Registered user login:

Animal research - a defence

Simon Festing

Published 14 March 2008

Our debate about animal research continues with a call for a more sophisticated dialogue from the Research Defence Society's Dr Simon Festing

The European Union is about to publish a revised draft of the law that governs animal experiments across Europe. Our vision is that Europe and the UK should remain world leaders in advanced biomedical research which will allow us to develop new medicines to save lives and alleviate the suffering of millions of people. A small but vital part of that research will involve the use of animals.

The last decade has seen intense controversy about animal experiments in the UK. Much of the debate in the national media has been highly polarised. There is genuine public concern about the well-being of animals used for research. But at the same time there is strong public support for properly and humanely conducted medical research using animals. In the review of European laws, we see an opportunity for a more sophisticated debate.

A number of expert committees in the UK have published detailed reports on animal research, including a House of Lords Select Committee, a government advisory committee, and the respected Nuffield Council on Bioethics. They have all backed well-regulated research, but have called for more informed debate and greater efforts to replace and reduce the use of animals in research. There are signs of progress already. As well as having the most comprehensive laws to protect animals, the UK now produces more information about animal research than any other country in the world – through the publication on the Home Office website of summary information about animal research projects.


Although many medical advances are still likely to depend to some extent on animal-based research, we must recognise that animals can and do suffer in research. This will always raise difficult ethical issues. Alternative methods should be used when available, and the best regulatory system to protect animals is essential. Animal welfare standards must be high, and animals should be well treated and used in minimum numbers.


The UK government has responded sensibly to the debate about animal research. It has set up a new organisation called the National Centre for the 3Rs which will help find ways to reduce the numbers of animals used, to replace the use of animals with alternatives, and to ensure that any experiments are refined to minimise suffering to the animals (the ‘three Rs’).


There has been much debate in recent years about the extent to which we really need to use animals in research. A number of leading scientific organisations have outlined ways in which we can bring forward methods to replace and reduce animal use. Vast investments are being made in non-animal techniques which will help to achieve these objectives.


But where there is no alternative to using animals, we must also find ways of improving the results from animal studies, through better design and analysis of the experiments, and through advances in science and technology.


In the short term, we have to recognise an inescapable truth. The number of animals used in research is going to go up. This is partly because the use of genetically modified animals allows us to study the underlying basis of diseases in a more powerful way. It is also because new and sophisticated medicines are being developed which can target diseases more effectively. An example is the medicine Herceptin which was not only discovered and tested in mice, but actually comes from mice. It saves the lives of many women with breast cancer.


None of this will stop the onslaught from vitriolic animal rights groups, who continue to claim that animal research does not work and that scientists go to work every day to abuse animals. They presumably are talking about the fish, rats and mice which make up the vast majority of animals used. These absurd arguments have no credibility and should be ignored. We need to address the far more important issues outlined above, especially continuing to improve how we care for and use animals across all research centres in Europe. It is time to get away from the polarised debate, and face the real ethical and scientific challenges of tomorrow.

Dr Simon Festing is executive director of the Research Defence Society

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

7 comments from readers

AlC
14 March 2008 at 14:49

How disappointing (but unsurprising) that the Research Defence Society's contribution simply rehashes conventional wisdom and the comfortable clichés of the debate rather than addressing the substantive issues raised in many of the other contributions on this site. Simon Festing challenges "absurd" arguments no one has raised in these pages, setting up the straw man of "vitriolic animal rights groups" and their accusations of sadism when the two groups writing on these pages, BUAV and PETA, for whom I wrote, have produced measured and rational arguments he does not deign to consider.

Dr Festing's appeal is to the conventional wisdom that the truth must lie in some middle ground and that people with "polarised" opinions are by definition somehow irrational or not worth talking to. By adopting this position he hopes to be able to justify ignoring arguments he doesn't like. That isn't good enough. Opposition to slavery or child abuse is absolutist, dogmatic, uncompromising and "polarised" at one end of a moral continuum - that doesn't make it wrong. The fact that those of us who oppose all animal experimentation do not occupy a comfortable middle ground does not make us fools, extremists or unworthy of consideration. The fact that Dr Festing chooses to belittle, distort or simply ignore our arguments raises more questions about his position than ours. The defenders of animal experimentation must raise their ethical game and provide justifications for their position, rather than lazily relying on the hope that what they say will simply resonate with many of their readers' existing predispositions.

I urge readers to consider all the postings on this subject on this site, and employ the vital principle of applying their critical faculties most keenly to the arguments which appear most conventional, comfortable or self-evident to them. Dr Festing has appealed to prejudice - but I'm optimistic that New Statesman readers are rather too smart to be taken in.

Tom
14 March 2008 at 17:09

Ultimately there is no real middle ground. If you believe, as I do, that animal research is vital to medical progress, and that it is ethically right to put human lives above that of animals - then animal research should continue. Conversely, if you believe animals research does not work (a claim unsupported by both the current weight of scientific opinion, and the historic weight of successful treatments), and that it is unethical - then you must advocate for an end to research. These two views are logically inconsistent and their conclusions cannot coexist.

