Learning the Lessons of the BSE Crisis

Chapter

Abstract

By any standard, the BSE crisis was a most difficult period in the public health of the UK. This period saw a previously unknown TSE emerge in cattle and then transmit to humans, a scenario which by August 2009 had cost 164 people their lives in the UK and which has resulted in an unknown number of other people incubating variant CJD (vCJD). The economic damage caused by this disease has been considerable. In April 2000, the government estimated that by the end of the 2001/2002 financial year, the total net cost of the BSE crisis to the Exchequer would be £3.7 billion (BSE Inquiry Report, Volume 10: 1). Less quantifiable consequences have also stemmed from this crisis. Chief amongst them has been significant damage to the public’s ability to trust the pronouncements of government on matters of food safety and risk. The scientific community has suffered inestimable damage to its expertise and to its capacity to provide objective, consistent scientific advice to the public. With such serious consequences emanating from the BSE affair, it is incumbent on all those who were involved in this tragic episode to reflect on the events that took place and to consider how things could have been done better. Such a reflective exercise has, of course, been conducted by Lord Phillips and his inquiry team who examined all the events that took place during the BSE epidemic and drew a wide-ranging set of lessons from these events. A reflective purpose is also a central motivation of the current chapter. However, the focus of this reflection – scientific reasoning in contexts of uncertainty – is altogether narrower than that undertaken during the public inquiry into BSE. Moreover, the question of reasoning in contexts of uncertainty was omitted from Lord Phillips’ inquiry into BSE and has also been overlooked within the vast literature that has been written on the topic of BSE both before and after this inquiry was conducted.

Keywords

Epistemic Condition Precautionary Principle Scientific Reasoning Reasoning Strategy Causal Claim 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Smith DJ (2001) Reliability, maintainability and risk: practical methods for engineers, 6th edn. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Fuller S, Collier JH (2004) Philosophy, rhetoric, and the end of knowledge: a new beginning for science and technology studies. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  3. Hope J, Reekie LJ, Hunter N, Multhaup G, Beyreuther K, White H, Scott AC, Stack MJ, Dawson M, Wells GA (1988) Fibrils from brains of cows with new cattle disease contain scrapie-associated protein. Nature 336 (6197):390–392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Nollkaemper A (1996) What you risk reveals what you value and other dilemmas encountered in the legal assaults on risks. In: Freestone D, Hey E (eds) The precautionary principle and international law: the challenge of implementation, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 73–94Google Scholar
  5. Battersby M (2006) Applied epistemology and argumentation in epidemiology. Informal Logic 26 (1):41–62Google Scholar
  6. Jasanoff S (1997) Civilization and madness: the great BSE scare of 1996. Public Understand Sci 6 (3):221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Wells GAH, Scott AC, Johnson CT, Gunning RF, Hancock RD, Jeffrey M, Dawson M, Bradley R (1987) A novel progressive spongiform encephalopathy in cattle. Vet Rec 121 (18):419–420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baum F (2008) The new public health, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  9. Krieger N (2000) Epidemiology and social sciences: towards a critical reengagement in the 21st century. Epidemiol Rev 22 (1):155–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Green JM, Draper AK, Dowler EA et al (2005) Public understanding of food risks in four European countries: a qualitative study. Eur J Public Health 15 (5):523–527PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collee JG, Bradley R, Liberski PP (2006) Variant CJD (vCJD) and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE): 10 and 20 years on: part 2. Folia Neuropathol 44 (2):102–110PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Frosh A, Smith LC, Jackson CJ et al (2004) Analysis of 2000 consecutive UK tonsillectomy specimens for disease-related prion protein. Lancet 364 (9441) 1260–1262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Walton DN (2006) Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Sandler DP (2003) A conversation with George W. Comstock. Epidemiology 14 (5):623–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Magnus PD (2006) Underdetermination of theories. In: Sarkar S, Pfeifer J (eds) The philosophy of science: an encyclopedia. Routledge, New York, pp 839–842Google Scholar
  16. Rescher N (1977) Dialectics: a controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. State University of New York Press, Albany, NYGoogle Scholar
  17. Scollen FJH (1989) BSE and biological medicinal products. Letter to Mr AR Cruickshank, 13 January 1989Google Scholar
  18. World Health Organization (2009) Pandemic influenza preparedness and response: a WHO guidance document. WHO, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  19. Kirkwood JK, Wells GA, Wilesmith JW, Cunningham AA, Jackson SI (1990) Spongiform encephalopathy in an arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx) and a greater kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros). Vet Rec 127 (17):418–420PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Norton JD (2008) Must evidence underdetermine theory? In: Carrier M, Howard D, Kourany J (eds) The challenge of the social and the pressure of practice: science and values revisited, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA, pp 17–44Google Scholar
  21. Weed DL (1995) Epidemiology, the humanities, and public health. Am J Public Health 85 (7):914–918PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hilton DA, Ghani AC, Conyers L et al (2004) Prevalence of lymphoreticular prion protein accumulation in UK tissue samples. J Pathol 203 (3):733–739PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Plant A (2008) When action can’t wait: investigating infectious disease outbreaks. In: Bammer G, Smithson M (eds) Uncertainty and risk: multidisciplinary perspectives, Earthscan, London, pp 45–54Google Scholar
  24. Clewley JP, Kelly CM, Andrews N et al (2009) Prevalence of disease related prion protein in anonymous tonsil specimens in Britain: cross sectional opportunistic survey. BMJ 338 (1442). DOI 10.1136/bmj.b1442Google Scholar
  25. von Schomberg R (2006) The precautionary principle and its normative challenges. In: Fisher E, Jones J, von Schomberg R (eds) Implementing the precautionary principle: perspectives and prospects, Edward Elgar , Cheltenham, UK, pp 19–42Google Scholar
  26. Manuele FA (2003) On the practice of safety, 3rd edn. Wiley, Hoboken, NJCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kirkwood JK, Cunningham AA (1994) Epidemiological observations on spongiform encephalopathies in captive wild animals in the British Isles. Vet Rec 135 (13):296–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Adam B (1998) Timescapes of modernity: the environment and invisible hazards. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Martuzzi M, Bertollini R (2004) The precautionary principle, science and human health protection. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 17 (1):43–46PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Pearce N (2007) Commentary: the rise and rise of corporate epidemiology and the narrowing of epidemiology’s vision. Int J Epidemiol 36 (4):713–717PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kriebel D, Tickner J (2001) Reenergizing public health through precaution. Am J Public Health 91 (9):1351–1355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maguire R (2006) Safety cases and safety reports: meaning, motivation and management. Ashgate , Hampshire, UKGoogle Scholar
  33. Michaels D, Monforton C (2005) Manufacturing uncertainty: contested science and the protection of the public’s health and environment. Am J Public Health, 95 (S1):S39–S48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Berridge V (1996) AIDS in the UK: the making of policy 1981–94. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Arts and HumanitiesNottingham Trent UniversityNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations