RDS/BLOG

Only members can comment. Not a member? Please submit your registration for validation. | Log In |

Talking Point

By GeorginaTheGiraffe | Filed in Debate /

Antivivisection groups have been extremely active lobbying in Europe against the use of animals in research. It is important that we get our arguments together and our message across to MEPs. A short summary of the situation in the UK, titled ‘Talking Point on the use of animals in scientific research’ has just been published in the Journal of the European Molecular Biology Organisation.

Comments

Page 1 of 1 pages of comments • Follow through:

The EMBO journal piece makes a very good point about funding of ‘alternatives’. As far as I’m aware only projects funded through the NC3Rs in the UK are formally accounted as ‘alternatives’ funding by the UK government. There must be a huge amount of research funded by government, charities and industry that could count as ‘alternatives’ research, from the development of in vitro methods of growing monoclonal antibody-producing hybridoma cells to 3D cell-culture methods to in vitro methods for lead identification in drug development, that have never been accounted as ‘alternatives’ because the replacement or reduction of animal tests was a secondary consideration during their development.

An interesting case I came across recently was that of the Aston MRI research centre. The antivivisection group NAVS has awarded several hundred thousand pounds (I think it was £500,000) to the centre to cover the running costs over five years through its Lord Dowding fund. Naturally they claim this as alternatives funding since techniques being developed at this facility will probably replace some brain research that currently requires monkeys. On the other hand I have seen no evidence that any part of the £10 million budget for building and equipping the centre, paid for by Advantage West Midlands and HEFCE was ever accounted for as investment in alternatives. This was probably because research to develop techniques to replace animal studies will only account for a small part of the overall research program at the centre. The different accounting is understandable but it does tend to distort the debate surrounding government funding of alternatives.

Perhaps it is time to loosen the definition of what constitutes ‘alternatives’ research a little to give a more accurate picture of what is being done. A survey on spending by the different research sectors on projects that have as an aim (not necessarily the primary aim) the reduction or replacement of animals in research might also be informative.

Posted by Visigoth / October 01, 2007 | Monday | 02:40 PM |
The Wellcome Trust also contributed to the Aston MRI centre according to this BBC story.

The story is a pretty shameless bit of spin on the part of NAVS, giving the impression that the Lord Dowding Fund was the major funder, when in fact its money amounted to less than 5% of the total for building, equipping and running the facility. And why state that no animals will be used when it’s clear that the facility was designed for humans rather than animals in the first place? Not really an ‘alternative’ then, as Visigoth points out.

It’s not as if scientists at Aston don’t use animals in their work. A quick look through the University’s website shows that they, along with many other universities, do!

Posted by Zebedee / October 04, 2007 | Thursday | 10:06 AM |