MPs back sacked British Biotech whistleblower
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.DR ANDREW MILLAR, the whistleblower sacked by British Biotech, scored a victory in his battle against the drug company yesterday when was backed by a number of MPs.
Despite issuing a cautious report, members of the Science and Technology Select Committee expressed their support for Dr Millar, the former head of clinical research at British Biotech.
He was sacked in April for breaking the secrecy on the trials of two of the company's star drugs, a cancer drug and a drug to treat pancreatitis - a procedure known as "unblinding". He also raised doubts on their efficacy to one of British Biotech's shareholders. The events have undermined investors' confidence in the sector, triggering a slump in biotechnology stocks.
Dr Alan Williams, a Labour member of the committee, said: "I was impressed with Dr Millar's oral and written evidence and my feeling is that what he did and said was in the public interest." Dr Ian Gibson, another member, said: " He is an excellent scientist ... If I had been in Millar's position I would have probably done the same."
The comments contrasted with the anodyne tone of the report, issued yesterday after a three-month inquiry into the effects of the controversy on the biotechnology industry.
The report said that, although unblinding trials was "ethically questionable ... Dr Millar's actions in briefing [the shareholder], while certainly unusual, seem more the product of difficulties at British Biotech than the origin of them".
However, it added that it was not the committee's role "to pass judgement on alleged misdemeanours".
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments