Animal Experiments: Freedom of Information
The need for information
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) is supposed to permit
public access to information held by government and other public
authorities. The Government acknowledges that freedom of information
(FoI) is a crucial feature of a democratic society as it makes
government more open and transparent, and answerable to UK citizens.
It is only right that public organisations which make key decisions
affecting the lives of millions of people - and animals -
are subject to the FOIA and the additional accountability it brings
to decision-making.
Animal experimentation is an issue of enormous public concern
that requires public accountability and an informed public debate.
Thus, it is essential that citizens have access to information
about what actually happens to the animals, including the level
of suffering endured by the animals measured against the predicted
suffering. Similarly, the actual outcomes of the research program
need to be compared with the predicted outcomes. Specifically,
the following information submitted to the Government department
that regulates animal experiments - the Home Office - should
be disclosed as a minimum:
- the project licence application forms
- any correspondence between the Home Office, the researchers
and the establishment relating to the experiments
- progress reports and study reports that record the procedures
performed on the animals and the effects of those procedures
This information is essential to ensuring that the law of the
land is being implemented.
Current secrecy
However, a number of exceptions prevent the disclosure of certain
types of information and, frustratingly, detailed information about
the use of animals in experiments remains undisclosed under the
act. In particular, a recent Court of Appeal judgment decided that
Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 effectively
prohibits the Home Office - which regulates the practice - from
applying FOIA to the information they hold on animal experimentation.
Therefore, at the moment, the only time quality information comes
into the public domain is via undercover investigations and exposés
such as Uncaged’s groundbreaking Diaries of Despair (DOD)
report. Interestingly, such revelations invariably disclose extreme
suffering, serious illegal actions such as breaches of severity
limits, and a generally cavalier attitude to the regulatory system.
Another concern about the secrecy surrounding animal experiments
is that it allows drug companies to distort results in order to
dishonestly market new treatments. Hence, animal research transparency
is as vital for public health as it is for animal protection and
a functioning democracy.
The Court of Appeal judgment referred to above was made reluctantly
on basis of the letter of the law. The Government told the court
that it would review section 24, but has failed to fulfil this
pledge. This preference for official secrecy has a long history.
In 1876 the Government decided that any papers relating to its
administration of the Cruelty to Animals Act - the first
Act designed to regulate animal experiments - would remain
secret for 100 years. In 1965, the Home Office’s Littlewood
Enquiry stated:
"It is clear to us that there has been an appearance of
secrecy about the practice of animal experimentation in the past.
The public has little information to go on..."
Secrecy predates the recent phenomenon of extremist activity by
more than a century: it has simply been a tool to keep animal research
off the political agenda and thus maintain the status quo. Indeed,
in recent FoI cases, issues surrounding personal safety have been
disposed of. The remaining barrier to openness is merely the perverse
effect of Section 24 and the Home Office’s ingrained culture
of secrecy.
The effects of secrecy
At the time of the DOD exposé, a member of the Animal Procedures
Commission (APC), Robert McCracken QC, submitted a report on the
case to a House of Lords enquiry where he called for greater openness
and expressed his concern that even members of the APC are not
allowed access to the full information on the very experiments
they are supposed to monitor. McCracken stated that the scarce
information he had seen at the APC suggested that ‘there
may well be much unauthorised suffering by animals which is neither
observed by Inspectors nor reported’.
The working group behind the report expressed further concerns
about the effects of secrecy that included:
- the authorisation of repetitive or otherwise unjustifiable
work
- licensing conditions that do not ensure the minimisation
of suffering
- breaches of conditions (exposed by undercover investigations)
are not viewed seriously by the authorities.
McCracken also reported that a Glaxo Wellcome [now Glaxo SmithKline]
spokesperson had openly admitted that the company had an interest
in not publishing so called ‘blind alley’ research
results in order to force their competitors to spend time and money
repeating the same experiments.
As a broad principle, secrecy in government leads to arrogance
in governance and defective decision-making. As the famous philosopher
Jeremy Bentham said: ‘In the darkness of secrecy sinister
interest and evil in every shape, have full swing… Where
there is no publicity there is no justice.’ Conversely, openness
is the best way of ensuring good practice and sound, defensible
decision-making.
Changing the culture of secrecy
In 2001, the APC recommended repeal or amendment of section 24
in the interests of greater openness, as did the House of Lords
Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures in 2002. The
Nuffield Council on Bioethics also called for greater openness
in 2005. The Government’s persistent refusal to implement
these recommendations - made by institutions broadly in favour
of animal research - is indicative of its extreme and untenable
policy on this matter.
In order to deflect mounting pressure for more openness, the Home
Office instead publishes summaries or ‘abstracts’ of
the animal research project licence applications, written by the
applicants themselves. These are little more than a PR exercise
on behalf of animal researchers. The Information Tribunal has been
highly critical of this process, observing:
the abstracts appear generally to adopt a style and tone intended
to persuade the reader as to the value of the proposed experiments.
This is in contrast to the style of the licence applications, which
are more neutral in tone. This perception of a positive spin having
been applied to the published information was increased by the
absence from the abstracts of the detail about the experiments
themselves. (1)
However, the High Court settlement agreed between Uncaged and
animal research company Imutran/Novartis proves beyond doubt that
reliable primary data concerning animal research and its regulation
can be disclosed without endangering researchers’ safety.
These documents can be viewed here.
All animal protection organisations campaigning for greater openness,
as well as the aforementioned respected institutions, are clear
that information about animal experiments should be anonymised
so as to remove any possibility that the personal safety of researchers
is endangered. Given that each animal experiment is only rendered
legal through authorisation by the Government, acting on behalf
of voters, we believe that the public should be able to access
all other information relevant to the ethics of animal experiments,
including what is being done to the animals and for what purpose.
Do you support the repeal of Section 24 of the 1986 Act
and the application of FOI to animal experiments, except for
personal and genuinely confidential information?
YES / NO
REFERENCES:
- See paragraph 8 of decision at www.informationtribunal.gov.uk.
^ |
