proposed advising Dr Clark about Dr Narang's results:

I understand that it is not really 'the done thing' to discuss the results of research which have not been published and therefore made available for scrutiny by the scientific community. However, as Dr Clark appears to be aware of the results of Dr Narang's research, I believe we should take the opportunity to try and lay this matter to rest by giving him the correct results and pointing out that the test used is simply not accurate enough.
At the same time we can express disappointment that Dr Narang has not yet made public the results of his research. 60

5.225 In the event the reply that was sent by Mr Gummer to Dr Clark on 6 July 1991, did not describe the results:

It is surprising that Dr Narang has not yet made public the results of his research. The absence of such information makes sensible discussion of the issues impossible.
If Dr Narang intends to proceed with further tests he should submit a detailed research proposal to us. In the light of this we will of course be prepared to consider a request for further brain material. 61
Return to top of page
Dr Narang writes to Mr Gummer

5.226 On 17 July 1991, Dr Narang wrote to Mr Gummer informing him that he had seen the reply of 6 July to Dr Clark. Dr Narang enclosed various research papers and a draft paper on his validation of the touch test which, he advised Mr Gummer, was being 'held for internal review' within PHLS. He also commented that he had submitted an application for an AFRC research grant for further work to develop a diagnostic test in live animals. 62 Mr Adrian Dixon, of the Animal Health (Disease Control) Division sought comments from Mr Bradley and Mr Gardner in DAFS about this letter. Mr Dixon noted that DH had asked to be consulted on correspondence between Dr Narang and MAFF. He suggested that MAFF's reply would 'probably just be to thank him for the information which he supplied'. 63

5.227 Mr Gardner replied to Mr Dixon on 1 August 1991. He highlighted the fact that the scientific community did not generally agree with Dr Narang's theories about the infectious agent. He also stated that the touch test would not be as effective as the existing histological methods. However he added:

Notwithstanding these comments I would think that research into EM [electron microscopic] diagnostic methods could be worthwhile. However, a first step would seem to be the publication of Dr Narang's work and subjecting it to proper scientific scrutiny.
I would suggest that you draft a neutral reply thanking him for the information contained in his draft paper. 64

5.228 On 9 August 1991, Mr Michael Harrison (Mr Gummer's Private Secretary) replied to Dr Narang thanking him for his letter and research papers into SEs and stating that 'we look forward to the publication of your results in the scientific press in due course'. 65

Return to top of page
Mr Dale Campbell-Savours takes up the case for Dr Narang

5.229 On 2 September 1992, Mr Dale Campbell-Savours (Labour MP for Workington) telephoned Mr Soames (MAFF Parliamentary Secretary), explaining that he was due to meet Dr Narang the next day. He asked Mr Soames about the reasons for MAFF's lack of support for Dr Narang's diagnostic test for BSE. Mr Soames undertook to provide Mr Campbell-Savours with a short note about this before the meeting. Mr Maslin was asked to provide the note. 66

5.230 Mr Maslin's note set out MAFF's previous involvement with Dr Narang, starting with the application for funding in 1990. 67 He stated:

[Dr Narang's] proposal was turned down because an effective and accurate post-mortem diagnostic test already exists and, when compared to other project applications, it was not considered of sufficient merit to warrant funding. What was and is important is the development of an ante-mortem test and substantial funds are being devoted to research in this area.
In the event Dr Narang obtained private finance to conduct his research. But we have cooperated fully with Dr Narang by supplying brains from confirmed and negative cases of BSE. A charge was made for the time and technical expertise which went into meeting his requirements.
The refusal of MAFF funds led Dr Narang to the newspapers and Dr Clark, the previous opposition spokesman on agriculture, who both took it up as an issue.
As far as we are aware, Dr Narang has still not subjected his work to the normal scientific peer review by publishing it as a refereed article in a reputable scientific journal. (Dr Narang did supply a copy of his paper in earlier correspondence. Although we cannot officially comment on it, scientific and veterinary colleagues had serious criticisms of the work.) 68

