IMAGINE a debilitating disease to which a tiny minority of the population of the UK are susceptible but which nonetheless costs the country millions of pounds per year. The government spends an extra £30-50m over a period of 10 years researching a potentially very expensive medical treatment as a possible preventative measure for the disease.

During this time pressure on the government to roll out the treatment — at least to those potential sufferers identified as having the greatest suscepti- bility to the disease — has been mounting, as both the incidence of the disease and the confidence among this sector in the potential efficacy of the treatment continue to increase.

On the other hand the general public are against the treatment because its development and implem- entation would necessitate the extermination of a large number of wild animals in addition to those already killed as part of the research programme.

Superficially, the evidence supporting the treatment seems convincing. However, on completion of the research programme, a detailed eval- uation of all the evidence by a panel of eminent scientific experts concludes that it could in fact make no meaningful contribution to control of the disease.

The Government's chief scientific adviser believes that a limited roll-out of the treatment could be effective within the high susceptibility group and under specific conditions, but those involved with the research, including the panel of experts, disagree with even this view. The chief scientific adviser resigns, although maintaining that his resignation is unrelated to the issue.

The Government decides not to roll out the treatment, announcing that instead it will spend a further £20m over three years developing an effective vaccine. Has it made the right decision?

This scenario is essentially the same as the bovine TB/badgers issue, with livestock farmers in the South West being among the group continuing to be at high risk of having their livelihoods severely debilitated by the disease. Many have already suffered this fate. Most — though definitely not all — of these farmers believe that culling badgers would be the most effective remedy, despite the scientific evidence to the contrary.

Badgers do carry the disease and undoubtedly transmit it to cattle. But the science indicates that, because of the effect that an incomplete eradication of badgers within a particular area would have on the ranging behaviour of survivors and of those in adjacent areas — and a complete cull would be almost impossible to achieve — culling would not only be very expensive but would also be largely ineffective overall. It might even result in increased spread of the disease.

Farmers are pressing for the government to reverse this 'politically-motivated' decision and to launch a programme of badger extermination within some of the TB hotspots, Furious farmers demand a U-turn to get badgers culled, but in the light of all the evidence does this seem a reasonable position?

DR FW KIRKHAM Ecological Research & Consultancy, Crediton