Viewpoint: Animal rights

The use of animals in research "experiments" in Britain is continuing to rise with GM animals becoming increasingly important to scientists, according to figures released by the Home Office.

In 2003, GM animals were employed in 764,000 experiments, just over a quarter of all procedures carried out in the UK.

While scientists defend the small rise in the overall numbers of animals used (up 2.2% on 2002), animal rights campaigners have expressed their concerns that the long downturn in the figures from the 1970s is now being reversed.

BBC News Online asked five commentators for their views on animal testing and animal rights.

---

"Animal 'models' cannot be relied upon for safety testing" Andrew Tyler, Animal Aid "Weight of scientific opinion is that animals remain vital for medical research" Dr Ian Gibson, chair, parliamentary office of science and technology "Animals have no voice and no choice, we have to speak out for them" Julie Roberts, animal rights campaigner

"Animals are essential in medical research" Barbara Davies, Research Defence Society "It is impossible to ask a computer to predict all the effects of a drug" Dr Branwen Morgan, Coalition for Medical Progress

Dr Branwen Morgan, Coalition for Medical Progress

It should have been easy. The mice had a naturally occurring movement disorder due to a breakdown in signalling between nerve and muscle cells. All I had to do was wait until they were four weeks old, put them to sleep and collect the brain tissue so that I could study how the genetic defect led to the symptoms.

Only it turned out I was squeamish and I left the lab in tears several times. Just as some people can never be surgeons or doctors, I was not comfortable doing research on animals.

However, I absolutely understand the need to use animals in research. There's so much we don't know about how the body functions and what our 30,000-odd genes do, that it's impossible to ask a computer to predict all the effects of a drug.

Sure, simulations and research using cells and isolated tissues are important, but because organs function together - e.g. the brain regulates blood pressure - some experiments have to be done on whole living, breathing mammals, including humans.

Yes, there are differences between humans and mice, the most widely used lab animal, but there are far more similarities. Both are interesting. Even tiny worms have given huge insights into the function of the heart, the ageing process, and have contributed to the development of non-animal ways of measuring undesirable effects of potential new medicines. If a worm can do this, what do you think mammalian experiments can tell us.

If someone were to ask me what's the one thing I wish people understood about animal experimentation, I'd say: those involved, the animal technicians, vets and scientists are sensitive, caring people. Human and veterinary treatments and medicines are only possible because of the work they do and I want to play a part in telling people this.

---

Andrew Tyler, director of Animal Aid

Animal Aid exposes and campaigns peacefully against all animal abuse - from factory farming to fur, from hunting to vivisection. We promote a cruelty-free lifestyle and provide a comprehensive range of resources and services for teachers and students.

The vast majority of animal advocates are similarly committed to creative, non-violent, non-intimidatory campaigning and become deeply frustrated not only by government inaction on issues such as animal experiments but by the way key sections of the media skew the argument.

There is a wealth of evidence demonstrating that animal 'models' cannot be relied upon for safety testing and disease research.

This means that - animal suffering aside - human patients of today and tomorrow are being betrayed by the continued use of animals.

But rather than focus upon this important dimension of the debate, much of the media would rather fixate on the tiny element whose frustration leads them to indulge in aggressive rhetoric and actions.

It is the media, rather than our movement, that is obsessed by and drawn to violence - and yet shows little or no interest in the fact that, for instance, our own peaceful volunteers have on occasions been violently assaulted in their own homes and that at our head office we have received firebomb and death threats.

The real story is the government's promotion of an animal research agenda that is driven by a pathological regard for money, prestige, power and the defunct methodologies of a bygone age.

---

Barbara Davies, Research Defence Society

A novel treatment to prevent scarring and loss of vision after glaucoma surgery will soon be tried in patients. This advance, by academic researchers in London, was made possible using rabbits. Glaucoma is the second leading cause of vision loss in the world.

A vaccine for malaria is now being tested on people following successful studies on mice and rats. Malaria kills one child every 30 seconds. These are just two examples of medical progress that depends crucially on the use of animals.

