Is animal experimentation a necessary evil?

Most people are shocked, or at least upset, when they are shown raw (undercover) video footage of animals undergoing laboratory tests. But since animal research is sanctioned by the regulatory authorities and by industry, the general public is forced to reconcile itself with the notion that animal experimentation is a necessary evil.

The graphic images of animals undergoing toxicological (poisoning) and other tests have for many years provided the anti-vivisection movement with the motivation and the passion needed to sustain the debate. However, on its own, the ethical argument has not managed to bring about a total ban on animal experiments. Sadly, at present, figures for animal procedures are going up. What is needed now to sway public opinion, is the scientific evidence that animal research is an unnecessary evil.

Of the three arguments at our disposal – ethical, scientific and legal – we have barely used the latter two. The scientific argument, when presented in an authoritative manner, is extremely powerful. In 2002, at a public enquiry into the construction of a new primate laboratory at Cambridge University, the UK government’s own planning inspector ruled against the project, having heard convincing medical and scientific arguments against such research - and although the government subsequently overruled its own inspector, the laboratory was never built (1). This example illustrates the value – and the need – for presenting the scientific argument against animal experiments. Article 7.2 of Directive 86/609/EEC on the protection of animals used in research and testing clearly states that "An animal experiment shall not be performed if another satisfactory method of obtaining the result sought, not entailing the use of an animal, is reasonably and practically available."

In order to fully exploit this paragraph of the law, we require scientists who are able to provide expert witness testimony. This is not an easy task, because most researchers who do not use animals in their work, are afraid to speak openly against animal researchers, for fear of reprisal by their peers (“institutional intimidation”). This is especially obvious in the field of “basic research”, for example, where monkeys are used to study brain function. This category of animal research is both very upsetting to the general public, and also very “dear” to the animal research community - who will fight hard to keep them.

So is there room for optimism? Absolutely yes. Slowly but surely, we are seeing scientists willing to challenge other scientists, regarding the applicability of their animal research to human medicine. In February 2008 Professor Paul Furlong of Aston University presented a talk in the European Parliament on the use of modern imaging techniques to replace the use of monkeys (2). More recently, Dr Marius Maxwell, a neurosurgeon, has questioned the role of animal experiments in relation to the discovery of treatments for Parkinson’s disease (3).

The next phase in challenging animal experiments will be in the courtroom - and that day is not very far away…

References:

1. http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/CAMPAIGNS/experiments/ALL/727/
2. http://www.jensholm.se/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/alternatives_programme2008-02-11.doc
3. http://www.vero.org.uk/press15.asp

It’s clear that we cannot rely on the government or the vivisectors to take the necessary action to put an end to this huge scandal. Please join us on 25 April and let’s make our voices heard for the millions of forgotten victims of vivisection.

"He who does not hesitate to vivisect would not hesitate to lie about it" George Bernard Shaw

Also, a group of cross-party MPs has presented a Bill asking for a medical inquiry into vivisection. There's also an EDM supported by over 130MPs supporting this. Please contact your MP and get them to support it: http://www.curedisease.net/safetyofmedicines/index.shtml

We live in a world of savagery and indifference where extremity is the norm. The philosophy of indifference that allows people to use extreme violence in the lab is the same philosophy that enables corporations to release drugs knowing that people will die while money is made. We are a species that still struggles to accept that all races deserve the same human rights, and continues to allow terrible mistreatment based on matters as trivial as sexual preference and skin colour. While human life is cheap, appealing for clemency for other species is an uphill struggle.

We have the option to appeal for evaluation of vivisection on grounds of human welfare and rights, and this is a phenomenally powerful method due to the masses of information that is in our favour. We haven’t done so, and as a movement we must all take collective responsibility for our failure to use the medical evidence, and for commitment to making the medical evidence effective in future. The industry retreats from this evidence and this is reflected in the changes in the claims they have made over the years.

The industry often claims it would dismantle itself if there were satisfactory non-animal methods, and to many people this seems reasonable. The statement is a massive opportunity to use given the availability of methods including:

IN SILICO: Computer models can accurately predict the effect of the thousands of interactions that occur when a drug is introduced to a human organ – or model the whole human. Unlike any other test, any reaction (eg a heart attack) can be replayed and studied.

IN VITRO: Cell culture studies have compared favourably to animal tests and predict safety accurately. Cultures of human skin, eye, liver and other cells have been grown and now they are extremely complex, respected methods. Cell culture tests are particularly effective in predicting what’s damaging to unborn babies – an area where animal tests are heavily criticised.

MICRODOSING: Patients can be given 1% or even 0.0001% of a test drug. The organs that is affects can be traced using AMS, a technique so sensitive it counts individual atoms. This gives incredibly detailed information about how humans metabolise unknown drugs.

Yet still the law allows experiments where specific technological superior methods exist. This is documented. The result is a scale of death and human destruction on a massive scale. In the UK, twice in every hour, someone dies from an unforeseen reaction. Every 75 seconds someone is hospitalised by a medical drug. And the UK taxpayer pays over £228,000 per HOUR to cover the cost of this to the NHS. In USA every 5 mins someone dies from adverse reactions, and every 14 seconds someone is hospitalised.

All this while 150 million animals die every year world-wide on the vivisectors' tables.

If the truth about the animal model is exposed, it will be unable to withstand the scrutiny. The conclusion is that we have to educate on a small and large scale, with individuals and the mass media, and each of us has to ask how we’re going to do this. This starts with ourselves.

The abolition is achievable because the factors necessary for it to happen are in place. The remaining one is an effective task force of committed individuals prepared to undertake the education of theirs selves and others. When this happens, the lies and the cruel industry WILL fall.

For more information, including details of transport to the march and rally, contact us; WDAIL, BM Box 8623, London WC1N 3XX. Email: info@wdail.org

This website will be updated with information over the coming weeks and months, so check in for more info soon, or contact us if you have any questions.

We'll also be sending out regular email info updates, if you want to receive these direct let us know.

"See you in London on April 25th" - World Day Organising Group