Independent Inquiry into Animal Research
Protecting Animals in Democracy is calling for an
independent, balanced inquiry to investigate the scientific and
ethical questions surrounding animal experimentation and review
current legislation and its implementation.
Although animal researchers defend their activities in terms of
benefits to human health, a recent study published in the British
Medical Journal uncovered evidence that 'seriously undermined the
principle that animal experiments are necessary to inform human
medicine'. (1) Meanwhile, 83% of doctors
support an independent investigation into the medical relevance
of animal experimentation. (2) The need
for such an investigation was emphasised when a parliamentary question
by Michael Hancock MP revealed that the Home Office has never investigated
the relevance of animal testing with respect to human medicine.
On the animal welfare side, new evidence is constantly emerging
regarding the emotional and social complexity of non-human animals.
(3) As we learn more about the suffering
caused to animals by research and testing, and the similarities
between humans and non-humans in terms of their vulnerability to
pain, distress and harm, we must question whether this is being
properly taken account of by the Home Office, and the acceptability
of subjecting animals to treatment we would regard as abusive in
a human context.
Such an independent inquiry should incorporate public participation,
along the lines discussed in relation to the proposed Animal Protection
Commission. Studies of public opinion demonstrate that many areas
of research that are currently permitted do not command democratic
support. For example, a majority of the public disapprove of experiments
on mice to develop painkillers, with an even greater majority opposed
to fundamental research on mice aimed purely at increasing knowledge.
Toxicity tests on mice to test products such as garden insecticides
are also rejected by most people. (4) Yet
all these types of tests, and many more, continue to be licensed
in Britain. In fact, the most recent figures (for 2003) show that
117,359 animals were subjected to poisoning tests for unequivocally
non-medical purposes.
The Government and research industry constantly repeat the mantra
of 'strict regulation'. But, as noted in relation to question 2,
the majority of the public do not trust the government to implement
the statutory cost-benefit assessment of proposed animal research
in a fair and balanced manner. Leaked evidence and undercover investigations
consistently reveal the regulations are not enforced. Instead of
acting as neutral arbiters, Home Office Inspectors share the worldview
of animal researchers and work with them to facilitate permission
for experiments on animals. When assessing licence applications,
Inspectors appear to underestimate animal suffering, and/or overestimate
the usefulness of research.
This is matter of significant public interest: two-thirds of the
public say they are either 'fairly' or 'very interested' in the
issue of animal experiments. (5)
Our question to candidates in the 2005 General Election
was: Will you support an independent, balanced
inquiry to investigate the scientific and ethical questions surrounding
animal experimentation and review current legislation and its implementation?
YES / NO
REFERENCES:
- Pound, P. et al., (2004) 'Where is the evidence
that animal research benefits humans?' BMJ 2004; 328: 514-517.
- www.curedisease.net/news/040903.shtml
- See www.animalsentience.com
- Aldhous, P et al, (1999) 'Let the people speak'
New Scientist, 22 May 1999: 26-31.
- Macnaghten, P (2001) Animal Futures: Public Attitudes
and Sensibilities towards Animals and Biotechnology in Contemporary
Britain. (Agricultural and Environmental Biotechnology Commission),
p. 44.
^ |
