Last night’s documentary ‘Rats and Mice and Me’—based around animal research at Oxford University—was excellent in virtually every way.

We have long said that what happens to animals used for research should be put in the context of the benefits to people. Many animal rights activists appear to have little understanding of what happens to patients in hospitals. Hence what might seem gruesome , such as carrying out brain surgery on an animal, is far more understandable when you see the equivalent brain surgery in a human.

We might have a few minor quibbles. It’s a shame that once again the main focus is on primate research—which only accounts for a tiny fraction of all animal research. On the other hand we have to accept that there are profound ethical issues involved in the use of monkeys in research, and that this type of work needs to be properly justified and understood.

But without a doubt the most enjoyable experience was sitting through a whole hour’s documentary without a single quote from the pseudoscientific quacks of the animal rights movement who claim that animal research doesn’t work. What a relief.

100 years ago, in evidence to the 1906 Royal Commission on Vivisection, the antivivisectionists made exactly the same claims—that animal research was of no benefit to people. Since then we have had the discovery of insulin for diabetics, the polio vaccine, heart transplants and many other major medical advance of the last century at least partially dependent on the results of animal research. The antivivisectionists who deny this are simply wrong. It was good to see the real facts come out at last.

Some time ago we reported on this blog that SPEAK were beginning to look like stalkers. Their apparent obsession with identifying the builders and contractors working on the Oxford research centre looked as if it was all about identifying targets for animal rights extremism.

But the police and courts have taken a dim view of the campaigns of harassment and intimidation carried out by the Animal Liberation Front in Oxford. So it seemed for a while that SPEAK had little to do except stand around holding banners and hurling the usual abuse at anyone whose views they disagreed with.

Now presumably they have decided to add a little humour to their campaigns to boost their flagging morale. And the latest suggestion on their website that that they will set up a political campaigning wing certainly had us laughing.

We can only imagine that this is a spoof. The idea that anyone would take SPEAK seriously, apart from themselves, is incomprehensible.

You only need to look at the results of the recent referendum amongst Oxford students to see the levels of support for animal research and the new university facility. This was carried out on Thursday November 16th, with all students at Oxford University eligible to vote.

Poor Heather Mills.  On top of going through a very public divorce, an organisation that she’s devoted a lot of her time and energy to is kicking her while she’s down;

An animal rights charity has reportedly shelved plans to use photos of Heather Mills McCartney in a new campaign because it does not wish to be linked with the former model.

People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals asked Sir Paul McCartney’s estranged wife to pose naked for a series of adverts for its ‘I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur’ campaign (1).

But the US-based charity reportedly got cold feet because of her bitter divorce battle with the former Beatle.
Metro, Animal rights group shun Heather, 15th November 2006

With both of the Mrs McCartneys having supported campaigns against medical research whilst benefiting from the fruits of said research, it seems that an overarching hypocrisy is a prerequisite for wives of the former Beatle.
--------------------------------------------------
(1) which Naomi Campbell famously reneged on in 1997.

A new Parliamentary bulletin from BUAV claims that ‘the value of animal studies has been questioned in a new independent study’. No surprises there then! BUAV have been claiming much the same for well over 100 years.

What is daft is that they have based this at least partially on a quote pulled from the paper which states that ‘patients and physicians should remain cautious about extrapolating the findings of prominent animal research to the care of human disease’.

Well of course. This is nothing more than a reminder of good scientific practice. It would be the case for any type of research. Even clinical trials can come up with contradictory or confusing results. And work in cell cultures or computers—long the favourites of the antivivisection movement—can be hopelessly unreliable.

On the one hand antivivisectionists accuse the scientific community of over-reliance on the results of animal studies. And at the same time they find fault when researchers point out that it would be wrong to rely on the results of animal studies.  This kind of contradictory analysis is going to do little to help the credibility of an organisation that is already struggling to have any impact on the debate.

We were informed that their new Director, Michelle Thew, is starting at BUAV today. She was reappointed some months ago in a surprise move, since she left the very same position a few years ago. Michelle has clearly gone nowhere in the intervening years. She will be hard-pressed to raise the game of this organisation. But if she fails, they are likely to suffer the same fate as her.

There have been several fantastic science/medicine stories in the last few days that have fulfilled all the ‘top trump’ criteria you might expect (1) if there were a Science or Biomedical Research pack. All revealed progress in stem-cell-based treatment. The Guardian clearly appreciated the good science too. 

