An article to be published next week setting out our views on the direction of the debate about animal research (in ATLA - Alternatives to Laboratory Animals) likewise points out that:

‘Many medical advances are still likely to depend to some extent on animal-based research’.

And our advice in our Communications Handbook to research institutions considering their own position statements is that:

‘Research using animals has made a huge contribution to advances in medicine and surgery, which have brought major improvements in the health and well-being of humans’.

We will return later to the rest of Robert Matthews article (available online only by payment or membership of the Royal Society of Medicine), which is a deeply flawed critique of those who defend animal research. In the meantime, there is little point in getting dragged into his pointless and pedantic arguments about exactly which statements are right or wrong, while patients still need vital research to be done.

Animal research is morally and scientifically defensible whether it has contributed to many, most or just a few medical advances. Permission to carry out animal research (through the project licence) is made on a case-by-case basis only after the potential benefits are weighed against the likely harms to the animals.

There are many important issues to be debated about animal research. We need to concentrate on progressing the 3Rs, improving experimental design, better analysing the findings of the research (with more systematic reviews), improving animal models, critically challenging the applicability of animal models in certain fields of research, and finding replacement alternatives. Let’s face up to the real challenges of today. Is Matthews up for that?

However, in the Nature piece, the activist group SPEAK, which campaigns against the new Oxford University biomedical research centre (Nature, please note, this is not a primate research centre), denied all knowledge of British activism abroad. They should perhaps take a look at the website of their fellow UK activist group, SHAC, where the evidence is plain to see.

In the Netherlands at least, the government now appears to be taking animal rights extremism more seriously. On 12 February, the Dutch parliament passed a motion supporting the use of animals in research and condemning extremism.

Interestingly, the comments which follow the Nature piece seem to be largely supportive of extremism. This is not a true reflection of public opinion, and suggests some networking by SPEAK in advance of publication of this news article!

‘The Government’s policy on the use of animals in scientific procedures is clear and straightforward. There is still a need for the responsible use of animals for experimental and other scientific purposes to continue if improvements in healthcare and veterinary treatment are to be developed with the minimum of delay and to make proper provision to protect man and the environment from health risks and other hazards.

Our health and that of our families depends on society finding cures for the health problems and diseases that currently reduce the quality of life of millions of people around the world and condemn many to an early death. We all expect to be protected from potentially harmful substances in the home and workplace and want the countryside and wildlife to be protected from environmental pollution.’

The first paragraph is identical to the response to a previous antivivisection e-petition, which got 2,215 signatures and closed in May last year.

The second part of yesterday’s response related to strong regulation of animal research in the UK and the government’s strong support for replacement, reduction and refinement and particularly the National Centre for the Three Rs. Again, this included similar sentiments to those in the response to the antivivisection e-petition. It repeated:

‘… it is unrealistic, and would raise false hopes, to set a date by which it will be feasible to phase out animal use before scientific progress provides the means to do so.’

‘in the case of HIV/Aids, a review of the published literature by a BUAV scientist showed 25 years of primate research has failed to find cures or treatments. More than 30 experimental vaccines have been tested in people but to date, despite positive results in monkeys, none have proved effective or safe in humans.’
Michelle Thew of the antivivisection group BUAV in a Guardian blog last week

Comments on the Guardian blog pointed out, quite rightly, that primate research has actually been crucial to developing successful treatments for HIV. A joint publication from RDS and CMP, Medical Advances and Animal Research, provides a brief referenced case history on HIV treatments. It says that animals were crucial in identifying the virus, for developing diagnostic tests, and for producing therapies that have prolonged millions of lives, in the West at least.

HIV was identified in the early 1980s by studying animals carrying retroviruses – the class of virus that includes HIV. The blood test (to test blood for transfusion as well as to diagnose the disease) was developed using animals. By studying monkeys with a related virus, SIV, in the first few weeks after infection, scientists were able to develop antiretroviral medicines for HIV patients. Many now take just two or three pills a day to stop the virus from reproducing while helping the immune system to recover.

It is clear that basic research – including animal research – must continue if we are ever to reach the ultimate goal of a vaccine. Millions of lives still depend on it.

Just last week, there was another appalling firebomb attack on the home of respected Californian researcher Professor Edythe London.

In Belgium, there have been 11 extremist attacks since the beginning of the year, including an arson attack on an animal research facility at Hasselt University. But a worrying development in neighbouring Netherlands, seen by many to mirror the difficulties previously faced by Oxford University in building its new Bioscience Centre, has led to the Dutch determination to act.

In early January, project developer Van der Looy withdrew from ScienceLink, a new biosciences park to be developed in Venray in the southeast of the country. Managers of Van der Looy had been threatened and their homes covered with slogans against research involving animals.

Over the following weeks a broad coalition was established of patients, scientists and industry organisations. The coalition wrote to the Dutch government urging it to stand up for biomedical research, to take strong measures against animal rights extremists and to explain the scientific and social importance of research involving animals to the Dutch public.

A response from the Dutch government to the letter and the motion is awaited. 

‘Given the current state of knowledge, the use of a limited number of other species of non-human primates remains, however, unavoidable for several vital research programs such as on immune based diseases (eg multiple sclerosis), neuro-degenerative disorders (Parkinson, Alzheimer, etc), infectious diseases (HIV, malaria, TB, hepatitis, SARS, etc) and other serious diseases. 12 out of 17 diseases listed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) under the programme to fight epidemics and pandemics require the use non-human primates during the development, production or testing of the related vaccines and medicines.’

and

‘However, it is recognized that, with the current scientific knowledge, not enough alternative methods are yet available to replace the use of non-human primates in all areas of biomedical research today, nor in the near future. The need for their continued use in biomedical research is also highlighted in the opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee in 2002.’

