Government Corruption

The role of government in a democracy is to represent the will of the electorate; the government's pre-election promises (on which the electorate have based their vote) are implemented once it has been voted in. However, when there is a clash between the interests of democracy and the interests of the pharmaceutical industry, democracy swiftly takes a back seat - a case in point being Labour's pre-election promises regarding animal research.

The Pharmaceutical Industry Competitiveness Task Force (PICTF) was set up after a meeting in November 1999 between PM Blair and the big pharmaceutical guns: the CEOs of Astra Zeneca, Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham. The role of a resulting report by PICTF: to identify areas where the industry's effectiveness could be streamlined within the UK business environment to maximise their power. Where Animal Welfare and Research were concerned, the implications of increasingly complex procedures for obtaining licences for animal research, coupled with the new Freedom of Information Act meant that the UK was not a comfortable environment for the growth of the vivisection industry.

In order to minimise any potential harm to the industry, Lord Sainsbury chaired a working group that discussed how to weaken vivisection regulations. The group made unilateral decisions on areas of policy which were strictly the jurisdiction of the Home Office and the Animal Procedures Committee; animal protection groups were completely excluded from these discussions. It is this Task Force, and the working group chaired by Lord Sainsbury, which is responsible for subverting Government policy on animal experimentation.

The result is that the regulatory framework for granting licences continues to be a rubber-stamping process, rather than one in which each application is closely scrutinised, confirming what anti-vivisectionists have always said. The "increasing complexity" that the drug companies complained of refers to the Labour pledges and policies insisting on highest possible welfare standards, ensuring animal use only where "essential" and that all vivisection establishments set up Ethical Review Processes (ERPs) to monitor vivisection research proposals and practices.

These pledges did not address the fundamental moral and scientific imperative for the abolition of vivisection but did represent a potential for increasing the level of consideration given to animals when vivisection licence applications were being assessed (the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 requires the harms that animals will suffer from an experiment to be weighed against the supposed benefit that would accrue to humans from the research).

The PICTF Report claims that "streamlining licencing procedures" will lead to improvements in animal welfare. Conversely, the collusion between Government and Pharm industry has ensured that Labour's pre-election promises will not be met. It has shown contempt for the law and has set the stage for more experiments of greater severity to be conducted on animals. The report has tried to block the application of the Freedom of Information Act to animal experiments and further recommended that the ABPI be consulted whenever a Government policy was being considered which might affect the drug industry. An additional appendix suggests that the drug industry examine ways to dismantle animal welfare regulations blocking the progress of pharmacology in the UK.

Tony Blair's contribution in the form of a foreword to the PICTF report cements the association and conspiracy between government and pharmaceutical companies to pervert democracy: "A key feature in maintaining the UK's attractiveness as a location for investment will be effective partnership at the highest levels between Government and industry. That is why I am delighted at the work and outputs of the PICTF."

The PICTF also aims to pervert policy in a number of other areas such as the NHS, education, clinical research, and the assessment of the safety and effectiveness of new drugs. Not only will animal testing policy be dictated by the drug industry, but health, education and economic policy are to be formulated in the corporate interest rather than the public interest, overturning the principles of democracy in the process.

A chilling prospect indeed.