Knighthood to Professor Ian Wilmut
Update as at 2008-02-03 Dolly - the controversy
continues
The UK's serious daily papers have belatedly picked up on this story - but when will the Scottish media establishment follow suite or is there a political, economic and legal agenda behind the cover up to date?
• 'Dolly' scientist should be stripped of
his knighthood, colleagues tell Queen from the Independent
• Honour for creator of Dolly the sheep ‘is
insult to science’
from The
Times
• Scottish Television News featured a two
minute piece on
their main evening news programme. An unnamed person - assumed to be Grahame Bulfield, see below who was described as Director at the Roslin Institute at the time - claimed that Prof Wilmut played a pivitol and dominant role in the team effort that created Dolly.
Professor Bulfield, is the current Vice Principal of The College of Science and Engineering at Edinburgh
University.
Further details regarding Grahame Bulfield can be found in the section below headed: "Three points that
illustrate Bulfield’s hypocrisy".
The Times Higher Educational Supplement is the first of the UK's mainstream media to acknowledge Dr Singh's petition'.
Professor Wilmut is quoted as saying that he had "no part" in the actual dismissal of Dr Singh and that while the appeal hearing on racial discrimination was taking place it would be "inappropriate ... to respond to the latest allegations".
The below email suggests otherwise:
“Wilmut wants the Appellant [Dr Prim Singh] removed not only from Roslin in Scotland but from the whole of the BBSRC, which covers Great Britain. It is not a removal, it is a removal and excommunication, with extreme prejudice”.
As this site expands details will be given of the roles played by Harry Griffin (erstwhile Director of Roslin Institute), Alan Archibald (Head of Department of Genetics and Genomics at Roslin Institute), Graham Murray (erstwhile Head of HR at Roslin Institute) and John Withers (erstwhile Secretary to Roslin Institute) in a variety of other discrimination cases lodged at the Edinburgh Employment Tribunal, including racial discrimination, sexual discrimination, disability discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination.
Some of the Roslin players can be seen in the forthcoming re-trial of the Anne Knox case that will heard again in early 2008 .
Despite an apparent lack of interest to date by the UK mainstream media the following newsletter from the highly respected Center for Bioethics and Culture Network confirms the growing interest in Dr Singh's petition amongst his peers. http://www.cbc-network.org/enewsletter/index_1_24_08.htm
Knighting Wilmut - Not,
by Jennifer Lahl, Founder and National Director of CBCnetwork
by Jennifer Lahl, Founder and National Director of CBCnetwork
CBC's ink was not even dry on our annual 2007 Winners and Losers when we received an objection to our giving Ian Wilmut winner status. Here's how it all came down. Our good colleague across the pond, Josephine Quintavalle, with Comment on Reproductive Ethics in London, contacted me about a scientist who had just contacted her. Apparently the scientist wanted help drawing attention to the recent petition to the Queen to not grant Ian Wilmut his knighthood. The connection to CBC, was the fact that this scientist was currently working at Children's Hospital in Oakland CA, a hospital where I spent 10 years of my nursing career. Talk about a small world! Herein begins the interview I did with Dr. Jeremy Brown.
The Emperor is in the Altogether
LAHL: What is your complaint about Wilmut?
BROWN: The question to bear in mind is how can Wilmut abandon human cloning since it is something he never did in the first place? Science consists of first having an idea and then testing the idea. Wilmut had neither. It can be gleaned from reports from well-known British newspapers that the idea that made cloning possible belongs to Dr. Keith Campbell. It can likewise be gleaned that the 2 technicians who did the experimental work were Bill Ritchie and Karen Mycock. The question we must then ask is which part of the scientific process did Wilmut perform? I submit neither. Dr. Campbell is credited with the idea of freezing cells for cloning research and his fellow scientist, Bill Ritchie with the assistance of Karen Mycock conducted the vital experiments.
LAHL: How long has cloning been around. It didn't start with Dolly?
BROWN: In 1952 tadpoles, which are animals were cloned at NYU by Briggs and King and then in the1960s cloning of frogs improved by John Gurdon at Cambridge, England. Willadsen in the 1980s was working on cloning sheep in England, in fact for the same organisation that Wilmut worked for. This was certainly not Wilmut's idea. There is a reputable review of the history of cloning at this site for those who are interested.
LAHL: I understand that Wilmut was the first author on the 1997 Nature paper that described cloning Dolly the sheep. This implies that he did most of the work and had the ideas behind the work. How do we know that this is not true?
BROWN: There was court testimony , stating that the idea of freezing cells for use in cloning had been devised by Dr. Campbell and the vital experiments had been carried out by a fellow scientist, Bill Ritchie, not Ian Wilmut. Some scientists, who spoke to the Guardian under condition of anonymity, believe the group would still be trying to clone an animal were it not for Prof .Campbell and his contribution to the cloning technique which demonstrated that each egg and cell used in a cloning attempt had to be carefully coordinated for the embryo to have any chance of surviving.
As a brief explanation: the "idea of freezing" means freezing the cells at the "quiescent" or resting stage of the life cycle, not freezing cold as you might otherwise assume, and "each egg and cell used in a cloning attempt had to be carefully coordinated for the embryo to have any chance of surviving" are referring to the same thing.