Sadly, the first about mini-livers, see Zebedee’s Mini-livers - hope or hype?, was an example of how poor reporting on scientific issues can lead to unwarranted hype (and/or misleading antiviv spin) surrounding an important medical breakthrough.

However, the reporting of three others has been accurate and excellent:

It would be wrong to gloss over the fact that some animals suffer when they are used for scientific research. Just as people suffer from painful diseases like arthritis, so we know that animals will get some of the same symptoms when used to study that disease.

Nonetheless, the aim is to minimise suffering wherever possible. A good example would be a comparison with a woman who found an early stage lump in her breast. She would not necessarily be suffering a great deal. If we were studying the development of breast cancer in animals, we would aim to finish the research at a similar early stage whenever possible, so that they were spared any unnecessary discomfort.

This is not to downplay what does happen to animals. Our Director was recently asked on a radio interview if some animals suffer ‘exquisite pain’ during the course of medical research. The answer, of course, was yes. Migraine research, for example, is classified as being of the most substantial severity for an animal research project. Any migraine sufferer will be able to verify that. But such projects are a tiny fraction of all animal research.

Nonetheless, years of relentless propaganda from animal rights groups has grossly distorted public perceptions of animal research. Many people still imagine that there is blood on the walls of every animal laboratory.

BUAV has gone all defensive following criticism by the Times Higher Education Supplement this week that it has used Freedom of Information to draw up a potential hit list of universities conducting research on primates.

I sense a whole raft of double standards, fatuous claims and plain nonsense here. Based on their track record, BUAV’s claim to present only ‘scientific, factual, reliable information and reasoned argument’ is laudable but laughable. BUAV’s lies were exposed very recently on this blog

And journalists seeking further information from BUAV found that very little was forthcoming: ‘Sean Gifford, campaigns manager at the BUAV, declined to comment on the FoI requests, saying the organisation had not yet decided what to do with the information.’ Unfortunately BUAV is not covered by FoI.

Antivivisectionists have long tried to portray the use of animals in defence research as some kind of horrific evil. In fact, this type of research is overwhelmingly about trying to alleviate the suffering of people who have been injured by weapons—either directly in combat or as civilians. This includes people who have been attacked by conventional weapons, of course. But there is currently an emphasis on defensive measures against chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) weapons.

The Ministry of Defence has just published for the first-time a strategy for defence technology. It states that the long term objective is to ‘identify generic medical countermeasures against all toxic and infectious agents that may be used as CBRN weapons. We recognise that this is ambitious so in the short term (5-10 years), some focus will remain on specific solutions such as vaccines and anti-toxins against particular agents of concern’.

Inevitably the use of animals will remain a vital part of this strategy. The document states that:

Medical countermeasures research, in common with the majority of hazard assessment research, will rely heavily on data derived from animal experiments for the foreseeable future… As part of an integrated approach to CBRN medical countermeasures research, MOD will pursue reduction, refinement and replacement of animal experimentation as well as exploiting developments in academia and industry in this regard’.

The use of animals in this area of research still falls under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and must be properly justified. Some MPs have been agitating against defence testing on animals. They might want to spend some time thinking about the possible victims of future terrorist attacks before they oppose something just because it sounds distasteful.

beast at Beyond bunnies got a little hot under the collar at my blog, Oh happy day, which was written after reading this one, Say some killer points and then shut up - where beast recommended to the anti movement that providing reasoned arguments is better than crazy-eyed pronouncements of unsubstantiated ‘truth’.

As you can see from the comments at the end of Say some killer points… beast was previously upset at not being able to comment on our blog, so:

beast, we formally extend an invite to comment and promise to make sure your registration is passed.  We’re looking forward to a lucid, articulate and brief comment giving your ‘killer points’ to the debate.

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.

SPEAK have once again hit the headlines in this week’s Guardian by hyping up their activities. But their announcement that the 2012 Olympic site is their next ‘legitimate target’ is based on shaky foundations and unlikely to amount to much.

Meanwhile it is lower-key commentary from the scientific community that is successfully making the arguments and winning the debate.

An Oxford academic discusses his research, his involvement with Pro-Test, and why openness is the way forward in an article for the September edition of the British Association for the Advancement of Science publication Science and Public Affairs:

In summary, I‘m amazed that a small group of ‘animal rights’ people have been able to dictate to the majority for so long. I’m tired of their lies. I’ve never been intimidated and refuse to be so. I really hope that my putting my own name and photo in the public domain (on the Pro-Test website) will encourage more scientists here in Oxford and elsewhere to be proud of what they do and to discuss their work without fear.

