Science clash: Imperial vs Oxford, and the sex smear that created rival Covid-19 studies 

They are heavyweights of the academic world, trading metaphorical punches over the right to proclaim themselves the most influential scientific body in the country.

In one corner is Imperial College, with academics such as Professor Neil Ferguson who are able to claim they have the ear of the Government itself. In the other is Oxford University, led by scientist and author Professor Sunetra Gupta.

The two groups clashed last month when they produced starkly contrasting studies into the possible course of the coronavirus outbreak, with both papers spawning dramatic headlines.

The Imperial paper predicted that up to 250,000 people could die if stringent measures were not enacted quickly – a prediction Boris Johnson clearly took to heart in initiating the UK lockdown. 

The Oxford paper flagged up the equally eyebrow-raising, if more reassuring, possibility that half of us have had the virus already.

What many in the scientific community know but the vast majority of the British public does not, however, is that the rivalry between these two eminent research groups goes back a lot further than the past few weeks.

It began 20 years ago when the leading lights of both groups worked together at Oxford and stems from a sexual smear that resulted in a senior academic, Professor Sir Roy Anderson, leaving to set up his own team at Imperial College in London.

In 1999, Prof Gupta, then already an established author, had been coming to the end of a five-year fellowship in Oxford University's zoology department. She applied for a readership and a panel was convened to decide the matter. It was chaired by Sir Roy, then a Linacre professor of zoology and a Government adviser on various epidemiological matters, who had worked alongside the 34-year-old.

The eight-strong panel voted to award her the readership by six votes to two – but further debate ensued during which, it later emerged, Sir Roy had suggested she was being supported by the head of the zoology department because she had had a relationship with him.

When Prof Gupta, who was married, found out about the slur, she was appalled and demanded an apology. With none forthcoming she asked the university to intervene, but at first got little traction. "It seems to me the university was trying to brush it under the carpet," she said later.

Meanwhile, to her mind, Professor Anderson was behaving in a "peculiar" way towards her. She said afterwards: "He tried to take away the office that came with the job, and he took away the responsibility of running an MSc course without telling me. It was starting to be a bit ridiculous."

But she persevered and, nine months later, succeeded in extracting a full apology from Sir Roy. Admitting that there was "no foundation in truth whatsoever" for the smear, Sir Roy wrote in a letter that "I sincerely regret the distress and embarrassment which was caused to you as a result of my making this allegation. I have the highest professional respect for you and your work".

For Prof Gupta, the matter was ended, but the damage to Sir Roy's career looked terminal. He was suspended by the university and then reinstated, but was eventually forced out by his own colleagues.

But his departure turned into a new beginning for him and others. He went to Imperial College, ironically Prof Gupta's alma mater, and set up a mathematical modelling team which proceeded to set the agenda over the coming decades by producing policy-influencing studies on big viral issues.

Together with his protege Prof Ferguson, who joined him there, he produced work on the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001. It was credited with shaping the Government's controversial culling strategy, which led to the deaths of six and a half million animals.

Eight years later, Prof Ferguson, then an adviser to the Government and the World Health Organisation, sounded the alarm over swine flu, warning that it could cost up to four million lives globally and floating a study on the anti-viral benefits of closing all UK schools. In the end, schools mostly stayed open and the worldwide death toll was 18,500.

This time, however, in terms of influencing Government actions, the Imperial team has hit the jackpot. As part of Sage (the Scientific Advice Group for Emergencies), Prof Ferguson has access to the heart of Government.

His report last month so shook the Prime Minister and his advisers that it reportedly prompted them to shift tack, moving from gradually attempting to achieve "herd immunity" to a lockdown of most businesses, with people only allowed to leave their homes under limited circumstances.

Most accepted the draconian measures as necessary despite the lack of a peer-reviewed model, but there was the odd raised eyebrow over the absence of much scientific debate.

"I am surprised that there has been such unqualified acceptance of the Imperial model," Prof Gupta said shortly after its publication.

That was certainly not the case in respect of her paper, which said there was an immediate need for large-scale serological surveys to assess the stage of the epidemic. She was slated for everything from supposedly ignoring the data, to the crime of going "straight to the media".

Prof Gupta, who is not on the Sage committee, refused to criticise the Imperial study but defended her own, saying: "The truth is that the study essentially focuses on a very simple concept which is that we don't know which fraction of the population is truly vulnerable to severe disease and death.

"That’s what's astonishing here, because there are no assumptions here. That is a misrepresentation of the paper, because we don't make an assumption about the fraction vulnerable to disease and death."

Prof Ferguson said on Friday night that he and Prof Gupta had "the greatest respect for each other". "Sunetra chatted last night," he said. "We're friends, colleagues. It's not influencing the science today at all. Sunetra and I have always got on. I never fell out with her, and actually she will give you the same view.

"I would say at the moment she came out with an interesting but speculative paper. I don't think it will be supported by the data, but she had every right to publish it. I give my views. It doesn't affect our personal relationship at all, and it's not a reflection on any sort of personal relationship.

"She does a very different sort of modelling, she is interested in the evolution of infectious disease. I think data will be coming out in the next day or so which will indicate that actually we don't have anything close to 50 per cent of the population infected."

Of the events of 20 years ago, Prof Ferguson said: "Roy made mistakes. I think a lot of people, in terms of how they handled that, have made mistakes. I stayed well clear of it – I maintained a good relationship with both Roy and Sunetra.

"I don't actually see Roy very much nowadays. We don't really overlap, and he hasn't been involved in any of the work that we're doing."

A spokesman for Prof Gupta said: "Prof Gupta remains friendly with Prof Neil Ferguson and greatly respects his academic work. Historically, Prof Gupta has not been involved with public policy bodies, including Sage, as her work is more focused on the mathematical modelling to identify vaccine targets.  Typically, she does not take on such advisory roles."

A spokesman for Oxford University said: "The university and its researchers are focused fully on their work to tackle the coronavirus pandemic. No one is giving any attention to historic matters which have been considered closed for many years."

Sir Roy, now the director of the Centre for Neglected Tropical Disease Research at Imperial was unable to comment on Friday due to illness.