The Animal Research Debate

SIMON FESTING

Animal experiments are highly contro- analysis of these issues and has injected versial.A massive debate has gone on in a calm, reasoned and balanced perspect- the past few years about the issue.Ani- ive into an otherwise highly polarised mal rights extremism has encouraged the debate.It is yet another in a series of media to take a long hard look at the reports which builds on the middle bene®ts of animal research to see if ex- ground and sidelines the extreme views periments are justi®ed.There has been of animal rights groups. signi®cant progress, with broad support for animal research from the scienti®c Morality or science? community and from government. In Parliament, however, the issue is Throughout the world people enjoy a stuck in a rut and seems to be going better quality of life because of advances nowhere.The same groups of MPs who made possible through medical research have been hostile to animal research for and the development of new medicines years are still agitating against it.And too and other treatments.A small but vital many MPs are taking an ill-informed and part of that work involves the use of irrational approach; they should look animalsÐsomething that is strongly op- again at the issue, and examine the facts posed by anti-vivisection campaigning more carefully. organisations in a bitter struggle that The discussion has been much aided has gone on for well over a century. and enlightened by a recent report from a The use of animals in scienti®c and working party of the Nueld Council on medical research may be controversial. Bioethics,1 which released the lengthy But there is no doubt that mainstream report of its two-year investigation into medical and scienti®c organisations agree the ethics of animal experimentation in that it is essential for medical progress. May 2005.The working party, which For example, a Royal Society report2 included scientists from academia and stated in 2004 that: `humans have bene- industry, representatives of animal pro- ®ted immensely from scienti®c research tection groups, philosophers and ethi- involving animals, with virtually every cists, attempted to de®ne and expand medical achievement in the past century the middle ground to see where agree- reliant on the use of animals in some ment could be reached.They noted that way'. issues raised by research involving ani- Anti-vivisectionist groups, however, mals had aroused intense debate in the argue that it is morally wrong to use UKÐindeed, it was described as the most animals in research, and that it is bad controversial issue the Nueld Council science.These two arguments do not al- had ever studied. ways sit well together: if it is morally Their report sets out the main argu- wrong to use animals, then it does not ments on the science, ethical and welfare matter what the science is; and if the issues of animal use.Although it lacks science is ¯awed, then it should cease any particularly novel insights, it pre- anywayÐthere is no need to invoke a sents a very complete and detailed moral argument. # The Political Quarterly Publishing Co.Ltd.2005 568 Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA When a House of Lords Committee UK.Yet anti-vivisection groups try hard examined these issues in 2002,3 they con- to make their allegations stick.They use cluded `that it is morally acceptable for very carefully edited ®lm to give the human beings to use other animals, but worst possible impression: in one case that it is morally wrong to cause them they assembled ®lm footage to create a unnecessary or avoidable su€ering'.The sequence of events that did not actually Nueld Council working group took a happen.And they invariably use highly less clear-cut line.Overall, the members emotive language and images, and o€er concluded that animal experimentation simplistic arguments that paint a dis- creates a moral dilemma.They thought torted and inaccurate picture of research. that it is morally wrong to in¯ict su€ering Their publications create the impression on animals for human bene®t and that brain surgery on monkeys is typical morally wrong to let humans su€er by of research using animals, whereas re- not using animals in experiments to de- search on monkeys, dogs and cats com- velop better treatments for disease.How- bined is less than 1 per cent of animal ever, di€erent members of the working research.Most experiments involve ro- party had di€erent views about the best dents or ®shÐmedical research in the ways of resolving this dilemma. UK actually uses 25 times more ®sh The most prominent allegation by anti- than dogs.5 vivisection groups is that animal research It would be wrong to gloss over the fact is cruel.Many claim that animals are that some animals do su€er in research. tortured, and another frequent complaint The idea that thousands of vets, animal is that animal research is all about pro®ts. technicians and researchers go to work But it is hard to see how anyone would every day to perpetrate cruelty to ®sh make a pro®t from torturing animals, or seems far-fetched.But, just as a person why medical research charities, who are su€ers when they get cancer, so an ani- trying to ®nd cures for debilitating ill- mal will get some of those symptoms. nesses like diabetes, cancer or AIDs, This is where we have a duty to maintain would spend their money torturing the highest animal welfare standards and animals. reduce su€ering.Every year thousands of To support their claims of cruelty, anti- visitors, including schoolchildren, visit vivisectionists point to information from animal research centres in the UK.What undercover investigators acquired dur- they mostly see is mice running around in ing so-called in®ltrations.In one of these, cages, and the people they meet are workers were punching beaglesÐa clear trained animal welfare technicians who example of mistreatment.This incident, have chosen to work there because they now ten years old, was widely con- want to look after animals. demned by the scienti®c community.To say that it re¯ects all practice in a modern research centre is like saying that all Medical progress and animal lovers are violent just because independent inquiries some extremists lob bricks through win- dows in the middle of the night.Detailed The aims of the scienti®c community are and time-consuming investigations of to gain the bene®ts from animal research their more recent in®ltrations have found with minimal su€ering and distress. than none of their major contentions has What are those bene®ts, and what about been true.4 anti-vivisection claims that there are The very rare instances of poor practice none? do not re¯ect the exceptionally high ani- Animal research has played a vital mal welfare standards that exist in the role in most major scienti®c and medical

