The numbers of animals used in experiments has been rising steadily over the past few years; up to 3.6 million in 2009 (whilst the number of individual procedures is far higher). It represents the presence of a vast amount of suffering. In its Programme for Government the Coalition promised to ‘work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research’. Our work has been supported by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) who warmly welcome our pledge, which is undoubtedly overdue.
But how does the Coalition intend to turn aspiration into reality? Animal experiments are demand-led and if the total amount of scientific research is on the up, it is likely that the extent of animal research will also increase. As a party, we were pleased to see that the science budget escaped cuts in the Comprehensive Spending Review. An active science sector is good for health and essential for economic growth, but we must ensure that research methods are ethical.
At this current time, there is a real in-built bias in favour of animal research, regardless of its scientific merits. There are numerous reasons for this, including reluctance to change, the conservatism of regulators and the convenience of comparing historical animal data with new data of the same kind. Despite the fact that many governments, international bodies and researchers are encouraging non-animal alternatives, they are not being implemented even though these tests are more reliable. This has to change.
It is clear that if we want to reduce the dependence on animal testing, it is up to the Government to intervene. Fortunately, there is no need for new legislation, because there is already sufficient flexibility in the cost: benefit test which lies at the heart of the UK Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act and the new European directive on animal experiments. It is this test which enabled Labour to ban animal testing for cosmetics, tobacco and alcohol products, and offensive weapons. By using this cost: benefit analysis the Coalition can enforce a ban on household products testing.
The reason that the cost: benefit test is so effective is because it is an ethical test. It is crucial that in controversial areas, public policy should reflect informed public opinion. A recent poll conducted by YouGov in the UK, Germany, France, Sweden, Italy and the Czech Republic showed that the majority of people are against the use of primates, cats and dogs in animal testing, because causing severe suffering to any species for experiments which are not for serious or life-threatening human conditions is unacceptable. There is, in fact, plenty of other evidence to show that many people oppose animal use even for this reason. On this basis, UK practice is completely unrepresentative of public opinion and needs to be changed.
An emphasis on targets will prove crucial to the fight against animal testing. Targets have to be sophisticated and must focus on suffering and purpose, as well as on numbers related to the use of animals in scientific experiments. Targets may be able to signal that less suffering will be tolerated and certain types of experiments excluded, such as experiments that are motivated by commercial advantage. We need targets to lead to closer scrutiny of the claimed benefits of using animals in research, so that we can incentivise the development and use of alternative methods of experimentation.
As a party, we should look to be the driver for real change on this issue, as we are committed to stopping animals being used unnecessarily for experimentation. It is up to us to highlight this issue in parliament and make sure that the issue is addressed soon by the Government of which we are a part.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Being bold: Lib Dems election strategy
Lord Bonkers' Diary: "Beelzebub's Brownies"
A big West End Christmas Fortnight Saturday! #dundeewestend
Whither the Welsh Liberal Democrats
Hello Yellow Brick Road
Opportunities for young people from all over the world who want to change the world starting in their area
Roger Lake
Rif Winfield
Martin
James Fowler
9 Comments
Completely agree – and I’m delighted to see that there are MPs pushing for this.
Maybe the Government should introduce laws, that say’s
Anyone who has been on Job seekers allowance for 12 months or more, will have to offer themselves for scientific testing for 4 weeks, to continue to get their Benefit.
That way we can reduce the amount of testing on animals.
Btw, I am against animal testing 😉 before I get shot down
Well argued, Adrian. Perhaps we could start at home, with an initiative like the one on recycling and environmental responsibility, to make Cowley Street a cruelty free environment with a review of our cleaning materials purchasing – and maybe the Parliamentary Estate too?
Excellent article – our party doesn’t pay enough attention to this issue generally. Here we have a fine opportunity to do something both ethical and popular – let’s grab it.
Declaration of interest – I am a research scientist, whose work (indirectly) involves animal testing.
Whilst I agree that animal research needs to be regulated and restricted, I would argue that the current regulatory framework that is in place is robust, rigorous and mindful of the public’s stance on animal research – not least because the 3 Rs of animal research (Reduce, Refine, Replace) are an integral part of the licensing scheme. Every time a scientist applies to do animal experiments, they have to justify it using strict criteria of utility, novelty and inevitability (i.e. the lack of a cost-effective alternative).
Andrew, you argue that
, citing a YouGov poll. Firstly, please could you provide a link to the data? Secondly, I fear that rejection of animal testing for medical purposes is likely to stem as much from misunderstanding of the processes involved as from an outright ethical stance against. Poor communication behind of the justification for using animals is endemic to science in my experience – honourable exceptions notwithstanding – and the alternatives are often cited as being ‘waiting in the wings’ which simply isn’t true.
I’m concerned that in claiming there is there is a real in-built bias in favour of animal research, regardless of its scientific merits, you are placing your own opinion of the value of in vivo scientific research above the facts surrounding the use of animals – not something I can support without you providing evidence for that statement.
I am toxicologist working for the Health and Safety Laboratory, a UK government agency of the Health and Safety Executive. My area of expertise is in mathematical modelling of biolgical systems and this has great potential for the reduction and eventual replacement of animals all scientific procedures. You state in your article the following:
“Despite the fact that many governments, international bodies and researchers are encouraging non-animal alternatives, they are not being implemented even though these tests are more reliable. This has to change.”
This comment is misleading and as regards systemic toxicity it is incorrect.
I am currently an invited expert preparing a document for the European Commission which is considering postponing the ban on the use of animals in the development of new cosmetic products set for 2013 because reliable alternatives for acute and chronic systemic do not exist.
The reality is that this is a poorly funded area of research. In my opinion the investment in research in this area by governments and industry is inadequate and serves only the purpose of public relations.
