The work of charities is supposed to reflect the public interest. It is for that reason that antivivisection groups cannot become charities.
So we were intrigued to see the statement from the RSPCA that it would be ‘extremely concerned and angry’ if the Home Office figures for the number of animals used in 2006 showed another increase. The increase reflects more research being done into the genetic basis of diseases, and is very much in the public interest if this can be translated into new treatments and cures. It was welcomed by some patient groups.
Charities are also supposed to be publicly accountable. Yet this crude statement from the RSPCA was released with no accompanying explanation.
The RSPCA has generally been seen as a sensible and pragmatic contributor to the debate about the use of animals in research. Its website states that ‘the RSPCA adopts a constructive and practical approach, judging every issue individually, critically questioning the necessity and justification for animal use and striving to reduce the conflict between animals and science wherever possible’.
If every issue is judged individually, then how can the RSPCA make such sweeping statements about the overall animal numbers?
Most sensible organisations accept that the animal numbers themselves are not a good reflection of progress on improving animal welfare, reducing the amount of suffering for the animals, or implementing the 3Rs.
We will ourselves be extremely concerned if the RSPCA starts to campaign beyond its remit. And it risks losing credibility for its work on animal welfare if it is not careful to put out more measured statements than the one recently released.
I would think animal numbers were at least somewhat related to two of the three R’s, replacement and reduction. The RSPCA have access to the data that shows this is a real increase, largely in the use of mice (even if you don’t include the GM animals that are merely breeding stock). I think it is absolutely part of their mandate to make statements of this sort, and I say that as a person who until a month ago spent their whole career experimenting on animals (I was lured out of research by a better paid position).
It is up to the research community to demonstrate and justify that the increase is necessary and productive, if indeed it is. It is in the public interest that this dialogue occur. I am not sure ‘angry’ was a wise word choice, but neither IMHO was the suggestion here that anyone but the RSPCA and their many supporters determine the group’s remit. If they lose touch with the public interest it is the public that will let them know, not special interest groups such as the research community.
Here is another Charity (this time the Vegan Society) seeming to rather lose the wider perspective/plot:
Daily Mail: Products by Ecover, which the company says are not tested on animals, carry the prized Vegan Society mark.
But the Vegan Society is to refuse permission for its trademark to be used when the endorsement comes up for renewal later this month.
The move follows a tip-off that Ecover uses water fleas - between 0.2mm and 5mm long - to test the effects of detergents on aquatic life.
According to Ecover, the microscopic crustacean - scientific name Daphnia - found in rivers, streams, lakes and ponds, isn’t actually an animal.
Certainly it’s not covered by EU animal-testing rules which are limited to vertebrates past a specified embryonic stage.
But the Vegan Society members consider water fleas - named for their jumping style of swimming - as “part of the animal kingdom”.
The Vegan Society follow the same policy as the ‘no animal were harmed in the making of this movie’ policy - clarity. They don’t use products that kill animal, full stop. What the EU does is neither here nor there to them. In fact what the EU does is significantly less clear cut and logical.
And here’s another, which claims to be a charity but isn’t. BUAV wants to get into bed with the greens. They’ve failed in the past and will fail again - if we want environmentally friendly products it will entail some animal testing, and the green groups and manufacturers know that very well.
Animal rights gets righteous really gets up my nose. Such posturing would deny much needed medical treatments for the seriously ill including kids with cystic fibrosis, the elderly with Alzheimer’s, not to mention millions in developing countries dying from parasitic scourges such as malaria.
I think that RDS are right to challenge the RSPCA on their statement about the Home Office statistics, which does seem somewhat inflammatory, but we shouldn’t ignore the fact that it is fairly likely that there will be another small increase in the numbers of animals used when the 2006 figures are announced next year.
The reasons for this have been mentioned before, the increased use of transgenic animals studies (including some large scale international collaborations) to investigate the genetic causes of disease and the use of transgenic animals (mostly rodents) in place of normal animals as models of human disease in biomedical research. I believe that most scientists would consider it desirable to, for example, replace monkeys with transgenic rodents in neurology or virology studies, but to do so will require the use of considerably more animals per study than before. A lot of the current increase in transgenic animals can be ascribed to developments in molecular biology, the same field that made a major contribution to the decrease in animal use from the 1970s to the early 1990s.
At the same time anyone who has followed the funding of science in the UK over the past few decades will be aware that after remaining essentially flat in real terms for most of the 1980s and 1990s, public funding has increased dramatically in the past decade, and this increase has been accompanied by increases in the charity and private sector. If the amount of biomedical research being done has increased by say 40% (a guess on my part, the real figure might be a bit higher or lower) while the number of animal procedures has only increased by 11% then it’s clear that the proportion of biomedical research using animals is continuing to fall. I think that it’s fair to say that this is at least in part due to the implementation of the 3Rs by scientists and regulators. The problem for those of us arguing for well-regulated animal research is that the proportional decline is being hidden by the overall rise, since implementation of the 3Rs is only one of several factors affecting the total number. New legislation (such as the EU REACH) and the general growth of the UK bioscience sector are just two other significant factors.
To its credit RDS has made the above points, but unfortunately in recent weeks wider reporting on the Home Office statistics does not seem to have grasped their significance. Perhaps it would be better if more quantitative data on the increasing amount of biomedical research was available, based perhaps on the number and size of research grants awarded. In the meantime it would perhaps be best if research advocates focused on making the positive case for biomedical research that uses animals, and on the 3Rs as a way to minimise the number of animals used and the suffering involved relative to the knowledge gained rather than simply as a way to get the total number down.
Visigoth, my understanding of the situation is much like your. I think it is also relevant that the RSPCA do not seem to have made this statement publically. As far as I can tell they used it in some kind of internal communication sent to their supporters? This really isn’t clear but it looks lore like a leaked email than a press release. This would make more sense as their public statements are generally much more measured.
Emily, I saw the RSPCA email, which looked pretty much like a press release to me. I believe it went out a few days before the stats were released, but I don’t know of any journalists who picked it up. This is the full text (I have emboldened the extract that Georgina the Giraffe quoted in the original entry):
This is to let you know that annual Home Office stats showing the
number of animals tested for research are due to be released on Monday
(23rd July). With a team of scientists who are experts in the field, the
RSPCA will be extremely concerned and angry if the figures show another
increase - something they have done since the turn of this century.
We shall be putting out a response statement on Monday once the figures
are released. Please contact us for more information, or for interviews
on this or wider, current topics, such as the potential reduction in the
quality of what are already bare statistics, or the European Directive
currently being revised which we believe must focus more on humane
alternatives to animal research. This is a vital time for those
concerned about animal research, so it would be great if you could cover
this.
Thanks!
Chris Pitt 0870 754 0367
RSPCA press office
I like the bit about bare statistics - if 40 or so big tables of figures plus commentary and appendices (I have waded through them all) are bare, I wonder how they would look fully dressed?
And I’m sure someone will put me right if the whole thing was a spoof.
As a formal press release it certainly falls short in a number of ways. The sentence the excerpt comes from really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, grammatically speaking.