5.231 On 3 September, Mr Campbell-Savours wrote to Mr Soames to request a meeting between Dr Narang, himself, Mr Soames and other civil servants, with the aim of discussing Dr Narang's research. 69 Mr Soames replied on 29 September. 70 He declined the offer of a meeting and went on to set out further details of why MAFF had not funded Dr Narang's work. He said that although Dr Narang's work had been carefully considered his application for funding was rejected on the following grounds:

    1. an effective and accurate post-mortem diagnostic test was already in use; and
    2. speed of retrospective confirmation of clinical diagnosis was not important from a disease control point of view as the animal is slaughtered and removed from the farm once a clinical diagnosis of the disease has been made. 71

5.232 Mr Soames also declined to comment on the results of Dr Narang's work since it had yet to be published. However, he continued:

. . . as a result of the Ministry's involvement in the work, and since Dr Narang sent a draft of his report to the Minister, we are aware of some aspects of it. In general terms, the accuracy of his tests appeared to fall below that of the current method for confirmation of BSE by brain histology and that which would be necessary for any practical use. Let me stress again, however, that we have not seen the published results and are eager to do so.
Finally, I would re-emphasise that Dr Narang's work relates to a post-mortem test, not to one that can be used in the live animal. The need for an effective diagnostic test in the live animal still exists and research has been underway for some time to address this. The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee which reported in April 1992 has considered all areas of spongiform encephalopathy research and are satisfied that this important area is being adequately addressed. 72
Return to top of page
Dr Narang and MAFF discuss a new ante-mortem test

5.233 Mr Campbell-Savours replied to Mr Soames on 16 October 1992. 73 He commented that he had discussed the reply with Dr Narang who advised that MAFF seem to have misunderstood the position: Dr Narang wished to discuss a new test that he was developing for use ante-mortem. Mr Campbell-Savours reiterated his request for a meeting.

5.234 Mr Soames replied on 10 November:

It remains the case that we in MAFF have had no direct approach from Dr Narang about any research work other than the development of the post-mortem test which I mentioned in my earlier letter . . .
On the basis of what you say and of a number of indirect approaches that have been made to officials, it does seem that he is now pursuing a new line of enquiry. I am therefore asking the BSE adviser at the Central Veterinary Laboratory to contact Dr Narang to arrange for him to make a presentation about his work (possibly involving scientists from outside MAFF as well). If the work looks promising we would certainly want then to encourage Dr Narang to work up a formal research proposal for us to consider. 74

5.235 On 13 November 1992, Mr Bradley wrote to Dr Narang to invite him to attend a meeting to present and discuss the results of his recent research findings on TSEs in animals and man. The letter opened with the following remarks:

The Ministry of Agriculture places a high priority on the development of a cost effective test to detect infectivity in the live animal in respect of these diseases and in particular scrapie and BSE. Indeed, there is much work funded by MAFF and others to secure this objective. We are always interested to assess new ideas on the nature of the agents causing TSEs including the work done by independent researchers such as yourself . . . 75

5.236 Mr Bradley went on to stress:

It would be especially valuable to present your ideas on how, and how quickly you consider the results of your work so far can be applied to detection of infectivity in the live animal and particularly in the pre-clinical phase of disease. 76

5.237 He accordingly proposed a seminar to be attended by a small group of researchers and others with a special knowledge or interest in TSEs. 77

5.238 The seminar was held on 17 December. In addition to MAFF and CVL representatives, attendees included Dr Tyrrell, Professor Jeffrey Almond and Dr Chris Bostock. 78 On 19 December Mr Bradley minuted Dr Shreeve, Mr Lowson and others in MAFF about the reactions to, and the outcome of, Dr Narang's presentation. He said that the seminar went off without mishap and several members of the audience thought it was valuable. However, several members of the audience had reservations about some aspects of the science. He concluded:

I recommend that consideration be given to funding Project proposals aimed at verifying Dr Narang's work so far and also to other projects aimed at extending this knowledge but without favour, and based upon their scientific merits. Proposals should be peer-reviewed by MAFF and non-MAFF molecular biologists. 79

5.239 Shortly after the seminar, Dr Narang applied for a research contract with MAFF on 29 December for development of a live test for scrapie/BSE, involving the isolation of a single-stranded DNA which had particular features in BSE-infected brains. 80

5.240 On 27 January 1993, Mr Lowson reported to Mr Soames on the seminar. He noted that Dr Narang had acquitted himself well. However, there had been no attempt to draw any conclusions and no general consensus emerged; a number of members of the audience still retained their reservations about Dr Narang's approach to TSEs. He also reported:

Before the meeting was held, we had received a research proposal from Professor Oxford, who wants to validate Dr Narang's earlier work; and the AFRC had received another from Dr Narang and Professor Oxford jointly. After the meeting, we got one from Dr Narang himself. The first of these is a good proposal and, subject to some amendments, it could merit support. But it overlaps with the one submitted to the AFRC and over the next few weeks we will need to explore with them how any funding might be shared. 81
Return to top of page
Arrangements for a jointly funded AFRC/MAFF project to verify the basis of Dr Narang's proposed test

5.241 Shortly before Mr Lowson reported to Mr Soames about the seminar, he had minuted Dr MacOwan on 18 January 1993 to update him about the progress with the proposal submitted to AFRC by Professor J Oxford of the London Hospital Medical School (LHMS) and Dr Narang. He commented that a sensible way forward might be for MAFF and the AFRC jointly to fund the work, and acknowledged that this arrangement would reduce MAFF's financial commitment. 82

5.242 MAFF and AFRC subsequently agreed to the joint funding of the proposal, and on 28 April 1993 notified Professor Oxford of his successful grant application. 83 The letter advised that funding would be provided for 12 months and set out the conditions under which the work would proceed. The aim was to verify the basis of Dr Narang's proposed test. In essence the work would verify the existence of a scrapie-specific single-stranded DNA with an unusual nucleotide sequence; if verification was successful, this single-stranded DNA could be used as a basis of a test in the live animal. Dr Narang's hypothesis in relation to this is described in vol.2: Science. In essence, Dr Narang's protocols were to be followed rigorously, and the work was to be conducted independently of Dr Narang.

5.243 In the meantime, Dr Narang had made a further request for funding from MAFF. On 17 March he had written to Dr MacOwan seeking funds to make further progress on live test and for this work to be undertaken in parallel with the proposed verification work on the test. In his letter he had also commented that he was not content with the conditions attached to the funding of Professor Oxford's project, in particular his own role as a consultant. 84

5.244 On 15 May Dr Narang wrote to Dr MacOwan again, repeating that he did not accept the conditions attached to the funding of Professor Oxford's project and seeking information on whether MAFF would fund his latest proposal. He commented that he would be presenting his latest results at various scientific symposia in summer 1993. 85

5.245 Dr MacOwan replied on 17 May commenting on the progress with agreeing the first proposal from Professor Oxford, and Dr Narang's latest proposal:

In the interim you wrote to me and sent a revised proposal seeking funds to further your research from the point at which the first contract (with Professor Oxford, yourself and Dr Levantis, referred to above) will cease . . .
I am very pleased to hear of your successes with demonstrating ssDNA and I should be most interested to read your paper which you will present in Iceland. However I have to tell you that after very careful consideration further support for your research from MAFF will be contingent on the progress of your first contract with Professor Oxford and Dr Levantis. I realise that you will be disappointed but at the same time I know that you will understand that evidence of progress is very important. 86
Return to top of page
Mr Campbell-Savours seeks an update from Mr Soames on Dr Narang's applications to MAFF

5.246 On 24 May 1993, Mr Campbell-Savours wrote to Mr Soames seeking an update on the progress being made with Dr Narang's applications to MAFF for funding. 87

