- No links match your filters. Clear Filters
-
Created [internal file note:] 'G.S.', 9th May, 1955 (DO 35/8641).
9 May 1955
Description:'Mr. Thomson,
...
3. I submit a draft telegram to Karachi which gives the full background & which also gives Karachi discretion in clearing the point about Ministry of Supply requirements. If the Pakistan Government do not regulate the export of monkeys then they can have no objection to these being exported for any purpose, & Ministry of Supply do of course satisfy Home Office requirements here. It is for this reason that I suggest that Karachi may be given discretion. While there are good reasons for having everything clear from the start we do not want to labour the point too much and create the impression that there is more [to] all this than meets the eye, which is not so.
...'
-
Sent G.L. Simmons to F.H.K. Green, 9th Aug. 1955 (DO 35/8639).
9 Aug 1955
Description:'Thank you for sending me a copy of your letter of the 3rd August to Dr. Pandit. I have now written to our Trade Commissioner's Office in Delhi enclosing copies of the amended version of the recommendations and asking them to pass these to the Ministry of Commerce. I will let you know in due course what the Indian reactions, if any, are. I think passing on these recommendations in this way will serve as a useful preliminary to Lane-Petter's visit. As soon as details of this are fixed up, we would like to send advance information to Delhi, and our people there will, I am sure, be able to help him, particularly at the start by giving him introductions and arranging interviews.'
-
Sent G.L. Simmons to J.R. Cross, 28th July, 1955 (DO 35/8639).
28 Jul 1955
Description:'EC. 1601/5/1
CONFIDENTIAL
...
2. The Medical Research Council are considering sending out a representative more or less permanently to Delhi to co-ordinate monkey supplies for the United Kingdom, and incidentally to cut out the dealers. Please keep this absolutely confidential for the present. If this does come off it will go a very long way towards sorting things out.'
-
Sent G.L. Simmons to J.R. Cross, 5th November, 1955 (DO 35/8639).
5 Nov 1955
Description:'...
2. From our discussion it emerged that the Medical Research Council will appreciated that the cost of monkeys was likely to go up, but accepted that there was advantage in conditioning the animals prior to departure and reducing the wastage here.'
-
Sent G.L. Simmons to J.R. Cross, 9th June, 1955 (DO 35/8639).
9 Jun 1955
Description:'CONFIDENTIAL
No. 1601/5/1
...
6. A certain amount of difficulty attaches to Glaxo acting as permanent agent for the total United Kingdom demand. In fact when the Medical Research Council had a meeting some time ago with Glaxo and Burroughs Wellcome, they did suggest to Glaxo (as being the only firm having Indian agents), that they should take this on, but Glaxo's reaction was not very encouraging. Their job, they said, was to export pharmaceuticals and not to trade in livestock. There was also some complication about their head office being in Bombay. In the long term too, there might be some difficulty over employing one commercial concern to act as agent for their own imports and for those of others...
...'
-
Sent G.L. Simmons to W. Ross , 9th Aug. 1955 (DO 35/8639).
9 Aug 1955
Description:'EC.1601/5/1
...
2. You will, of course, appreciate that the decision on the part of the Government of India to introduce a licensing procedure arose from the delicate associations involved on account of the place of the monkey in Hindu mythology and to the Indian Government's desire that exporting arrangements should be carried out under proper conditions. With all countries becoming interested in polio vaccine, there has been a boom in monkey exports and conditions have deteriorated, so we understand.
3. The Medical Research Council have drawn up, in common with other interested organisations here, a set of recommendations on the humane transport of monkeys by air which the United Kingdom air transport intend to adopt, and which the Council is giving a fairly wide circulation, e.g. they have passed the recommendations to the United States Embassy here and will be sending copies to interested organisations in the United States. They have also sent copies to the Indian Medical Research Council, and we are passing copies to the Indian Ministry of Commerce with the information that we will be adopting, so far as our own imports of monkeys are concerned, these recommendations.
4. As Canada is also interested in exporting monkeys from India for polio vaccine research, we feel that the Canadian Government might be interested to know of these recommendations, and I accordingly enclose two copies which you might care to pass to the appropriate department. In no sense is there any suggestion that the Canadians should also adopt them, although it is quite possible that they might wish to go in for something on similar lines.'
-
Sent G.L. Simmons to [J.] Thomson, 24th May, 1955 (DO 35/8639).
Description:'MR. THOMSON
This afternoon I saw Mr. T.E. Patterson, who is the Delhi end of Shamrock Farms Limited, the main agency through whom monkeys are obtained in the U.K. We had already been told that Patterson was coming to the U.K. and would be calling. In fact, he called on General Hance's before coming here, and it was in General Hance's Office that I saw him.
2. Patterson says that the monkeys situation has taken a serious turn for the worse with the release of information about the Salk vaccine and the entry of a number of countries into the monkey market. Apart from the U.S.A. and the U.K., Australia, Canada, Denmark, Western Germany and Switzerland were all now actively interested and trying to obtain monkeys in India. This increase of demand (the number of monkeys licensed to all countries concerned by the Indian Government now well exceeded the immediately available supplies) had led to the emergence of a number of "mushroom" exporting concerns whose only interest was to profit from the situation and who were supplying monkeys of all ages and sizes. It appears that weight and age or an important issue where monkeys for research purposes are concerned. The first link in the chain of supply was the trappers who worked in the jungles, and they also had got wind of the situation and had put up their prices and were insisting that exporters accept all the monkeys that they caught, whether these were of the required standard or not. There was thus a situation in which the price of monkeys was being forced up and exporters were being forced to accept monkeys completely unsuitable for research purposes which, in his case, Patterson said, he had to release. Furthermore, the working standards of the new exporters were not always of a desirable level which could attract unfavourable publicity in India.