In Britain we have reached a point in which animal welfare considerations take a top priority within research. Experiments cannot take place if non-animal alternatives exist - nor would scientists want them to. The 3Rs of Refinement, Replacement and Reduction of animal research are ingrained into the mentality of near every animal scientist in Britain.

Alistair Currie will note that animal rights groups around the UK continue to propagate this charade that animal research exists to torture animals for some unspecified means - and if he does not believe me than I suggest he check out the comments of groups like SPEAK, ALF, and even his own group PETA (who have fortunately taken a more sensible approach in Britain than in the US).

Animal Rights activists still fail to explain how life-saving treatments, such as Herceptin, could be produced without animal research, instead continuing to live under a belief that animal research can be replaced by a set of alternatives the world is yet to see (otherwise we would be using them by law)

Hera
15 March 2008 at 11:29

Enough is enough :

N H S : the sixty-year legacy of Modern Medicine

In 1948, a group of well-meaning but seriously misinformed individuals founded the British National Health Service in the belief that the public’s easy access to the rapidly-emerging Wonders of Modern Medicine would lead to a healthy nation and reduced NHS spending. In 1950, the NHS cost around £350 million : the monetary-inflationary equivalent of this, today, is less than £9 billion .

In 2008, the national disease money-pit will swallow up in excess of £100 BILLION.

£ 1 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0.

The nation’s health is the worst it has been for sixty years,

having deteriorated constantly and remorselessly since day-one.

Almost one fifth of people of working age in the UK are disabled. According to the Office for National Statistics - Living in Britain survey, 2004 : in 2002, 1 in 6 children under-5 were suffering from a long-standing illness, compared with one in 25 in 1972 : chronic conditions increased among 5 to 15-year-olds, from 1 in 12, 30 years previously to 1 in 5 in 2002 : a quarter of people aged 16 to 44 suffer from a long-term illness …Birth defects rose by 50% in the 5 years to 2002.

In 2002,1 in every 16 babies born in rural mid Devon had at least one defect compared with less than 1 in 630 babies born in Islington. Why ?

BECAUSE ISLINGTON IS NOT CHOKED WITH PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES

WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY EVALUATED FOR SAFETY.

Stillbirths and first-week deaths have risen to over 5,300 per year. 50,000 premature babies are born,

annually.

Over 1 billion prescriptions are now given out per year : with 22 million people on repeat prescriptions.

Pharmaceuticals are at killer-number 3 or 4 position on both sides of the Atlantic.

We have tens of thousands of new diseases. 40% - and rising - of the population have or will develop cancer…

As there is nothing wrong with the concept of a nationalised health facility , this leaves the practice :

Modern Medicine :

antipathic medicine ; allopathic medicine : the medicine of symptom suppression and removal with the petro-synthetic drug, radiation and the knife : the medicine of the opposites ; of antidepressives, antihypertensives, antipyretics, anticoagulants, antivirals : the medicine of The War on Disease ; using the human body as a passive battlefield, trashed in the process : the medicine of the bug-hunters and their Germ Theory and a multi-billion-dollar empire of vaccines, antibiotics, antiseptics, antibacterials and disinfectants : all with catastrophic consequences for human health and immunity and the environment.

Consensus Medicine to avoid litigation : medicine by the book, whether or not the treatment

is useless or worse than useless : whatever the cost or consequences to the tax-payer or the patient :

the medicine of safety and efficiency tests on rodents, dogs, cats, goats, fish .. whatever.

Modern Medicine would not survive in a court of science if it were ever so foolish as to enter such a place but it is not required to do so. Apart from its political friends, a small army of painfully-transparent on-the-payroll media plants, trying to pass themselves off as “science editors”, “medical correspondents”, “health writers” provide a regular supply of “medical breakthroughs” and regular attacks on what they call “alternative medicine.”

£100 billion per year but YOU have to pay privately for safe, effective treatments

which work WITH the body’s inherent healing ability : the ONLY way to become well.

The Dept. of Health promotes, allows, fails to condemn virtually every health-destructive aspect of modern living : saturated fats, refined carbohydrates, pesticides, herbicides, vaccines, X-ray screening, mobile phones, microwave ovens, fluoride, aerosol air-fresheners, colourants, preservatives, aspartame, MSG …

Treatments which should be used only as a last resort, when life-enhancing therapies have failed, are routinely the first choice.

This government wants more screening, more vaccination, more water fluoridation : Gordon Brown said we need “new drugs and technologies” : putting out the fire with petrol.

A health service, nationalised or otherwise, cannot be run on a basis of junk food, animal experiments, pharmaceuticals, radiation, invasive tests and conveyor-belt surgery. This would result in completely out-of-control expenditure and would create untold amounts of chronic, degenerative and, above all, iatrogenic disease : a medically-induced plague : which is precisely what we have now.

FIRST DO NO HARM must replace FIRST AVOID LITIGATION.

We could not afford Modern Medicine : if it worked.

marcus
17 March 2008 at 11:07

Strict regulations are meaningless if not enforced. Undercover investigations and exposes show time and time again that the laws regarding animal experiments are broken and ignored.

