In what has been heralded as one of the largest investments in animal protection, Leona Helmsley’s estate is to be used to improve the welfare of dogs. With the estate worth an estimated $5 to $8 billion, it has caused quite a stir – from animal advocates to those who wonder if the money is going to quite the right cause. The Humane Society of the United States, the largest animal protection organisation in the US, is unsurprisingly fully supportive of Leona’s fortune being used solely for helping animals.

Americans are renowned for their enthusiasm towards their pets and their love for animals – so much so that some pet owners even buy gifts for them on Valentine’s Day. There are countless examples of how crazy people are about pets in the US. They have an entire TV network dedicated to animals, they have created a whole range of sweets with a pet theme (’Sweethearts‘ – like Love Hearts in the UK), and they embrace an annual ‘take your dog to work day’. There appears to be more than a hint of truth behind this article from satirical magazine The Onion a few years ago: I’m a diseased and deformed animal lover!

Almost hidden by acres of UK media coverage of the (at times hysterical) debate about hybrid human animal embryo research, I was interested to spot a small item about HIV vaccine research. It was in the Financial Times this morning, based on a Reuters report. Last month we blogged about leading scientists calling for HIV vaccine research to go back to basics, including animal research. Now, according to Reuters, the US government has acted:

The US government has announced a major overhaul of its effort to produce an AIDS vaccine, stressing a return to basic scientific research after the failure of a key clinical trial last year.

Government officials at a summit with AIDS scientists pledged to prioritise spending on lab work and animal tests rather than expensive, and thus far disappointing, large-scale vaccine trials on humans. ‘We need to turn the knob in the direction of discovery. That is unambiguous,’ said Dr Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who convened the meeting outside of Washington.

Let’s hope, for the sake of patients, that sense will also prevail in our current scientific/political/ethical/religious/media preoccupation with hybrid embryo research.

Last night, distinguished guest speakers Professor Colin Blakemore and British psychologist Dr Richard Ryder spoke at a One World Forum debate about animal research at Warwick University. The debate was markedly superior to most because Dr Ryder does not accept the simplistic antivivisection notion that all animal research is fundamentally flawed, although he believes the benefits are exaggerated. This allowed room to develop common ground, at least in the belief that we should show compassion to sentient creatures, be they human or animal.

A significant part of the debate was centred on the concept of ‘speciesism’, a term which was coined by Richard Ryder in 1973 to denote a prejudice based on what he considered morally irrelevant physical differences between humans and other animals.

The case that speciesism is irrational and unacceptable has been extensively promoted by animal-rights philosophers, and is discussed for example in Wikipedia.

But it seems the case for treating animals differently from humans has not had the same depth of philosophical commitment, and is somewhat disjointed. Here then is a summary of the main arguments for treating humans morally differently to animals.

The dawn of the animal rights movement was over 30 years ago with the publication of Animal Liberation by Peter Singer. Whilst two different groups of animal rights supporters shared much the same objectives, they took very different paths to achieve their aims.

The animal rights extremists are best known for their philosophy of direct action and for their high profile campaigns of harassment and intimidation.

The other group sought to use moral, philosophical, intellectual and legal arguments to further the case for animal rights through the courts, constitutions and laws in a variety of countries.

I recently received an email from a journalist, who despite not being routinely involved in this debate could easily see the flaws in recent antiviv claims:

"The Hadwen Trust have said that a new European Commission report puts the UK at the top of the animal research rankings. However, if you look at the notes on the bottom, you’ll see that the figure they use is not even from the Commission report!

… they said they used the UK estimate for animal research because European figures didn’t account for certain types of research. How the UK figure can therefore be used as a comparison is a bit of a mystery to me!"

See Dr Hadwen Trust website, News, New Statistics: Britain still the animal testing capital of Europe, 9th Nov 2007

Unlike the rest of Europe, the UK counts breeding of GM animals as a procedure meaning that when GM animals aren’t counted we aren’t actually in the top spot. That you have to compare like with like – just because France, for instance, doesn’t count GM animals it doesn’t mean it doesn’t have thousands running around the lab – seems to have passed the folk at DrHT by. However, ‘UK is number 2 in Europe’ doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.  It’s sad that one of the supposedly respectable antiviv groups has resorted to these tactics.

The UK collects and publishes the fullest details of animal research undertaken in the world, as well as being acknowledged by the antis as being "at the forefront of cutting edge non-animal research"(1). Add to this that DrHT’s very own Gill Langley recognises that UK animal research is a "very tiny minority of research effort"(2), and the negative comments look very silly indeed!

It would benefit animal welfare more if the DrHT had instead held these facts up as an example to other countries.

I’d actually say that it is a source of pride that the UK is the world leader in conducting top quality animal research that is carefully regulated and fully accounted for.

-----------------------------------------------------

(1) National Anti-Vivisection Society & Lord Dowding Fund for Humane Research (Nov 2002) Monkeys & Men
(2) Gill Langley (17th July 2001) Oral evidence to House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures

Radio 4’s normally excellent Today programme ran a story this morning on Shambo, the TB-positive bullock in Wales, which left something to be desired in the reporting standard.  Clearly, the monks at the temple are distressed but there are a few facts that I think need to be borne in mind before allowing claims like the Welsh Assembly have committed an ‘act of desecration against the temple’ and ‘sacrilege against their religion’ to go unchallenged.

