Norman Baker is one of the most persistent and ardent antivivisectionists within the ranks of MPs. He has also established a reputation as a canny politician who can manoeuvre an argument to his advantage.

In the May edition of the House Magazine—which is intended for politicians in the House of Commons—Mr Baker calls for ‘a sensible scientific and ethical debate’ about animal experiments. He accepts that a handful of extremists have waged campaigns of intimidation and even violence against those involved in animal research. In his article, titled ‘Man’s worst friend’, he states that this violent minority has ‘set the cause of animal rights back by years’.

This is a far more sensible line than the mainstream antivivisection groups are taking. The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV), for example, continues to claim that animal rights extremism is vastly and deliberately exaggerated, as if through some giant conspiracy. A daft approach.

But whilst Mr Baker sounds moderate and reasonable, his arguments are no less disingenuous. He claims that the use of animals in basic biological research is excluded from the European Directive 86/609, which, as he points out, gave birth to our 1986 Act. He wants all the EU countries to have effective systems of licensing, control and inspection. He claims the huge ethical issues of genetically modified animals have simply not been addressed. And he wants far more effort to be put into developing alternatives.

In fairness, many of these criticisms could apply to many other countries in the world. But Mr Baker is doing the debate in the UK a gross disservice by omitting vital facts.  He does not acknowledge the extensive regulation in the UK, which clearly covers basic biological research and includes extensive licensing, control and inspection. And there is no mention of the lengthy scrutiny and debate of the ethics of animal research, for example from the House of Lords Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures, or the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.

However moderate and reasonable he tries to sound, Norman Baker is simply another old-fashioned antivivisectionist. His objective to abolish animal research would set back medical progress for all mankind. It’s a good thing he has little influence.