PERVERSE AND IRRATIONAL
The
Ombudsman's
Report into Illegal Cruelty in Animal Research
Background
In 2003, Uncaged and their Director Dan Lyons won a historic legal
victory over multinational drug company Novartis. Despite huge
inequalities in resources, Uncaged won the right to published leaked
confidential documents describing pig-to-primate organ transplant
experiments that were conducted by Novartis' Cambridge-based
subsidiary Imutran. Uncaged had argued that the public interest
in revealing illegal animal cruelty and misconduct by Home Office
Inspectors justified the disclosure of Novartis' confidential
information. Uncaged subsequently lodged a complaint against the
Home Office with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
('the Ombudsman').
Flaws in the Ombudsman's Investigation
Unfortunately, the Ombudsman's investigation has been shambolic
and strongly indicates a bias in favour of the Home Office. In
particular, the investigation report makes a basic error when it
confuses the facts of this case, which corresponds to the most
severe level of pain and distress:
conscious primates being allowed to suffer in severe transplant
experiments for several days until they are found dead or in a
collapsed state
with this type of experiment, which regulations consider to involve
the mildest level of pain:
experiments that are conducted entirely under general anaesthetic
and where the animal is killed before it regains consciousness
The Ombudsman has interpreted our complaint as being about the
deaths of the animals, when in fact it concerns the degree of suffering
before the animals die. Death, in itself, is not considered a 'harm' under
present legislation, so it is irrelevant to our complaint. Anyone
who takes a few minutes to look into the case will be shocked at
the Ombudsman's bizarre 'reasoning'.
A statement on the Ombudsman's
website indicates that they
refuse to acknowledge the serious failures in their handling of
the case.
The Ombudsman's persistent refusal to:
- consider the case and the substantive issues we have raised
in an objective way, and
- failure to offer any explanation for their perverse and irrational
decisions
raises serious concerns about the competence and impartiality
of their investigation. Indeed, the Ombudsman's conduct strongly
suggests that they have sought to justify a predetermined conclusion
(to exonerate the Home Office) rather than be guided by sound professional
standards.
This is indicated by their refusal to acknowledge, never mind
engage with, our explanation of why their report confuses the circumstances
in our case with experiments conducted entirely under general anaesthesia.
The claim on their website that they 'took full account of
the further representations received in respect of the case' is
mistaken and untrue.
Our explanation regarding the Ombudsman's confusion about
the deaths of the Imutran primates was an entirely novel submission
made in direct response to their report issued on 23 December 2005.
The Ombudsman then decided to ignore that explanation on the false
premise that it did not add to previous submissions. This decision
is so obviously unsound that, inevitably, suspicions are raised
about the motivation underpinning their handling of this case.
These suspicions are only reinforced by their persistent refusal
to offer an explanation for such a perplexing decision.
The Ombudsman's refusal to accept our criticisms of the
report indicates that either they don't understand the case
or they have made a conscious decision to discount those criticisms
because that would jeopardise their predetermined decision.
Confidence in the Ombudsman's investigation is further undermined
when one considers Uncaged's unique expertise in animal research
policy. Dr Lyons has recently been awarded the Walter Bagehot Prize
by the Political Studies Association (the learned society for political
science in the UK) for the best thesis in Government and Public
Administration in 2007. This research employed the Imutran experiments
as a critical case study of the evolution of animal research policy,
and establishes Dr Lyons as one of the UK's leading authorities
on this subject. Professor William Maloney, who judged the prize,
said: "Dr Lyons' thesis is theoretically and conceptually
sophisticated, and the descriptive component of Dr Lyons' work
is rich in detail and his analysis is thorough and excellent."
Sadly, the same cannot be said for the Ombudsman's investigation.
In normal circumstances, they would come to Dr Lyons for expert
advice to assist with investigations in this policy area. Yet,
we have a surreal situation where, despite their relative ignorance,
they lack the courtesy and impartiality to even consider Uncaged's
submissions.
The Ombudsman's report is a travesty, and Uncaged will continue
to highlight this fact until, at the very least, we receive a substantial
response to our criticisms of the report. Given the Ombudsman's
failure to take account of our substantial submissions, particularly
in relation to the maladministration of severity limits, there
remain compelling and substantial reasons to reopen the case.
Dr Dan Lyons, Uncaged Campaigns, 18 April
2008 |