5.247 Mr Soames replied on 2 June, and advised that MAFF and AFRC had awarded a contract to Professor Oxford:

. . . [the] Ministry and the Agriculture and Food Research Council have been in close contact to agree the details of the contract to be offered to Professor Oxford, of the London Hospital Medical School, for a 12-month project to validate Dr Narang's findings, using Dr Narang's experimental protocols. A letter awarding the contract to Professor Oxford has recently been sent, and a reply is awaited. Any support to further Dr Narang's work will be contingent on the progress of this validation project. As soon as Dr Narang's novel hypothesis has a substantiated scientific basis, his work will be considered further.
I would stress that this approach is in line with the views of independent assessors, and aims to ensure that Dr Narang is treated as impartially as any other notable research scientist seeking funding. 88

5.248 Shortly after this letter, Mr Soames agreed to a request from Mr Campbell-Savours for a meeting to consider Dr Narang's research work on BSE. 89 The meeting took place on 1 July. Mr Bradley was in attendance amongst others from MAFF. Mr Soames followed up the meeting with a further letter to Mr Campbell-Savours on 16 July to report on progress:

. . . Professor Oxford welcomes the opportunity for Dr Narang to attend his laboratory to ensure that the protocols are carried out to the letter, and is seeking authority from the Dean for that purpose . . . Finally the PHLS wish to contribute to the success of the project, and will favourably consider any application from Dr Narang to attend Professor Oxford's laboratory during the course of the project for the purpose of instructing the research assistant in the details of method. The project work itself, however, will be conducted independently of Dr Narang as specified in the contract conditions. 90

5.249 Mr Soames also said that he would be writing to Mr Campbell-Savours again shortly about the 'significance of any delay in developing a live test consequent on the need to validate Dr Narang's work'. He did so on 27 July, enclosing a paper by Mr Bradley summarising 'the issues and confirms the views expressed during the meeting' on 1 July. The paper set out, among other things, the reasons why a one-year delay in progressing Dr Narang's work was of little consequence:

To take all the work forward to reach a conclusion, and in the face of formidable competition from researchers who already have evidence from studies using transgenic mice that supports a protein (PrP)-only hypothesis, would take, at a conservative estimate, 8-10 years. In this context a delay of up to one year before further MAFF funding was available is insignificant. 91

5.250 The paper commented on MAFF's role in progressing Dr Narang's research:

No embargo has been placed by MAFF or AFRC to prevent Dr Narang in regard to developing his research. They have however, decided to independently validate the results of his work so far accomplished before making the substantial long term research investment necessary to bring his scientific approach to fruition. This is essential in view of the assessment of the proposals put forward by Dr Narang by in-house and external, independent reviewers and the fact that the scientific community with expert knowledge of the field is sceptical of Dr Narang's results. In these circumstances the use of public money to progress the work before the primary findings have been validated would be indefensible. Validation by Professor Oxford is in hand and it would seem important that Dr Narang collaborates with him to the extent that Professor Oxford requires. This process has been facilitated by discussion with all the parties involved. 92

5.251 The paper's conclusions stated:

    1. The delay in funding to take forward Dr Narang's work is insignificant in relation to the time required to develop and validate any test for use in the field.
    2. Dr Narang is at liberty to take his work forward via funding from alternative sources. CVL has prepared material at his request to enable him to progress some of this work.
    3. It is a MAFF objective to have a test to detect infection in the live animal and a great deal of work towards achieving this objective, some funded by MAFF, is already in progress.
    4. Dr Narang appears to have little understanding of the steps needed to get any test he may develop accepted by the scientific community. He has significantly, and consistently, underestimated the work required and the problems that have to be overcome.
    5. MAFF will continue to see that Dr Narang and his project proposals are dealt with in an equitable manner, as it has done in the past. 93
Return to top of page
First progress meeting of the joint AFRC/MAFF project with Professor Oxford

5.252 The first meeting of the monitoring group set up to review progress of the AFRC/MAFF project took place on 27 September 1993. Attendees were Professor Oxford, Dr Lynne Bountiff of the London Hospital, Professor Almond and Dr Oldham of the AFRC, Mr Bradley and Ms Helen Ainsworth of MAFF Science Division. The note of the meeting recorded that:

