The Scotsman

Campaigners protesting at the use of genetically modified crops destroyed a field of environmentally friendly trees last week, stripping them of bark and breaking branches and trunks.

The trees, planted in a field at Jealott's Hill in Berkshire, were part of a research experiment by AstraZeneca to produce wood with a lower lignin content so less bleach has to be used to turn it into paper. "It is extremely sad that elements react to such an important and environmentally beneficial project like this," an angry Tom McKillop, chief executive of AstraZeneca, told Scotland on Sunday the day after the attack. "They are the modern day Luddites.

"In the industrial revolution they tried to hold back technology, and people are behaving the same way today. It is an irrationality that is so pronounced in Britain and Europe, but in America people's eyes light up when you tell them what is possible with GM crops. They want the best and there is a real buzz about the new technology. But in Britain there is a built-in conservatism that will not support innovative businesses." Genetically modified crops are only a small part of a small division of AstraZeneca but it is an issue that has vexed the company's chief executive.

The normally controlled McKillop let the stern face of science slip when the GM issue was raised. He was angry that "environmental vandals" have wrecked his tree project and he is angry that public opinion has been aligned against GM by an unsympathetic media.

He preached the benefits of GM crops: they can reduce environmental damage, they can be grown on marginal quality land and can produce more and better food. The scientist in him is obviously appalled that the public is refusing to accept that this new technology could improve their quality of life. And McKillop warned that Britain's hostile reaction to GM is effecting how the rest of the world sees us, which could have the knock-on effect of companies pulling out of research and development in the UK.

"People are saying 'what is going on?' and it is very damaging. There is a general sense of deep disappointment with the UK, although I think the government has behaved very responsibly."

The GM debate slips in the side door at AstraZeneca as part of its agrichemical division - a seeds and fertiliser operation that sits uncomfortably alongside the much bigger drugs operation. AstraZeneca was formed earlier this year from the marriage of Zeneca, the old pharmaceutical and seeds division of ICI, and Sweden's Astra Group. The two had been talking on and off since 1996 but it was only after Astra unravelled a joint venture in North America with Merck that its chief executive, Hakan Mogren, approached his opposite number, Sir David Barnes, about a formal merger.

In the shake-up that followed both Barnes and Mogren became deputy chairmen and the Ayrshire-born McKillop stepped up to run the enlarged group - which now has a market capitalisation of GBP 42bn making it one of the biggest companies in the UK and one of the top five drug companies in the world. Despite plenty of speculation that a Glaxo or SmithKline might barge in on the relationship, the deal was completed in a record 80 working days. McKillop will reveal the company's first set of interim results in two weeks and they are expected to show sales up 10% on last year.

There were a lot of snooty noises in the City when the deal was announced last December, largely because the merger was not driven by massive cost savings in the way the mooted Glaxo/SmithKline merger had been. Instead, the deal was about boosting R&D - to more than GBP 1.5bn a year -and looking for long-term growth. At least that was the public explanation.

Sceptics felt it was two drowning men clinging together hoping they could survive better that way. Astra was about to lose the patent on the world's best selling drug, Losec, which accounted for half its sales, and Zeneca was regarded as having significant holes in its drug pipeline.

The future did not look bright for either company but the merged giant seems to be working. It does appear that the companies are stronger together and the drowning men seem to have got themselves out of trouble. ,p> AstraZeneca has enough money to buy in biotech if needed and McKillop said there are about 12 major new drugs that should be available in the next three to four years.

"We have some very, very exciting products coming through in areas like cardiovascular disease. We also have a new treatment for thrombosis. That used to be treated with Warfarin which, to be honest is rat poison, and in the most basic terms thins the blood so if you go to the dentist you have to go to the doctor first to come off the treatment in case you bleed to death. This new product is much safer to use and will be a real benefit to patients."

But one thing is missing from AstraZeneca's arsenal. It has no mega -blockbuster such as Viagra or Prozac or Xenical - Roche's new fat-busting drug.

"I don't see it as a problem as drug development reflects your history. Pfizer did not set out to find Viagra, it was a side effect in clinical trials for cardiovascular treatment. But we have our own blockbusters in really serious areas of disease like breast cancer."

Although McKillop was too diplomatic to say so, AstraZeneca will develop 'serious' cures rather than the miracle cure lifestyle drugs that the man in the street has heard of. Unless you are unlucky enough to need them you will probably not have heard of any of AstraZeneca's products.

But McKillop hurriedly pointed out that there is nothing wrong with these so -called lifestyle drugs. There are enormous problems associated with obesity and if a pill can reduce the need for surgery then not only is the patient better off but so is the health care budget, he said.

He admitted he has sympathy with health ministers as they wrestle with their budgets but he is passionate about the benefits drugs can bring. "The idea that new medicines will cripple the health budget is complete myth," he said. About 1% of the health budget is spent on drugs that have been developed in the past five years. But despite these arguments the government last week revealed it was demanding a 4.5% cut in the price of drugs.

McKillop is angry that the price cut has been imposed on the industry and warned that it could damage future investment in the industry. "Enforcing a price reduction is the wrong way to be going. I understand the Secretary of State needs to control health care costs but this is the wrong signal to be giving," he said. Such is the perspective of a man charged with balancing the financial and research concerns of a global pharmaceutical business. McKillop has an eye on the bottom line but also a passion for research - this would normally be regarded as a contradiction in British business but it is one that McKillop seems perfectly at ease with.