# The Political Quarterly Publishing Co.Ltd.2005 The Animal Research Debate 569 advances.It continues to aid our scienti®c basis of research.Also, from understanding of a variety of medical time to time various media commentators conditions, ultimately leading to the de- pick up on suggestions that animal velopment of new preventions, treat- research is bad science and write ill- ments and cures.It seems bizarre that informed articles on that basis.Anti- the anti-vivisectionists argue that all ani- vivisection groups have therefore mal research is bad scienceÐthe bene®ts devoted considerable resources to cam- are so clear cut.For example, over 70 per paigns to undermine the scienti®c basis of cent of Nobel Prizes in medicine have animal research.There are even anti- involved the use of animals.And the vivisection organisations, usually with scienti®c consensus is so strong that ani- the word `medical' in their title, devoted mal research is a valuable method: there to arguing against animal research on is no credible scienti®c or medical organ- scienti®c grounds. isation anywhere in the world that agrees Those MPs who have an inherent dis- with the anti-vivisectionists. like of animal research adopt the idea that Examples of medical advances that it is bad science with great enthusiasm, have been dependent on the use of ani- because it provides an easy way to avoid mals at some point in their development the ethical issues.Any debate about include safe anaesthetics, blood trans- whether the medical bene®ts of medical fusion, penicillin and other antibiotics, research are justi®ed can simply be dis- vaccines against polio, measles and missed, since they can claim that there are meningitis, and drugs to treat asthma, no such bene®ts.These same MPs are hypertension and leukaemia.Animal often to be found calling for a full scien- research remains essential today because ti®c inquiry into animal researchÐas if we face many unsolved medical prob- we haven't had enough of those already. lems.Our children su€er with life- There have been three major independ- threatening genetic conditions such as ent inquiries in the UK into animal re- cystic ®brosis or muscular dystrophy, search in the past four years Icarried out our friends may die prematurely from by a House of Lords Select Committee, cancer or heart disease, and our old age the Animal Procedures Committee6 and may be blighted by Alzheimer's and most recently the Nueld Council on Parkinson's disease.And in poorer coun- Bioethics).None of these committees tries, millions are still dying from malaria had a vested interest in animal research. and newer scourges like AIDS. All included people with non-scienti®c Anti-vivisectionists argue that it is im- backgrounds.The reports examined all possible to extrapolate from animals to aspects of the debate, and considered humans because of species di€erences. the scienti®c arguments in depth.They Although we must interpret the results all concluded that animal research pro- of all research with caution, it is a hope- vides information which can be of relev- less oversimpli®cation to suggest that all ance to humans and does lead to medical animal research is ¯awed just because bene®ts.In every case they rejected there are some di€erences between hu- claims by anti-vivisection groups to the mans and animals.Animal research will contrary. continue for the foreseeable future be- The House of Lords Select Committee cause it is a valuable research method stated in 2002: `On balance, we are con- and essential for medical progress. vinced that experiments on animals have Unfortunately, decision-makersÐsuch contributed greatly to scienti®c advances, as MPsÐare not necessarily scienti®cally both for human medicine and for animal literate and may not be well equipped to health.Animal experimentation is a valu- assess competing claims about the able research method which has proved

