Animal Research On the Rise in the UK: A Guardian Writer Weighs In

by Stephanie Ernst

categories: Animal Testing and Vivisection, Politics and Law

Published July 23, 2009 @ 07:59PM PT

As many of you have likely heard by now, it was recently revealed that 2008 marked a significant and disturbing rise in medical research in the UK--the number of animals used last year was the highest in two decades. Numerous articles have been written about this in the last couple days, but I'm going to direct you to one that was just published today by Peter Tatchell of The Guardian: "The Long Fight Against Animal Testing." Following is a brief extract from the editorial (with a bit of commentary interspersed), but please read it in its entirety too:

Replacement of animals is possible in many spheres of medical research. Remember how the supporters of vivisection used to say that it was impossible and dangerous to halt the animal testing of cosmetics and household products? Well, despite their scare-mongering, it has been possible to safely replace many animal tests that were previously said to be "irreplaceable." The Dr Hadwen Trust has shown that alternatives are safe and effective. With tiny amounts of self-generated funding, it has already financed the development of successful, scientifically-validated alternatives to experiments that were once conducted with animals, including brain, kidney, diabetes and rheumatism research.

Of course, some animal research has provided breakthroughs in medical science. But these breakthroughs might have also come about through non-animal experimentation if they had been equally well funded. There is also a problem with information gleaned from animals in labs. What applies to mice, dogs, monkeys or rabbits may not necessarily apply to humans. Our physiology is sufficiently different to invalidate most cures devised by animal experimentation.

Tatchell does zero in a bit on the issues with primate use, and I'm always nervous when people focus too much on primates specifically and on their similarity to us--because I worry that leads some to conclude that animals less obviously like us are less deserving of our compassion, when they're not (and indeed, nonprimates often do share many of the characteristics that we assume and claim to be unique to primates)--but overall, it's a great piece, and it ultimately does not call just for an end to experimentation on primates but rather calls for a move away from vivisection altogether.

And just in case you don't follow my advice and read the whole article for yourself, I'll share one more selection--the conclusion--because it's really excellent; it reminds me of some of the ideas that were rumbling around in my head while writing "Animal Rights Is a Mainstream Movement" (to clarify, I'm not comparing the two or arrogantly implying that post was excellent as well; I'm just noting how glad I am that he points out how basic the premise of animal rights is: compassion), and it makes me think that if this writer isn't vegan yet, UK vegans need to offer him some encouragement because he has definite vegan potential (I'd be surprised if he's not at least a vegetarian):

For me, cruelty is barbarism, whether it is inflicted on humans or on other species. The campaigns for animal rights and human rights share the same fundamental aim: a kinder, gentler world without oppression and suffering, based on care and compassion. The abuse of animals in farming, sport, circuses, zoos, the fashion industry and medical experiments is a blot on humanity. The sooner we end it, the better.