Member News
6th October 2011
The National Anti-Vivisection Society has criticised the claims of a Liberal Democrat peer that animal testing is "essential."
The National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) refutes the recent statements made by Lord Willis, claiming that the use of animals for medical and health research is essential for medical progress and calling upon the government to make clear the need for animal use and the advantages of animal models.
Each animal species reacts differently to chemicals, drugs and toxins, making them inaccurate predictors of what will happen in humans. Furthermore, laboratory animals are kept in conditions which can cause the animal physical and mental stress, thereby affecting the outcome of the experiment.
Sadly, there are many examples where drugs have proceeded to human trials, which show the failure of animal testing. The anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx had unexpected effects on human patients after laboratory animal tests, causing heart attacks in a considerable number of people.
The experimental drug TGN1412 was tested in primates at doses 500 times higher than those given to humans. The primates suffered no side effects, but the human volunteers suffered serious, permanent and life-threatening damage.
There is a wealth of evidence that clearly shows that medical progress can be achieved without testing on animals by using advanced, cutting-edge technologies and computer analysis. There are numerous examples of groundbreaking medical advances developed without animals. These include the discovery of the link between cancer and smoking, the causes of heart disease, the identification and purification of insulin and removal of cataracts, amongst others.
The NAVS founded the Lord Dowding Fund for Humane Research (LDF) in 1974 which awards grants for scientific and medical research without animals. Currently funded projects include investigating brain tumours, creating 3D models of breast cancer and developing neuroimaging techniques which aim to investigate neurological facets including epilepsy and cognitive function.
The coalition government made a pledge in July 2011 to work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research by stating that "scientific advances present significant opportunities to replace animal use". Such commitment prevents the government from making such bold statements as suggested by Lord Willis. Further, this commitment comes at a time when the UK government is implementing the recent European Directive on animal testing into UK law which places a strong emphasis on alternatives to animal use.
This article is in response to comments made on ePolitix.com earlier this week by Lord Willis of Knaresborough.
Article Comments
George Bernard Shaw (1875-195) would submit this retort to Lord Willis -
"Once grant the ethics of the vivisectionists and you not only sanction the experiment on the human subject, but make it the first duty of the vivisector. If a guinea pig may be sacrificed for the sake of the very little that can be learnt from it, shall not a man be sacrificed for the sake of the great deal that can be learnt from him?
Preface to Doctor's Dilemma
...you do not settle whether an experiment is justified or not by merely showing that it is of some use. The distinction is not between useful and useless experiments, but between barbarous and civilized behaviour. Vivisection is a social evil because if it advances human knowledge, it does so at the expense of human character."
Jan Martinez
9th Oct 2011 at 9:31 am
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.