PETA are an unpredictable group at the best of times, as they veer between stunts and attempts at respectability, between saving animals and killing them, and this seems to extend to those celebrities with whom they work:

The former model was dropped by PETA earlier this month when Mary McCartney, the photographer daughter of Heather’s estranged husband Paul, threatened to stop working with them.

It seems the McCartney clan are happy to use PETA to serve two separate preoccupations.

In its latest Parliamentary bulletin, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) claims that there is greater than ever Parliamentary support for the BUAV’s campaigns. It bases this on the 166 MPs who signed up to the BUAV’s EDM on primate experimentation last year.

There is no real evidence to support this claim. A similar EDM in 2003 received 223 signatures. So perhaps support is falling.

In any case, little effort has been made by the scientific community to properly inform MPs about the case for well-regulated animal research, and the high animal welfare standards that exist in the UK.

However, times are changing. Instead of the polarised debate that the animal rights groups seek to promote, we are seeing more recognition of the need for an ethical approach to contemplation of animal experimentation. This means more emphasis on the refinement, replacement and reduction of animal research projects—known as the 3Rs.

Earlier this week the National Centre for the 3Rs (NC3Rs) held an excellent Parliamentary reception to showcase efforts by the commercial and academic bio-science sector to improve animal welfare standards, reduce the number of animals used in individual research projects and develop replacement alternatives. Information about the event is on the NC3Rs website, and an excellent booklet was published with details of the numerous projects which were on show as posters for the event.

While a minority of MPs are sadly stuck in the ghetto of animal rights propaganda, there are indications that many wish to see a more sensible debate. With the welcome activities of NC3Rs—raising the profile of the improvements in science that can be gained from developing better and fewer ways of using animals—there is every reason for MPs to discover for themselves the substantial gains that can and have been made.

A written declaration of five Members of the European Parliament on primates in scientific experiments was tabled last September. Such a statement is the equivalent of an Early Day Motion (EDM) in the UK Parliament. It has received 59 signatures (the EU Parliament has 732 members) so far. According to European Parliament rules, declarations only need to be discussed in the Parliament if more than half of the MEPs have signed it. The Declaration lapsed last Thursday (18 January 07).
The declaration is full of false claims:

Senseless slaughter is how animal rights activists describe animal research. But arguably it’s the only use of animals that is ethically acceptable. The enormous medical benefits are, for most people, sufficient justification. Add high welfare standards to the equation and there is little case to answer.

A new page on the RDS website puts the number of animals used in medical research into stark contrast with other uses – and abuses – of animals by society. It starts off with the fact that each of us enjoys the medical benefits of animal research from the use of three mice and one rat over our entire lifespan.

Just consider the numbers. Every year in the UK alone we consume about 2.5 billion animals for food; let over 100,000 dogs roam our streets as strays (and put down one in 10); hit the same number of cats and dogs on the roads when driving our cars (and don’t even stop for a quarter of them); destroy at least 2 million vermin in our homes; and let our pet cats kill 220 million small mammals. 

Why are the animal rights activists largely silent about this treatment, abuse and killing of billions of animals? What is it about the much smaller number of animals used humanely in research, and for enormous benefit, that triggers such vocal and violent protest?

Not long ago on this blog we highlighted the ethical concerns of a vegetarian who supports the use of animals in research. Now another example has come to light, this time in an online US journal, where a vegan with strong doubts has himself become involved in animal research.

These are nice examples of counter-intuitive positions. But they are not isolated cases. In fact they reflect the thinking of most individuals in the research sector. No one wants to use animals if it could be avoided. Why would they? The ethical dilemma is very apparent, and the use of animals is time-consuming, expensive and bogged down in bureaucratic procedures from the Home Office.

The bunny blogger accuses us of being smug and ‘drippingly reptilian’. Yes—we like to point out the distortions, inaccuracies and blatant lies of the animal rights movement. But we must never forget that there are serious ethical concerns about the use of animals in research. These are for all of society to debate, not just those who shout the loudest.

With half of the UK antiviv/ animal rights movers and shakers currently enjoying Her Majesty’s hospitality it’s no wonder the movement seems to be in crisis – both in energy and numbers.

Their attempts to cover up their dwindling forces haven’t passed unnoticed though:

Announcement - Puppet Accounts
This is a warning for all the anti-vivisection protestors using puppet accounts to disrupt the board. Oxford Gossip does not prohibit multiple accounts if users wish to contribute to different discussions without revealing their identity, but it does not allow them to be used for spamming or trolling.
This is a warning to the two anti-vivisection users on this board who are currently using puppet accounts for trolling. Carry on and we will ban you.
Oxford Gossip, October 2006

I wonder how many more such incidents would be found if more discussion forums etc were on the lookout.  Perhaps the recent vote on BBC children’s programme Newsround could do with some scrutiny?  We have heard rumours that PETA are infiltrating children’s chat forums; maybe the tactic is spreading.

