Paul McCartney has said he will stop funding cancer research charities that use animals:

he revealed plans to refuse funding to organisations that practice vivisection, after discovering a number of charities close to his heart advocate the practice

It’s quite right that he follows his own beliefs but not that he uses his celebrity to spread untruths:

There are better alternatives but you’re not allowed to challenge the status quo

This is just not true:

A great deal of cancer research is carried out without using animals. In certain areas, however, animal research remains essential if we are to understand, prevent and cure cancer. (Cancer Research UK)

So where does he get his information? Apparently from Alistair Currie - Senior Research and Campaigns Co-ordinator - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. So we know why he is so misguided. 

A surge of publicity has highlighted again the research published in The Lancet in 1998 by Andrew Wakefield and others alleging a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. This has important lessons for the debate about animal research.

In modern western democracies it is inevitable that some individuals who are either practising scientists, or have a science background, will advocate a line of argument that conflicts with the vast bulk of the scientific evidence.

In many cases, we can see a reason why those individuals might favour a particular theory. Those advocating ‘intelligent design’ mostly have a religious perspective. Those opposed to any form of genetic modification often have strong environmental passions. Those who argue that the MMR vaccine is unsafe may be linked to pressure groups comprising parents whose children have developed autism, or even be against all vaccines. 

Antivivisection groups have long argued that animal research is perpetuated only by powerful groups with vested interests. A typical quote is that from Peter Hamilton of the Vancouver-based animal rights group Lifeforce: ‘the multi-billion dollar research, drug and chemical industries are entrenched in animal research for economic, legal and political reasons’.

Despite the supposed struggle against these powerful lobby groups acting in conspiracy, it was not that long ago that antivivisection groups in the UK were relatively optimistic. For example, in their newsletter of Summer 2000, the National Anti Vivisection Society boldly proclaimed that ‘the days of animal experimentation are numbered’.

It is no doubt to the dismay of those same antivivisection groups that the government recently revealed in a Parliamentary question by Mr Hancock that ...

Perhaps we were pushing our luck, but we just couldn’t resist. Shortly after she came back to head up the moribund British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, the new chief executive Michelle Thew set up an e-mail address called ‘askmichelle@buav.org’. The idea was for supporters to get direct access to her to ask questions and offers suggestions.

A little while later, the same Michelle wrote in a letter to The Guardian that ‘the bodies that represent researchers insist on highlighting the activities of one or two isolated extremists, rather than engaging in a true debate’. So we used the askmichelle address to request any evidence that RDS has ever sought to avoid engaging in debate on this issue. To our knowledge, we have never turned down the opportunity to engage in genuine debate.

Perhaps not surprisingly, exactly three months later we have had no response whatsoever. The antivivisectionists are at their best when throwing out grandiose rhetorical challenges. But when it comes to producing evidence, all we get is a deafening silence.

I found a fascinating interactive website last week. Animal Ethics Dilemma is learning tool aimed at veterinary students, but anyone can play. As the name suggests, it shows where you stand on animal ethics, without any right or wrong answers. It does this by letting you develop a personal profile which can change as you work through its practical role plays. These cover farming, sports and wildlife as well as medical research.

It might be interesting if the site offered the option to see an ‘average’ profile. I can tell you that my initial profile was over 80% ‘utilitarian’, with a bit of ‘respect for nature’ and ‘contractarian’ thrown in. I was surprised to find that, after doing the role plays, my utilitarianism and contractarianism went down slightly, to be replaced by 11% ‘animal rights’! I think animals have a right to be treated well by us humans and we should avoid anything that causes unnecessary suffering, but that’s as far as it goes. My ‘relational’ score stayed resolutely at zero – indicating that I believe relationships are essentially human? I suspect that vet students might score quite highly on relational ethics.

The site includes explanations of all the ethical positions, and a list of ‘references’ – explanations of the various terms used in the case histories such as ‘genetic modification’.

Give it a go and, if you are registered to comment on this blog, let us know what you scored!

A UK ‘alternatives’ research lab has benefited from a £240,000 expansion and makeover. The Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME) Alternatives Laboratory at the University of Nottingham will be re-opened tomorrow.

According to a University of Nottingham press release, the lab, part of the University’s Medical School, is to be re-opened by cabinet minister Ed Balls MP, who heads up the newly created Department for Children, Schools and Families. Previously he was Economic Secretary to the Treasury.

So what, you might ask, is his connection with Nottingham and the FRAME lab? The press release doesn’t say. Is he the local MP? No. I can reveal the answer to this mystery: his daddy is Professor Michael Balls, ex-director of FRAME and chairman of the FRAME trustees.

Jerry Vlask, self-appointed Animal Liberation Press Officer and swearer of the ‘Hypocritical’ Oath has once again publicly advocated misanthropic violence against researchers in defiance of the physician’s duty to ‘do no harm’.

Vlask’s latest rant is in comments on a pro-AR blog entry ‘arguments against violence as a campaign tactic’(!) – his comments are down the page and titled Animal Liberation Press Office said. They are so extreme, particularly the first one, that he alienates other AR commentators.

I could wax lyrical about the inconsistencies in his position, but someone has beaten me to the punch… I’ve just discovered a new blog ‘exposing animal rights idiocy’ which is entertaining, well-written and incisive. The Speciesists’ Corner is a (fairly) new kid on the block, from February this year.  Hopefully it’ll be around for the foreseeable future.

Okay - this is an exaggeration. The item is posted on the notorious ‘Biteback’ website, where the animal rights extremists post details of the various unpleasant actions they have taken against those they accuse of abusing animals. In fact that the claim is merely that they ‘rescued approximately 100 tadpoles from a fast drying pool’.

