Debunking the claims of pseudoscience is something we like at RDS. This blog aims to do that ‘one quack at a time’. Whilst the entry animal rights and research has no new scientific analysis, it makes a compelling argument for researchers to engage in the debate.

It is nice to see Professor Steve Jones decisively debunk the animal rights myth, made for example by extremist John Curtin, that the congenital deformities caused by thalidomide were somehow linked to animal tests. In fact, it was the thalidomide disaster which led to extensive protocols for safety testing – of all types – for new medicines.

Two categorical statements can be made about thalidomide. Firstly, it was never administered to pregnant animals before it was used in humans. This is confirmed in a factsheet from the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection which states that:

The Thalidomide tragedy is often quoted to illustrate the failure of animal experiments but this drug was never tested in pregnant animals before it was released for human use.

Secondly, only five months after the teratogenic effects of thalidomide had been established and the drug withdrawn, the same effects were shown to occur in rat and rabbit, and subsequently in numerous other species of mammal. The paper in The Lancet on April 28th 1962 described the deformities in the New Zealand white rabbit with the comment that the expert had “never seen anything like this during fifty years experience of rabbit breeding”. 

The Junk Medicine column in Saturday’s Times took a thorough look at the claims in a leaflet by Europeans for Medical Progress, that was censured last week by the Advertising Standards Authority. Science journalist Mark Henderson called EMP leaflet “an outlandish example of dubious hyperbole masquerading as scientific fact”. He continues with a good explanation of why animal research cannot be blamed for drug side effects. 

Like science, maths (or math to our US friends) doesn’t appear to be a strong suit for antivivisectionists. A letter in today’s Guardian from Adolfo Sansolini of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection just doesn’t add up.

He implies that polls show decreasing support for animal research. He bases his conclusion on the following poll results:

1995 Harris poll “Is it all right to use animals in experiments to test new drugs?” 40% said yes
2001 ICM poll “Do you support or oppose the use of animals in scientific testing of new medicines for human consumption?” 46% agreed
2005 ICM poll “Do you agree or disagree with the use of animals in experiments to test new medicines?” 50% agreed

There are dangers in comparing apples with oranges, but this looks like increasing support to me.

We get some absurd emails at RDS. Here is a recent example, unedited. Perhaps he believes in a flat earth as well?

Dear All at RDS
Thank-you for confirming my suspicions; Your promotional film on CH4 next week proves you are worried that the public is becoming increasingly aware of the truth behind vivisection. (I note there is not one scientist invited to speak against vivisection just an animal rights protester, very balanced!!) Imagine if the scientific AV movement decided to do a similar TV prog.!!!!

If you’re curious to know how the shrimp’s ‘rocking dance’ has forwarded scientific knowledge, then check out RDS’ new leaflet An A to Z of laboratory animals.

It describes some of the common, and not so common, animals used in research and gives these unsung heroes credit for their participation in bio-medical discoveries.

The leaflet can also be downloaded so that you can show all your friends!

A question put to RDS today by a radio station is whether there can be a campaign to save the dog which is going to be killed on a Channel 4 programme next week. Unfortunately for those animal rights groups, sensing an emotive campaign, the programme was pre-recorded. So the answer is no.

In any case, it doesn’t make sense. Every day more than 20 dogs are killed by local authorities because they have no home. From July 1998 until the end of 2004, the leading animal rights organization PETA has been accused of killing over 12,400 dogs, cats, and other (unwanted) “companion animals” at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. Additionally, every day over 1,500 animals are killed for us to eat as meat in the UK.

Dogs represent less than 1 in 500 animals used in research, but the medical benefits are enormous. Only today in the prestigious journal Nature we have the announcement that scientists have deciphered canine DNA. This will give insights into many human and dog diseases and may lead to new treatments and cures for the future.

We are amused to see that the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection is seeking a Science Co-ordinator. They want “someone with scientific knowledge who can present the case against animal experiments”. Presumably they haven’t noticed the contradiction. No wonder they make so little progress. We imagine BUAV will take that page down quickly!

RDS has had plenty of opportunity to debate the merits of animal research with antivivisection groups.  None is more fanatical than the absurdly named Europeans for Medical Progress (EMP).  This group claim to have a ‘scientific’ critique of the use of animals in research. They usually open their debates by stating that they have no animal rights agenda.  Strange then, that their Director, Kathy Archibald, worked for the animal rights organisation Animal Aid before moving to EMP.  The group has a new alpha male, Jarrod Bailey, who appears to have ejected the old leader, Ray Greek.  The devout followers who turn up to the debates are all women!

Spokesman Bailey has had to admit that he is not an expert in every field of research.  That’s a relief.  Presumably there is a good explanation for his CV where he claims to have pursued a career in non-animal research methods, but gives his only area of expertise as animal experimentation!

Bailey claims that if he looked at any area of research he is confident that he could demonstrate that animals did not play a useful role.  This kind of deeply held faith, without supporting evidence, is the hallmark of religious belief, and the antithesis of a scientific approach.  No wonder it has proved impossible to have any meaningful debate with this strange organisation.