Something Old, Something New: A Historical Perspective on the Butler Review

Simon Case and Catherine Haddon demonstrate the value of contemporary history by looking at the recent Butler Report into intelligence on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in its historical context. Intelligence failures form the most visible activity of the intelligence services, yet from the policy-maker's perspective it is important that the intelligence process remains undisturbed so that the intelligence product remains useful. The intelligence effort on Iraqi WMD, as with previous changes in intelligence targets, shows the difficulties in establishing good intelligence on a new threat. Increases in demand and the centrality of intelligence put more pressure on the intelligence services. Butler has set a precedent for public awareness and therefore a desire for accountability that must be internalised by government and the intelligence services. The problems experienced over Iraq show the need for continual reappraisal by both producers and users of intelligence products, particularly in light of defence policy changes and the wider machinery of government.     

The Animal Research Debate

Animal rights extremism has encouraged the media to examine the benefits and justification of animal research. There is broad support from the scientific community and government for carefully conducted animal research; however, Parliament is hindered, as many MPs are ill-informed. The recent Nuffield Council on Bioethics investigated the issue and determined that in carefully considered cases animal research is justified, scientifically valid, and has contributed to human health. The great majority of the public accept the need for animal research for medical progress when there is no alternative method available. Arguments used by anti-vivisectionists are discussed, many of which are unfounded and based on misconceptions.     

THE IDEA BROKERS: THE IMPACT OF THINK TANKS ON BRITISH GOVERNMENT

Although there are few think tanks in Britain they have been credited with considerable influence on government policies since the late 1970s. This article charts their recent history, distinguishing between larger, 'establishment' bodies like the Policy Studies Institute and smaller, more politically partisan bodies such as the Centre for Policy Studies; generally the latter have enjoyed greater influence. It identifies the distinctive characteristics of these bodies–their ideological orientation, their concentration on élite opinion formers, their short to medium-term horizons, their emphasis on originality and publicity. Think tanks face tactical dilemmas when pressing their views on Britain's comparatively closed system of government, in particular their choice between insider and outsider forms of persuasion; the tension between proximity to ministers and intellectual autonomy; and their advantages to politicians as deniable sources that can float new ideas, which can be counter-balanced by politicians' fluctuating appetite for radical ideas. As a case study the article examines the relations enjoyed by the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Centre for Policy Studies with Mrs Thatcher's government, and particularly the evolution of a potent network of influence embracing ministers, special advisers and backbenchers. Finally it considers the dangers of an overemphasis on novelty at the expense of feasibility, and the danger of burnout in the smaller think tanks dangers mitigated by the continuous turnover that operates in the world of think tanks.