LAHL:: Did Wilmut have any scientific role in the cloning research which led to Dolly?
BROWN: No. Wilmut's role was in a supervisory /managerial capacity, as part of the managerial structure of the scientific arm of the British government (BBSRC). Earlier there had been moves by higher management to fire him. His role was in holding the purse strings and administering the research funds, and giving orders to people.
LAHL: Aren't there ethical rules which guide the scientific researcher and assuring proper credit is given where due?
BROWN: What has escaped many people is that, yes there are most certainly rules for authorship on scientific publications. In the field of biomedicine these are the overriding rules: Highlighted is: section II Authorship and Contributorship A.1. which makes clear that "Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, alone, does not justify authorship." A supervisory role does not merit authorship. Wilmut clearly broke the rules surrounding the assignment of proper authorship! It baffles me still to this day that the media and the scientific community still refer to Ian Wilmut as the famous cloner of Dolly the sheep! And this fact is well established in the public record and noted for all to see in the public domain. The Emperor is in the altogether!
LAHL: Certainly to rob others of their credit in research has enormous, and negative policy implications. Not to mention damaging the credibility of the scientific community in the public's eye.
BROWN: Amazingly, Wilmut is on the advisory board of the Connecticut stem cell program, and serves on the advisory board of the stem cell program set up by the San Francisco based Burrill company, and the University of California Irvine invited him as a cloning expert to give a talk as late as October 2007. People listen to him when he speaks!
When the Chinese poet Li Po was asked if he would rather be an artist or a rich man, he replied that he would rather be rich as artists can usually be found on the doorsteps of the rich. Scientists are in many ways the artists. They are creative and imaginative. However, they rely on the rich who control the funding they need to pursue their scientific pursuits. Often time the rich is the manager of the lab, who controls the purse strings of the funding.
The next time a child looks to you for advice about doing their home work, and in particular about science, perhaps you should not give the stock answer but consider Li Po's advice. Was Li Po wrong? What is the point of being a scientist if you can be the manager of the scientist? Why will our younger generation want to enter the field and contribute to scientific progress?
A naive person might think that the rules on authorship are meant to identify the brains and the hands behind a piece of scientific work so that science can go forward. This is naive in the extreme.
It took Wilmut 10 years to admit that he was not the brains behind Dolly the sheep. And now they want to make him a Knight!
Jeremy Brown, M.D., Ph.D.
Staff Scientist,
Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute
Dr. Brown is the first person to alter both copies of genes in normal human cells. He has spent 10 years working on cell life span. In the last 5 years he has also worked on how genes are regulated and how this may affect cell life span and the efficiency of cloning. Presently he works at the Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute.
Update as at 2008-01-16
The article below prompted a flurry of interest which has generated further questions. It is suggested that Gordon Brown (UK Prime minister) is a friend or acquaintance of Professor Wilmut and on account of Professor Wilmut's discreet fund raising activities on behalf of the Labour Party and Professor's Wilmut's support for Gordon Brown's stance on the Scottish / English political Union, Wilmut was blessed with his knighthood.
Sounds like sour grapes but there are a number of evidential factors which suggest credence –
• Labour party political donations have been made:
• Professor Wilmut publicly supports the Union:
• Professor Wilmut and Gordon Brown have been seen together:
So what is the cry! – but into this brew must be added the feeling of guilt – in short if there is nothing to hide why should the Labour Party exert pressure to quieten its Scottish officials speaking on this issue?
Has Brown overlooked Professor Wilmut's purported indiscretions for politician gain?
If so would such be wrong?
Indeed what is the nexus between an honour and political gain?
As yet it appears that the jury is out but perhaps there is mileage with the above academic rumour.
Martin Frost
January 12th 2008 - Dr Singh's petition has now been passed to the Ceremonial Secretariat at the Cabinet Office by Her Majesty's Private Secretary. 184KB PDF
It is some six months since Dr Prim Singh first contacted me via the website martinfrost.ws – at first I admit to some scepticism – but as Dr Singh substantiated claim after another the full horror became clear.
Dr. Singh was part of a small team at Roslin responsible for "Dolly the Sheep" – a creation for which Professor Ian Wilmut of Roslin recently secured a knighthood. Without doubt "Dolly the Sheep" was/is a major scientific achievement – but amid the scientific brilliance is an almost unbelievable tale of financial deceit, skulduggery and a good old fashioned saga of badness.
The essence of Dr Singh's story is that Professor Ian Wilmut of Roslin wrongly took the credit for "Dolly the Sheep" – then Professor Wilmut and a bunch of Edinburgh establishment cronies ripped off some investors by scamming them for many millions which had the investors realised that Professor Wilmut was unable to replicate "Dolly" said investors would not have advanced. When Dr. Singh and his colleagues objected to Wilmut and Wilmut's 'mates' purported wrongdoing Singh and his colleagues were threatened, ostracised, sacked and bad mouthed not only by Wilmut & Co but by large chunks of the Edinburgh establishment.
Currently a number of Dr. Singh's colleagues have received hundreds of thousands in "hush" money – in essence Wilmut and Roslin bought their acquiesce. It is said that the cost to the taxpayer for legal costs of the “Roslin cases” runs into the millions. Prim Singh refused a substantial offer to settle – secured an award for unfair dismissal but surprisingly lost a claim for racial discrimination (such is under appeal) – it currently is suggested (as with Lockerbie) that Scottish justice lacks honesty or impartiality (it is said that Dr. Singh was judiciously carved up in Edinburgh's New Club and by the denizens of Edinburgh's Faculty of Advocates).
Dr. Singh was blackballed by Professor Wilmut from working in the UK – and so he is obliged to work in Germany. To date, Dr Singh has expended some £120,000 in legal fees as he seeks justice – to fund this Dr Singh was obliged to borrow from his family and is currently selling the Edinburgh family home to satisfy outstanding legal bills (follow this link to find out how you may assist Dr. Singh secure a further £100,000 to finance his ongoing legal struggle 54KB PDF).
When it was announced in late December 2007 that Professor Wilmut was being given a knighthood in partial recognition for "Dolly", Dr. Singh and his ex-Roslin colleagues decided to petition Queen Elizabeth to not only prevent further travesty but to show to the scientific community at large that there is some integrity to Scottish science and reason for working in Scotland.
Martin Frost
Panama
2008-01-06
Panama
2008-01-06
Professor Ian Wilmut and cloning
fraudster Hwang Woo-suk
A picture speaks a thousand words. Professor
Wilmut's big chum is: the one and only Dr. Hwang Woo-suk.. Hwang
Woo-suk has been shown to be a cloning fraudster.
Dr Singh’s Petition (268 PDF file)
Police receipt from Sandringham (23KB PDF file
Covering letter (60KB PDF)
The Petition
Summary Specification
Other Factual links
Litigation from Roslin employees
See also
A Petition to
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Presented under Her Royal Prerogative by former employees of Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Midlothian, EH25 9PSJanuary 5th 2008
To make matters right
To Her Majesty The Queen
Buckingham Palace
London SW1A 1AA
A Petition by her loyal subjects:
Dr. Prim Singh, of 50, Comiston Road, Edinburgh, EH10 5QQ
Dr. Jeremy P. Brown, 503, Forest St., Apartment 5, Oakland, CA 94618, USA
Ms. Pauline Ward, Flat 1F3, 68, Lorne St., Edinburgh, EH6 8QF
Mr. Douglas J.T. Currie, 4, Whinny View, Aberlady, EH32 0UJ, East Lothian
Ma'am,
As our humble duty, we draw to Your Majesty's attention:
1.In the New Honours list of 2008 mention is made to the grant of a knighthood to Professor Ian Wilmut, of 5 Old Manse Road, Eddleston, Peebleshire, Scotland, in recognition to his service to science especially as the ‘creator of Dolly the Sheep’ at the Roslin Institute.
2.The undersigned being ex-colleagues of Professor Ian Wilmut respectfully request that such grant is refused, recalled or reduced.
3.Such refusal, recall or reduction is sought because:
a.Professor Ian Wilmut is a self confessed ‘charlatan’ – namely he admits that he was not ‘Dolly’s’ creator.
b.Professor Ian Wilmut’s peers confirm that:
i.He appears technically incompetent.
ii.He apparently lacks adequate scientific understanding.
4.The undersigned have grave doubts as to honesty and integrity of the prior running of the Roslin Institute
(a)As to financial matters.
(b)As to management ethics.
5.The undersigned believe that Professor Ian Wilmut may have conspired with others to obtain advantage and an honour to which he is not entitled should the true facts be known.
6.Enclosed herewith and incorporated herein is a specification in support of our concerns.
7.Your Majesty's power to withhold or revoke the Royal Assent.
WHEREFORE it is our humble duty TO PETITION Your Majesty
To withhold, recall or reduce the Royal Assent from the knighthood of Professor Ian Wilmut.
To uphold and preserve the rights, freedoms and customs of your loyal subjects, which you, our Sovereign, swore before the nation to uphold and preserve in your Coronation Oath of June 1953.
We have the honour to be Your Majesty's loyal and obedient subjects.
1.Dr. Prim Singh, of 50, Comiston Road, Edinburgh, EH10 5QQ
2.Dr. Jeremy P. Brown, 503, Forest St., Apartment 5, Oakland, CA 94618, USA
3.Ms. Pauline Ward, Flat 1F3, 68, Lorne St., Edinburgh, EH6 8QF
4.Mr. Douglas J.T. Currie, 4, Whinny View, Aberlady, EH32 0UJ, East Lothian
Signed for and on behalf of the above petitioners by Dr. Prim Singh on 5th January 2008 at 50 Comiston Road, Edinburgh, EH10 5QQ
Summary Specification to accompany 5th January 2008 Petition of Dr. Prim Singh; Dr. Jeremy P. Brown; Ms. Pauline Ward and Mr. Douglas J.T. Currie to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth
3 (a) –In 2006, while testifying at an Edinburgh court in which Professor Wilmut lost an unfair dismissal action by Dr. Prim Singh, Wilmut denied the accusations, but acknowledged that he was not the 'father' or "creator" of Dolly, that he performed none of the experiments, and that he has minimised the role of some of his fellows.
