Category Archive | Debate
March 19, 2008 | Wednesday
A better debate about animal research
There is every indication that the more sophisticated and nuanced debate about the future challenges of animal research, which we have been hoping for, can materialise.
Last month our new Chairman, Professor Colin Blakemore, outlined in profile in the Times Higher Education Supplement the new approach to the debate which RDS will take.
This was followed up by an article in the New Statesman online by the Director of the RDS outlining the challenges ahead.
Finally, a detailed and extensive editorial has been published (as a pdf) in Alternatives to Laboratory Animals (which is the Journal of the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments) outlining how we see the new arguments unfolding.
With many of the animal rights extremists in jail or awaiting sentencing, now is the time to improve all aspects of the debate, and of course the science, 3Rs and animal welfare as well.
Mythbusting in action
By
Pingu | Filed in
Debate /
Claims from animal rights activists against animal research tend to be along a similar vein, geared to undermining the science. In a recent blog entry, a scientist/doctor going by the name of Orac sets out the facts to counter the pseudoscience used by animal rights groups – eg that animal testing can’t give us information of value or reliability, and animal models are inferior to other research techniques. It’s nice to see a face in the research community setting some of the myths straight.
Respectful Insolence blog: Bad scientific arguments in the service of ‘animal rights’ activism
March 17, 2008 | Monday
Meet Jens Holm
We are well aware that some Members of the European Parliament have been misled by animal rights misinformation into thinking that animal research does not work and should be phased out. But some MEPs are themselves the origin of such misinformation.
On his English language blog, the Swedish MEP Jens Holm describes his ‘passions’ as ’global justice, animal rights and environmental issues‘. Note the lack of interest in the well-being of individual people.
Jens Holm describes what he anticipates to be ’difficult struggle against animal experimentation‘. During the revision of the European Directive on animal experimentation, Jens Holm is going to be pressing for ‘concrete plans for reduction’. His rationale is that:
‘in the same way that we have goals in the area of climate change, we should set goals for reducing animal experimentation year for year’.
This is confused thinking. Animal research is an activity which brings benefits both to humans and animals. Climate change is an unwanted by-product of industrial and consumer activity, and brings no benefits of itself.
Advocating targets to reduce animal experiments is like suggesting we tackle climate change through targets to reduce rail travel.
The logical focus of Holm’s concerns should be reducing animal suffering, which is a perfectly sensible. In that case, his goal should be targets to reduce animal suffering from all causes, including all human and animal activities. Whether the EU has the legal capacity for that is another matter!
March 14, 2008 | Friday
Animal rights advertising appeal dismissed
On Wednesday 12 March the Lords Appeal Court dismissed an appeal by the animal rights organisation Animal Defenders International (ADI) against a ban on a proposed advertisement on television.
ADI is the international campaigning wing of the National Anti Vivisection Society. In 2005 it launched a campaign entitled ‘My Mate’s a Primate’. It was refused permission to advertise on television by the responsible body—the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre. Advertisements are banned if they are of a ‘political nature’.
One of the Lords described the proposed advertisement as showing an animal’s cage, in which a chained girl gradually emerges from the shadows into view; the screen goes black and the following messages appear: ‘A chimp has the mental age of a 4 year old’; ‘Although we share 98% of our genetic makeup they are still caged and abused to entertain us’; ‘Please help us to stop their suffering by making a donation today’; the final shot is of a monkey in a cage in exactly the same position as the girl was in.
The Lords recognised that drawing a line inevitably means that ‘hard cases will arise falling on the wrong side of it, but that should not be held to invalidate the rule if, judged in the round, it is beneficial’.
It was further commented that:
‘It takes little imagination to understand how powerful this [advertisement] would be… They can seek to put their case across in any other way, but not the one which so greatly risks distorting the public debate’
RDS took no position on this court case. We recognise both the right to freedom of expression in the UK, and the limitations of that right as decreed by the law. One of the Lords pointed out that those laws were there to stop the ‘mischief’ of partial political advertising. ADI is complaining bitterly that it has been ’gagged‘. At least we are now spared the mischief of distorted and misleading TV advertisements from animal rights groups like ADI.
March 06, 2008 | Thursday
Finding common ground
RDS is an organisation which seeks wide consensus about the need for well-justified, properly regulated, scientifically valid and humanely conducted animal research. For this reason we have no problem with the suggestion by Robert Matthews in the latest edition of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine that:
‘Animal models can and have provided many crucial insights that have led to major advances in medicine and surgery’.
This is very close to our position in any case. Our keynote article in the Journal of the European Molecular Biology Organisation (EMBO) setting out the ethical aspects of animal research makes the similar assertion that:
‘Animal research has had a vital role in many scientific and medical advances of the past century and continues to aid our understanding of various diseases’.
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?
<Wrap up...>
February 28, 2008 | Thursday
Strong support
By
Zebedee | Filed in
Debate /
The government responded very positively yesterday to an e-petition which asked the Prime Minister to ‘demonstrate support for animal research’ (we blogged on this e-petition last February). The response ran to over 450 words. It even thanked signatories: ‘Thank you for signing the e-petition calling for continued support for animal research’ and welcomed ‘the support this petition voices concerning research and testing using animals in this country.’
The main message of the response was to recognise the need for animal research to make advances in medicine:
‘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.’
