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.
<Wrap up...>
