3 June 2006 marks the 30th anniversary of the publication of Peter Singer’s book Animal Liberation, which became the bible of the emerging animal rights movement and ideology. 3 June 2006 is also the date of the second Pro-Test rally in Oxford in support of the biomedical research centre being built by the University. Hundreds are expected to turn out.

A hard-hitting editorial in the current Research Fortnight, the influential research policy newsletter, looks at what animal liberation has achieved 30 years on, and concludes that it has been a miserable failure.

The editorial “Beginning of the End” says that in the last 30 years we have lived with

"a debate about animal experiments and welfare that has revolved around the assertion that no experiment that causes suffering to an animal can be justified. But that debate has been had and the public has sided with the scientists. Almost 90 per cent back experiments that are necessary and minimise pain. Singer’s is an idea whose time has passed."

Referring to the Pro-Test movement and Tony Blair’s decision to sign the People’s Petition (along with 20,000 others) supporting humane animal research, Research Fortnight warms to its theme:

The MRC and Wellcome Trust have today launched a new publication, Primates in medical research, in which they describe the work that they do and why it is necessary for human health.

Information is also available from the European Commission, which has produced a useful report The Need for Non-Human Primates in Biomedical Research.

The scientific accuracy of these documents contrasts markedly with BUAV’s Next of Kin campaign (launched last October with barely a whimper of publicity).  This calls for a total ban on the use of primates in animal testing, and is endorsed by the comedian Alexei Sayle, the sports presenter Helen Chamberlain, the actress Jenny Seagrove and the pop singer Heather Small… none of whom are exactly renowned for their scientific achievement.

BUAV’s press release from 6th Oct 2005 includes the following two quotes by genuine scientists (no mention of Jarrod Bailey here!)

The recent (29 May) Daily Telegraph/YouGov poll shows

‘High-profile campaigns, such as intimidating scientists and threatening shareholders in pharmaceutical companies, appear to have backfired badly’

However in a bizarre twist of logic NAVS is claiming

‘that the activities of a handful of extremists are being used as a smokescreen by the Home Office to hide the fact that animal experimentation is steadily rising in the UK’

Steadily rising is rather strong, especially when much of the small rise is because of counting normal animals that might be, but are not, genetically modified.

The YouGov poll also shows that less than 20% of people think alternatives are always available. NAVS also recycles arguments that microdosing is the big solution (when it is not).

NAVS also implies it is a big funder of alternatives. Its claim

‘NAVS has funded a Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) scanner costing nearly £500,000 at Aston University for more effective brain research into strokes and cancer - an alternative to animal experiments where electrodes are inserted into monkey brains.’

No one denies this technology is useful, least of all science, industry and government who are investing the rather more impressive sum of £76 million! What was that about the need for more funding for alternatives .... ?

The Member of Parliament for Oxford, West and Abingdon, Evan Harris, did a great job this week of getting a parliamentary debate on the role of animal research in healthcare and medicines. 

Inevitably, as Dr Harris pointed out, this debate was set against a background of animal rights extremism. Everyone involved condemned the intimidatory tactics of the extreme fanatics who seek to impose their views through force and intimidation.

But Evan Harris drew attention to something which surprisingly few people have noticed - namely the weasel words of some anti-vivisection groups when it comes to the unlawful tactics of animal rights extremists.

In a current newsletter, for example, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) states that it is “unequivocally opposed to violence of any kind, whether that be the violence of vivisection itself or the harassment and intimidation that some people use as a means of protest.”

To compare lawful, highly regulated and carefully conducted medical research involving animals with the thugs and morons who lob bricks through windows at night and threaten people’s children is absurd. The BUAV should be ashamed of this position. It will do them little good in the long run.

Anti-vivisection campaigners have great trouble engaging in any sort of ethical debate about the use of animals in research. Why should that be? Simply because they know well that most of the public would accept the use of animals if it led to scientific and medical advances and saved lives. For that reason, anti-vivisection groups prefer the easy way out - to simply deny any medical menefits of animal research, claiming that the science is flawed.

