Quite a number of MPs have now signed the first balanced parliamentary motion (EDM) on animal research to go down for many years. This EDM urges all involved to seek reasoned dialogue on this issue.
Perhaps in the spirit of such dialogue, the campaigning organisation known as Naturewatch has just released a review of progress over the last 10 years of animal experimentation called ‘Who will listen’. Whilst the review itself is somewhat disjointed, it is nonetheless an interesting contribution to the debate.
Naturewatch claims to be a non-profit animal welfare campaigning organisation. Its aims are to promote the prevention of cruelty to animals and to conduct and support the publication of information concerning animals in furtherance of their welfare. Traditionally RDS has classed Naturewatch as an antivivisection organisation because its main campaigns include opposition to animal experiments (in particular those which cause brain damage to primates).
However, Naturewatch does not emulate the dishonest and vitriolic rants of the mainstream antivivisection groups. This latest report is a call for more resources for the 3Rs and more openness about animal research—including greater clarity in the published statistics of animal use. In principle, these are not things that we would argue with.
This is not to say that we agree with everything in the review. It is certainly selective in the evidence its cites. For example, it highlights the call from the Weatherall committee for greater emphasis on the 3Rs in primate research. Yet when it comes to the potential benefits of such primate research, which the Weatherall committee strongly endorsed, the Naturewatch review instead turns to an obscure neuroscientist based in the US who claims in true and absurd antivivisection style that ‘scientists who persist in nonhuman primate research… will endanger countless human lives’.
Furthermore, the review underestimates the significant progress which has been made in the 3Rs within the scientific community. Neither the annual figure for the number of animals used in procedures, nor the annual budget of the National Centre for 3Rs, are in any way the best measurements of the commitment within the UK to the 3Rs. Most working in the field would say that standards of housing and animal welfare in general have gone up enormously over the past decade. For example, environmental enrichment is now rightly commonplace. Biomedical research has expanded substantially in the last couple of decades. The fact that the numbers of animals used has remained relatively static is a strong testament to the progress achieved in reducing the numbers of animals used and in finding alternative non-animal methods of research.
Unfortunately, whilst everyone would like to see more money for the NC3Rs, this comes up against the fact that there are only finite sums of public or private money available. It is those who work with the animals—namely the vets, animal technicians and scientists—who make most progress in the 3Rs. Encouraging them to do more through greater public support for the 3Rs is the best way forward. In that respect we welcome this contribution to the debate from Naturewatch, even if it is not exactly how we would have put things.
