Labour's lost commitment to establish a Royal Commission investigating animal use
The media are only focusing on the victims of animal 'terrorists.' What really matters is the fact that animal use for research and testing is steadily increasing. After years of law-abiding peaceful protests, letter writing and other legal methods aimed at trying to influence public perception and policy, nothing much has changed.
How can politicians be so complacent about the effectiveness of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act which supposedly aims to protect animals used in experiments?
An alleged animal-friendly Labour MP commented on her blog: "But when it comes to finding cures for devastating illnesses, then - reluctantly - we think vivisection might play its part."
However, ‘think’ in this context is not good enough. In order to justify animal experimentation, one has to be absolutely certain that their use will not be in vain. And this question is usually ignored by most politicians and scientists. There is no scientific evidence that demonstrates that animal use is essential in combating human disease. To the contrary, these claims rely on anecdotes and hand-picked examples of where animal use has historically played a role in the development of therapeutic or diagnostic methods.
True, when doing millions of animal experiments, some will be effective; they are bound to be. But the question is whether the use of animals is efficient (as well as effective and ethical). Animals Count President, Andrew Knight, and other scientific colleagues recently published articles about systematic scientific reviews that demonstrate lack of utility of animal models for human disease and toxicity testing.
What happened to Labour's commitment in the 1997 manifesto to set up a Royal Commission to investigate the efficacy of animal experimentation and testing, presumably to settle it one way or the other and end the dispute whether animal experiments actually serve any purpose?
We would further like to know whether there is any truth in the story from the "animal rights" side that Lord Sainsbury's (science minister, believes in vivisection) multi-million pound contributions to Labour might have had anything to do with this commitment being dropped.
The animal protection movement is united in its desire for an independent review, and we are very disapointed that Labour hasn't followed through on this with no explanation. If Labour had followed through on the 1997 manifesto promise, then all the issues around HLS and SHAC might not even have happened. Those vegetarians and animal people who voted Labour (instead of Green for example) deserve a full explanation.
If Lord Sainsbury and the Research Defense Society are confident that animal experiments work, they should welcome a review of the subject, and it would lay a lot of confusion and conflict to rest once and for all. What is the government waiting for?
24 December 2008 
New animal research laboratory condemned
Oxford University's new 20 million pound animal research laboratory opened on Tuesday, amid widespread condemnation from animal-rights advocates. Despite the refusal of university officials to confirm the numbers, thousands of animals, including around a hundred macaque monkeys (which will be administered brain-lesions), are expected to be experimented upon.
Construction of the building was delayed for almost eighteen months while a legally-disputable injunction against animal-rights activists, the vast majority of whom were entirely law-abiding, was obtained.
Anti-vivisection groups such as the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection and the Dr. Hadwen Trust commented on the inefficacy of animal research and the lack of interest in new scientific methods that do not rely on animal research. In addition, public concern about animal experiments is largely ignored by the University and the government.
Cutting-edge, non-animal research, not "Victorian-style experiments", are the only way forward - as well as being more humane; they frequently prove cheaper, quicker and more effective, as well as saving lives.
Animals Count unreservedly opposes all animal-experimentation and laments such singularly prodigal activity at Oxford University. The opening of this laboratory, at huge financial cost, will cause great and, in the light of compelling evidence against the efficacy of such procedures, thoroughly unnecessary suffering.
14 November 2008
Proposed EU ban on great ape experimentation
The legitimacy of primate-use in medical research will publicly be disputed in Brussels tomorrow, in the opening round of a battle between scientists, politicians and animal-rights campaigners, which could ultimately lead to an EU-wide ban on such experimentation. Today the European Commission adopted a long-awaited proposal to update the Directive governing animal experimentation.
The Directive replaces a 22 year old law that paid scant regard to animal welfare. This new law places far greater emphasis on the protection of animals governing their use in experiments.
Great apes - gorillas, chimpanzees and orang-utans - are no longer used in medical research in Europe, but around ten thousand experiments on other primates, such as marmosets and macaques, are carried out every year in Britain alone. Animals Count welcomes the proposed ban on the use great apes although a disappointing loophole has been left open; the Commission may grant permission if a human epidemic or survival of the species depends on their use.
Animals Count believes the moral and scientific case against using our closest highly intelligent and sensitive relatives is now so strong that their use in painful experiments should have been banned outright. Animals Count's President Andrew Knight's recent scientific and ethical papers demonstrate the poor contribution of chimpanzees to human medical progress and explain the reasons why using great apes should be banned.
Last month, the Dr. Hadwen Trust for Humane Research, together with the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Research (Frame) and the St. Andrew Animal Fund issued a report attacking the use of primates as not just unethical, but unproductive. Banning primate-experimentation would "concentrate scientists' minds", says Trust official Nicky Gordon, just as the prohibition on cosmetic-testing on animals quickly led to an ethical alternative. Vicky Robinson, head of the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, urged an immediate increase in research, to hasten the change.
Animals Count opposes experimentation on primates - not, however, because of their similarity to humans, but because we dispute the right of our species to use any sentient creature for our own benefit. All creatures which have a capacity for suffering deserve protection against it, irrespective of species.
An attack by Oxford neuroscientist Tipu Aziz, a renowned primate experimenter, who will speak in Brussels, on such views as "anti-science" could not more staggeringly miss the point.
5 November 2008
Latest scientific evidence shows animal experiments are unnecessary
Animals Count President Andrew Knight has recently published another in-depth scientific paper describing alternatives to laboratory animal use, in the peer-reviewed biomedical journal ALTEX.
