http://environment.guardian.co.uk/ethicalliving/story/0,,1953548,00.html

The Guardian. 22 November 2006.

Cagey questions. The outcry after a documentary about cruelty at Huntingdon Life Sciences laboratory brought about many changes in animal testing. Zoe Broughton, who exposed the abuses, looks at the situation a decade later.

It is 10 years since I worked undercover on animal testing at Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS). As a laboratory technician, I cleaned cages and held the puppies while tests were performed. I secretly filmed and caught on camera staff abusing the dogs so horrendously that the day after my article appeared in the Guardian, and the film was broadcast on Channel 4, the police turned up at the perpetrators' doors and arrested them.

After my exposé, the then chief executive of HLS, Christopher Cliffe, wrote a report titled Dog Days in Huntingdon: Lessons From A Corporate Crisis. In this he stated that "the managers thought that the scenes broadcast were tricks of the camera and that mitigating circumstances, such as the 'agent provocateur' behaviour of the infiltrator, would influence the outcome of any investigation".

I had clear video evidence showing staff hitting and shaking the puppies as they experimented on the dogs. The two technicians were convicted of cruelty to animals under the Protection of Animals Act 1911, pleading guilty to cruelly treating dogs. This was the first and only time in the UK that laboratory staff had been convicted of cruelty to animals. Both were sentenced to 60 hours' community service and ordered to pay £250 costs.

Some of the tests I witnessed were mishandled. Staff didn't always measure out the capsule doses correctly, and on another test I saw them inject syringes straight into the bin when they couldn't locate a puppy's veins. This had huge implications for the laboratory. HLS is the largest contract-testing laboratory in Europe, performing tests for many big pharmaceutical companies. Many withdrew their work after the programme was broadcast, and within a few weeks the HLS share price fell from 126p to 54p.

In HLS's 1997 annual report, the chairman, Roger Pinnington, stated: "Huntingdon suffered from a collapse in confidence from a number of its previously supportive study sponsors following allegations in April/May 1997 of malpractice ..." Licence revoked

The Home Office conducted a full investigation into the Cambridgeshire company and "identified shortcomings relating to the care, treatment and handling of animals". As a result Huntingdon's licence to operate was revoked. The then Home Office minister, George Howarth, told parliament in a written answer that "the revocation of the licence would result with closure of the company and a loss of 1,400 jobs". The Home Office allowed Huntingdon to continue operating and to apply for a replacement certificate subject to 16 conditions to prevent any reoccurrence of the events shown in the programme.

So, 10 years on, have things changed?

In 1997, cosmetic, alcohol and tobacco testing was banned in the UK, and in 1998 testing of cosmetic ingredients was also banned. But the total number of procedures on animals in UK laboratories was 2,709,631 in 1995, and for 2005 it was up to 2,896,198.

There is now the 2005 Freedom of Information Act and, as Simon Festing, from the Research Defence Society, says: "There is greater openness from the scientific community and a willingness to explain why we need to use animals in research."

But the British Union Against Vivisection (Buav) campaigns director, Alistair Currie, points out: "Both HLS and the Home Office have used the excuse of 'commercial confidentiality' to refuse several requests since the act was passed. So HLS can have their PR line, but the public has no way of holding them to account."

And what of protecting the animals inside the laboratories? Festing says: "Improvements in animal welfare [have been] brought about by better standards of housing and a culture of care in various institutions, and a greater commitment to the 3 Rs." The 3 Rs are: reduce the number of animals being used; refine the experiments so that animals suffer as little as possible; and replace animal experiments if possible. Festing adds: "The 2005 Freedom of Information Act means that the UK has more info about animal research in the public domain than any other country in the world."

I have been requesting a tour of HLS, but its openness hasn't yet stretched to me gaining access. Its marketing director, Andrew Gay, told me that the dogs are now paired up all the time - not kept in cages on their own - and they have a shelf for a bed. In terms of the animal welfare, they now have a "culture of care", which is, as he put it, "quite a nebulous thing".

