Day 030 - 03 Oct 94 - Page 65
1 Cancer Research Fund?
2 A. Yes.
3
4 Q. I take it you are not a scientist by training?
5 A. As I said this morning, no, I am not.
6
7 Q. I understand that. You have no such -- perhaps you did
8 some O Level physics or chemistry or something but nothing
9 beyond that?
10 A. No, I did not do O Level physics or chemistry. I have
11 a degree including physiology which I do not think is
12 relevant either. I am not a scientist.
13
14 Q. You have a degree in physiology?
15 A. Yes.
16
17 Q. Your role is, therefore -- I am not trying to demean it --
18 your role is that of an educated or intelligent or both
19 layman, is that right?
20 A. No, I would say that going back to the point that my
21 Lord made this morning, I would say my expertise here is
22 one of experience rather than formal qualification, yes.
23 I have, nevertheless, spent the last 10 years chiefly
24 concerned with the translation of science into public
25 policy. I am not quite sure what profession that puts me
26 in.
27
28 Q. It does not diminish your particular expertise. I am only
29 concerned to find out what specifically precisely it is.
30 You are familiar, therefore, I take it, with the term meta
31 analysis or meta study?
32 A. Yes.
33
34 Q. That is, essentially, what you are concerned with when you
35 say the translation of the results of one study or reports
36 of another into what one might call public health policy?
37 A. No.
38
39 Q. So what do you do?
40 A. Meta analysis is a technical term which is rather
41 different from what these reports have done which I myself
42 have analysed. In the ordinary meaning of the word, yes,
43 meta analysis would I guess do for that. In the
44 scientific world meta analysis is more concerned by means
45 of very sophisticated mathematical techniques, assessments
46 of the relative probability judged between large numbers
47 of epidemiological studies taken together, which is an
48 altogether a different exercise from the one I have been
49 engaged in and, indeed, from the one that the committees
50 of scientists who produced these reports are engaged in.
51
52 Q. The committees of scientists to which you pay attention in
53 making what you call translations, what I might call
54 summaries of the cumulative effect; is that fair?
55 A. Yes.
56
57 Q. Is that rather a rapportaire, that kind of function?
58 A. Yes, I think that is a fair way of putting it.
59 I think I have already drawn the analogy of a parallel
60 between the work they do and the work done that is done in
