The latest European Parliament written declaration proposal from MEPs on stopping use of non human primates has already been noted on this blog.
One might assume that all the MEPs who have signed so far, have of course carefully weighed up the arguments before they signed.
Fat chance!
The declaration states the justification for:
establish(ing) a timetable for replacing the use of all primates in scientific experiments with alternatives
includes
noting that almost all primate species share more than 90% of their DNA with humans and it is acknowledged that the primate species have a capacity to suffer greatly in
captivity.
Whilst the fallacy of using this argument in respect to animal welfare has already been exposed, some MEPs are happy to have it both ways....
Richard Corbett MEP has said, in the context of comparing the proposed European Treaty and the rejected European Constitution:
The DNA of mice and humans is 90% the same ... but the remaining 10% is rather important.
Not what you just signed up to Richard!
I’d not seen the declaration before, it’s flawed on many more counts than you identify. For a start point A refers to an inherently flawed public consultation exercise, does anybody really believe that this consultation actually reflects public opinion. The expert consultation, which the declaration fails to mention, would have more usefully reflected the real situation. Public consultation exercises are easy to subvert it they’re on “single issues”.
Point D is a complete red herring, the wild-caught primate species used in EU labs are from non-endangered species. Indeed in the case of macaques, which make up the majority, they are often considered to be pests. It is also the case that wild-caught monkeys are only used in the UK under exceptional circumstances, and I wonder what proportion of monkeys used in the EU as a whole are wild-caught...is it even as high as 10%? Also, do these MEPs really think that those catching monkeys for bushmeat or clearing land for farming care in the least what the EUs policy on wild-caught primates in medical research is?
Point E is also rather lame, if these really were alternatives why would scientists who use these techniques on a regular basis (such as Prof. Tipu Aziz who studies human patients with MRI and MEG) also continue to do studies with primates. Certainly some of these techniques have replaced some primate studies, and more advanced versions (and new techniques) may replace other primate studies, but to pretend that they can replace primate studies according to a timetable in the near future is nonsense.
Suggestion 1 is redundant because the last research centers in Europe to use apes are ending the use of apes (the use of great apes is banned in the UK), and the use of wild caught monkeys is likely to be banned except in exceptional circumstances that rarely arise(as is the case in the UK).
Suggestion 2 is unacceptable because there is no way that any scientific organization can commit to a timetable for the replacement of monkeys in medical research, there are simply too many unknowns.
I really do hope that somebody (perhaps the European Coalition for Biomedical Research) is providing MEPs with more accurate information.
