Letter to Blundell.pdf - MartinFrost.ws index page

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1: Sent: April 2008 To: tom@cryst.bioc
Page 5 and 6: Mr. Roger Harrison QC Mr. Karim Kha

Letter to Blundell.pdf - MartinFrost.ws index page

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

Delete template?

Save as template?