When I asked if he would tell me what other changes have been made, an email sent on his behalf said: "I will not be sending you any updates on changes that have occurred here in the past 10 years. As I mentioned, some of the managers here have long memories and have had to deal with the many repercussions (not animal welfare) which have become associated with your film, and would not wish the company to help you with your article."

The staff, including their managers, have had a tough time. Animal rights extremists have been targeting the company. Brian Cass, the managing director, was attacked with pickaxe handles outside his home in February 2001. Shareholders have had messages spray painted on their houses and acid poured on their cars. The government has strengthened the police's ability to deal with animal rights extremism and has established the National Extremism Tactical Coordinating Unit. But it is costing Cambridgeshire police £1m a year to investigate and prosecute protesters against HLS. Over the past decade, campaign groups have begun using a new style of protest, targeting funders and shareholders. At one point, this forced the HLS share price to below 2p. A House of Commons research paper stated that "the combination of violent attacks and targeting of the company's financial support pushed it to the brink of bankruptcy".

The animal testing industry is not without its campaigners, and there has been a small wave of protest in support; 20,000 people have signed up to The People's Petition, which can be accessed through the HLS website and which gives people the opportunity to register their support for animal testing and for those who work in the industry.

A young student, Laurie Pycroft, angry at the animal rights protesters started a pro movement. Last June, the Pro Test campaign attracted hundreds of supporters, who marched through the streets of Oxford in support of the new £18m research laboratory being built there. Driving past the site, I noticed that the builders were wearing balaclavas to hide their identities, vehicles were unmarked, and a 15-ft fence had been erected.

In the past 10 years there have been laws passed that can be used against the animal rights campaigners, such as the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Activists from Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (Shac) and the Oxford Speak group have had injunctions served on them under the Protection from Harassment Act, which protects the staff from assault, molesting, harassing and threatening behaviour. At HLS, Gay says: "Violent acts have been reduced since legislation came into power."

But the wording of these new laws means that police could use them on any campaigners, and this could affect our rights to protest. As environmentalist and journalist George Monbiot said: "The government has used the excuse of violent animal rights protest to legislate against protest of all kinds, however peaceful. The police now have the powers to stop anyone from protesting anywhere by any means." But how can we be sure that what I witnessed will not happen again. The Home Office made 25 spot-checks at HLS in the past year, but they were making unannounced visits when I was there and they didn't pick up on the animal abuse or the fiddling of the doses.

Gem D'Silva, Buav's investigations director, says: "It has undoubtedly got harder to go undercover. The industry has acknowledged that infiltration and investigation of labs is the best tool those campaigning for an end to experiments on animals have got. So it is not surprising that in the past 10 years companies like HLS have spent vast sums trying to keep us out by doing things such as going on anti-infiltration courses and using stricter vetting procedures."

Ten years on, my views on animal testing are the same: I've never been against it. I went into HLS because I am a journalist and was working for Small World Productions on a Channel 4 documentary. But it still seems that the only way we'll really know what is going on in laboratories is when someone straps on a spy camera kit and broadcasts the results again.
 

· Catalogue of change

1997 Cosmetic, alcohol and tobacco testing on animals banned in the UK.

1997 Extremist targeting of single companies emerges as a tactic.

1998 Testing of cosmetic ingredients banned.

1999 Home Office introduced local ethical review.

1999 Researchers first become concerned about the increasing burden of regulation to carry out quality scientific research.

1999 Agreement formalised not to give licences for great ape research.

2001-05 Three inquiries in four years about the validity, ethics and legislation of animal research; all confirmed that animal research could contribute to medical and veterinary advances. These were carried out by a House of Lords select committee, the Animal Procedures Committee, and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

2004 Government sets up a National Centre for the 3Rs to take forward an ethical approach to animal research.

2005 Freedom of Information Act means that the UK has more information about animal research in the public domain than any other country.

2005 Government commits to tackling animal rights extremism. 2006M Companies and research institutions now have a culture of greater openness, such as statements on websites and allowing the media access to research centres.