Like many animal rights-leaning persons, you make the usual mistake of citing the primate/cat/dog research, which is the tiniest fraction of all research, as something that should be a deciding factor in policy and funds allocation.
Most mammalian research is rodent-based; mice, rats and, to a lesser extent, rabbits. And the latter are mostly used for antibody generation, which does not involve painful/traumatic long-term experiments any more than a person donating blood does.
Also cosmetic research is a totally separate issue and not something I (as a scientist or otherwise) would ever support the use of animals in, and the sooner the ban on that the better.
If you cease to conflate issues and be realistic, and, as suggested – provide some evidence/sources for the claims you make – the whole piece would be far more credible.
Work like that of George L is fantastic and to be encouraged, but it is in no way capable of taking over all the life science work that still requires in vivo experiments. We do not understand enough cellular, molecular and general biology to be able to model entire systems.
You state people are against the use of animals for non-life-threatening human conditions. What do you mean by this? Are Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Huntington’s, all the many many forms of cancer, not exactly that?
If people are against the use of animals for these areas of research (and also let us not forget that veterinary science makes use of a lot of in vivo research as well, to treat livestock, research and household animals) then they are likely to be of the animals-are-more-important-than-humans camp (and when asked if humans are therefore sub-animal somehow, or if they shun the use of medicine as their principles would dictate, tend to be quieter/change the subject) and, I would suggest, not in a position to look objectively at the evidence.
I am all for the reduction of animal experiments where possible. But this happens all the time anyway, and until we can implement effective replacements (which for the most part is not now, this is somewhat of a non-issue.
I have major issues with this article – although I am not as senior as the scientists who have so far posted, being a mere post-grad, I find this kind of ideological anti-animal testing stance to be quite concerning.
“At this current time, there is a real in-built bias in favour of animal research, regardless of its scientific merits.” the reason why animal testing is favoured is because there is simply no other model possible at this time. Cell cultures are only useful up to a point and modelling of biological systems is many decades away from being a viable alternative to actual animal testing. The scientific merits of animal testing are that it is, in most cases where it would be useful, the only option.
Seeking to suppress animal testing will simply lead to senior scientists out-sourcing their animal labs to countries like China with few restrictions on animal testing and will actually increase animal suffering. This actually already happens now, although I’m not aware of it being very widespread under the current legislation.
“Despite the fact that many governments, international bodies and researchers are encouraging non-animal alternatives, they are not being implemented even though these tests are more reliable.” I don’t know where you got this information from – . If animal testing was consistently less reliable then an alternative then very little of it would actually be done – mammalian-based testing in particular is apparently very expensive and there are many hoops to jump through to do it. Put bluntly, if it’s being done by scientists, particularly younger scientists, then it’s necessary.
As for governments suggesting moving away from animal testing – why should that matter a jot? Governments are not largely made of scientists and the merits or otherwise of medical animal testing are scientific only. There’s no reason for animal testing in cosmetics but let’s not conflate animal testing in that field with actual science.
“It is this test which enabled Labour to ban animal testing for cosmetics, tobacco and alcohol products, and offensive weapons. By using this cost: benefit analysis the Coalition can enforce a ban on household products testing.” Let’s not conflate these with medical science.
“A recent poll conducted by YouGov in the UK, Germany, France, Sweden, Italy and the Czech Republic showed that the majority of people are against the use of primates, cats and dogs in animal testing, because causing severe suffering to any species for experiments which are not for serious or life-threatening human conditions is unacceptable.” Very few primates, cats or dogs are used in animal testing. With mammals it tends to be rodents that are tested on – and even rodent testing is a very small proportion of animal testing.
The real bulk of animal testing are on things like naemotode worms, fruit flies, zebrafish or tree frogs. You never see animal rights protesters showing holding placards with suffering specimens of C. elegans or pictures of Drosophila melangogaster being kept in terribly cramped and inhumane conditions. This is because the whole anti-medical vivisection campaign is based off false facts about the scale of animal testing, what animals are tested on, how easy it is to test on animals and most importantly how necessary testing is for scientific studies.
The whole animal rights crusade against medical testing seems absurd to me – focusing on the one area where animal tests are not only doing good for the world but also the only area where they are actually needed. I’m actually very sympathetic to their banning animal testing in, say, cosmetics – they are just wrong on this topic and it boggles my mind why they waste their time on this counter-productive campaign when they could be tackling actually unnecessary suffering on a much grander scale by, for instance, attempting to ban factory farming.
DunKhan:
Well, that’s just not true, is it? It’s also an ethical issue, even if you’ve already made up your mind on the ethics.
Again, that doesn’t stack up. There are indeed reasons for animal testing in cosmetics — the same reasons in essence as for testing medicines, i.e. to rule out potential harm to humans from the products. And the fact that you don’t agree with using animals in that context is, again, a matter of ethics — it does not mean that the testing involved is any less scientific than what you do.
In fact, I agree almost entirely with your actual stance on this: there are far greater and less justifiable harms done to animals than their use in medical experiments, so the latter are entirely the wrong place to start an “animal rights” (ridiculous concept) campaign. And while I can’t find a way to justify the use of animal testing even for “high” medical purposes ethically (the listing of diseases that can be treated and cured as a result is essentially an emotional rather than an ethical argument), I simply can’t bring myself to reject the medical advances that such testing has made possible or to close the door on future gains (hell, yes, I wanna live forever), so I end up in the same camp as you (somewhere near Huntingdon, probably…). But let’s not pretend that this is some purely pragmatic question, in which ethics either don’t feature or are so obvious in their application that they don’t inform the argument. Ethics are at the nub of it. The pragmatic only comes later.