Tony Banks, MP: Transparency Needed In Animal Experiments

Categories

Health

Tony Banks, a UK Labour MP, calls for transparency in animal experiments.

"If the scientists are so sure of the validity of their trials and the humane manner of their experiments (for they always insist there is no pain involved), let the public - for the first time - actually see what these people are doing. Let them decide if they want these experiments to be conducted in their name."

There is controversy over the necessity of animal experiments and the immense suffering we inflict on our - let's be honest - cousins from the animal kingdom. Are we really so superior to animals that we can justify having no moral qualms about using animals in cruel ways as medical and other scientists currently are doing?

Hans Ruesch certainly does not think so. His declaration on animal experimentation puts the usefulness of these experiments in doubt - they are not justified by any gain in our understanding of human illness, Ruesch maintains.

So should we allow animal experimentation to continue?

Why not follow Tony Banks' advice and let the people know what exactly is being done in their name, and then let them decide. Thanks to Louise of Zeus Info Service for the forward of this article.

Show us what Scientists are doing to Animals in our Name and let the Public decide if the Experiments should Continue

by TONY BANKS, Labour MP.
Mail on Sunday 1/8/04

The announcement of new plans to crack down on what is decribed as a 'reign of terror' by animal rights extremists means harassment laws will be strengthened and, for the first time, police will be able to arrest militant activists who protest outside their targets' homes.

Quite rightly, no one could support the letter bombs or death threats that are the weapons of intimidation of these people, which explains why this news has received considerable media coverage.

This news-managed 'initiative' by the Government succeeded in securing headlines which made them look tough but has failed, in truth, to address the real issue.

It is that we already have sufficient legislation in place to deal with anybody - from any pressure group - who decides to take the law into their own hands.

My fear is that these new laws will result in greater power for the medical and pharmaceutical industries who want to stifle legitimate debate on the morality and medical efficacy of animal experimentation and shield them even further from the public gaze.

It is an astute tactic for them to undermine the very real concerns about their wok by painting any conscientious objector, no matter how lawful, as a deranged and dangerous fanatic. It means the doors of their laboratories can remain closed and attention conveniently diverted from what I believe are often abominable experiments.

Let's be clear about what's involved here - and it's not for the squeamish.

Inside these research labs, monkeys' red-raw eyeballs are injected with chemicals; rabbits' stomachs rupture from the sheer bulk of drugs pumped into them; beagles have their leg bones sawn and snapped off with a steel wire and mice have tubes of household products forced down their throats until they are bloated, then killed so their livers can be examined for tumours.

I admit not everybody feels as I do: that there is no moral justification for the experiments on animals that often result in what appears to be torture.

I also accept there are those who believe these procedures necessary to find cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's disease., which lay waste to human life and cause untold misery and suffering. It is on this premise that the medical research industry is founded and on which its work is legitimised. 

For many years I have been advocating a different way forward. If the scientists are so sure of the validity of their trials and the humane manner of their experiments (for they always insist there is no pain involved), let the public - for the first time - actually see what these people are doing. Let them decide if they want these experiments to be conducted in their name.

I am convinced the arguments would fall if the public could witness the grim reality of life inside laboratories such as Huntingdon Life Sciences. Let the TV cameras in to see the experiments to test the effect of detergent enzymes. Let the public watch as two-inch needles filled with detergent are inserted into the windpipes of guinea pigs for up to ten weeks, until the animals can barely breathe.

Millions of animals have died since experimentation began in earnest 100 years ago. Last year in Britain 2.5 million cats, dogs, horses, mice and rats were used. Yet we still have little scientific proof that the suffering endured by these creatures was not in vain.

My father died 15 years ago of cancer. Since then millions of animals have been used in the name of medical advancement, yet he would, in all probability, still have died from the same disease today.

There is growing evidence to suggest that, at best, animal experiments are of marginal use and at worst, might even mislead the scientists. MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) scanners can tell you more about what's going on in a human brain than you find out by opening up a marmoset's head.

Ray Greek, medical director of Europeans for Medical Advancement, recently pointed out that the track record of primate research was abysmal.

He is one of our most respected scientists and believes computers should be used instead of animals. So why does nobody seem to be listening?

We use animals not only in the medical world but also for weapons testing, which is vile and barbarous. We use them for cosmetic testing, which is a cruel and trivial reason for putting animals through so much agony and ultimately death. Chemicals are dripped into the eyes of conscious rabbits, which have no blink reflex, so they find it very hard to cry away the substance and are given no pain relief over the days they are observed.

So we're using animals to find better ways of killing each other while also using them for better ways to make ourselves look more attractive. It is grotesque. 

I accept there have been reductions in the levels of pain that are allowed to be inflicted upon them but it is only because of public pressure that there is now a voluntary code with regard to cosmetic testing.

This is progress but it is slow and it always will be in a world where there are so many vested interests. We have lost count of the number of animals that, in pursuit of commercial as much as medical gain, have been sacrified in duplicated, triplicated, multiple experiments.

Pharmaceutical companies do not share their information, for obvious commercial reasons. As a consequence, they run parallel research programmes using vast numbers of animals and come to more or less the same conclusions. In the academic world, a scientist must attract funding. In order to do so, he or she must publish their work, and to do this they will often repeat experiments that have been already tried hundreds of times before. Can this really be justified?

In 1996, before the election, Tony Blair gave his name to the paper 'New Labour, New Life for Animals', proposing a Royal Commission on genetic engineering of animals. There has been no such commission. I do not need to be persuaded of the abhorrence of the practice but I would like to see a critical examination of animal experimentation.

I listen to the so-called experts but I remain unconvinced of the need for animals in experiments. History is littered with the mistakes of experts, be they scientific, political or medical, and I think this is how animal experimentation will be judged.

Animals give the human race loyalty and love and we are the better for sharing this world with them. We also owe them duties of care, understanding and compassion.

Gandhi said: 'The morality of a country is judged by the way it treats its animals.' We should think carefully about the way we are treating ours.


forwarded by
Zeus Information Service
Alternative Views on Health
www.zeusinfoservice.com

Subscribe Free/Unsubscribe: email info@zeusinfoservice.com

See also related:

Toxicogenomics
It is possible to test chemicals (and pharmaceutical medicines) on cells and observe the over- or underexpression of genes. This has shown to be more reliable than animal testing.
Antidote Europe is a scientific committee willing to contribute to the blooming of an efficient and safe biomedical research. In spite of research's dynamism at the international level, the number of individuals suffering from severe diseases is increasing. It is about time to expose the defaults of the most usual techniques, largely based on animal experimentation, and to inform the public, the media and the authorities about the existence of safe methods, at the top of today's biomedical research, for example, toxicogenomics, of which we propose an original approach.

Doctors fear animal experiments endanger patients
Majority of GPs now question the scientific worth of animal tests, with 82% worried for their patients' safety

Schwarzenegger Terminates Form of Animal Cruelty
Sacramento, California 29 September 2004 - Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today signed SB 1520 into law, a bill that bans the force feeding of ducks and geese in the production of foie gras. The bill also bans the sale of the product when made from force fed birds, both provisions taking effect in California in the year 2012.

Doctors & Lawyers for Responsible Medicine - Are there 'alternatives' to animal experiments?

Doctors & Lawyers for Responsible Medicine - Quotes from doctors and lawyers opposing animal experiments, on medical and scientific grounds.

Animal Experimentation and Human Medicine - People for Rea