select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
Fiona fox's blog
Defra announced their plans to eradicate bovine TB from the UK within 25 years, which includes plans for a cull.
Professor Robbie McDonald, Chair in Natural Environment, Environment and Sustainability Institute, University of Exeter, said:
“I welcome the government’s recognition that 25 years of hard work lies ahead. There are no quick fixes here and it would take 25 years to get to TB free status, even if everyone agreed what to do.
“There are deep-seated conflicts and divisions of opinion over what to do about badgers and effective intervention in the wildlife component of the TB problem needs support from government, industry and the wider public.”
Professor Christl Donnelly, Professor of Statistical Epidemiology, Imperial College London, said:
“Risk-based trading is key to reducing the movements of infected (but undetected) cattle into areas currently at low risk. This is a cross-cutting measure of Defra’s TB strategy affecting all risk areas.
“A badger vaccine is currently available in injectable form and it is being used in several areas (for example, more than 1400 badgers were vaccinated in Wales in 2012). The prospects of a cattle vaccine and an oral badger vaccine are exciting but they are not yet available for use.
“A decision on a roll-out of badger culling will depend on the outcome of two pilot culls planned for this year.”
Professor Rowland Kao, Director, Boyd Orr Centre for Population and Ecosystem Health, University of Glasgow, said:
“The development of this long-term strategy for control of bovine Tuberculosis is very welcome, and appears to follow a sensible path. Such strategies will undoubtedly require strengthened partnerships across government, the farming industry, vets and all other interested stakeholders.
“A critical consideration when comparing control strategies across different countries is that GB is unique in the intensity of the debate surrounding the role of the wildlife reservoir (in our case, badgers). This debate completely changes the nature of what can and indeed should be done. What science has to offer does not change this debate, but provides the support that allows decisions to be made based on the best evidence possible. This involves not only improved deployment of existing technologies, but also the development of new ones.
“One of the most exciting of these is the novel use of high throughput sequencing to track the bacteria as it passes from farm to farm and between species (see http://tinyurl.com/mbovis-wgs). The unprecedented resolution this affords for epidemiological tracing has the potential to both improve cattle-based controls and provide early warnings as to when the designated edge areas, for example, may become high risk areas, or when low risk becomes edge. Critically, it could also tell us just how important badgers are to the epidemic in cattle, something we still do not know.”
Professor Charles Godfray, Hope Professor, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, said:
“A summary of the scientific evidence relevant to the control of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in Great Britain has just been made available and will be published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences. It was co-ordinated by the Oxford Martin School at Oxford University and involved scientists from different fields from throughout the country.
“Bovine TB is a very important disease of cattle that has major costs to the government and to the farming community. It is also found in wildlife, especially badgers, and whether culling badgers should be part of bTB control is very controversial.
“Several factors make bTB a particularly difficult disease to understand in cattle and wildlife but the study shows the substantial progress that has been made over recent decades that can help inform policy.
“The review looks at what we know about the disease’s epidemiology, testing and surveillance, biosecurity, culling badgers and vaccination (of both cattle and wildlife). The authors provide a consensus judgement about the nature of each component of the evidence base, for example whether it is based on detailed experiments or expert opinion. They have tried to describe the evidence in as policy neutral manner as possible.
“Agreeing on what the science says is important because it means everyone can discuss the topic based on a shared evidence base. The assumptions upon which policy is based, and the expectations about its results, must also be consistent with what the science tells us.
“But natural science alone cannot determine policy. Policy makers must also factor in evidence from the social sciences including economics, areas not considered by the project. And finally in a democracy politicians have to make difficult decisions about the interests of different stakeholder groups when they come into conflict.”
Notes from Charles Godfray: