ANALYSIS - Vivisection: Lords Step into the Moral Minefield of Animal Research ; Lords Report Says More Must Be Done to Dispel the Distrust Surrounding the Subject and Alternative Methods of Research Should Be Found

By Steve Connor Science Editor | The Independent (London, England), July 25, 2002 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

ANALYSIS - Vivisection: Lords Step into the Moral Minefield of Animal Research ; Lords Report Says More Must Be Done to Dispel the Distrust Surrounding the Subject and Alternative Methods of Research Should Be Found


Steve Connor Science Editor, The Independent (London, England)


FEW AREAS of scientific research generate more controversy than the use of animals in experiments. The intense and frequently bitter debate has become polarised between those who believe that experiments on animals are vital for saving human lives and those who think that any sort of experiment involving animal suffering is repugnant and morally indefensible.

The House of Lords has stepped into this ethical mine-field with a report published yesterday by the Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures. It is an attempt to review the regulations governing such research 15 years after the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 came into force - a law that is said to make Britain the most regulated country in the world for research on animals.

The committee, chaired by Lord Smith of Clifton, prides itself on its cross-party support and objectivity. Only one of its members is a scientist who has been directly involved in animal research, the rest being drawn from a range of academic disciplines and professions. "We consider the report has great authority because it was made by an independent committee," Lord Smith said.

The committee's first conclusion articulates the dilemma at the heart of the debate - the trade-off between the benefits to medicine and industry provided by animal experiments with the costs, or more properly the harm and suffering caused, to the animals involved. As the committee concluded: "It is morally acceptable for human beings to use other animals, but that it is morally wrong to cause them unnecessary or avoidable suffering."

Many opponents of animal research argue that much suffering could be avoided if the Government encouraged a move away from animal testing towards the use of human or animal tissue grown in a test tube. However, Lord Smith said that the committee found that there was no alternative to animal experiments.

"We do not see any possibility of doing away with animal experiments if we want safe medicines," he said.

In Britain, the number of "scientific procedures" involving animals fell by 3.4 per cent last year compared with 2000. In 2001, some 2.62 million procedures involving animals were registered with the Home Office, which is responsible for issuing the necessary licences to scientists.

Of these experiments, 63 per cent were for research to further basic knowledge of biology, and human or veterinary medicine. A further 17 per cent involved testing the safety or toxicity of substances, mostly drugs.

Most of the animals used - 85 per cent - were rats or mice, and 11 per cent were fish and birds. Dogs, cats, horses and monkeys, which have special protection under the 1986 Act, collectively composed less than 1 per cent of the total.

"Animal experiments are still needed, but more could be done to find new methods of research which don't involve animals," Lord Smith said.

Scientists involved in animal research are supposed to follow a procedure known as the "three R's", which call for a reduction in the numbers used, a refinement of procedures to minimise suffering, and the replacement of animals by other techniques wherever possible.

The select committee said that scientists who try to find alternatives to using live animals are often considered to be on the fringes of research. They are more likely to carry the title "Dr" rather than "Professor", Lord Smith said.

Yet the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which has responsibility for co-ordinating international law on the use of animals for the testing of potentially toxic substances, has recently adopted four new tests that use skin or tissue to replace rabbits. Other developments, such as computers to model for toxicity testing or biological "chips" carrying genes, also promise to become viable alternatives to the use of live animals in some experiments.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

ANALYSIS - Vivisection: Lords Step into the Moral Minefield of Animal Research ; Lords Report Says More Must Be Done to Dispel the Distrust Surrounding the Subject and Alternative Methods of Research Should Be Found
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?