3 (bi) – Professor Wilmut had/has a tremor that does not allow him to undertake any micromanipulation experiments, which is a necessary pre-requisite for the “Dolly” experiment. The experiment was actually carried out by Mr. Bill Ritchie. The e-mail from Harry Griffin to Dr. Singh (28 May 2002) relates of how the expertise for cloning had gone (was lost) yet Wilmut was still at the Institute!
3 (bii) The idea underpinning the “Dolly” experiment, “quiescence”, was that of Keith Campbell: note- Professor Sharp’s statement that Wilmut had behaved previously in the same way before (i.e. stealing credit).
4 (a) - Probable corruption re: alleged illegal TUPE transfer of Roslin Institute mouse-house work to Bantin and Kingman (Graham Bulfield, Director of Roslin Institute at the time was consultant and non-executive director of B&K). Note: Nicky Kinsey is Bulfield’s daughter and worked for B&K at the time of the TUPE transfer and was the person who would take charge of the Roslin Institute facilities.
Questionable current outsourcing of supplies to B&K.
Perceived false accounting of ‘mouse house usage’.
Suicide of John Clark: Some argue that Clark’s conscience got the better of him – but there were ongoing queries as to his wealth and lifestyle not ignoring his purported fraudulent receipt of around £500,000 from sale of shares received after Roslin Biomed was sold to Geron Biomed.
Note: a similar sum was paid to Ian Wilmut (see Public Accounts Committee minutes on “Reaping the rewards of agricultural research” in House of Commons and the newspaper article: “I got the lolly and didn’t clone Dolly”)
Alleged financial irregularities surrounding the Animal Biotech Cambridge Company run by the professed pornographer Philip Paxman with Professor E.C. Polge (Polge was Wilmut’s PhD supervisor). Paxman sponsored the Dolly the Sheep programme and thus collaborated with Ian Wilmut and Grahame Bulfield.
Financial mis-management and mis-appropriation of funds. In or around 1998/9 the Logan building was built at a cost of £1.2million (funded by EU, Scottish Enterprise) and housed Rosgen and Roslin Nutrition companies until around 2002. Rosgen was closed down by its backers, which included Roslin Institute and venture capitalists 3I. Roslin Nutrition decided to move to the Feedmill and applied to Scottish Enterprise for funding of the move. However, unbeknownst to Roslin Nutrition John Withers (secretary to Roslin Institute) had already obtained funding for the move from Scottish Enterprise (approximately £30,000). Little of this money was ever seen by Roslin Nutrition.
Financial mis-management. The CREC building was built at a cost of around £1.6million, while the predicted budget was around £1million. Major cost was for climate chambers to undertake work funded by DEFRA, EU and private contracts. Very little of this has come to pass and the building remains largely empty.
Alleged insider trading when shares in Geron Biomed and PPL (a company set up by John Clark) rose after cloning of pigs.
4(b) - The theft of scientific credit for financial gain and academic hubris by Wilmut. The shoddy treatment of many Roslin employees as is demonstrated by the plethora of successful damage actions against Roslin Institute.
5. Amongst the others it is believed that Grahame Bulfield; Julia Good fellow; Sir Muir Russell; and Professor Maggie Gill may have had a role and derived benefit.
We have the honour to be Your Majesty's loyal and obedient subjects.
1.Dr. Prim Singh, of 50, Comiston Road, Edinburgh, EH10 5QQ
2.Dr. Jeremy P. Brown, 503, Forest St., Apartment 5, Oakland, CA 94618, USA
3.Ms. Pauline Ward, Flat 1F3, 68, Lorne St., Edinburgh, EH6 8QF
4.Mr. Douglas J.T. Currie, 4, Whinny View, Aberlady, EH32 0UJ, East Lothian
Signed for and on behalf of the above
petitioners by Dr. Prim Singh on 5th January 2008 at 50 Comiston Road,
Edinburgh, EH10 5QQ in the presence of witnesses Ruth Hendry and Subash
Punn
Specification with factual
and pertinent links
3 (a) –In 2006, while testifying at an Edinburgh court in which
Professor Wilmut lost an unfair dismissal action by Dr. Prim Singh,
Wilmut denied the accusations, but acknowledged that he was not the
'father' or "creator" of Dolly, that he performed none of the
experiments, and that he has minimised the role of some of his fellows.3 (bi) – Professor Wilmut had/has a tremor that does not allow him to undertake any micromanipulation experiments, which is a necessary pre-requisite for the “Dolly” experiment. The experiment was actually carried out by Mr. Bill Ritchie.
The e-mail from Harry Griffin to Dr. Singh (28 May 2002) (96KB PDF) relates of how the expertise for cloning had gone (was lost) yet Wilmut was still at the Institute!
3 (bii) The idea underpinning the “Dolly” experiment, “quiescence”, was that of Keith Campbell: note- Professor Sharp’s statement that Wilmut had behaved previously in the same way before (i.e. stealing credit).
