But that’s not the interesting bit. Michelle makes her argument supposedly on behalf of the majority of people in the UK who ’want to live in a world where nobody wants or believes we need to experiment on animals‘. But why stop with the UK? Since she is also chief executive of the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments she can presumably now talk on behalf of all of Europe. And that she tries to do.
’It is imperative that European institutions reflect the views of citizens by enshrining in law the principle that research using live animals not longer has a place in a civilized 21st century Europe,’ states Michelle.
There is simply no evidence that EU citizens hold those views. If they did, one would expect them to be coming out of the woodwork to endorse Michelle’s article with their comments. But they don’t. That’s fair enough - maybe EU citizens don’t all read the Guardian.
What about the UK ones though? Out of the first 20 comments the article received, seven supported (either clearly or vaguely) Michelle’s article (with one comment directly from the BUAV) and 12 supported the use of animals in research and the role this work plays in the development of treatments for diseases. That’s 35% agreeing with Michelle and 60% disagreeing with her (one comment was neutral).
This analysis is, of course, no more reliable or scientific than the claim by Michelle to represent the views of EU citizens, based as her’s is on a self-selected sample of antivivisectionists!
<Wrap up...>
