Sir

The Opinion article “Lessons from an epidemic” (Nature 411, 977; 2001) fills me with concern for the future of science and public scientific debate. It would appear that you believe veterinary scientists should not be allowed to question the scientific conclusions reached by another discipline. The implication that these scientists are resentful at the leading role played by epidemiologists in the UK foot-and-mouth-disease crisis is misleading and untrue.

Surely there is always justification for scientific debate, questioning and investigation as to whether the output of the science is valid, sensitive and appropriate for the situation in which it is being used? In the case of foot and mouth it seems very appropriate for models based on mathematical formulae to be commented on by those involved in the control of disease. The questions posed — about the use of vaccination, the sensitivity of the epidemiological models and whether so many animals need to be killed — are of interest to the community at large.

Your Opinion article suggests that scientific questioning of those in one specialist area by those in another is not permissible, whereas in my opinion this is quite justified and indeed follows the concepts laid down by Lord Phillips in the UK BSE inquiry. Equally, I have no doubt that models must be used even more in future, although again it must be recognized that there are various types of models producing different results for use in different circumstances. This requires that mathematical modellers, the veterinary profession and other advisers work together as a team to produce the best advice and a range of options. Economists also need to be included, as in many cases their role is equally important in determining the most cost-effective method for control of outbreaks such as the foot-and-mouth epidemic.

I echo your conclusion that various scientific disciplines must work closely together in future. Each will bring its own expertise, the sum of which will produce far better results than each alone, and enable those determining policy to receive the best advice. In the case of foot and mouth, I facilitated the rapid provision of the necessary data and I would hope that we can build on this in the future.

Nevertheless, all scientists, whatever their discipline, have the right to question the conclusions of others.