Regarding point 3(a)-b(ii) see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/mar/11/genetics.highereducation1
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1728613,00.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/08/ndolly08.xml
|
Professor
Peter Sharp's testimony to internal investigation (19KB pdf
file)
The above PDF is an section of the interview given by Professor Peter Sharp (PJS) to the investigative committee made up of Mr. Richard Lilley (who wrote notes on the back of his hand to help his testimony in court) and Professor Willie Donachie (WD; The Moredun Institute). It took place between 13:33p.m. and 14:02 p.m. on 16 December 2002. PJS was the only person at Roslin that directly managed both Ian Wilmut (IW) and Prim Singh (PS). He was not brought in as a witness by Roslin Institute in the 40 day trial that was heard at the Edinburgh Employment Tribunal in 2005-6. In his statement PJS states that: "both IW and PS should have been considered as equals" and that "...if he had still been Head of Division he would have ensured that collaboration took place and both IW and PS were treated equally". "PJS also stated that this had arisen with IW on several other occasions [our emphasis]. On previous occasions the situation had not been quite as difficult to mange but was still difficult. Keith Campbell was in the same position but it never got to the situation where a grievance was taken out." |
4 (a) - Probable corruption re: alleged illegal TUPE transfer of Roslin Institute mouse-house work to Bantin and Kingman (Graham Bulfield, Director of Roslin Institute at the time was consultant and non-executive director of B&K). Note: Nicky Kinsey is Bulfield’s daughter and worked for B&K at the time of the TUPE transfer and was the person who would take charge of the Roslin Institute facilities.
* Questionable current outsourcing of supplies to B&K.
* Perceived false accounting of ‘mouse house usage’.
Regarding above point see:
Roberta_Wallace Grievance document (85KB PDF)
Roberta_WallaceET (2150KB PDF)
Anthea_SpringbettET (917KB PDF)
* Suicide of John Clark: Some argue that Clark’s conscience got the better of him – but there were ongoing queries as to his wealth and lifestyle not ignoring his purported fraudulent receipt of around £500,000 from sale of shares received after Roslin Biomed was sold to Geron Biomed.
Note: a similar sum was paid to Ian Wilmut (see newspaper article )
“I got the lolly and didn’t clone Dolly” (103KB PDF)
Regarding above, John Clark, point see:
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/ViewArticle.aspx?articleid=2555216
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=948042004
Point 87 in http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmpubacc/uc414-i/uc41402.htm
* Alleged financial irregularities surrounding the Animal Biotech Cambridge Company run by the professed pornographer Philip Paxman with Professor E.C. Polge (Polge was Wilmut’s PhD supervisor). Paxman sponsored the Dolly the Sheep programme and thus collaborated with Ian Wilmut and Grahame Bulfield.
For above Paxman point see:
News of the World Article (895KB PDF)
Importantly see paragraph 9 of the article below:
http://www2.cambridge-news.co.uk/business/news/2007/10/02/cf4787b6-9c19-419a-beb8-c3afd3518a0f.lpf
* Financial mis-management and mis-appropriation of funds. In or around 1998/9 the Logan building was built at a cost of £1.2million (funded by EU, Scottish Enterprise) and housed Rosgen and Roslin Nutrition companies until around 2002. Rosgen was closed down by its backers, which included Roslin Institute and venture capitalists 3I. Roslin Nutrition decided to move to the Feedmill and applied to Scottish Enterprise for funding of the move. However, unbeknownst to Roslin Nutrition John Withers (secretary to Roslin Institute) had already obtained funding for the move from Scottish Enterprise (approximately £30,000). Little of this money was ever seen by Roslin Nutrition.
* Financial mis-management. The CREC building was built at a cost of around £1.6million, while the predicted budget was around £1million. Major cost was for climate chambers to undertake work funded by DEFRA, EU and private contracts. Very little of this has come to pass and the building remains largely empty.
* Alleged insider trading when shares in Geron Biomed and PPL (a company set up by John Clark) rose after cloning of pigs.
For alleged insider trader point see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/business/1742366.stm
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/ViewArticle.aspx?articleid=2290923
4(b) - The theft of scientific credit for financial gain and academic hubris by Wilmut. The shoddy treatment of many Roslin employees as is demonstrated by the plethora of successful damage actions against Roslin Institute.
For above point see:
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=10&id=617492006
Dolly firm was "Sexist club" - Roberta Wallace and her case. (237KB PDF)
http://news.scotsman.com/ViewArticle.aspx?articleid=2760501
http://news.scotsman.com/ViewArticle.aspx?articleid=2682774
http://news.scotsman.com/ViewArticle.aspx?articleid=2682554
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/29/nwilmut29.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/24/nwilm24.xml
5. Amongst the others it is believed that Grahame Bulfield; Julia Good fellow; Sir Muir Russell; and Professor Maggie Gill may have had a role and derived benefit.