Animals are essential in medical research and in safety testing: all new medicines are tested on animals, but only after a battery of non-animal tests. They are also tested on people - more people than animals - because scientists and doctors recognise that, while many animals are biologically very similar to humans, they are not identical.

Research is under threat. Animal rights campaigners claim that animal research is cruel and unnecessary. Some even use intimidation and violence to try to force their view on others. The fact is that most people, while they may have concerns, simply do not agree with them or their tactics.

Animal research is very strictly controlled, both by central government and by local ethical committees. The UK is the only country in the world to have this dual system. No researcher would use animals if it wasn't necessary, and it would be illegal to do so.

Indeed, laboratory researchers have developed many techniques to reduce or replace animals in research, so that animal use has halved in the last 30 years and less than 10% of all medical research now involves living animals. But for as long as animals are still needed, scientists will work closely with vets, animal technicians and welfare organisations to make sure that they are well cared for.

---

Julie Roberts, animal rights campaigner

Ghandi said "vivisection is the blackest of all crimes". Air Chief Marshall, Lord Dowding said "even if it should be proved that human beings benefit directly from the suffering of animals, its infliction would nevertheless, be unethical and wrong".

An orchestrated propaganda exercise is being waged against animal rights campaigners to divert attention from the central issue of animal suffering. The overwhelming majority of activists are just ordinary compassionate people, of all ages and from all sections of society, who have never committed any illegal actions, whilst regulations relating to animals in laboratories are routinely flouted with impunity.

Animals have no voice and no choice; we have to speak out for them. Polls repeatedly show the majority of the public are opposed to animal testing and increasing numbers of scientists and doctors are calling for its abolition because it is misleading and unreliable.

It is untrue that there is no alternative; hundreds of non-animal methods already exist, with more being developed all the time by humane research organisations who receive no government funding. But as George Bernard Shaw said: "Whoever doesn't hesitate to vivisect will hardly hesitate to lie about it."

Vivisection is bad science but it is a massive money-making industry and it is perpetuated by those who have a vested interest in it. Hundreds of years ago, Leonard da Vinci said "vivisection would one day be judged a crime". The sooner it is consigned to our history along with slavery and child labour and the Government commits itself to supporting relevant, modern, non-animal research instead of promoting archaic and barbaric animal tests, the better for everyone - humans and animals.

---

Dr Ian Gibson, chair of parliamentary office of science and technology

The tactics adopted by animal rights extremists against scientists who use animals in their research are not only terrifying for the individuals involved, but also impact negatively on research. Nobody conducts experiments on animals for fun and serious efforts are being made in this country to find alternative methods of research and to regulate the practice as tightly as possible.

Since 1986, scientists have had to make a 'cost benefit' case for their work and prove that there are no alternatives to the use of animals. A second tier of regulation in 1999 introduced 'ethical review committees' to oversee animal experiments and in 1998 the use of animals in cosmetic testing was banned. In May this year, the government launched the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research with funding of £660,000 and a promise of more money in the future.

The UK is a world leader in developing alternatives, from cell-cultures to computers to human volunteers, but the alternatives cannot yet replace all animal work. Computer simulation still cannot reproduce complex interactions within the organism as a whole.

Furthermore, this matter does not just concern industry. The overwhelming weight of scientific opinion is that animals remain vital for medical research. Organisations supporting medical research involving animals - where no valid alternative exists - include medical research charities, patient groups, academic and scientific societies, universities, medical schools, research institutes, veterinary associations and medical associations.

In this country at least, charities are the biggest source of external funding for animal experiments. Also, two independent committees, the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology and the Animal Procedures Committee, have both looked at the validity of animal experimentation in recent years and both have concluded that it is a proven valuable research approach.

It is vital that scientific and medical research is subject to scrutiny and robust regulation and that the scientific establishment is open about its work. This can only aid progress. But violence against scientists can only halt our continual search for better knowledge about diseases and their treatment which ultimately benefits us all.