...
5. All of this is very sudden and we have not much to go on except what Patterson tells us. He is the leading exporter; has been dealing with monkeys for some time and is understood to be reputable. He is obviously concerned about the present situation, but, as his memorandum shows, is not himself a very clear thinker. His suggestions, such as they are, are clearly self-interested ones, but I think that he has some conscience on the matter.
...
7. Some kind of agreement between the importing countries in order to regulate the situation would appear to be desirable and to be in everybody's interest, although this side of things is going to require a great deal more thought. In the first place, it is obviously necessary that we should know more of what is in the Indian Government's mind. We have not been informed officially that a time limit is being imposed on the quotas licenced [sic] for the U.K. or that thereafter imports may only be carried out by one organisation. The first step must therefore be, I think, to ask Delhi for information. It may also be desirable to inform Washington and Ottowa of Patterson's visits in case he should call on our representatives while he is there. It will also be necessary to have a meeting with the U.K. organisations concerned. I have already had a preliminary word with Mr. Whittaker of the Medical Research Council who is content to leave the initiative on this to us.'
-
Sent [G.L. Simmons] to W. Thomson, 31st May, 1956 (DO 35/8639).
Description:'Mr Thomson
At (121) is a half-baked letter from the Ministry of Agriculture, asking us to consider making representations to the Indian and Pakistan Govts. on
a) the enforcement of acclimatisation periods for animals to be exported.
b) the provision of hostels for animals en route.
These proposals were made by the RSCPA at a meeting with govt. reps on 12 Nov. There is no indication that the Min. of Agriculture suggest[?] these proposals are desirable or necessary. I see the experts at the meeting from the Min. of Agriculture and the Min. of Health expressed grave doubts about acclimatization periods.
I do not feel the High Commission have any locus standi to make representations to the Indian and Pak. Govts - unless UK interests are directly involved. The monkeys are not UK citizens!
I submit a draft.
GLS[immons]'
-
Recipient of J.R. Cross to G.L. Simmons, 17th November, 1955 (DO 35/8639).
17 Nov 1955
Description:'...
3. I went with Lane Petter to see Kochar of the Minstry of Commerce and Industry on Saturday 12th November. We had a very friendly and interesting discussion and Kochar emphasised that provided the monkeys were for approved medical research and the consignees, the exporters and the carriers were all approved by the Government there would be no difficulty in handling future consignments and the Public Notice of September did not imply any major change.
...
5. We mentioned briefly the requirements of the Ministry of Supply for protection against bacteriological warfare. As mentioned in Dr. Lane Petter's memorandum, Kocher took the line that he really did not want to know anything about this and it was up to us to keep the matter quiet.'
-
Recipient of J.R. Cross to G.L. Simmons, 20th October, 1955 (DO 35/8639).
20 Oct 1955
Description:'...
4. At first glance it appears to me that while the recommendations embodied therein are admirable they will inevitably result in a very substantial increase in the cost of delivering the monkeys in the U.K. Lane Petter is well aware of this but not unnaturally takes the line that other considerations are more important than cost. The Canadians with whom he has discussed his proposals in general and who of course have considerable practical experience in sending large quantities of monkeys, claim that if Lane Petter's ideas are adopted the cost of a monkey may well go up by 30% to 40%.
5. I should be very grateful if you could manage to let me have some idea of how the M.R.C. regard these new proposals and in particular whether they are prepared to pay substantially more for their monkeys, particularly as I understand their demands are likely to rise to some 30,000 monkeys a year. I hope you will be able to do this without managing to give Lane Petter the idea that I am checking on his reliability.'
-
Recipient of U.K. Trade Commissioner (New Delhi) to G.L. Simmons, 16th June, 1955 (DO 35/8639).
Description:'CONFIDENTIAL
...
2. ... (Incidentally, Randolph, the American First Secretary, told me that when he saw T.T. Krishmanachari recently, T.T.K. described Patterson as "lower than the lowest of the low monkeys". I think this was a description of Patterson's occupation rather than a personal opinion, but it shows that animal traders are not exactly in high repute in this country.)
...
/5. [NB: : page missing? - not in file]'
-
Recipient of U.K. Trade Commissioner, New Delhi to G.L. Simmons, 16th June, 1955 (DO 35/8639).
16 Jun 1955
Description:'CONFIDENTIAL
...
3. I discussed with Jones, the Canadian Commercial Secretary here, the possibility of setting up some sort of consortium as suggested by Patterson, which could handle requirements on behalf of all users and obviate the chaos which may ensue if all the demanding get into the racket at once. Jones was not at all keen on the suggestion that a consortium should be established. He has authority from Ottowa to discuss the matter but not to enter into any commitments. I gather the Canadians are rather annoyed with the Americans as they feel that they were completely let down by them at the time of the original ban and my impression is that they are afraid that since the Americans would be much the biggest purchasers, any consortium can only work to their advantage and in the case of an overall shortage then the other members would suffer. However I do not think the Canadians would rule out the idea of a consortium if everything else failed.
4. The American, Randolph, was also non-committal on the subject. He obviously did not want to express an opinion in advance of the arrival of the National Polio Foundation Representative who is due in Delhi to-day. He did mention that one of the problems from the American point of view was that while the demand for the National Polio Foundation could be handled fairly easily by one organisation, there were a number of smaller American demands by individual laboratories and Universities which would normally be handled by the ordinary animal dealers and which it would be very difficult to fit in with any regular scheme of things. Randolph was unable to confirm that Patterson had been appointed as sole agent for the National Polio Foundation and he also did not seem particularly happy about the consortium theory.
/5.'
[NB: End of document here. Missing page not in file]