For above point see:
“A big civil servant did it and went away” (364KB PDF)
“I got the lolly ..” (103KB PDF)
Other Factual links
* Roslin Institute Report 98/ 99 (2323KB PDF file)
Prim Singh describes how we can understand the cloning process, called "nuclear reprogramming", by investigating how cells become what they are. We now know that the proteins Singh described in this article, so-called Polycomb proteins, are crucial for maintaining cells in a flexible, stem cell-like, state before they become what they are. Study of Polycomb protein function is a route into understanding nuclear reprogramming.
* Roslin Institute Report 01/02 (1810KB PDF file)
When Dolly was cloned a specialized nucleus (in Dolly's case from the mammary gland) was put in an unfertilised egg. The egg "reprogrammed" the transfered nucleus back to an embryonic form; to a state that is flexible (pluripotent); that can recapitulate the whole of development. Singh describes here some of the key players that need to be "reprogrammed" after nuclear transfer.
* Dr Prim Singh (CV) (192KB PDF file)
Dr. Singh’s acceptance of the position in Roslin was on the basis that he would set up "The Nuclear Reprogramming Laboratory" (which he did) and work on the molecular mechanisms of nuclear reprogramming, which is the process by which cells can be turned from specialised adult cell types (skin cells, heart cells, kidney cells etc) into embryonic cells that have the potential to make any one of the around 200 different cells types that make up the human body. Dr. Singh wrote about this is the 1998-99 annual report for Roslin soon after he was appointed.
Thus nuclear reprogramming is process that underpins the "Dolly" experiment where a nucleus of a specialised cell, in this case from a mammary gland (hence "Dolly" from Dolly Parton) was transferred (by nuclear transfer) into an unfertilised egg where it was "reprogrammed" to an embryonic state that allowed the development of an adult animal. The animal produced, "Dolly", was a clone of the original donor of the mammary gland cell. It was Dr. Singh’s view that understanding this process of nuclear reprogramming would mean that one could obviate the need to use oocytes (eggs) from female donors and that the whole thing could be done in vitro (outside the living animal). Reprogramming of a specialised cell type in vitro has now been achieved by the group of Prof. Yamanaka's group in Kyoto, Japan.
The breathtaking waste that Wilmut has presided over in Edinburgh – where very little cloning has been done since Dolly – has meant that work into understanding nuclear reprogramming has been severely delayed. Scotland has lost out. Prof. Yamanaka's fine work has gone a considerable way to developing well defined systems that will surely enable a detailed understanding of nuclear reprogramming in vitro. There is still a long way to go before these mechanisms are fully understood and therapies based on them routine. If Dr. Singh had been supported instead of being dismissed Scotland would have been much further "down-the-line" and been likely to be first rather than "me-too".
The current highly-publicised volte-face by Wilmut is in one way satisfying in that he know understands that cloning isn't the way forward and understanding basic mechanisms of nuclear reprogramming is, but is very worrying in another way. It would be a great sadness if the "wool-was-pulled" over the public's eyes by Wilmut and journalist Highfield (Telegraph’s Highfield may be tainted from money out of a book he published with Wilmut) if Wilmut was now to lead a publicly-funded effort into understanding nuclear reprogramming. All the signs are there – it was how money was raised for the cloning programme that has now been famously abandoned.
Dr. Singh states: ‘Wilmut simply doesn't have the molecular background to do the job of understanding nuclear reprogramming. To put Wilmut in charge of reprogramming research would, to paraphrase Churchill, be a decision almost as cynical as Caligula making his horse a consul of the Roman Senate.’
* Hansard:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmpubacc/uc414- i/uc41402.htm
which are the minutes of the Public Accounts committee meeting in Whitehall on 5 February 2003. At this meeting the following exchange took place at point 87:
Geraint Davies MP asks Professor Bulfield (Director of Roslin Institute): "Professor Bulfield I know you get six quotes for your plumbers, but I notice that in Dolly the Sheep a couple of scientists got the share, they got some money back, and some of the scientists involved in it did not get any money. Professor Goodfellow said earlier that individual public servants put their own money at risk in relation to this and others do not. Do you think this creates all sorts of internal jealousies, tensions, disincentives and strange motivations between, as it were, the sets of prospective millionaires within the same organisations?"
Professor Bulfield replies: "Well, all of the scientists involved with Dolly got rewards through the Rewards for Inventors scheme. Interestingly enough, one of those scientists was not involved; John Clark was not involved in the invention. They were being rewarded for taking the invention through to the next stage, if you like. Their investment was to invest in how to develop the technology forward. That is what 3i wanted them in the company for and why they had to buy shares. It was not because of what had happened in the past, but what was going to happen in the future and John Clark had skills that could build on the developments to do that."
First, Ian Wilmut said he was not the creator of Dolly, yet took the credit and money:
see the newspaper Article: "I got the lolly but didn't clone Dolly" and the following:
From Daily Telegraph newspaper (U.K. ) (3 articles)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1512377/I-didn%27t-clone-Dolly-the-sheep%2C-says-prof.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/29/nwilmut29.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/24/nwilm24.xml
From Guardian newspaper ( U.K. ) (2 articles)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1728626,00.html
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1728613,00.html
The Times London
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article681771.ece
From the Scotsman newspaper (4 articles)
http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=371292006
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=2325982005
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=2331892005
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=441282006
Article from People's Daily (China).
http://english.people.com.cn/200603/13/eng20060313_250276.html
Newsletter from Genetics and Society:
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/newsletter/archive/20060329.html
Scroll down about 1/3rd the way to "Star system in science" section.
