# BUAV Animal rights and wrongs, Animal Testing



## testmg80 (Jul 28, 2008)

Long article, but worth skimming thru....

Ethical treatment of animals is one of the most controversial topics of recent times. gair rhydd investigates the issue at hand
The widely debated issue of animal testing is subject to various ethical, political and economic speculations. The disturbing images of vivisection presented to us in the media causes many to dogmatically refute the practise and question its relevance to scientific and medical advancements.

Divided opinion prevails among scientists, ethicists and the general public. Many claim that animal testing is a brutal practise which allows scientists to easily feed their curiosity at the cost of innocent animal lives. Others argue that vivisection is an integral part of medical advancement which has, and will continue to, improve the human condition.

For centuries, people have explored the mechanics of the body through the experimentation of animals. As technology and scientific intelligence has increased, particularly over the last century, the question is often asked, is animal research any longer necessary?

In 1876, the first laboratory controls for the testing of animals were implemented. In 1986 the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act updated and reformed the previous rules to incorporate growing concerns for the treatment of animals in vivisection. Laboratories must now accept strict ethical codes and present their research method and reasons for their research before they are granted the use of animals.

Institutes which conduct animal testing must use the cost/benefit procedure to judge whether the loss of an animal life, or the potential suffering it may endure, justifies the outcome researchers hope to obtain from the experiment. This procedure is the source of a wider moral debate, as activists and animal rights campaigners often argue that the benefit of animal testing can never outweigh the cost as it is intrinsically morally wrong to kill or harm animals.

In the UK, scientists must also receive three types of licensing before they can legally test on animals. The first is a certificate of designation which certifies that a research team has the appropriate animal housing and vetinary services available. The second is a project licence which is only issued if the researchers have an acceptable testing programme. The third is a personal licence, whereby the researchers must attain the appropriate skills and experience.

The UK is the only country in the world to uphold such complex rules and regulations concerning animal testing. To further the ethical considerations of this applied science, in 1999 Britain introduced the local ethical review.

This involves the regulation of animal research by both a local ethical committee and by statutory controls imposed by the central government. Some of Britains strict animal testing regulations are now spreading to other parts of Europe, as all European governments have agreed to ban the testing of animals for cosmetic companies by 2010, a rule implemented in Britain since 1998.

The purposes of animal testing are widespread. Institutes such as universities, pharmaceutical companies, defence establishments and commercial facilities all use animals to test the safety of products, to further scientific knowledge and to advance medicine. Many important developments have been made in medicine, specifically over the past thirty years, with the use of animal testing. Scientists have created antibiotic treatments and various vaccines which modern society now seems to take for granted.

Cardiff University are an institution that take part in animal testing. In its 2008 research strategy, Cardiff University claim they, strongly support the intention and purpose of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 [] Our research in this area is almost exclusively on laboratory-bred rodents and fish and is aimed at the alleviation of human and veterinary disease through the advancement of medical, dental, biological and veterinary understanding.

Cardiffs research strategy continues to claim that All animal research work at Cardiff is carried out under the strict conditions imposed by the Government.

Researchers at the university are independently funded to find alternate models to animal testing. In 2007 Dr Phil Stevens allied with the UKs leading non-animal medical research charity, The Dr Hadwen Trust. Several other researchers at the university, whose work does not involve the use of animals, recently won research funding to find other experimental alternatives.

Many Cardiff University researchers therefore acknowledge the wide opinion that experiments should be ethically driven, so much so that scientists at the university won the Replacement Prize for the in vitro technique in 2007. Vivisection protestors, however, argue that no matter how strict or multiple the ethical codes are which police animal testing, they do not suffice to compensate for the immorality and inhumanness the practise involves. Activists often argue that an animals life entails no less value than a humans, and it would be speciesist to assume otherwise. Therefore all species should be given that same treatment and considerations, as all have inherent rights.

Many also claim that animal testing is completely unnecessary in modern society, as science and technology have so far progressed that there are other available means to obtain the same information that is achieved from animal testing. A predominant argument of activist societies also claims that animal testing is completely irrelevant to the understanding of the human body as species are so invariably different. Therefore any treatments that may be found through the means of animal testing are unreliable.

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), world renowned animal activists, campaign for the complete abolishment of animal testing, promote vegetarianism and tirelessly campaign for the elimination of the fur trade, along with many other animal issues all over the world. BUAV (British Union Against Vivisection) also campaign for the elimination of animal testing, yet arguably in a much more peaceful manner.

PETA have gained a reputation to be violent in their protests and threatening in their pursuit of those in power who permit vivisection. The Home Office issued this statement concerning activist violence: Animal rights extremists have conducted a sustained campaign of harassment and intimidation against the animal research industry, including targeting people at home and in their communities. This behaviour is not standard among all activists, but it does raise a paradox in their views of ethical treatment.

It seems that the activist argument against animal testing focuses predominantly on the issue of value, essentially arguing that the value of animal life weighs equal to that of human life.

Yet a counter argument from a humanist perspective is that the benefits of animal testing will usually outweigh the suffering caused to the animal as human life intrinsically possesses more value than that of an animal.

Many also argue that animal activists often overlook the facts and regulations of animal testing, as new ways of reducing animal suffering are continually being updated. Another counter- activist argument focuses on other exploitations of animal life, arguing that they are much less beneficial than animal testing. A 2007 survey revealed that meat eaters consume about 2.5 billion animals every year, which is nearly 1000 times the number of animals used in research. It is also estimated that nearly 12,900 stray dogs are put to sleep each year, whilst half of this amount are used annually in animal research. And the Environmental Health Journal estimates that 650,000 vermin are killed by pest controls in UK homes each year.

The arguments, facts and regulations concerning animal testing evoke various opinions which it seems will not be reconciled in the near future. Whilst differing and conflicting views on the value of human and animal life prevail, a general opinion seems unlikely. Yet the regulations implemented at least attempt to remedy the concern that animals are subjected to unnecessary cruelty during vivisection, in the meanwhile allowing vital research to continue. It seems to be a prevailing argument that animal testing is currently necessary for vital medical research, though researchers are en route to finding further alternatives which will enhance the ethics of science and medical quality.

==========================================================


----------



## noratmedicineforme (Apr 1, 2010)

for the sake of animal and human health it is imperative that animal experiments cease. we do not need to find 'alternatives' as the animal exp are not applicable to humans anyway. we already have real scientific methods. i can only advise people to familiarise themselves wiuth the scientific argument on this issue Safer Medicines Campaign ww.curedisease.com www.navs.org Medical Research Modernization Committee are a good start


----------