This 11,500 word (19 pp) publication is the latest in a series of major scientific studies by Andrew and his internationally-based colleagues demonstrating the poor human predictivity and utility of animal experiments, and describing non-animal alternatives. Jointly, this sizeable set of publications now provide most of the strongest scientific evidence in this field.
Andrew's contributions to this field exceed those of any other UK political party at the present time. His published scientific studies cover:
- The poor human predictivity of animal models in the fields of carcinogenicity and teratogenicity testing
- The poor contribution of invasive chimpanzee studies to biomedical progress and human healthcare advancements
- Systematic reviews demonstrating poor utility of animal models generally, and
- Alternatives within biomedical research, toxicity testing, and education
Peer-reviewed publications in this field by Andrew and his colleagues, along with relevant governmental reports, may be downloaded at AnimalExperiments.info. The title of his latest publication is:
Knight A. Non-animal methodologies within biomedical research and toxicity testing. ALTEX: Alternatives to Animal Experimentation 2008; 25(3): 213-231
31 October, 2008
2007 UK Animal experimentation figures up again
Home Office animal experimentation figures showed that a total of 3.125 million animals were used in UK experiments in 2007, an increase of nearly 6 per cent compared to 2006. The lack of scientific merit of animal models and cruelty of animal tests are a matter of growing public concern. The rise in the use of dogs and genetically manipulated animals gives particular cause for concern.
Since 2000, animal use figures have been rising, and this is the longest period of sustained increase since the 1960s. Nearly 80,000 animals were used in lethal poisoning tests, while nearly 30,000 were subject to procedures on their brains.
Animals Count seeks a ban on all harmful use of animals in scientific research, toxicity testing and education starting with an immediate ban on the use of all non-human primates in experiments. Until such a complete ban is in place, laboratory animals should be kept in suitable species-specific conditions aiming at high animal welfare standards.
In addition, Animals Count urges the government to facilitate increased funding for the development, validation and implementation of non-animal alternatives, such as quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) expert systems (which predict biological activities such as toxicity based on chemical structure), modernized in vitro (cell culture) assays, the use of cDNA microarrays to detect genetic expression changes, improved human clinical trials and epidemiological research. The pharmaceutical industry will need to contribute a substantial amount of funding too.
The government should pledge to avoid an increase in animal use over 2008, and set reduction targets for subsequent years.
August, 2008
France and Britain biggest laboratory animal users in EU
New statistics on animal use in the EU for 2005 show that France and Britain are still experimenting on more animals than any other EU country. The statistics show that France uses the highest numbers of animals, but in the EU statistics the use of GM animals are not included. The UK statistics show over 3 million procedures including GM breeding animals.
Primate use went up slightly (over 10,000 in total of which one third used in France) and the number of dogs as well. Over 6 million mice were used and the number of hamsters used increased by 40%. The only country in the EU that does not carry out any animal experimentation is Malta.
Dr Hadwen's Trust Ms Wendy Higgins commented 'with over 12 million laboratory animals still dying, this is a wake-up call to European politicians that urgent action is needed. We need a Europe-wide strategy for replacing animal experiments with more advanced, reliable, human-relevant research techniques.'
The UK often prides itself for the most stringent legislation on the use and protection of laboratory animals in the world, and the Home Office assures that tests are only carried out on animals when alternatives are not available. However, in practice most research proposals involving animals are accepted by the Animal Ethics Committees and shockingly, a study shows that many researchers don't even know that by law they have to demonstrate that an alternative method was not available.
Animals Count wants the UK Government to:
- Immediately ban the harmful use of all non-human primates in experiments.
- Ban all harmful use of animals in scientific research, toxicity testing and education.
- Establish an independent transparent scientific inquiry to thoroughly review the ethical, scientific and economic implications of scientific research, toxicity testing and education.
- Facilitate increased funding for the development, validation and implementation of non-animal alternatives.
10 November, 2007
UK Animal experimentation figures exceed 3 million
On 23rd July the Home Office released animal experimentation figures for 2006, which exceeded 3 million 'procedures'. Most of the increase was due to wider use of genetically modified (GM) mice.
The creation (for each unique genetic 'line' at least 150 individuals are used in the breeding process to obtain the right genetic traits), destruction and use of GM mice has continued to increase for more than a decade in an attempt by scientists to create 'better' animal models of human disease.
The number of animals used has steadily increased since the mid nineties after it had stabilised since the introduction of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act in 1986.
Just over 3.01 million scientific procedures were started in 2006, a rise of about 115,800 (4%) on 2005. The number of fish used also increased, while dogs, cats, horses and non-human monkeys, afforded special protection by the Act, were collectively used in less than one percent of all procedures. However, the number of primates used was still more than 3,000, despite huge public and political opposition.
The release of the figures happened around the same time as the news that the BUAV won a court case which found the Government guilty of misleading the public over animal suffering. Apparently, the Home Secretary acted unlawfully in licensing invasive brain experiments on marmosets at Cambridge University as ‘moderate’ rather than ‘substantial’ suffering.
Animals Count applauds this victory by BUAV and hopes that tax payers, many of whom are against the suffering of laboratory animals, will be better informed about the true costs to animals.
The alleged benefits to medical progress are minimal and animal models are ineffective and unethical models to investigate human diseases. For an overview of scientific peer-reviewed articles demonstrating the lack of predictivity of animal experimentation see: www.animalexperimentfacts.info. As for the so-called improved (GM) animal models, a scientific report commissioned by Animal Aid reveals that GM animals have made no tangible contribution to human health and medicine.
4 August, 2007
Similar pages:
UK Universities test 'illicit' drugs
on animals
Budget 2007 ignores
non-animal research
End primate experiments
Sign the petition for an independent scientific
inquiry into the efficacy of animal experiments