This new section will cover news and campaigns around privatisation, PPPs (Public-Private Partnerships) PFI (Private Finance Initiative) local authority sell-offs and similar schemes.

The Great Gene Sell-Off

Privatisation takes a whole new turn as the Blair plc contemplates selling off something they don't own and which most people don't even realise exists - genetic records.

A panel recruited by Health Secretary Alan Milburn to advise on the Genetics Green Paper is calling for the NHS to auction off results of genetic testing to drug companies. The idea, revealed in papers leaked to the Genetic Engineering Network (GEN) and the Observer, has been condemned as a privatisation too far and a breach of civil liberties.

Apart from the objection to selling off information given for free for another purpose, the plan raises worries about how consent will be obtained - especially as doctors may have an interest in obtaining financially valuable samples. Although the leaked papers make perfunctory mention of confidentiality, anonymity could be breached and insurance companies, the police and employers would then surely be interested in obtaining data. Another confidentiality issue is ignored - would discoveries based on genes from an NHS database be published immediately for the public good, or would they disappear under a cloak of commercial confidentiality until patentable and profitable?

The industry emphasis, and contempt for ethical considerations, is hardly surprising given that the panel is made up overwhelmingly of of scientists, medics and pharmaceutical industry lobbyists, plus two representatives of genetic research NGOs (Genetic Interest Group and Breakthrough Breast Cancer) and one lone bioethicist. The minutes and accompanying members' submissions contain much discussion of the needs of industry, and the advantages for the NHS of industry involvement, accompanied by an assumption that concerns about industry involvement (and about use of genetic information generally) are the result of ignorance and bad PR. Dr David King of Human Genetics Alert, in an analysis written for GEN, expressed concern that the panel is meeting in secret and without involvement by official ethics advisers the Human Genetics Commission - yet another case where policy is being written behind the scenes by industry-dominated groups.

The most vociferous proponent of the plan to privatise Britain's DNA is Crispin Kirkman, head of the BioIndustry Association. Kirkman claims that without NHS test data, the UK bioscience industry will crumble and Britain become 'a third-world genetics country'. He also suggests the UK should be talking to the drugs industry's working party on guidelines for genetics research, presumably in order to adapt its ethical guidelines to suit the convenience of industry. This is a man not known for his sensitivity towards ethical concerns - earlier this year, he told Blair, in reference to stem cell research 'You must support the science and afterwards we can bring in the controls'

Wishing to stave off accusations that they are solely concerned with industry, the leaked minutes suggest that the section of the Green Paper dealing with industry should be placed at the back of the document 'to avoid giving the impression that commercial considerations are at the forefront'. Oh well, that should put everyone's mind at ease…

Sources:
Full text of leaked documents plus analysis by Dr David King: www.geneticsaction.org.uk/sellingukdna/
'Fury at plan to sell off genetic secrets' Observer 23 September 2001
SRA News Feb-Mar 2001 www.srainternational.org /cws/sra/restrict/sra2-01.pdf

Down the Tube

The skewed logic of the government's plans for a 'public-private partnership' to run the London Underground was finally exposed in August after the High Court lifted the injunction banning publication of an independent report on the scheme's value for money.

When published, the report (by consultants Deloitte and Touche) still contained numerous blacked-out sections where names of companies chosen as 'preferred bidders' and details of bids have been censored (yet again, commercial confidentiality overrules the public interest). However, it did express serious doubts about the techniques used to estimate the costs and benefits of keeping the Tube in public hands, choose the preferred bidders and dismiss the alternative strategy of public sector bond financing. Overall, the report suggests that the figures do not conclusively show the PPP to be value for money, and even if one chooses to read them as such, the figures themselves have been fiddled. What a great new start for the Tube.
Text of report: www.transportforlondon.gov.uk /PDFfiles/report_23_08.pdf