But there is a serious point here. Of the 266 incidents posted since the beginning of this year, only 44 are claimed for actions in the UK. And these have tailed off remarkably in recent months - there were only 12 in the past three months, including saving the traumatised tadpoles.

As reported last weekend in the Guardian, we have seen a sudden decline in the targeting of individual researchers around the country. At the same time, there is a steady rise in the number of institutions and individuals prepared to explain to the public why we need to use animals in research. It is vital that we keep this up. There has never been a safer time to speak out.

Earlier this month, the EU adopted new guidelines for the housing and care of laboratory animals. For benefit of policy wonks, these are known as Appendix A to the Council of Europe Convention on animal experimentation ETS123. 

The revisions were politically driven, but what do they mean for medical research? Probably not much in the UK. But you wouldn’t know it from the antivivisection spin. 

A frequent claim of the antivivisectionists is that animal research is scientifically invalid because of species differences. They claim no useful information can ever be gained from animals because they are so different to us.

The antivivisectionists seem to fail to understand how research works, or the concept of modelling certain aspects of function or disease. A model must be different from the original object. There are times when a model is actually better to study than the original, because of some particular feature. A good example is a zebra fish embryo, in which it is especially easy to study the early stages of development because it is transparent.

But can results from primitive species such as worms ever be valuable information relevant to man?

Interesting blog from Mark Mardell of the BBC today about the animal rights ethical minefield:

... But if we eat beef, what’s wrong with leather? And if we wear leather, what’s wrong with fur? And if we allow fur, what’s wrong with Rover and Tiddles providing it? ...

MEPs are apparently voting to ban the ‘vile’ trade in cat and dog fur. Discuss.

The Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor, Sir David King FRS, said today:

‘Although rare, the use of primates in medical research and testing is invaluable, as an essential aspect of work which provides the best hope for breakthroughs in important areas such as neurodegenerative disorders and for aspects of immune and reproductive functions.’

He was quoted in an MRC press release responding to the Weatherall Report on non-human primate research. He also said the government backed a national strategy for the use of non-human primates in science, as do the public bodies that fund primate research in the UK.

The antivivisection groups campaigning so hard to abolish primate research must be rather depressed today.

Standing outside the mostly completed Oxford research building on Thursdays are a group of protesters (this being Oxford we should say they are against the use of animals!).

Despite the assertions of animal activists that the Serious and Organised Crime Act would ‘muzzle legitimate process’ this has clearly not happened -protests continued.  But it was fallacy that this new law would stifle protest for another reason; there were many more serious crimes being performed by extremists and the recent arrests were for offences such as blackmail. The Speak protesters do look somewhat forlorn; rather like a group of old communists in Red Square protesting for the ‘good old days’

Will the day come when the Independent starts to get embarrassed about the scientific illiteracy of their columnist Julia Stephenson—otherwise known as the Green Goddess? In this weeks bad science blog, which also appears in the Guardian, Ben Goldacre highlights the ‘ludicrous false information and claims’ she makes in her article on electromagnetic sensitivity.

This is the same Julia Stephenson who both promotes and is promoted by ‘Europeans for Medical Progress’ (EMP). We have exposed this organisation many times as an animal rights group masquerading as a medical body. Stephenson has claimed in various articles that animal experiments are ineffective and ‘put people in danger’. Most recently, she made the standard animal-rights claims last month that there was a link between animal testing and the thalidomide disaster, the Northwick Park tragedy of the trial of TGN1412, and the side-effects of Vioxx.

All of these false claims have been systematically rebutted many times over. In the case of thalidomide, a letter to the Independent showed the true story—that the disaster could almost certainly have been averted if proper animal tests had been carried out. The findings of the expert committee relating to animal testing and the clinical trial of TGN1412 were posted on this blog, as were the facts about Vioxx.

But it is not just how wrong the animal rights campaigners get their facts that put them to shame. Their arguments are riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions which speak for themselves. 

Norman Baker is one of the most persistent and ardent antivivisectionists within the ranks of MPs. He has also established a reputation as a canny politician who can manoeuvre an argument to his advantage.

In the May edition of the House Magazine—which is intended for politicians in the House of Commons—Mr Baker calls for ‘a sensible scientific and ethical debate’ about animal experiments. He accepts that a handful of extremists have waged campaigns of intimidation and even violence against those involved in animal research. In his article, titled ‘Man’s worst friend’, he states that this violent minority has ‘set the cause of animal rights back by years’.

This is a far more sensible line than the mainstream antivivisection groups are taking. The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV), for example, continues to claim that animal rights extremism is vastly and deliberately exaggerated, as if through some giant conspiracy. A daft approach.

But whilst Mr Baker sounds moderate and reasonable, his arguments are no less disingenuous. He claims that the use of animals in basic biological research is excluded from the European Directive 86/609, which, as he points out, gave birth to our 1986 Act. He wants all the EU countries to have effective systems of licensing, control and inspection. He claims the huge ethical issues of genetically modified animals have simply not been addressed. And he wants far more effort to be put into developing alternatives.

In fairness, many of these criticisms could apply to many other countries in the world. But Mr Baker is doing the debate in the UK a gross disservice by omitting vital facts.  He does not acknowledge the extensive regulation in the UK, which clearly covers basic biological research and includes extensive licensing, control and inspection. And there is no mention of the lengthy scrutiny and debate of the ethics of animal research, for example from the House of Lords Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures, or the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

However moderate and reasonable he tries to sound, Norman Baker is simply another old-fashioned antivivisectionist. His objective to abolish animal research would set back medical progress for all mankind. It’s a good thing he has little influence.