It makes no difference to them how much evidence there is of scientific advances using animals. The overwhelming weight of expertise, from Nobel prizewinners to scientific organisations supporting the use of animals, has no impact on them. They simply have their own version of the truth.

This is why columnist Nick Cohen hit the nail on the head when he wrote in an article in yesterday’s Observer that it is psychologically easier for the animal rights campaigners to pretend that elite scientists are engaged in a giant deception than to face a hard choice.

Frankly, this deliberate evasion of the real ethical debate on the part of the anti-vivisectionists is annoying. Gill Langley is from the Dr Hadwen Trust (an anti-vivisection organisation which funds non-animal methods of research) and is also scientific adviser to the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. She stated in a television interview last week that she was “looking forward to an open debate, but it hasn’t started yet”. This is an astonishing statement from someone who gave evidence twice to the House of Lords committee, sat on the Animal Procedures Committee for eight years, and has been involved in dozens of debates, workshops, interview, reports, committees and investigations into animal research. One wonders what would ever be enough. More likely, she knows that she will never accept the scientific benefits of animal research. In that case asking for more debate is just a smokescreen to hide her real agenda - the animal rights position she has held for many years. 

Yesterday’s Question Time in Canterbury was interesting as the BBC’s premier political programme discussed the importance of animal research. It can currently be viewed from the BBC website.

All four of the panellists (Harriet Harman MP; Ken Clark MP; Simon Hughes MO; and Frederick Forsyth, writer) strongly supported the use of animals for medical research and had either already signed, or planned to sign, the People’s Petition.  It was particularly gratifying to have support from Simon Hughes since he signed previously a petition calling for the abolition of animal experiments.

Hopefully this change means that the LibDems as a whole will become again a more science friendly party - their recent track record indicated that they were in danger of becoming anti-science.

Let us hope the recent acknowledgements of public opinion will encourage more politicians to openly support animal research – at the end of the day they represent the public, and should therefore reflect the opinion of those who elected them. 

Today’s Sun had one of the best articles that I’ve ever seen on animal research and the impact it can have on a person’s life. (1).

The account from Laura Cowell, a 20-year old cystic fibrosis sufferer is poignant, and shows her gratitude for the work that developed her drugs, saving her life:

"I wish the medicines I need weren’t tested on animals – but without them I would have died a long time ago… I grew up with cats, dogs and rabbits and I even keep rats as pets.  I love animals – but I also want to live."

The well-written article concisely captured what it is like to suffer from cystic fibrosis, accurately detailing the symptoms, and the plethora of drugs needed for treatment:

without a cocktail of drugs – all of which have been tested on animals – Laura would not have survived her first birthday… She has to take 30 tablets every day… and uses a steroid inhaler to help her breathing.  All were developed using animal tests.  And all HAD to be tested on animals before being licensed for use in humans.

The Sun also got their facts right about licensing laws and the Home Office statistics.

If this wasn’t impressive enough, The Sun rose even further in my estimation by printing one of the very few accurate accounts of the Thalidomide tragedy ever to appear in the media – and described how the lack of testing then directly led to our current animal research laws.  (For info on the Thalidomide tradegy see GeorginaTheGiraffe’s blog)
--------------------------------------
(1) The Sun, 18th May 2006, ‘I would have died without animal testing’, Ed. Jayne Symons p45.

Nine long years after New Labour came to power, the Government has (finally) made the clearest statement at the highest level that animal research is important, as reported by the BBC.

Before the 1997 general election, the use of animals in research had a much lower profile than today. Anti-vivisection groups had been successful in lobbying for policies to restrict the use of animals in research.

The early years of the Labour government were a tough time for those of us in the scientific community involved in medical research using animals. It soon became clear we had to launch a counter-lobby to demonstrate the overwhelming support from medical and scientific bodies for the continued, but carefully regulated, use of animals in research.

Whilst there was never an intention from Labour to abolish all use of animals in research, within a very short time animal rights activists were already talking about the ‘broken promises’ of New Labour.