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.

It’s a great day when the antis show how painfully aware they are of their shortcomings, see Beyond bunnies “Say some killer points and then shut up".

How the tables have turned!  Apparently defending animal research is the ‘easy job’ (since when?!), and

‘This thing is deliberately being turned into a PR war by a pro-vivisectionist lobby that see themselves as on the defensive for too long. That’s dangerous: clever people + emotional blackmail + lots of money to spend on “education” (as Aziz said) = trouble for the Manns & Broughtons of this world.’
[Comment 3]

Ha ha!  We’re turning this into a PR war?!  My irony-meter just blew.

The blog itself had some spectacular sour grapes: because they perceive ‘our’ side as coming off better in the media, it must be because ‘we’ have cheated in some way (and not because irrational people who are blinded by their sense of right are illogical and scary):

‘Intensive media coaching from the slick and over-funded RDS has no doubt helped here’

Tut tut, stop sucking that lemon - as Iain Simpson pointed out (Comment 6) that RDS has never provided media training for him or Tipu as alleged in the blog.  It’s nice that Beyond bunnies is so impressed by ‘our’ efforts that s/he thinks we’re slick, but since when has RDS been over-funded?  NAVS and BUAV each have five times the level of funding of RDS, and we’ve spent the best-part of the last 100 years fighting our corner alone.

In New Labour’s pre-1997 election leaflet New Life for Animals, the party made a range of statements that raised expectations amongst the animal protection community.

How times have changed amongst Labour party members themselves. The Times reported

Lord Drayson, the Defence Minister, became the first major speaker to be heckled at this year’s Labour conference. The former vaccine research company chief turned politician was criticising actions of animal rights extremists when the heckler branded medical researchers ‘abusers’ and labelled as ‘rubbish’ claims that animal testing was necessary. Lord Drayson - who in 1993 founded PowderJect Pharmaceuticals plc in Oxford which specialised in the production of vaccines - told delegates that animal extremism was the ‘one subject that got me into politics’. ‘I was chairman of the biotech industry association when violent attacks on scientists working in my industry became intense,’ he added when the heckler called out ‘abusers’. The heckler called out again but was drowned out by applause for Lord Drayson from the audience. Stewards in the conference hall looked on nervously but resisted challenging the heckler.

So we have gone from unthinking opposition, to open debate, with a clear majority supporting responsible animal use. That sounds like a healthy, informed democracy to me, the one thing antivivisectionists really fear!

Anyone who has followed the debate about the use of animals in research for some time may recall a bizarre claim by the anti-vivisectionist Vernon Coleman, who wrote a column for the Sunday People. He insists, right up to this day on his website, that it is ‘official’ that animal experiments don’t work. This claim was made on the basis that no one responded to his challenge to find just one person whose life had been saved by animal experiments. The challenge went on for some time, and anti-vivisectionists still refer to it in their letters to us.

It goes without saying that Vernon Coleman himself was going to be the judge of whether this challenge had been met. It never seemed to dawn on Coleman that no one would take seriously such a ridiculous publicity stunt. He convinced himself that there was some kind of desparate search by the scientific community to find such a patient. As a result of all this, he came to the deluded belief that the failure of anyone to respond to this challenge amounted to an ‘official’ admission that animal experimentation does not work. We all watched, perplexed, as the farce played itself out.

Now we have an equally bizarre claim from the group Europeans for Medical Progress (EMP) to amuse us. EMP claim to have ‘won’ the only debate on animal experimentation in which an ‘official’ vote was taken. We can only assume that they are referring to the students’ union debate at Sheffield University, which they recently highlighted as having won. Much as we admire Sheffield University, which carries out high quality animal research, we struggle to work out exactly what is meant by the ‘official’ nature of this vote.

And there’s another small detail. Votes were taken at the student union debates on animal research at Oxford University in 2006, as well as Durham University in 2005, both of which went overwhelmingly in favour of animal research. So the claim is not even accurate. As it happens, EMP did not take part in any of those debates. Perhaps that’s the point. EMP have already rejected the views of all credible scientific organisations around the world of the medical benefits of animal research. So to them, like Vernon Coleman, ‘official’ must simply mean anything they agree with! Hardly worth the effort of making the claim.