Letter to Blundell.pdf - MartinFrost.ws index page

Sent: April 2008 

To: tom@cryst.bioc.cam.ac.uk 

Subject: Re: UK Biosciences Federation - Dr Richard Dyer OBE 

Dear Professor Sir Tom Blundell, 

Thank you very much for your prompt reply to my e-mail. I am grateful to 

you for taking the time to write to me. I must, however, confess that I am a little 

confused by your response. The nature of the interactions to which you refer is not 

entirely clear to me and whilst I am reluctant to pursue you on this matter I would be 

most grateful for clarification because I am, as I am sure you can understand, very 

concerned about these issues. Specifically, please could you explain if you were 

referring either to the particular interactions that I have had with Dr. Richard Dyer or 

to those of Dyer with others, the latter of which are relevant to the concerns I have put 

to you in points (i) – (v) of my earlier e-mail? 

I am acutely aware that in your position, with the responsibility of several high 

offices, you must be very busy and may not have had time to access and to read in 

detail the material on the web site to which I referred. Accordingly, I hope that it 

may be of assistance to you if I gave you a brief resume of the evidence, which forms 

the basis of my concerns. Before doing so I would like to draw your attention to the 

document “Harrison.pdf” (see ref. 1) sent to the Crown Prosecution Service (Senior 

Counsel, Mr. Karim Khalil QC) by the lawyers of Mark Quigley (Senior Counsel, Mr. 

Roger Harrison QC), which states that the issues raised within are of “considerable 

public importance”. The issues concern the Babraham Institute, then directed by Dr. 

Richard G. Dyer OBE. The OBE was awarded in 2007, for “services to biology”, 

sometime after the date of the document “Harrison.pdf” (1). It may also interest you 

that it was after receipt of this letter that Dyer decided to settle the matter. Quigley, as 

Dyer himself has said, was “paid off”. 

The sections below ((i)-(v)) relate to those in my earlier e-mail to you. 

(i) influencing policy on restructuring companies and commercialization 

The VAT affairs of the commercial arm of the Babraham Institute, BBT, are 

well documented (see ref. 2). Briefly, disclosures to the High Court (2) reveal that 

the Custom and Excise/Corporate Tax evasion perpetrated by Dyer (Director of BBT) 

and his agents, including his wife Caroline Edmunds, would appear to be in the region 

of £250,000. 

Mr. David Hardman, the incumbent CEO of BBT, was appointed by Dyer 

only a few months after Hardman’s company, Carbury Hearne, became insolvent (3), 

a fact that Hardman failed to declare as is required by the Insolvency Act 1986 (2). 

After his appointment, Hardman was judged by a tribunal to have stolen intellectual 

property and passed it off as his own for gain (see 4 for judgment). With Dyer and 

his wife, Caroline Edmunds, as co-signatories Hardman proceeded to open companies 

without mentioning the Carbury Hearne debacle (see refs. 5-8). Failure to disclose 

directorships held in the previous 5 years is, I am led to believe, an offence under the 

Companies Act 1989; three such offences are usually enough to have a director 

“struck off”.

On the note of business advisors, you may recall from your time as Director 

General of the AFRC (see your C.v. at 9) that a business advisor and business partner 

of the IAPGR and AFRC (later BBSRC) – with whom Dyer has worked intimately – 

was one Philip Paxman, a well known brothel-keeper in the Cambridge area (see ref 

10). It may also interest you to know that Paxman “sponsored” the “Dolly-the- 

Sheep” work (see para. 9 in (11)). 

It was admitted by Mr. Patrick Barker under cross-examination that he, as an 

agent of the Babraham Institute, had been illegally supplying quantities of Il-5 

antibodies to Peter Dean of Cambio (see 1, 2 for details). Institute (public) resources 

were used to produce the antibodies, which were then passed on “out of the back 

door” to Peter Dean for commercial gain. Oddly, Barker wasn’t reprimanded for 

this: Dyer extended his contract (2). 

I note from the BF Web site that there is a piece on restructuring companies 

and commercialization, particularly in relation to Lord Sainsbury’s “Review of the 

UK science and innovation system”. Given this and the BF’s role in influencing 

policy and strategy in biology-based research I come back to my question of whether 

you feel Richard Dyer should be involved in influencing policy on restructuring 

companies and commercialization. I would kindly ask you to bear references (1-11) 

in mind when you make your considered reply. 