Perhaps the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection hoped to bury this positive and robust statement about the need for primate research by claiming that a freedom of information tribunal had ruled that ‘the Government has been unlawfully withholding details of the animal experiments it licenses in the UK’. BUAV trumpeted ‘This a major victory in [our] long campaign to get the government to be more open and transparent about the animal experiments it licenses in the UK to allow proper and informed public debate.’

This is not quite what the information tribunal said, and to spin this as a ‘major victory’ is surely delusional. This hearing last Wednesday did NOT require the disclosure of anything in addition to that already disclosed in response to the original FoI request (although it’s possible that a future hearing may do so). In summary, it asked that the Home Office reconsider its response the original BUAV information request in preparation for a further hearing to be held on an unknown future date. It gave the Home Office 28 days to lodge an appeal. It seems likely that this will do nothing more than divert Home Office resources away from regulation of animal research.

Today, the antivivs have got themselves in a bit of a lather over the news of a new GM mouse model of the common cold . You might think that any reasonable person would welcome a mouse that has the potential to replace the use of great apes (ie humans and chimpanzees) in research. Not only is there potential for a common cold treatment, which has eluded scientists for over 40 years, but the virus can also cause serious and life-threatening complications such as acute asthma, bronchitis and pneumonia.

Leanne Male of the charity Asthma UK said:

‘Ninety per cent of people with asthma tell us that colds and flu triggers their asthma symptoms but as yet there is no specific treatment for virally induced asthma attacks and steroid treatments are only partially effective against them.  We welcome this latest advancement as it will lead to a greater understanding of viral infections and their link with asthma and may help the development of a suitable treatment for virus-induced asthma attacks, thus greatly improving the lives of the 5.2 million people with the condition in the UK.’

Thankfully, not all good news can be buried; once it’s out it’s out. The ensuing debate on the Independent’s Have Your Say is the usual sterile stuff: antivivisectionists denying that animal research works despite the evidence of medical and scientific history, and claiming that it’s all cruel and unnecessary because we have non-animal alternatives. Now who would use animals if it wasn’t necessary in their research …?

If they want a proper, open debate it’s time for the antivivisectionists to get real.

Firstly, studies of evolutionary biology show that all species put themselves first, at the expense of other species. This argument is a valid starting point. But it could be considered weak because humans are moral agents and capable of overriding their biological urges—for example in the domestication of companion animals.

Secondly, there is no clear cut dividing line at which we should ascribe animals moral rights equivalent to humans. The evidence is strong that higher animals, especially mammals, feel pain and suffering in a way which is equivalent to human pain and suffering. But further down the evolutionary tree, the evidence becomes less convincing. Eventually we reach a point where we are either sceptical that an animal can truly suffer pain, or we can be reasonably sure that it does not, say in the case of a mosquito.

Thirdly, there is the crude but pragmatic argument that all the campaigning of the animal rights groups has failed to win the case. Whilst slavery was abolished over a century ago, the vast majority of the world’s population (with notable exceptions) give little consideration to eating meat or destroying vermin.

Other criticisms of the speciesism concept have been described, again for an example on Wikipedia. Some are more philosophical in nature, others invoke religious doctrine.

We have respect and admiration for the thoughtful and intelligent way in which Richard Ryder made his case. But his speciesism argument has not caught the imagination of the public—at least not yet!

Today, three more extremists were arrested as part of Operation Achilles, which is the codename for investigation of alleged conspiracy targeting a variety of organisations and individuals, including Huntingdon Life Sciences.

Earlier this week, one extremist had her sentence trebled following an appeal.  Deborah Morrison pleaded guilty to 12 offences, including six charges of blackmail, last October, but only got eight months in prison. She was one of those who had focussed on the beleaguered Darley Oaks Farm, the laboratory guinea pig breeder that closed down two years ago following years of harassment and intimidation of family, friends, suppliers and customers.

The appeal judge said it was necessary for the courts to show how seriously they took those sorts of offences, to act as a deterrent.

Inspector David Bird of Staffordshire police said

‘Morrison was involved in serious crime over several years in the name of animal rights. Her offences affected dozens of people and their families throughout the country.’

‘reflects the impact Morrison’s crime had on her victims.’

We hope that the police have good evidence to charge the three extremists arrested today and that they too receive sentences commensurate with their crimes.

Dr Robinson acknowledged that ’many people are concerned about using animals in research ‘. And as a person who feels passionate about animal welfare, she added that she ’does not like to see rabbits being kept in these conditions‘.

But as she pointed out ’the way forward to end animal use is to find scientific and technological alternatives. Unfortunately, the activities of the animal rights extremists divert attention and resources away from this goal‘.

The NC3Rs has had yet another successful year, culminating in the award of the 3Rs Prize for 2007 announced yesterday. This was for work which harnessed the latest DNA technology to develop a better way to study the parasites that cause bilharzia, a serious disease affecting the developing world. The new technique allows the use of animals in the research project to be replaced at the same time. A positive result on all fronts!

Another story which got some media interest was the announcement by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) of an increase in animal testing for so-called ‘health foods’, reported for example in the Times. As is so often the case, without the relevant facts to hand, it is difficult to comment on the detail. It seems only some of this research is carried out in the UK.

This is one of those cases where the lack of information available to the public can be just as frustrating for RDS as it is to the animal rights groups. It would be nice to match up the claims of the antivivisection groups against the relevant project licence abstracts on the Home Office website. Unfortunately, a lack of user-friendly interface means searching the abstracts is far from straightforward.

We believe 2008 will see the continued demise of animal rights extremism, and the emergence of a more sophisticated and nuanced debate about animal research in the UK instead. Watch this space!