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?

‘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.’

‘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!

One of those animal rights advocates was Stephen Wise, probably the most prominent legal activist in the United States promoting the concept of animal rights. Beginning in 2000, he received a great deal of attention in the media and in the legal community with the publication of the book Rattling the Cage: Towards Legal Rights for Animals. The book emphasises the ideals of liberty and equality as the basis for animal rights, and suggests gradual moves in that direction, in strong contrast to the direct action movement who seek immediate abolition of animal experiments and fundamental legal rights for animals.

A recent publication from the Southern Methodist University School of Law seeks to marshal opposing views to the philosophy that animals are deserving of human rights. The Winter issue of the SMU Law Review available as pdf analyses in detail the enormous implications and disruption that there would be for modern society if animals were to receive protection in the form of legal rights. Just the threat of class action suits taken by animal rights activists on behalf of millions of pets against their owners could bring the legal system to a standstill.

The report describes furthering the humane treatment of helpless animals as important, even heroic. But it concludes that ‘taking the path of incrementally humanising animals in our courts is misguided and dangerous for both humans and animals’. The report describes the legal system as intrinsically human, and asserts that ‘the protection and humane treatment of animals is a basic human responsibility, not a basic animal right’.

On 6 September 2007 the European Parliament adopted Written Declaration 0040/2007, now referred to as ‘WD40’, which called for the European Commission to use the revision of the Directive on animal research to ‘establish a timetable for replacing the use of all primates in scientific experiments with alternatives’.

However, written declarations are not part of the legislative process. They are simply an expression of opinion. Any MEP can put down a written declaration on any subject and then ask others to sign it. MEPs are usually willing to sign these declarations simply because they do not have any real effect. Many of the MEPs who signed this one had previously signed ones calling for more research in serious or debilitating diseases.

If over 50% of the MEPs sign a declaration it is ‘adopted’ – ie read into the minutes of the Parliament and a copy sent to the European Commission. Nothing else happens, although in this case we understand the Commission is likely make a statement in response.

MEPs dislike the idea that primates are used in experiments, because they do not understand why it is necessary and because they have been given a false impression by animal rights groups that it involves causing a lot of suffering to chimpanzees and other higher primates. The antivivisectionists even sent ‘gorillagrams’ to MEPs. Chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas have not been used in the UK for over 20 years and their use is now banned. We don’t have any figures, but we would be most surprised to find that gorillas had been used in any European country in recent years.

More effort is now being made by the scientific community to explain to MEPs the importance of animal research and the use of non-human primates. Earlier this week a group of scientific organisations held a briefing in the European Parliament with research experts to start this process.

The presentations at this event made a compelling case for such research. But perhaps the most enjoyable part of the briefing was to see the researcher for Caroline Lucas MEP, an ardent antivivisectionist and supporter of the written declaration, being put on the spot. She was asked about the sentence in the declaration that suggested monkeys destined for Europe are at risk of being used for ‘human consumption’. She had to admit that this was not true. Sometimes the facts matter.

A leader in The Independent, the UK national newspaper that is probably the most opposed to primate research, did not comment on the use of non-human primates, but did express concerns about human reproductive cloning, which it said was ‘certainly a worrying prospect.’ It continued

‘that is not a reason to fear or deprecate research of the sort that is taking place in Oregon. Nor is it an excuse for panic. Rather, it reinforces the need to build legal safeguards in our societies against the unethical application of these fascinating new scientific techniques.’

The Oregonian newspaper praised the cloning research, calling it ...

‘a first, perhaps a crucial, step, that could lead to new human stem cell therapies’

Similarly, when the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection tried to get publicity for its recent stake-out of a Spanish primate supply centre, all it got was a Guardian Comment is Free blog entry penned by its own chief executive, Michelle Thew. Apart from the fact that this was full of the usual exaggerations, many of the (only 41) comments published subsequently roundly condemned her for labelling the centre ‘Guantánamo for animals’.

And I particularly liked this one:

‘So there is construction work going on around the site. So what? Is that supposed to look bad? I’ve stayed at hotels with construction work going on around them, and I’ve worked in hospitals with construction work inside. The BUAV is notorious for giving a distorted picture of animal research. That’s how it raises its money. Amazing that anyone can think an animal rights organisation would be a credible source of information.’

I assume the blog name ‘Comment is Free’ comes from the CP Scott 1921 quote ‘Comment is free, but the facts are sacred’. A pity it has been home recently to so many antivivisection untruths.

• The Cambridge facility is generally well managed and provides appropriate standards of accommodation and care for the animals.
• The staff and management have a good ‘culture of care’.
• The standard of record keeping is good.
• The facility seems adequately staffed, both in terms of quantity and quality of staff.
• The veterinary input is exemplary.

The BUAV made dozens of allegations against the University. So many in fact, that the Chief Inspector devoted 55 pages of his report to investigating them all. Many of the allegations made by BUAV were trivial, false or deeply misrepresentative.

In one case, the BUAV suggested that exposure to an unfamiliar cage causes stress in marmosets, measured by a 4-5 fold increase in blood pressure. Anyone with an ounce of medical knowledge would recognise this to be absurd.

In typically mean-spirited fashion, the BUAV accused Cambridge University of causing dental abscesses in monkeys by overfeeding marshmallows. These are used to reward animals in behavioural and cognitive tests. No evidence was given to support this claim. Although it may seem trivial, it demonstrates that the BUAV will make pretty much any allegation they think they can get away with, regardless of the evidence required for the public or politicians to evaluate their claims.

One of the leading vets in the country, with considerable experience in the welfare of non-human primates, has pointed out that this claim is almost impossible to evaluate without further information. For example, what sort of diet was used routinely, and whether there was a regular dental maintenance programme, would have been highly significant in assessing the impact of marshmallows on the dental health of the colony. In fact the Chief Inspector’s report found a ‘complete absence of dental caries in the animals’, and concluded that these occasional problems were age-related and occurred no more frequently at Cambridge University than in other marmoset units.

BUAV got considerable publicity for its infiltration at Cambridge University. Isn’t it time somebody exposed BUAV?