The second point is that John Clark, who didn't have anything to do with it all got £100,000's, while clearly being unbalanced (how was someone getting electro-shock therapy going to take the "invention through to the next stage"!); to the extent of killing himself (Note: separate suggestions that John Clark was part of the purported ‘bung’ ring)
Third point: The money for "Dolly" patents was raised after the company holding the patents, Roslin Biomed (Directors included Ian Wilmut and John Clark), sold it to Geron Corporation, who are based in Palo Alto, for millions. And look what Geron are doing with the "British" invention: see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geron_Corp.
See the discussion (see tab at top) which illustrates what Geron hasn't done and isn't doing, especially sections entitled: "Controversy over GERON Corp's rights to "cloning" technology", "Criticism for touting human stem therapy clinical trials for 4 years in a row"(especially reference 14), “Criticism of Geron CEO” and “Belly up for 2008”.
The bottom line is that a lot of people became rich quick and damn the science and future therapies
* PPL Therapeutics
Another Roslin based company PPL Therapeutics cloned pigs after Dolly. Under the chairmanship of Alan Colman (a revered chum of the Roslin club), PPL went from almost billion-dollar company, when the pig cloning was announced and shares "rocketed", to bust, when it was shown that pig organs contain endogenous retroviruses that would infect human transplant recipients. Colman swiftly moved to Singapore after the debacle where he was touted as the person “internationally known” for his work in “cloning Dolly the Sheep in 1997”
(see: http://www.biomed-singapore.com/bms/sg/en_uk/index/career_centre/inspirations/year_2005/dr_alan_colman_--.html ).
If Wilmut took too much credit what did Colman do? Another person with their “nose in the trough”. An investigation is underway by the Financial Services Authority into alleged insider dealing, where shares in PPL were apparently brought by members of the company and those "in the know", like Geron and Roslin higher management, before the publication of the pig cloning paper, which would have made them very wealthy indeed after the publication and massive rise in PPL shares. In fact the Head of Department at the time (not Wilmut but Peter Sharp) complained of this to Dr Singh but only because he wasn't let in on the insider dealing!
* Wilmut’s false claim to authorship (55KB Pdf)
The attached "scanned-in" e-mail of 5 June 2002 given at the bottom is from Ian Wilmut and states at the third sentence from end that: "We agree that I will be corresponding author". In Ian Cowell's reply (a post-doctoral scientist in Singh's laboratory who attended the meeting) on 6 June 2006, he states: "...I recall it no agreement was reached on who would be corresponding author on any publications that would arrise (sic) directly out of this work". Singh replies on 6 June 2006 at the top regarding nuclear reprogramming ( link to Adult skin cells reprogrammed).
* Dr P Singh (Guilty before charged 20KB Pdf)
The following is an e-mail sent on 9 September 2002 from Richard Lilley (RL) who is HR manager at BBSRC central office. In court, RL read from notes written on the back of his hand in an attempt to falsely accuse Prim Singh (PS) of being vexatious. The e-mail is to Julia Goodfellow (erstwhile CE of BBSRC; now vice principal at Kent University, David White (Director of BBSRC Institute of Food Research); and Mr. Steve Visscher (current CE of BBSRC. It is not clear what Steve Visscher has done as a scientist to taste the heady elixir of being a research council CE.
At the time this e-mail was sent on 9 September 2002 no complaint had yet been made by Dr. Singh. It demonstrates Lilley's hostility towards Singh. Lilley later investigated Prim’s grievance in December 2002 and, unsurprisingly, turned it down. Lilley states that the problem brewing at Roslin: "...is largely about the former's [Singh's] reluctance to abide by institute policy...", although it was Wilmut who falsely claimed authorship (see Wilmut's false claim to authorship.pdf). He goes on to say: "Singh is seen as the offender..." and that "Singh is threatening to resign and claim constructive dismissal, although he has yet to take out a formal grievance..." He confirms that Wilmut already has a job lined up via Grahame Bulfield (ex-Director of Roslin Institute;)
http://www.scotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=441282006
"...there is some concern locally that he [Ian Wilmut] will be offered a position at the University as soon as Grahame Bulfield moves across". No advertisement, no interview but a wonderful position: a rare occasion when cronyism can be seen in writing.
* Paxman
In a recent Cambridge Evening News (CEN) article a Mr. Philip Paxman states that he sponsored the Dolly the Sheep programme (see paragraph 9 in http://www2.cambridge-news.co.uk/business/news/2007/10/02/cf4787b6-9c19-419a-beb8-c3afd3518a0f.lpf.
The nice house he depicted as having been turned in a organic vegetable farm also has another "fruity" past as a bordello. In November 1997, News of the World published an article about the activities of Paxman, the brothel owner (is this how the Dolly programme was funded - Dolly was born in 1996!).
