|
More Uncaged sites:
Contact us:
Uncaged Campaigns,
5th Floor,
Alliance House,
9 Leopold Street,
Sheffield,
S1 2GY, UK
+44 (0) 114 283 1155
info@uncaged.co.uk
| |
news release
 SECRETS
AND LIES: Uncaged attacks Government statement enshrining vivisection
secrecy
Leading UK anti-vivisection group Uncaged has expressed disgust
at the announcement today by Home Office Minister Caroline Flint to maintain
a ban on disclosure of details of animal experiments. [1]
The decision will do nothing to enhance the personal safety of animal
researchers, and is in fact likely to make matters worse.
In refusing to repeal Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures)
Act 1986 - the so-called 'confidentiality clause' - the Government has
chosen to ignore the recommendations for greater openness made by relatively
conservative bodies such as the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals
in Scientific Procedures [2]
and its own advisory committee [3],
as well as the entire animal welfare movement.
Having consulted on the issue for four years, the Government has decided
to do virtually nothing. The appalling decision has come as no surprise
to Uncaged, whose campaigns are completely non-violent. Campaigns Director
Dan Lyons commented:
"The Government refused to endorse the findings of its own
advisors and announced some months ago that it would discuss freedom
of information solely with those who conduct animal experiments, so
it is no surprise that they have decided to back the vivisection industry
to the hilt. This is par for the course for a Government whose animal
research policy is bent to the point of illegality.
"The Government's excuse - protecting the safety of scientists
- is a complete red herring. Everybody in favour of the repeal of the
confidentiality clause was happy for personal details to be removed
from any information released. What's more, at this moment anyone can
walk into a library or browse the internet and obtain the names and
work addresses of hundreds of animal researchers. As the Government
probably realises, retaining Section 24 will do nothing to protect those
involved in vivisection, but will keeping the public in the dark about
the horrific reality of animal research."
Confidential documents leaked to Uncaged from the Home Office and failed
pig organ transplant firm Imutran, demonstrate what the industry has to
hide. Uncaged won a two-and-a-half year legal battle to publish the documents
having argued that it was in the public interest to reveal collusion,
misconduct and illegal behaviour on the part of Government Inspectors
and animal researchers. [4]
The documents included researchers' records for hundreds of primates
as they died following pig organ transplant experiments. They revealed
that several primates were allowed to become so ill that they were "found
dead" in their cages before they could be put down, in direct breach
of the law. Other harrowing observations included: "very distressed
and having difficulty breathing... animal collapsed"; "uncoordinated
limb spasms", "suffered a stroke", "retching and salivating",
"abdomen swollen and appears fluid filled. Salivating. Very laboured
breathing. Extreme difficulty trying to walk", "large volume
of bloody mucoid faeces", "Collapsed on cage floor, appears
weak and unable to get up, breathing shallow and rapid, salivating, heavy
lidded eyes, body and limb tremors"
The papers also included communications between Imutran and the lab where
the research took place, Huntingdon Life Sciences. They revealed that
monkeys were illegally re-used due to failures at the controversial establishment,
as well as mistakes in the performance of the experiments such as a quadruple
drug overdose. These mistakes should have put Huntingdon's licence to
conduct animal tests in jeopardy. The Parliamentary Ombudsman is currently
considering two separate complaints against the Home Office over it failure
to enforce the law in the Imutran research.
Amazingly, confidential Home Office papers - of precisely the type that
the Government wishes to keep secret - were also published by Uncaged
with the agreement of the research company themselves. Names of individuals
and particular commercially-sensitive information were blocked out. Dan
Lyons observes:
"Our victory in the Imutran case, and the format of the published
documents, show that freedom of information can be achieved without
highlighting the individuals concerned. Every time information leaks
out of vivisection laboratories, we discover an appalling picture totally
at odds with the image projected by the animal testing industry. The
Government's decision today is all about manipulating the public debate
and hiding illegal cruelty.
"Ironically, the more extreme and secretive the Government
and animal researchers become, the more likely it is that activists
will give up on traditional forms of campaigning and take matters directly
into their own hands. If the Home Office and animal researchers are
not prepared to play by the rules, thereby inflicting horrific suffering
on animals, then they are hypocritical to complain about law-breaking
by anti-vivisection activists."
Uncaged also dismisses Government plans to publish 'anonymised information'
about animal research as an "empty gesture". Dan Lyons
continues:
"This information will be produced by the Home Office and
the animal researchers themselves: there will be no independent scrutiny
to ensure that it is truly representative. Even supporters of animal
experiments admit that researchers underestimate animal suffering and
exaggerate the likely human benefit of their vivisection proposals.
[5] We won our legal
battle having argued that Imutran had misrepresented their research.
These people simply cannot be trusted."
REFERENCES:
- Home Office Press Release. "Protecting Science,
Promoting Openness", Ref 219/2004, 1 July 2004 11:14.
- HL Paper 150-1, 16 July 2002, paragraphs 9.11-9.18.
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldanimal.htm
- Animal Procedures Committee. Report on Openness. August
2001 - www.apc.gov.uk/reference/openness.pdf
- www.xenodiaries.org.
The Observer "Exposed: secrets of the animal organ lab", 20
April 2003 (accessible at: observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,940033,00.html)
- E.g. Dr Robert Hubrecht, Universities Federation for
Animal Welfare, quoted in the Report of the House of Lords Select Committee
on Animals in Scientific Procedures, paragraph 5.21. This point was
also made by the RSPCA.
Uncaged Campaigns 01.07.04 |