This week’s In the Know magazine (October 10, pages 18-19) has an article about animal research featuring an articulate, intelligent trainee barrister who happens to be diabetic. Lisa says:

Before insulin was discovered, diabetes would be a death sentence. I wouldn’t be here today if scientists hadn’t tested on animals. I know it’s not ideal but it’s the only way forward in many cases. I’d always put the life of a human above an animal.’

I think most people would agree. This presents a dilemma for antivivisection and animal rights groups. They cannot deny that the most people – vegans aside – do not accord animals the same rights as humans. So they either deny the evidence of history – eg the key role of Banting, Best and a dog called Marjorie in the discovery and development of insulin – or claim that animals are no longer necessary in medical research.

The In The Know article outlines the story of insulin and other animal-research-dependent medical advances. So what case does the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection make against animal research in this article? They resort to a string of distortions and blatant lies. Here’s the worst example:

‘… only about 20% of experiments are for medical purposes. Others are for products such as household cleaners, fertilisers and petrol.’

Petrol??? I don’t know where they got that one from.

The animal experimentation figures are publicly available, if a little complex (that’s why we provide an accessible summary on the RDS website). But using some simple arithmetic, it’s clear that the safety testing of household products and agricultural chemicals together added up to just 1.2% of all animal experiments in 2005.

Tests on non-medical products are a very small percentage of animal use. In fact 96% of all the animal procedures in 2005 were used for some form of biomedical research – basic and applied research, medicines development, and testing of new medical and veterinary products.

The incoming director of BUAV, if she is at all concerned about the truth, has a big clean-up job to do.

In a letter published by The Observer on Sunday, antivivisectionist Richard Mountford of Animal Aid (for some reason he doesn’t mention his affiliation) tries to align pro-life and antivivisection campaigning:

It is absurd for so-called right-to-life campaigners to object to medical research on cells from dead human embryos, when they do not object to research on live animals (’Scientists turn dead cells into live tissue’, News, last week). They may feel squeamish about using human cells, but that is not a moral argument.
Richard Mountford, letter in The Observer, 1 October 2006

So far so good. But then he states that: ‘thousands of animals suffer in experiments every day in British laboratories’ and says we should invest in stem cell research and ‘stop using cruel animal tests’. Most scientists agree that suffering should be minimised, and I do not believe that animal tests can be characterised as cruel.

But the main point is that stem cell research and stem cell therapies depend very much on animal research, particularly research involving mice. And arguably we would not have progressed very far in this field if it weren’t for Dolly the sheep. Animal Aid seems to inhabit a fact-free zone.

For more evidence on the importance of animals in this research, look no further than the RDS web page Stem cell therapies and mouse research. 

It is always fascinating to see how antivivisection groups jump on the results of animal behaviour research to push their case that animals are morally equivalent to humans. For example, the latest report by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV), The Use of Primates in Experiments supposedly

‘explains the latest knowledge about the significant capacities of non-human primates - capacities once thought to be unique to humans’.

The report claims, for example, that

‘many primates share with humans the ability to remember past events, to have desires, to anticipate and plan for future events, to communicate, form concepts and have complex emotional and social experiences’.

We have no doubt that much of this is true. But we certainly wouldn’t take the word of the antivivisectionists alone. After all, for over 100 years they have simply rejected all evidence of the medical and scientific benefits of animal research, yet accept uncritically any animal behaviour research which apparently supports their position.

Some might argue that comparing numbers of animals used in different ways by our society is at best meaningless and at worst invidious - the ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ argument. But I had to highlight the figure just released by the Dogs Trust (better known as the former National Canine Defence League). It turns out that last year in the UK more stray dogs were put down because they couldn’t be homed (7,743) than were used in research (7,670). A staggering total of 101,586 stray dogs were found.

My question for those animal rights activists who would say ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’: why don’t you campaign for more responsible pet ownership and leave valuable medical research alone? Or, as the vegetarian vivisector hinted this week, campaign against butchers, abattoirs and meat eaters? The potential number of animal lives to be saved if we all turned veggie in the UK is 100 million.

Today sees another ruling from the Advertising Standards Authority, this time against the National Anti Vivisection Society.  A leaflet distributed by NAVS claimed that ‘laboratory animals suffer terribly at every stage of their lives’; a statement to which RDS strongly objected, since some animals are often used solely for breeding, as control groups, or purely for observation.  In addition, the UK has world-renowned animal welfare standards.

On this occasion NAVS did not even respond to the ASA’s request for information.  Since NAVS has not adhered to previous rulings (see Behind the times), there is no reason to suppose that it will abide by this latest one.