(ii) influencing policy on teaching and training 

As part of a ~£600,000 grant from the East of England Development Agency 

it was agreed that the Babraham Institute (Directed by Dr. Richard Dyer) was to offer 

“…110 training days in microchemicals” (see charge 1 in (1)). None was provided 

(1). 

I note from the “Recent Responses” section on your web site that the BF, 

under the leadership of Richard Dyer, influences the policy of the HEFCE and the 

Lords Science & Technology Committee in the area of teaching. Given this and the 

above, I again come back to my question of whether you feel Richard Dyer OBE 

should be involved in influencing policy on teaching and training. I look forward to 

your considered response. 

(iii) influencing policy on openness and transparency 

I draw your attention to the production at reference (12), which is the signed 

witness statement of Nick Barnes, a solicitor. The background to the events depicted 

is that Karim Khalil QC (senior counsel for the Crown Prosecution Service) and 

Roger Harrison QC agreed that junior counsel and a solicitor, Nick Barnes, should go 

to the Babraham Institute (Director, Dr. Richard Dyer) and examine its VAT affairs. 

I would respectfully ask you to read this witness statement and kindly let me 

know if you think that the behaviour of Richard Dyer, as depicted in this sworn 

statement, is that of a person who is a champion of openness and transparency. I ask 

this because I note from the “Recent Responses” that the BF feels that “the 

requirements for openness and transparacey (sic) are an important mechanism for 

ensuring confidence in the robustness of scientific advice procured by government”.

This brings me again to my question of whether you feel Richard Dyer OBE 

should be involved in influencing policy on openness and transparency. I look 

forward to your considered response 

(iv) guiding the charity commission 

I now wish to draw your attention to charge 8 in (1). Apart from the 

scepticism surrounding Dyer’s wife’s statement , which begins the piece, there is an 

excerpt from a “project leaders meeting” where Dyer admits that “ the Charity [The 

Babraham Institute] had made a loan to BBT but this would be repaid as soon as 

possible ”. It would seem that Dyer’s office perceives such a “loan” as being illegal 

as evidenced by a memo, which states that: “ …it would be illegal to make a loan if 

there is any risk that it cannot be repaid ”. His office also clarifies that: “ the 

Government, DTI, and the BBSRC all require that the Institute undertakes 

commercial activities that the charity commissioners would consider illegal for a 

charity to participate in ”. 

I note from the “Recent Responses” that the BF is advising the Charity 

Commission on implementing new guidance on bureaucracy ( i.e. keeping an 

effective paper trail). Given this and Dyer’s management of charity funds (see 

charge 8 in (1)), I kindly ask you again whether you feel Richard Dyer OBE should be 

involved in guiding the Charity Commission. I look forward to your considered 

response. 

(v) influencing policy on ethics 

I draw your attention the production at (13), which shows the organization of 

the IAPGR (the combined Roslin and Babraham Institutes) in 1990-1, which is at 

around the time that you were Director General of the AFRC (see your C.v. at 9). 

You will see that Richard Dyer OBE is at UG5, and Station Director at Babraham, 

and Quigley a junior ASO technician, i.e. , there is a great disparity, both in terms of 

position and power, between Quigley and Dyer within the IAPGR structure. 

I now would draw your attention to the production at (14), which is an 

expert’s report on his visit to the Babraham Institute with the Cambridgeshire 

constabulary to investigate around 30 charges that had been levelled against ASO 

Mark Quigley by the then Babraham Institute (Director, Richard Dyer OBE). You 

will see at point 5.02 on page 16 of this report that “absolutely no effort” had been 

made “to collate and make available relevant information” regarding the charges. 

Indeed, Quigley could point out to all present, including Patrick Barker (see above) 

and the police, that materials said by Babraham to have been stolen by Quigley were, 

in fact, still in their possession (see 2 for details). 

You may recall that the brothel-keeper Philip Paxman (10) was a business 

advisor to Dyer. I understand that both Richard Dyer and Paxman joined forces in 

taking disciplinary action against Dr. Bruce Roser at Babraham. Roser was 

vindicated after a disciplinary hearing of 6 “grave” charges, which, as in the case of 

Quigley, were found to be specious. After he had overturned these charges Roser 

asked for the verdict to be made public but it was deemed that the process was “Staff

in Confidence” and management forbade any further mention of it. Roser had to 

resign in order that he might clear his name. 

I note from your Web site that the BF believes in “rigour, respect and 

responsibility” and influences policy on “ethical issues”. This brings me to my 

earlier question of whether, given the above, you feel that Dr. Richard Dyer should be 

involved in influencing policy on ethics. I look forward to your considered response. 

Finally, as I requested in my earlier e-mail, I would be most grateful if you 

could let me know if you were aware of some or all of the events that are detailed 

above before you appointed Dyer to his current position. On this note, please could 

you also kindly provide me with details of the advertisement for the CEO of the BF 

that Dyer applied for, the job specification, the C.v.’s of all candidates (please 

anonymise all names using numbers or letters) who applied, the names of the 

selection panel and the notes of the panel used to select Dyer above the rest. I would 

be very interested to know in what way(s) the other candidates were deemed less 

qualified for the position. 

I look forward to your considered opinions on the matters I have raised in 

points (i) – (v) above and thank you once again for taking the time to read this letter. 

Yours sincerely, 

References 

1. http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/feb2008/roger_harrison.pdf 

2. http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/feb2008/cpr_disclosures.pdf 

3. http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/feb2008/mgq7.pdf 

4. http://www.ipo.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-challenge/pchallenge-decision-results/o18200.pdf 





9. http://www-cryst.bioc.cam.ac.uk/tlb/Tom_Blundell_CV_2005.pdf 

10. http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/jan2008/nowtimages.pdf 

11. http://www2.cambridgenews.co.uk/business/news/2007/10/02/cf4787b6-9c19-419a-beb8c3afd3518a0f.lpf 

12. http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/feb2008/nick_barnes.pdf 

13. http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/feb2008/iapgr.pdf 

14. http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/feb2008/sheppard.pdf 

C.c. 

Rt Hon Gordon Brown and cabinet 

Rt Hon David Cameron and shadow cabinet 

Member Organisations of the Biosciences Federation 

Independent 

The Times 

THES 

Mr. Mark Quigley

Mr. Roger Harrison QC 

Mr. Karim Khalil QC 

Mr. Nicholas Barnes 

The Babraham Institute 

Dr. Richard Dyer 

Dr. Caroline Edmunds 

Mr. David Hardman 

----- Original Message ---- 

From: Tom Blundell 

Sent: Wednesday, 19 March, 2008 

Subject: RE: UK Biosciences Federation - Dr Richard Dyer OBE 

Dear , 

I am aware of the history of your interactions. Tom Blundell 

....................................................... 

Sir Tom Blundell FRS, FMedSci 

William Dunn Professor of Biochemistry and Chair, School of Biological Sciences, 

University of Cambridge , 

Tel: +441223 333628 

Fax: +441223 766082

Sent: 19 March 2008 

To: tom@cryst.bioc.cam.ac.uk 

Subject: UK Biosciences Federation - Dr Richard Dyer OBE 

Professor Sir Tom Blundell FRS, 

Biosciences Federation , 

PO Box 11319 , 

London 

WC1X 8WQ 

United Kingdom 

tom@cryst.bioc.cam.ac.uk 

Dear Professor Sir Tom Blundell FRS, 

I write to you in your capacity as President of the Biosciences Federation (BF). I 

bring to your attention the Web Site: 

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/feb2008/dolly_rages.html 

It details the activities of Dr Richard Dyer OBE, the current Chief Executive of the 

BF. I was wondering whether you felt - after having read the contents of the Web site 

- that Dr. Dyer is the appropriate person to be involved in: (i), influencing policy on 

restructuring companies and commercialization, (ii), influencing policy on teaching 

and training, (iii), influencing policy on openness and transparency, (iv), guiding the 

Charities Commission and, (v), influencing policy on ethics. 

I also understand that during your time as Chief Executive of the BBSRC you were 

Dr. Dyer's line-manager and would respectfully ask you whether you were aware of 

any of the events involving Dr. Dyer (please see Web site and down-loadable .pdf 

productions) before you appointed him to his current position. 

I look forward to hearing from you shortly. 

Yours sincerely, 

C.c. 

Member Organisations of the Biosciences Federation 

Independent 

The Times 

THES

Letter to Blundell.pdf - MartinFrost.ws index page

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?