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:
It refers to the 5th World Congress on Alternatives and Animals Use in the Life Sciences in Berlin where a declaration was signed to bring about a global commitment to end primate experiments. The statement was signed by animal rights groups predominately, including ADI and NAVS. However, in December 2006, following a major independent review, the Weatherall report of the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Medical Research Council, the Royal Society and the Wellcome Trust was published. Some of the UK’s leading scientists reported that there is a strong moral and scientific case for the regulated use of non-human primates in research. I quote: `There is a strong scientific case for the carefully regulated use on non-human primates where there are no other means to address clearly defined questions of particular biological or medical importance.’ The key point is that whilst an eventual cessation of animal use can be an agreed aspiration, an immediate ban would have serious adverse medical and scientific impacts and would stop vital research into diseases like Parkinson and Aids.
The Declaration also claims that primates are the closest relatives of humans, sharing 98% of human DNA. Frankly, this is a quite meaningless statement. In 2005 the Nuffield Council on Bioethics report on the Ethics of Research involving animals’ wrote: `Knowledge about the percentage of shared DNA has limited application in helping to decide whether or not an animal experiences pain in ways similar to humans. We also share significant amounts of DNA with mice (96%) and fruit flies (70%) and indeed with crops such as bananas (50%). Having genes in common is information that is of limited relevance with respect to assessing welfare.’
The Declaration also falsely claimed that the very existence of primates is threatened by the bush meat, laboratory, entertainment and pet trades. It is clear that the authors of the Declaration do not know that the two most common species in research are the marmoset and the macaque monkey. The marmoset monkey is bred entirely in Europe. A significant proportion of the macaques are also purpose bred or from an area where they are a non-indigenous species that has a negative impact on indigenous flora and fauna. The authorities in those countries thus require active management of the non-indigenous species. None of these monkeys is listed as endangered by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and the impact of research use is trivial compared to habitat destruction or the bush meat problem.
One would wish that politicians would inform themselves and listen to experts and scientists more closely before they sign a declaration filled with false claims.