Paxman was a business advisor to the BBSRC and ran ABC, a company that was based in North Cambridge and developed out of the Huntingdon Road Research Center that was funded by the AFRC (the forerunner of the BBSRC). ABC was co-run by Professor EC Polge, ex-Director of Huntingdon Road. Polge was the PhD supervisor of Ian Wilmut and it is apparently Polge that is standing with Paxman in front of the Queen in the News of the World Article.
One of Paxman's roles was to commercially develop the nuclear transfer (NT) technology used at Huntingdon Road (NT was used to clone Dolly at Roslin; Wilmut didn't develop the technology) and also roped in the crowd in Roslin (Roslin Institute is BBSRC too), hence Paxman's bold statement in the CEN that he sponsored the Dolly the sheep programme!
It is claimed by Dr. Singh that he and his work colleagues at Roslin were victimised at Roslin because they protested over the distasteful Roslin management practices of Professor Wilmut and his cronies. Given the number of sackings and subsequent large compensation payments (subject to hush money) made by Roslin there does appear to be more than a little truth in Dr. Singh’s allegations. As yet, there is less evidence to justify claims of legal fixing though internationally Scotland is securing an unfortunate reputation of harbouring ‘bent’ lawyers augmented by an incestuous and crony ridden judiciary.
* Dr. Prim Singh
India-born Dr Singh claims he was passed over for promotion and given second-rate laboratory equipment because he was Asian. The father of three also insists he was dismissed from his position as head of nuclear reprogramming at Roslin in June 2004 after lodging a complaint against Prof Wilmut.
Dr Singh worked for the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council for 18 years, including five at Roslin. He now works for Germany's Leibniz Institute.
Another scientist, Dr Jeremy Brown, also claims he was forced to leave Roslin after backing Dr Singh.
An employment tribunal found that Dr Prim Singh was unfairly dismissed. But it dismissed his claims that he had been victimised and discriminated against by Professor Ian Wilmut.
Dr Singh, a molecular biologist who joined Roslin in 1999, claimed Prof Wilmut tried to steal his ideas and continually bullied him.
The hearing in Edinburgh was told Dr Singh had been transferred to work with Prof Wilmut to help to lead a cloning research department.
Singh told the tribunal that Prof Wilmut was a short-tempered bully who used to shout at him and did not appear to accept that Asian men could have original ideas.
Singh also claimed the professor had denied him the necessary resources and training for his work.
Dr Singh's lawyer, Lawrence Davies, confirmed that his client had won his case for unfair dismissal but that his claims of racial discrimination had been dismissed. An appeal against the racial discrimination determination is lodged and ought to be heard in the Inner House of the Court of Session, Edinburgh, later in 2008.
o Closing Submissions by Mr. Davies (657KB PDF)
o Respondents Submissions by Mr. O’Neill (549KB PDF)
o Further Submissions by Mr. Davies (373KB PDF)
o Grounds of Appeal by Mr. O’Flaherty (160KB PDF)
* Anthea Springbett (See Pdf file)
Anthea Springbett was fired by Roslin for supporting Dr. Singh. Her Trade Union appears to have collaborated with Professor Wilmut. Her case was finally substantially settled extra-judicially (subject to a gagging agreement) by the intervention of Alasdair Darling, her local MP and current Chancellor of the UK Exchequer.
* Roberta Wallace (See Pdf file)
Roberta Wallace, who again supported Dr. Singh, claimed she was bullied and overworked at "the Roslin boys' club" before she handsomely settled out of court on similar conditions to Anthea Springbett above.
* Anne Knox
Anne Knox claimed £150,000 in compensation for unfair dismissal from the country's biggest research centre. Anne Knox, of Aberlady, East Lothian, was on secondment at Roslin Nutrition - a spin-off company from the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, which is backed by the British Biological Science Research Centre - when she was dismissed two-and-a-half years ago.
BBSRC bosses claimed that Ms Knox - who worked at Roslin for nearly 20 years - refused to co-operate with a redeployment programme during a round of redundancies. Ms Knox said they tried to shoehorn her into a temporary job she was not qualified for to avoid paying redundancy. Her defence pointed out that the new job was to last only another ten months before the research programme ended.
An employment tribunal in Edinburgh has heard ten days of evidence over the past year and has asked agents of both parties for written submissions before deciding on the case. Ms Knox is now the operations director at Roslin Nutrition after the company was bought out by former Roslin workers.
At April 2006 this was the third employment tribunal relating to the Roslin Institute - the research centre where Dolly the Sheep was created.
Below are some of the links on this website which will take you to further relevant papers:
See also
Who is Dr Prim Singh
Dolly - the controversy continues
Frost's Scottish Who's Who - Prim Balbir Singh
Is Wilmut a Fraudster?
Dolly the Sheep
Frost's Scottish Who's Who - Ian Wilmut
Let Right be Done - (Poster 90KB PDF)
Ten years on has the cloning dream died
Keith Campbell
The Roslin Institute and Dolly the Sheep
We should farm cloned animals says Dolly expert
Cloned babies - is this right?
The Uses and Misuses of cloning: A RN Discussion
Readers please email comments
to: editorial AT
martinfrost.ws including full name
Return to MartinFrost.ws Main page
Return to MartinFrost.ws Main page