570 Simon Festing # The Political Quarterly Publishing Co.Ltd.2005 itself over time.' The Nueld Report about the scienti®c bene®ts of animal stated `Animal research has been, and experimentation and therefore cannot can potentially be, scienti®cally valid, in ``represent'' them in our literature'. that it is possible to extrapolate from Animal rights extremists and anti- animal models to humans Ior other ani- vivisection groups operate in a public mals) in speci®c cases ...[and] certain and political environment that is only animal models have played signi®cant minimally sympathetic to them.Public roles in the study of particular diseases opinion in the UK is largely supportive and have led to the development of of the use of animals in medical research. e€ective interventions.' The most recent of several polls by MORI, conducted in 2002 and published in March 2003,7 revealed that almost 90 per Anti-vivisection campaigns and cent of those surveyed were conditional public opinion acceptors of animal researchÐthat is, they accept the need for animal research Anti-vivisection groupsÐsome of the provided it is for medical research pur- most persistent campaigners in his- poses, that it avoids unnecessary su€er- toryÐare increasingly adopting com- ing, and/or that it is only allowed when plaining as a campaign tactic.Over the there is no alternative.Moreover, a large past few years, various anti-vivisection majority of those surveyed in MORI polls groups in the UK have pursued numer- from 1999 onwards are strongly opposed ous legal challenges to medical journals, to animal rights violence. the Press Complaints Commission, the The public and political debate has BBC, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, been distorted in recent years by animal the Advertising Standards Authority, rights extremism.Extremism has tended the National Audit Oce and the Infor- to sti¯e public discussion and make the mation Commissioner. debate more polarised.On the other For example, one anti-vivisection group hand, it has forced the government, has taken the Home Oce to the Parlia- media, and perhaps the public, to take a mentary Ombudsman over summaries of long, hard look at the issues. research projects.The group claims these summariesÐwhich have been published The Nueld Report and the on the Home Oce website since the start future of 2005Ðare inadequate, self-serving and `a smokescreen for further secrecy by the People want animals to be used only government'.In fact they provide more when absolutely necessary.Today, ani- information than is given by any other mal research accounts for, at most, 10 per country in the world. cent of all medical research worldwide. The House of Lords Select Committee But the development of direct replace- thought that `sentimental and sometimes ments for animals is a slow and dicult misleading information is disseminated process.Other methods of research, in- by some anti-vivisection groups', but cluding the study of tissue and cell cul- there is little chance that anti-vivisection tures, computer simulations, and studies groups will heed pleas for a more rea- of human patients and populations are soned public debate: in response to the used wherever possible and are generally Nueld Council's call for `balanced' lit- complementary, not an alternative, to the erature, the British Union for the Aboli- use of animals. tion of Vivisection responded `while we While we still need animals in research are happy to acknowledge the claims of it is important to safeguard their wel- researchers, we do not agree with claims fare Ire®ne their use) and use them in

# The Political Quarterly Publishing Co.Ltd.2005 The Animal Research Debate 571 minimum numbers consistent with ob- scienti®c endeavourÐalbeit one sur- taining meaningful results Ireduce their rounded with important ethical consid- use).Thus replacement, re®nement and re- erations. ductionÐthe `three Rs'Ðare central to the way that animal research is conducted Notes today, something that is enshrined in the strict UK controls on animal research 1 Nueld Council on Bioethics, The Ethics of under the Animals IScienti®c Procedures) Research Involving Animals, 2005 I`the Nuf- Act 1986. ®eld Report'). Despite the diverse views on the Nuf- 2 The Royal Society, The Use of Non-human ®eld working party, there was a large Animals in Research: A Guide for Scientists, London, The Royal Society, 2004. area of agreement about issues such as 3 House of Lords, UK Select Committee on the three Rs, the need for e€ective regula- Animals in Scienti®c Procedures, 2002; tion and the importance of an informed http://www.publications.parliament.uk/ public debate on the issue.Their report pa/ld/ldanimal.htm stresses the need to improve transpar- 4 For example: Report to Ministers by the ency and openness to improve the quality Animals "Scienti®c Procedures) Inspectorate of debate.It recommends that the Home concerning a Report into the Breeding and Oce should make available retrospec- Supplying of Dogs "and Other Animals) at tive information about levels of animal Harlan UK Hillcrest. Findings of a BUAV su€ering, as well as improving the pre- Investigation, December 1999; Chief Inspec- sentation of such information.It also tor's Review of Aspects of Non-Human Primate Research at Cambridge University, Home recommends researchers take `a proac- Oce, 2003. tive stance with regard to explaining their 5 Statistics of Scienti®c Procedures on Living research, the reasons for conducting it, Animals, Great Britain, Home Oce, 2003. the actual implications for the animals 6 Animal Procedures Committee, Review of involved and the bene®cial outcomes Cost-Bene®t Assessment in the Use of Animals they intend for society'. in Research, London, 2003. Perhaps the Nueld Report will gen- 7 MORI, London. The Use of Animals in Medi- erate more reasoned public debate.Per- cal Research, 2003; haps, post-Nueld, we can look forward http://www.mori.com/polls/2002/ to a time when animal research is con- cmp.shtml sidered a normal and accepted part of

572 Simon Festing # The Political Quarterly Publishing Co.Ltd.2005