All present were very clear that the main aim was to repeat Dr Narang's experiments as closely as possible.
There was discussion about which aspects of the protocols it was important to adhere to from a scientific viewpoint, and which were not likely to affect the final results. We all agreed that it was important that Dr Narang was satisfied that his protocols were being followed. 94

5.253 The meeting note also recorded that Dr Narang would be invited to attend the next progress meeting in November.

Return to top of page
Mr Campbell-Savours writes again on behalf of Dr Narang

5.254 On 23 February 1994 Mr Dale Campbell-Savours wrote to Mr Soames on behalf of Dr Narang. 95 He asked why Dr Narang had not yet been appointed to the LHMS, enabling him to carry out his research and to assist Dr Bountiff in repeating his work independently. In a hand-written note at the end of the letter, Mr Campbell-Savours asked:

Nicholas, can you put your hand on your heart and say 'We are doing all we can to help this chap'?

5.255 A draft reply for Mr Soames to send to Mr Campbell-Savours was prepared by Mr Eddy. 96 The actual reply, sent on 23 March, closely followed this draft. 97 It informed Mr Campbell-Savours that there had never been any intention to appoint Dr Narang to the LHMS. The project at LHMS was designed to repeat independently the procedures Dr Narang had used to see if his work could be verified. He stated that Dr Narang's presence there was for the purpose of assisting Dr Bountiff in using precisely the same protocols as he had used in his earlier studies. He highlighted the fact that MAFF was being extremely cooperative towards Dr Narang:

. . . everyone is doing their utmost for Dr Narang and for the funded project to be successfully concluded. Indeed additional funds for his travel expenses and accommodation have already been provided to assist in this process.
Return to top of page
Dr Narang writes to Mr Waldegrave about his research

5.256 Dr Narang wrote to Mr Waldegrave on 1 August 1994. 98 He described his interest in infectious diseases of the central nervous system and the tests he had developed to assist with the diagnosis of BSE. He commented:

I believe that the primary objective that we should all be working towards is animal health and the eradication of BSE from British cattle. However, for this to be effectively carried out we need to be able to identify the affected herd swiftly and relatively simply. This can be done using my diagnostic test. Rather than having a 6 years ban, one could certify the herd BSE free by this method. 99

5.257 He added that he had also 'developed the basis of a live test which has been patented by the British Technology Group'.

5.258 Mrs Townsend of the Animal Health (Disease Control) Division replied on 24 August. 100 In relation to progress with the various tests that Dr Narang mentioned, she said:

. . . colleagues at the Central Veterinary Laboratory and from the Veterinary Investigation Service have supplied brain material for your research. The results of that research, to the best of my knowledge, have not been published, even though we have supplied results of our studies on the same material. I understand that a further study, funded by MAFF and the BBSRC (then AFRC), designed to repeat independently your original procedures and to confirm, deny or modify the observations which led you to describe the existence of a scrapie-specific 1.2kb ssDNA with an unusual nucleotide sequence in affected hamsters, will be completed in a few weeks.
A post mortem test, even if shown to be effective on BSE affected cattle brain, is unnecessary for certification of the safety of beef. Since trade rules were agreed with Community Members and the Commission of the European Communities (CEC) there has been no obstruction to exports provided the certification conditions are satisfied. We are exporting beef to Member States and to third countries by complying with the certification conditions laid down by either the CEC or based on those recommended by the Office International des Epizooties (OIE), to which most trading nations belong.
This Ministry is not aware that you have developed a test that could identify infection in the animal while it is still alive. Our understanding is that your test has not been shown to identify an infected live hamster in the pre-clinical phase of disease. Indeed, I understand that you are insisting that in the present study being conducted at the London Hospital Medical School (LHMS) that hamsters need to be taken on to a terminal diseased state before ssDNA can be identified. Such a situation would be quite unacceptable in cattle for welfare reasons.
Even if an agent specific ssDNA was shown to be present in the brain (and experts do not subscribe to this view), for use in a test which would identify an infected animal which was showing no clinical signs it would also have to be shown to exist in a peripheral tissue that could be sampled in the living animal. 101
Return to top of page
Results of the jointly funded BBSRC/MAFF project to verify the basis of Dr Narang's proposed test in the live animal

