We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to…demonstrate support for animal research.  (Submitted by Martin Piper)

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to…demonstrate a commitment to replacing animal experiments with more ethical and scientifically relevant non-animal research techniques, by committing to and publishing a targeted timetable for total replacement.  (Submitted by Wendy Higgins)

E-Petitions, Science, technology and innovation

[Another quick tangent: it’s interesting to note that the anitiviv one is from BUAV’s former?/current? (who cares?!  they’re a declining organisation after all) Campaigns Director; whilst the supportive one seems to be from a member of the public unconnected with the debate – admittedly I could be wrong, this is only based on quick Googling of both names – but it seems to show which way the wind of public opinion is blowing.]

Now, the antiviv petition seems quite reasonable (as long as we disregard the ‘scientifically relevant’ bit) – after all, no one likes using animals, so it makes sense to try and phase it out wherever and whenever possible.  The crucial point that non-scientist Wendy Higgins seems to have missed is that no one can predict the rate and direction of scientific and technical progress (although we’re influencing the direction as much as we can through well conducted, good science and the founding of the NC3Rs) and so it can’t be time-tabled. If our society wants medical progress and drug development to continue, then animal research will be a part of that for the foreseeable future: opinion polls show that the majority of people accept this.

The point I am trying to make, in a very roundabout way, is not whether a particular petition is right or wrong, but when should it be taken into account?  The hot topic this week is the e-petition against road pricing with 1.3 million signatories as of last night.  This petition is not really based on solid foundations – the idea is still at the drawing board stage, and no real, validated assessment has been done on how it would affect road users.  Many of those who signed the petition may be better off if road-pricing does goes through, but I can’t say for sure because it hasn’t been properly considered yet. It’s a good debate-starter, but nothing more.

Today’s Guardian has an excellent leader about this issue, A signature issue for government.  For those of you who don’t have time to read the full article:

The real issue that is at stake in the road-pricing row is not the rights and wrongs of petitioning but whether, and how far, the government ought to take account of the protest…
Whether Mr Alexander should not just listen to the protest but give in to it is not a question to which there is only one irresistible answer. This is not a matter of principle. The truth is that it depends. It depends on the substance of the argument, the scale of the protest, the perceived strength of feeling, the influence of those involved, the importance that the government and the party attach to the issue, the strength or weakness of the government at the time, the political cost of defiance, the national interest, the alternative, the precedent, the timing - and a kaleidoscope of other considerations. A million people can be right or wrong, or a bit of both at the same time, and in a representative democracy, MPs and ministers have to weigh the issues and then use their best judgment