Incredibly, NAVS is blaming the ASA for its own lack of response!  When approached by The Guardian, NAVS’ Chief Exec Jan Creamer said that the group had had no contact from the ASA:

‘We contacted them yesterday and said what is this all about and they said they had sent us a fax,’ she said.  ‘They’d never received a response so they left it at that.’

‘We exhaust as many avenues as we can to give a fair hearing to the advertiser,’ said an ASA spokesman.  ‘If they don’t respond, we still have to make a ruling.’
Guardian, 26th July 2006, Anti-vivisection claims on suffering were misleading, says advertising authority

I find Creamer’s comments hard to believe.  RDS has had quite a few dealings with the ASA over the years and in our experience it’s very good at communicating – usually by letter, but also the occasional phone call; and it isn’t shy about asking for more info or clarification.  ‘Left it at that’ also doesn’t quite tally with what NAVS has written on its website:

Last week saw the announcement of one of the most exciting technical and medical breakthroughs ever: the development of ‘neuroprostheses’, or electronic brain implants.  This amazing feat has enabled a paraplegic man’s brain to directly interface with and so control computers and robots: thanks Haruspica for your illuminating blog on this.

The research reported in Nature represents ‘the culmination of decades of investigation by many research group into computing, engineering and the neurobiology of animals and humans’; but there is still a way to go before neuroprostheses become clinical practice.

This breakthrough highlights perfectly the way science and medicine progresses: many groups work very hard – often in seemingly unconnected areas – and years later these come together to form something beneficial to humanity.  However, certain groups often fail to appreciate the size of the task and difficulties involved in developing treatments and cures.  For instance, antivivisection groups such as BUAV and EMP constantly whine that science has yet to produce a cure for AIDS, despite the fact that it was identified a mere 25 years ago and has seen huge developments in diagnostics and treatments thanks in large part to animal research.  Not only do these antivivisection groups ignore the valiant efforts and successes of those involved, they actively (and irresponsibly) dispute the validity of the work done; setting their own opinion over those who work in the field and who are therefore rather better informed (see a previous blog Monkey business).

Neuroprostheses (see also the bionic eye development announced last week), treatments for AIDS, malaria, flu (of any description let alone the dreaded bird flu), TB – the list goes on and on – solutions to all these require much ingenuity, together with dedication, intelligence and research on animals.  Researchers with these qualitites may save millions of lives; but according to the following cretinous statment are not needed.

What the enormous majority of sick people in this world need from us is not our ingenuity and our laboratories
Alistair Currie, BUAV Campaigns Director, speaking at the Oxford Union over the motion ‘This House would not test on animals’ (motion not passed)

Alistair Currie inhabits a fairyland where if people donated everything that they could spare then all the world’s troubles would be solved!  Yes, the world would be a better place if more people were charitable: fewer children would starve, die of drought or hypothermia.  But for the millions of AIDS sufferers, those paralysed, those succumbing to cancer and many more terrible diseases, there would be no cure: and I want no part of a world where money is thrown at them but no effort is made to tackle these things.

A new group calling itself VERO - Voice for Ethical Research at Oxford - has been formed to campaign against the new animal research centre being built by Oxford University. The conjunction of ‘VERO’ (suggesting truth) and the word ‘ethical’ is clever, but the name belies a reliance on the same tired old antivivisection untruths and propaganda.

In an open letter to the Vice Chancellor of the University last week, the group, which has 20 founder members, said:

I’ve personally witnessed that Jarrod Bailey, ‘Science Director’ of the antivivisection group Europeans for Medical Progress, is fond of that dubious practice, self-citation (see below for details).

An excellent paper in ‘the journal of unlikely science’, Null Hypothesis, lists some of the reasons people self-citate:

Self-citation references can also be used to (i) let journal reviewers and referees know who has written the paper (which may not always be a good thing!), (ii) to establish to readers your reputation in a given area and/or (iii) satisfy cravings to see your name in print! In this short article I aim to examine the art of self-citation in academic writing and give some effortless hints and tips.
Professor Mark Griffiths; Self-citation : A practical guide; Psychology Division, Nottingham Trent University, UK; Null Hyp. ‘Best Of’, pp14-15

Prof Griffiths then goes on to give tips for successful self-citation, although warning that:

It’s good to hear Joan Ryan, the new Home Office Minister with responsibility for regulation of animal experiments, making public statements such as: 

"Animal research and testing has played a part in almost every medical breakthrough of the last century. It has saved hundreds of millions of lives worldwide, and is vital to our National Health Service.”

She was responding to news that the Council of Europe (covering about 50 European countries) have adopted revised guidelines for the housing and care of laboratory animals.

The main effect of these guidelines should be to bring other European countries in line with the already high lab animal welfare standards that we have in the UK. They are also likely to be incorporated into the revised EC Directive 86/609 on animal experimentation, which is wending its long and weary way through the European political process.