5.259 On 21 October 1994, Mr Eddy reported to MAFF Ministers about, amongst other things, the results of the research project undertaken by Professor Oxford to verify the basis of Dr Narang's proposed test in the live animal. By this time the AFRC had been replaced by its successor body, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). Mr Eddy commented:

The independent scientists have not been able to repeat Dr Narang's results despite their best efforts and his involvement. He remains unabashed and has criticised some of the experiments and claims that at least one unnamed scientist in America is having more success in trying to repeat his work. Mr Bradley who, as Project Officer for MAFF, attended the meeting has a confidential report from a reputable American scientist in a TSE research laboratory of international repute which also rejects Dr Narang's claims following experimental studies in hamsters and mice using Dr Narang's protocols and reagents. Professor Almond (Project Officer for the BBSRC) and Mr Bradley were satisfied that Dr Narang's protocols were followed as closely as could be expected and the conclusions of the researchers were scientifically, soundly based . . .
Dr Narang is likely to continue to press his case. I understand that a short scientific paper reporting the failure of Professor Oxford and his team to reproduce his results will be prepared and submitted to MAFF by December 1994 for approval to publish as soon as possible thereafter. 102

5.260 On 21 November, having seen Mr Eddy's minute, and a later one from Mr Bradley, Mr Waldegrave asked for advice from Dr Peter Bunyan, MAFF's Chief Scientific Adviser, 'on the view of the Department that Dr Narang's claims are insupportable and cannot be repeated in a laboratory of international repute'. 103

5.261 Dr Bunyan replied to Mr Waldegrave on 1 December 1994 enclosing a detailed note on MAFF's involvement with Dr Narang. In his covering minute, Dr Bunyan said:

I have made enquiries and I am satisfied that Dr Narang's methods have been tested as thoroughly as possible and that the only conclusion which can be drawn as a result is that they are unrepeatable. 104

5.262 In relation to the results of Professor Oxford's project, Dr Bunyan's note said:

Despite careful study and repetition of the experiments a dozen times using any and all of the variations which Dr Narang from time to time suggested to the Steering Group should be introduced, no scrapie-specific ssDNA was found. At a final meeting involving the Steering Group and a further independent, Dr Grant a retired neuropathologist, who had been a critic of the Ministry on BSE, it was agreed that Dr Narang's claims were not repeatable. Dr Narang was present at this meeting and appears to have concurred with the conclusions, although he later questioned them in public.
. . .
Dr Narang's claims, which as so often happen in these types of cases seem to shift each time evidence suggests that they are insupportable, have been thoroughly tested in Professor Oxford's laboratory by competent reputable scientists with negative results. Further studies have been undertaken at the Staten Island Laboratory in USA with apparently similar results. In the absence of any other convincing evidence the conclusion must be that Dr Narang's claims in respect of identifying a scrapie-like specific ssDNA in hamster brains terminally affected with scrapie are insupportable. 105
<<Previous | Next>>
Return to top of page
1 M 37 tab 4/88/1.14/1.1

2 N K Narang, D M Asher and D C Gajdusek, Tubulofilaments in Negatively Stained Scrapie-infected Brains: Relationship to Scrapie-infected Fibrils', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1987, 84, 7730-7734

3 S113 Narang para. 1.10

4 N K Narang and R H Perry, Diagnosis of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease by Electron Microscopy, the Lancet, 1990, 335, 663-664

