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.
BUAV’s statement closes with some quotes about primate research from its allies. Shame they do not agree with the Home Office Minister responsible for animal experimentation, who, according to the BBC, stated recently:
‘There is no immediate prospect of an end to the use of primates whilst the benefits to humans, animals and the environment outweigh the costs to the animals involved and until there are suitable alternatives available.
The development of new drugs and medical and veterinary technologies is still dependent on the information and insights derived from the well-designed, properly conducted and carefully regulated use of animals including primates.’
It is right and proper to have a debate about the use of animals, and particularly primates, in research. There is plenty of information in the public domain on which to base such a debate. The RDS web site has information about the use of monkeys in brain research. The Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust recently published a booklet on primate research. The Animal Procedures Committee reviewed primate research and testing in 2002. And there is currently a scientific review of primate research being conducted by the Academy of Medical Sciences, Royal Society, Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust.
It is possible to conduct reviews and provide good information without naming the institutions who work in this sensitive area and who may then be subject to hostile attacks. The BUAV statement ‘We make no apology whatsoever for seeking information in the public interest from public bodies using legal means’ claims public interest when there is none.