The right to practice religious beliefs freely is an important one – but other rights also exist. The reality is that this world has overlapping considerations that make cases like Shambo’s particularly messy.

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!

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.

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 Sainsbury’s Eco bag created controversy; were its green credentials marred by unethical sourcing?

This is not the only example. The Co-op plastic carrier bags carry this text:

We don’t test our toiletries or household products on animals
Independently reviewed by BVAV www.buav.org
FOOD SAFETY Refrigerate all chilled foods…
SAFETY FIRST To avoid danger to children....

The Co-op does have a clear policy on such use of animals, and this is a worthy aspiration. However just as with Sainsbury’s bag it seems to me there is at best muddle, or at worst a touch of hyposcrisy. The Co-op sells medicines tested on animals, but in fairness it does not make a not tested on animals claim here. But for food safety, and safety at home, animal testing has and does protect the environment, protect our food, and protect our children.

If ever there was a distasteful campaign, it is the current publicity that the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) is seeking in its opposition to the use of animals for research into illegal drug abuse.

The problems of drug abuse may seem very distant to a group concerned solely with animal rights. Yet for those who are affected—directly and indirectly—they can devastate people’s lives. The scornful approach which the BUAV takes in suggesting that ’health consequences of their use are entirely avoidable‘ says more about the mentality of animal rights campaigners than anything else. 

I commented before on the failure of BUAV to get its sums right, here and here.

Under its new leader, things at BUAV seem to have got even worse: I spotted the following howler in the weekend newspapers:

‘200 million animals are used in research and testing worldwide for consumer goods every year,’ according to Michelle Thew of BUAV.

Now, I assume that by consumer goods Ms Thew means non-medical products – this is the theme of the article. In the UK, safety testing of such products accounts for just 4% of all animal procedures, or 120,000 a year (most animals are used in biomedical research, not safety testing). Worldwide estimates for all animal procedures aren’t too reliable, but we have calculated that they are unlikely to add up to more than 50 million a year. Assuming that, like in the UK, 4% of these are for the safety testing of non-medical products ... we get a total of 2 million worldwide.

If they really want to ‘engage in true debate’, BUAV should start by getting its facts straight. But on past performance I doubt we will see it correcting this error any time soon.

The way some people talk about human rights for chimps these days you might think that chimpanzees were identical to humans. A Professor Sommer was quoted in an Observer article recently as claiming that ’it’s untenable to talk of dividing humans and humanoid apes because there are no clear-cut criteria—neither biological, nor mental, nor social‘.

That’s strange. We thought chimpanzees were a different species to humans. That is surely a clear-cut biological difference. And even if there is not, that does not mean chimps are identical to humans. Even on the continuous electromagnetic spectrum there is no clear-cut point at which green becomes blue. But it is still possible to make a distinction between green and blue.

Rigour (honesty and integrity), Respect (for life, the law and the public good) and Responsibility (in communication, listening and informing) are the new three Rs – an ethical code for scientists. For biomedical scientists, we now have six Rs – we are already guided by Reduction, Refinement and Replacement of animals in research.

Sir David King is chief science adviser to the government; his office developed the code and wants to see it widely adopted. He describes the new three Rs as ‘a simple summary of the values that each of us espouses as practising scientists; it should also demonstrate to the public that scientists take ethical issues seriously.’ Yes, nice idea, but what is it really for? It looks like a sticking plaster solution which says ‘I’m a scientist, I’m a really good person, trust me’.

As Sir David himself indicates, the vast majority of scientists already adhere to such principles without the need for a formal code of ethics. So the real driver of this initiative seems to be a perception of ‘the public’ as anti-science. If this is true, it will take more than a government-inspired code of ethics to engender greater support for science and scientists.

Maybe the code is not intended to promote public interest and debate. Sir David said in Guardian Education yesterday that it should simply be ‘embedded in schools and universities as soon as possible.’ He concludes ‘The public has great aspirations for scientists. We have a responsibility to them [the public or the scientists?], and we must not let them down. I therefore urge all scientists to adopt and help promote the code.’

If only the code could be embedded in antivivisection groups - rigour, respect and responsibility seem to be foreign concepts to them.

The topic of discussion for a meeting tomorrow of an organisation known as the Laboratory Animal Science Association seemed to me initially to be taking welfare to slightly crazy heights.

After all, although zebrafish are fast becoming the model of choice for many biologists, I thought that they were primarily used for study of the embryo and development – not too much scope for pond weed and treasure chests there. Even if adult fish are in labs there’s hot debate about whether fish actually perceive pain or discomfort as we know it; and how much enrichment does a fish need?

I was soon educated: one of the fastest Google searches I’ve ever done (’zebrafish’ and ‘enrichment’) returned a very pertinent article among the top hits, Evolution of Standards in the Care and Use of Zebrafish in the Jan 2007 issue of Animal Lab News. 

It turns out that zebrafish use is expanding because (i):