<Wrap up...>
February 04, 2008 | Monday
Let's get real
The antivivisection groups have been strangely quiet about the European Commission’s response, released last week, to the Parliament’s Declaration on primate research. But perhaps it’s not so strange; no doubt the antiviv groups would prefer that such sensible and considered conclusions are buried, given that they would be very difficult to spin.
The Commission recognised that limited use of primates is imperative in particular biomedical research fields, including infectious disease such as malaria and neurodegenerative disease such as Alzheimer’s. Of course replacement should be the ultimate goal, but it is simply not possible at present.
The Commission said:
‘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.
<Wrap up...>
January 25, 2008 | Friday
SABRE petition misses the mark
RDS has made clear its support for the concept and practice of systematic reviews. These can help inform how animal studies may be improved and interpreted for the benefit of human health.
Unfortunately, systematic reviews are not a panacea. Some of the published systematic reviews have been so highly selective that their findings had limited relevance, as discussed on a previous blog entry. In other cases animal data is too diverse to make the reviews meaningful. And for much basic research, the objective is not to predict the outcomes of human trials, but to discover new knowledge, whether relevant to humans, animals or the environment.
For these reasons, RDS unfortunately cannot support the current e-petition to the Prime Minister by the organisation known as SABRE. This petition would require, amongst other things, that each licence application includes references to systematic reviews of existing relevant studies. This is simply not practical. How can an application for a new piece of work make reference to a non-existent systematic review?
RDS will be engaging in a number of ways during 2008 in the debate about how to improve experimental design and encourage systematic reviews. It’s a shame a little more thought had not gone into the wording of what could otherwise have been a sensible proposal.
January 24, 2008 | Thursday
Brasher the basher
Perhaps this article about PETA (the US animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is a little too crude for us. RDS is calling for a more sophisticated debate, after all.
But there are certainly many people out there who think that PETA has far too much influence over young children. They are concerned that PETA is a cult-like organisation which brainwashes kids with bizarre beliefs.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Bryan Brasher has certainly gone for the option of openly berating PETA.
January 23, 2008 | Wednesday
Does speciesism hold up?
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.
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!
<Wrap up...>
January 04, 2008 | Friday
A more nuanced debate?
As we indicated on our last blog, we believe 2008 will be the year when a more sophisticated debate about animal research emerges. This will be possible if the government and police can continue to crack down on animal rights extremists, who have made it difficult for researchers to engage properly with the public.
Researchers themselves will have to take on the responsibility of that extra time commitment to explain their work. We believe many are willing to do so if their safety can be assured. A survey for Nature magazine just over a year ago confirmed this.
To kick off this debate, it will be important to recognize both the benefits and the limitations of animal research. One journalist who appears to have ‘got it’ better than many is James Randerson of The Guardian. In his comment today in The Guardian online, he points out that ’no scientist would claim that an animal is a perfect model for humans, but they offer a way to understand human disease that no alternative can match’. Quite so.
December 18, 2007 | Tuesday
Patient's voice rumbles across Europe
So far many MEPs in the European Parliament have been lobbied vigorously by animal rights groups in their blind opposition to animal research. Sadly, other views have not been heard, despite the enormous benefits to human health which can derive from such research.
It is heartening to see that the European Patients Forum (EPF) has now published a statement on animal testing, approved by the vast majority of its member organisations. EPF will be distributing this statement widely during forthcoming debates in the EU Institutions relating to the revision of the European Directive on Animal Experimentation 86/609.
November 30, 2007 | Friday
Rights or responsibilities?
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.
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’.
<Wrap up...>
November 23, 2007 | Friday
Don't count your chickens
Animal Defenders International (ADI) seem to be riding high. This organisation is the international campaigning wing of the National AntiVivisection Society. Their autumn 2007 newsletter just dropped through our letterbox with the claim that the European parliament has ‘set a historic target to end experiments on primates’. This is described as ‘the single most important breakthrough in over a decade’.
We’ll see about that.
The case for the use of non-human primates in research is well made in a Guardian ‘Comment is Free’ blog article today, and is otherwise well described on the RDS website.
In any case, the claims of ADI do not stand up to scrutiny…
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.
<Wrap up...>
STOP THE PRESS: Animal researchers not monsters!
In today’s Chronicle of Higher Education Mary Beth Sweetland – until recently VP and director of research and investigations for PETA and a close Newkirk associate – made a comment that is almost certainly not condoned by Newkirk and other animal rights bigwigs.
My years of experience with whistle-blowers have forced me to realize that I cannot label as monsters all who work in animal laboratories
- Unfortunately you need a subscription to access the full article
It’s a revelation that will come as no surprise to anyone that’s done animal research, or knows people who do.
However, this isn’t meant to be a gloat, and I hope Sweetland’s comment isn’t used against her by other activists. It’s nice to see that some committed activists do appreciate the nuances of the debate.
All too often we only hear the views of people like Newkirk(1) who persist with the old, tired position of ‘anyone connected with animal research = sadistic torturer’.
Long may sense continue.
------------------------------------------------
(1) Described by Alex Pacheco, her PETA co-founder, as “a media whore” (USA Today, 19th Nov 2007), other mainstream activists such as Wayne Pacelle, Chief Executive Officer of the Humane Society, feel her ‘neither condemn nor condone’ attitude towards ALF actions is unhelpful – and morally wrong:
‘We’re demanding ethical consistency in the way people live their lives,’ Pacelle says. ‘Once you move into the domain of intimidation or illegal conduct beyond civil disobedience, you’re moving into a dangerous pile of quicksand.’
- PopMatters.com, 19th Nov 2007