[See uncaged campaigns website for the details of ( 'Diaries of Despair) xenotransplantation experiments, severe suffering, coverups , fabrication of data and government collusion.]

If researchers and the government are prepared to lie about animal suffering , it follows that they would not hesitiate to lie about the supposed benefits of their 'research'.

Since it has been a tradition of western medical science to use animals in biomedical research for the last 150 years or so, it's easy to claim they've been vital for progress. But this does not automatically prove that animal experiments were the key to the discovery or irreplaceable, nor that medical progress will be severely hampered by their abandonment in the future.

It is impossibe to unravel every medical discovery of the past century in order to measure the part played by animal experiments. There is always a great deal of hit and miss involved and despite stories which attribute different breakthroughs to particular individuals, important discoveries have rarely been achieved by one person performing one set of experiments. Ultimately, the overall contribution to human health made by vivisection is at best marginal.Who can be certain whether or not as much or more useful knowledge could have been obtained from other sources if medical science had been forced to take a different direction?

Europeans for Medical Progress Trust
19 March 2008 at 23:17

Dr Festing calls for " more sophisticated dialogue" but refuses to acknowledge scientific criticism of the reliability of animal research. Yet the expert committees' reports to which he refers all called for further research into the clinical relevance of animal research.

Moreover, 83% of UK family doctors surveyed and 250 MPs in the UK House of Commons support Europeans for Medical Progress Trust's call for an independent scientific evaluation directly comparing, for the first time, the ability of animal tests to predict drugs' effects in patients with the ability of a battery of human material-based methods to do so, using drugs whose effects in humans and animals are already known. Everybody stands to gain from such an evaluation; indeed, if Dr Festing's claims are correct, he should welcome the opportunity to prove the superiority of the tests he defends.

A paper published only last month (Matthews, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 101: 95-98) found that tests on dogs and monkeys were no better than a coin toss at predicting the effects in humans, findings backed up by recent articles in other prestigious journals (Perel and colleagues, British Medical Journal, vol. 334:197-200 (2007) and Hackam and Redelmeier, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol 296, No. 14 1731-1732 (2006)).

Last June a report commissioned by the US Environmental Protection Agency called for a radical overhaul of environmental toxicity testing, moving away from animal tests to more relevant in vitro, in silico and epidemiological studies as soon as possible. The authors noted that many of the technologies required were already in use or under development for drug safety testing. We believe the medical research community could learn much from this inspired report, which is being followed up by a collaboration between the US National Institutes for Health and the EPA (Toxicity Testing in the Twenty-first Century: A Vision and a Strategy; June 2007, Collins and colleagues, Science, vol 309, p906-7 (2008).

Dr Margaret Clotworthy

Science Consultant,

Europeans for Medical Progress Trust.

www.curedisease.net/

See our new film at: www.curedisease.net/safermedicines/

RZebra
21 March 2008 at 10:47

I agree that a more sophisticated dialogue is needed, but BOTH sides have a tendency to misrepresent the data to support their contention. For example, opposers of animal experimentation tend to focus on toxicity experiments, where, arguably, they may have a case. However these tests represent about 10% of all animal experiments (the majority being basic research using rats and transgenic mice). Whats more, toxicity testing is gradually (changes in government and legal requirements are always gradual) being replaced and reduced where possible.

Secondly, the regular use of the emotionally charged word "vivisection" by animal rights movements, with images of suffering cats and dogs, undermines their argument, since again, this bears no relation to the major part of animal research into mechanisms of cancer, heart disease, etc.

Lastly, the debate over whether animal experiments contribute any useful information is mired in misinformation. Matthews et al (cited by the above commentator, Dr Clotworthy) objectively states broad statements that "virtually every medical achievement of the last century has depended directly or indirectly on

research with animals," are currently unsupported by evidence. On the other hand, Dr. Clotworthy claims this article states that "tests on dogs and monkeys were no better than a coin toss in predicting the effects in humans". But this article is addressing whether there are actually any sufficiently well analysed studies to demonstrate whether animal toxicity tests ARE or ARE NOT effective. They conclude that the evidence is not conclusive enough to decide one way or another (*). Thus, Matthews conclude that scientists should restrict their statements to something that there is "a wealth of evidence to support": that "animal models can and have provided many crucial insights that have led to major advances in medicine and surgery’."

* In the one calculation they provide in the appendix, the confidence interval is too wide to support the conclusion that the animal model in that experiment was useful. This is not the same as saying the animal model was NOT useful, but means simply that it didn't prove that is WAS useful, which is very different.

L Jackson
25 March 2008 at 20:33

In the poll mentioned by Clotworthy the question asked was:

"Would you support an independent scientific evaluation of the clinical relevance of animal experimentation?"

I am sure that doctors would support the scientific evaluation of the clinical relevance of any form of medical research. A recent poll showed 93% believe research can be misleading.

http://www.rds-net.org.uk/upload/docs/Main%20survey%20tables...

Robert Matthews, (paper quoted by Clotworthy), says : "there is a wealth of evidence to show that animal models have provided many crucial insights that have led to major advances in medicine and surgery".

The US paper on the future of toxicity testing states that "for the foreseeable future" animals will continue to be needed.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Are your savings now safe?