 MAKING
MISTAKES
Apology from the BBC
BBC Radio 4's Today programme broke the news in January that
Cambridge University was abandoning its plans for a massive primate research
centre. This followed years of campaigning
against the project - at the centre of which was Animal Aid.
The Today item was a gross distortion of the truth of
the campaign, with Animal Aid Director Andrew Tyler's words being heavily edited
and the pro-monkey research lobby getting an essentially free hand. In response
to our complaint, the BBC have now conceded that
they made mistakes and have offered an apology. But it's a partial apology and
some central elements of our complaint have not been upheld. See the BBC's letter
and our response to it, below.
Our response
Fraser Steel
Head of Programme Complaints
BBC
Media Centre
Media Village
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TQ
March 26, 2004
Dear Mr Steel
Today, Radio 4, 27 January 2004-03-21
Thank you for your March 8 letter. Let me say at the outset that I appreciate
the trouble you have taken to investigate my complaint. I am also gratified
by the points conceded - but extremely disappointed that you have not
upheld the central elements of my complaint about the broadcast.
You say that the Inspector's report was not sufficiently definitive on the
question of the scientific argument to include that issue in the piece. I regard
that as a wholly unreasonable conclusion. CU failed at the inquiry to make its
case that the proposed primate research was in the national interest - which
was the test for overriding the Green Belt status of the land earmarked for
the project.
It is true that the Inspector found that CU's bundle of evidence was
incomplete but that is a mark of the University's incompetent, confused
and arrogant approach to the inquiry. The fact remains that, after showing early
reluctance, CU recognised the importance of winning the scientific argument
and submitted a good deal of evidence - mainly at the rebuttal phase of
the inquiry. That evidence failed to convince the Inspector. We submitted our
own scientific evidence that, in my view, added up to a far more orderly and
convincing argument. Let me remind you of this statement from the Inspector's
final report: 'If one accepts the premise that wherever possible research
should not involve animals, it would be a stronger argument to say that it is
nationally important to keep together and service the excellent and acknowledged
research expertise in Cambridge to catch up on alternative forms of research
to that employing animals.'
This was precisely what we argued.
It follows from this that our High Court challenge to the DPM's decision
to over-rule his own Inspector, was absolutely germane and should have been
included in the report. You justify omitting that development by claiming that
the focus of the piece 'was on the meaning and significance of the decision'
by CU to abandon its plans. It certainly was not. The piece seemed concerned
to re-animate old demons - animal rights campaigners as violent morons -
while omitting entirely the true history of the campaign; a campaign that had
involved - as well as protests - literally years of diligent engagement
with the local council, full involvement in the public inquiry, public meetings
and, most recently, a High Court challenge to the Deputy Prime Minister.
It is true that I was heard to say in the item that we demonstrated our case
at a public inquiry and won - but in the context of what preceded and
followed that statement, no-one could have known the significance of the words
I uttered: i.e. that CU were put to the test on the scientific efficacy of the
primate model and failed that test. This is an extremely important fact that
I should have been allowed to communicate to the Today listeners.
I note that you uphold my complaint that Colin Blakemore was allowed to state
- unchallenged - that the objectors' scientific arguments played
no part in the process. This statement by Blakemore was a pernicious falsehood
that, when added to the failure of the piece to detail the outcome of the public
Inquiry and the fact of our High Court challenge, did real damage. His falsehood
cannot simply be treated as a disposable problem.
In summary, I do appreciate the points conceded and the time you have taken
on this matter, but we remain extremely disappointed with regard to the aspects
that have not been upheld.
The totality of the Today item, in my view, served to create an impression
of a victory for the forces of violent, misanthropic nihilism - our key arguments
and explanations having been assiduously excised.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Tyler
Director, Animal Aid
-
Find out more about the campaign against the Cambridge primate
research labs.
For the full background, scientific reports and latest news see the Cambridge
index.
-
Join Animal Aid in the campaign against all animal abuse.
Click here for membership details.
|