Over the past few years, the Government has changed its stance completely. It has now sent out a message of firm and clear commitment to tackling animal rights extremism and supporting life-saving research using animals.

Professor John Martin of University College London was one of the few who were prepared to defend animal research more than a decade ago. He has described his experience as being a ‘lonely journey’. Now that thousands are prepared to stand up and be counted on this issue, hopefully that journey is a little less lonely.

Many antivivisection groups claim on their websites that there has been no independent or scientific inquiry about the use of animals in medical research. Therefore they support an Early Day Motion (EDM) in the House of Commons which asks for such an independent inquiry. This EDM (92) was worded by Europeans for Medical Progress (EMP), a deeply discredited group that tries to sound “scientific” but does not have any support in the mainstream scientific community. What’s more, the Advertising Standards Authority has upheld five complaints against an EMP leaflet for being inaccurate and misleading about the science behind animal research.

There is no need for an independent scientific review: all reputable scientific and medical organisations around the world agree that animal research is crucial for our understanding of the body in health and disease and for the development and testing of new medical treatments. In addition, three major UK enquiries have reported since 2002 on the contribution of animal research to science and medicine: in 2002, the House of Lords Select Committee report on Animals in Scientific Procedures, in 2003, the review by the Animal Procedures Committee of cost-benefit assessment in the use of animals in research, and finally in 2005, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics report The Ethics of Research Involving Animals.

If you are tired of unscientific antivisection claims and feel that carefully regulated animal research must go on because it benefits medical research, you too can play your part in this. Please write (preferably) or email your local MP urging them to sign a newer EDM which supports animal research. This EDM, number 1850, allows MPs to show their support, not only for medial research involving animals, but also for those working on the Oxford research facility.

It may be that your MP either cannot sign this EDM, or is unwilling to do so. So it is important that you also ask your MP whether they recognise the need for the well-regulated use of animals in medical research, or what concerns they have about it.

Finally, if you do not know who your local MP is, you can find out, and get their address, by typing your postcode into the box on a very useful locator page.

The feeble team of assorted antivivisectionists deserved to lose the debate at the Oxford Union last Wednesday night - as they did. Alistair Currie is a junior staff member of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection with no obvious research experience. Andrew Knight has a veterinary degree, but likewise no apparent research experience, and promotes vegan pet-food. Gill Langley is an old-time antivivisectionist who has been trotting out the same sad and weary line about species differences for decades (as if we didn’t know). We won’t even comment on Yuri Geller.

By contrast, the eminent scientists speaking in favour of animal research included Professor Colin Blakemore, Professor John Stein, and Lord Robert Winston. Any one of these has more expertise in animal research than the combined members of the opposition panel. Compared to them, the antivivisectionists simply have no credibility. Is this the best they can do?

On 27th April the Oxford Union proposed the motion “This house would not test on animals”. Over 85% of the Oxford Union voted against the motion, at 321 votes, defeating the motion by 225 votes. Given the antivivisection line-up, it’s surprising they got as many votes as they did. They must have invited all their friends.

Our congratulations to Laurie Pycroft, founder of Pro-Test, who also spoke up for animal research. He made history by becoming the youngest person ever invited to speak at the prestigious Oxford Union debating society.

Take a look at this extraordinary trip back into the past. 15 years ago on World Lab Animal Day (today), 20,000 people massed in Trafalgar Square to make their protest against animal experiments heard.

What has happened to the movement? These days all we get for lab animal day is a snarling mass of angry animal rights activists.

All the antivivisection groups can manage now is a fairly feeble fund-raising leaflet filled with the usual rubbish and misinformation. So much for their claims of massive public support!

Arkangel is the magazine of the extreme animal rights movement. Its first edition was 18 years ago. Ronnie Lee, infamous founder of the Animal Liberation Front, set out his thinking on the movement in this way:

“our movement has largely the wrong attitude towards the struggle for animal liberation. We would do far better to consider it as a war”

If bluster and bravado were the only weapons in this self-declared war, there is little doubt about who the winners would be. In an email a few days ago to supporters around country, the campaigning group SPEAK, opposing the new research centre at Oxford University, claimed that:

"the support we receive from the public is at an all time high - we are winning this battle and just as importantly we are winning the arguments against vivisection."

