The Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor David King, was charged with finding a swift resolution to the crisis. A year after he first tackled the problem, he spoke to NICK HALLISSEY

How do you reflect on the crisis, a year on?

It was a totally novel experience for me, and a very sharp learning curve. I was thrust very quickly into the spotlight, but that made it very energising. There was a massive job to be done on bringing science to bear on the epidemic.

What was your job?

At the request of the Prime Minister, I assembled the Science Group, which involved getting a consensus to find the people who were generally agreed to have the foremost expertise on epidemics of this kind. We had epidemiologists, disease pattern modellers, virologists and animal health specialists. It was our task to meet twice daily to discuss the policy of dealing with the epidemic.

Did you get the chance to visit farms, and see the crisis at first hand?

Sadly, the only major site visit that I was able to make was to Cumbria, the single worst-hit area. I didn't get to North Yorkshire. I did see, in Cumbria, how it was affecting people, but I was acutely aware of that from the start. My daily schedule involved around four or five major meetings a day, either with the Science Group or with the Cabinet Office, so that meant I was more or less compelled to remain in London.

Did the crisis pan out according to your group's models?

Yes, largely. In May, I gave a press conference in which I said the worst should be over by June, but that the disease would bobble along for perhaps a month or two. It actually ended on September 30, so we were not far off.

There was criticism that the Government didn't understand rural interests. Was that true in your experience?

I always found that accusation incomprehensible. The Government had dozens of meetings each day on this single issue; that is effectively a war footing. They were working around the clock to consider it from a farming viewpoint, a scientific viewpoint, and a tourism viewpoint. I didn't see a lack of understanding. Those of us involved usually worked until around midnight, and were up again in the small hours. It was very draining.

Are you satisfied that the policy the Government pursued was correct?

That matter is the subject of the inquiry being held by Dr Iain Anderson, so I cannot comment too deeply. But three papers have been published recently, in the Science and Nature journals, which are generally agreed to have been very thoroughly refereed. They say the effect of the Science Group was to mitigate the epidemic by a substantial margin, and to close down the need for culling, possibly by a factor of three. That has given me some reason to feel quite happy about the way we conducted matters.

If there was another outbreak tomorrow, would the policy be the same?

Again, that is the subject of the inquiry.

Why was there such a conflict over the use of vaccination?

If we had a fast, "smart" vaccine, which was thoroughly effective, and which could take hold in an animal faster than the disease could incubate, it would have been welcome. We discussed it endlessly, but felt the technology to create that vaccine was not available to us. The "conflict" was also amongst the farming community.

How so?

We found that farmers with small herds, who had named each animal and had a small business base, were all for it. But farmers with large, pedigree herds were against it. We could not operate any vaccination procedure where farmers were not prepared to co-operate.

People talked a lot about the Dutch solution, which used vaccination. What was wrong with that?

The Dutch did use vaccination; but they later had to cull a huge number of the animals which had been vaccinated, when they wanted to apply for disease-free status.

It is estimated that 43 farms had been infected by the time the first case was diagnosed. Was the Government's response quick enough?

There, you have to ask: at what point do you stop animal movements? A farmer can report what he thinks might be foot and mouth, a vet has to be called, and a blood test done. That can take a while. If you were to stop animal movements wrongly, the effects could be very detrimental; there have been many false alarms. The response was very rapid, once this outbreak was confirmed.

Are you satisfied with your own personal involvement?

All I can say is, I hope I came out as a player who made a good contribution.

Updated: 11:51 Wednesday, February 20, 2002