5 S113 Narang para. 2.11

6 M37 tab 4 /88/1.14/1.1

7 M37 tab 4 /88/1.14/1.1

8 YB88/1.19/1.1-1.2

9 YB88/8.12/3.1

10 YB88/8.23/1.1

11 S113 Narang para. 2.12

12 YB89/2.2/5.1

13 YB89/2.2/2.1

14 YB89/2.8/4.1

15 M37 tab 5 /89/2.13/1.1

16 YB89/3.18/1.2

17 YB89/6.13/3.11

18 YB89/6.13/3.11

19 S112 Narang para. 2.12

20 YB89/11.10/11.1

21 YB89/11.16/8.1

22 YB89/11.21/1.1

23 YB89/11.21/1.26-1.27

24 YB89/11.21/1.27

25 S100B MacOwan para. 11

26 YB89/11.27/2.1

27 S100B MacOwan para. 10

28 S100B MacOwan para. 11

29 S100B MacOwan para. 8

30 YB90/4.3/6.1

31 M37 tab 6 /90/1.25/2.1

32 YB90/5.30/11.1

33 YB90/5.30/11.1

34 YB90/6.5/15.1

35 YB90/6.25/20.1

36 YB90/6.29/6.1

37 M37 tab 6 /90/10.23/1.1-1.39; M37 tab 11 /95/9.13/1.4

38 S114 PHLS para. 29

39 M37 tab 6 /90/10.23/1.2

40 M37 tab 6 /90/10.23/1.35-1.36

41 M37 tab 6 /90/11.8/1.1

42 M37/11.13/1.1

43 YB90/11.16/9.1

44 YB90/11.27/8.1-8.3

45 S113 Narang paras 2.46-2.47

46 YB91/3.13/8.1

47 YB91/3.13/8.2

48 YB91/3.15/2.1

49 YB91/3.15/3.1-3.4

50 YB91/3.20/3.1

51 S113 Narang paras 2.46-2.48

52 YB91/4.17/9.1

53 YB91/4.18/6.1

54 YB91/4.23/1.1-1.6 Attendees included Mr Bradley, Mr Wells and others from the CVL, Mr Lowson, Dr Tyrrell, Dr Bostock (IAH), Dr Fraser, Dr Bruce and others from the NPU

55 YB91/4.23/1.5

56 YB91/6.12/6.1

57 YB91/6.18/5.1

58 YB91/6.18/5.2

59 YB91/6.18/3.1

60 YB91/6.25/6.1

61 YB91/7.6/1.1

62 YB91/7.17/9.1

63 YB91/7.29/2.1

64 YB91/8.1/5.1

65 M37 tab 7 /91/8.9/1.1

66 YB92/9.2/2.1

67 YB92/9.2/3.1

68 YB92/9.2/3.1

69 YB92/9.3/1.1

70 YB92/9.29/1.1

71 YB92/9.29/1.1

72 YB92/9.29/1.2

73 YB92/10.16/2.1

74 YB92/11.10/3.1

75 YB92/11.13/2.1

76 YB92/11.13/2.1

77 YB92/11.13/2.1

78 YB93/1.27/3.1

79 YB92/12.19/1.1

80 M37 tab 8 /92/12.29/1.1

81 YB93/1.27/3.1

82 YB93/1.18/6.1

83 M37 tab 9 /93/4.28/1.1

84 M37 tab 9 /93/3.17/1.1

85 M37 tab 9 /93/5.15/1.1

86 M37 tab 9 /93/5.17/1.1

87 YB93/5.24/3.1

88 YB93/6.2/3.1

89 YB93/6.21/2.1

90 YB93/7.16/1.1

91 YB93/7.13/2.4

92 YB93/7.13/2.2-2.3

93 YB93/7.13/2.5

94 M37 tab 9 /93/9.28/1.1-1.2

95 YB94/2.23/7.1

96 YB94/3.18/2.1

97 YB94/3.23/5.1-5.2

98 YB94/8.1/5.1. Mr Waldegrave became Minister of Agriculture on 24 July 1994

99 YB94/8.1/5.1

100 M37 tab 10 /94/8.24/1.1

101 M37 tab 10 /94/8.24/1.1-1.2

102 YB94/10.21/7.1-7.2

103 YB94/11.21/7.1

104 YB94/12.1/5.1

105 YB94/12.01/5.4-5.5

Return to top of page

© Crown Copyright 2000. Legal notice.
Any part of this report may be reproduced subject to acknowledgement.
The Inquiry Report | Findings & conclusions | Download report as PDF | Evidence | Contact details | Order a copy | Glossary | Chronology | Who's who | Key to footnotes | Help | Search