Who are they trying to kid? On the same day as the SPEAK rally in Oxford, RDS revealed that over 100 leading research organisations have posted statements on their websites explaining their ethical policies towards animal research. This is a sign of the growing confidence of the scientific community in making its case for the humane use of animals in medical research. 

At the recent SHAC trial in the US the defendants tried to hide behind the First Amendment – the right to free speech.  They were less concerned with their victims’ ‘inalienable right’ to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which precedes the First Amendment by 15 years.  The SHAC posse claimed that they could post what they liked on their website (home addresses, contact details, children’s school etc), but they were not responsible for the violence and intimidation thus incited: it was a legitimate tactic in their eyes.  The jury disagreed and the defendants are awaiting sentencing.

One posting on the SHAC site read, “Marsh employees: We know where you work, we know where you eat, we know where you sleep. Is HLS really worth it? We are winning.” SHAC took pains to claim that it was not responsible for the incidents, while at the same time applauded those who were.

If anyone was in doubt about the horrendous impact of these extremist tactics, then the account of Ed Walsh and his wife JoAnn McGee should put those uncertainties at rest.  Their work came under fire from PETA a decade ago because kittens were used in the study – never mind that the scientists hoped to help deaf children with their work.

Happily this sort of personal, individual harassment is rare; and thanks to recent changes in legislation, both in the UK and US, it is likely to become even more atypical.  Public acceptance of the need for carefully regulated animal research where there are no alternative has never been greater (opinion polls, Pro-Test, yadda yadda yadda), the media demonstrates an understanding of the issues involved, and scientists who speak out are no longer lone individuals but part of a group.

The People’s Petition, brainchild of IT worker David Taylor, is a great way for the hitherto silent majority to stand up and be counted on animal research. Given that opinion polls show that three quarters of us acccept the need to use animals in medical research, I hope thousands and millions will sign. I’m proud to say that I was one of the first to sign. When I last looked (at about 10am) the count had gone up to 1854, and it only went live at midnight. I expect most will vote anonymously, but already there are dozens of supportive comments on the site. Here’s a random sample:

"It’s great to see that the silent, educated majority is making its voice heard - the tiny extremist minority has had too loud a voice for too long...”
Posted by: Nick Meade, London

“It is really refreshing to be able to positively support such an important cause for human and animal welfare.”
Posted by: Trish Loakes, Huntingdon

“Ethical animal experimentation is essential for the development of new, safe drugs to alleviate the diseases that afflict man globally.”
Posted by: Chris Snell, Norfolk

“I think this is a great idea. I get fed up with ARA activists declaring that they represent the peoples view, and its about time the people had the opportunity to actually voice their opinion.”
Posted by: Jimmy, Halesworth

There’s a great article about The People’s Petition in The Guardian today, and I heard heart consultant Professor John Martin supporting it on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme at about 7.15am this morning.

What’s all this? The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection are recruiting for a new Chief Executive. But it was less than two years ago that they announced the appointment of a new Chief Executive - Adolfo Sansolini.

At that time his appointment was described as “an exciting new episode in the BUAV’s long history”. Obviously it was not exciting enough.

Whatever the reason, we can understand why this top job has become vacant again. After all, what do rats do when the ship is sinking?

I only heard Mr Sansolini on the radio once. Without putting too fine a point on it, he was hopeless at getting any sort of argument across. During his almost two-year tenure, his organisation, with a budget of around £3 million, got less profile than an enthusiastic bunch of Oxford students with an expenditure of less than £3,000.

So will the new person fare any better? The job advertisement is asking for a dynamic, forward thinking, visionary and pragmatic leader with a high intellect, integrity, energy and creativity. Some hope! How BUAV squares that with the need to conform to the distorted, narrow-minded, old-fashioned, scientifically illiterate and hopelessly ill-informed approach of antivivisection is a mystery.

Our prediction: BUAV is going downhill, and fast.