news release
 Campaigns Director Dan Lyons successfully completes PhD on animal research
policy
Uncaged's Campaigns Director Dan Lyons has been awarded a PhD
for his research into the evolution of British animal research policy.
This establishes Dr Lyons as one of the country's leading authorities
on the politics of animal experimentation.
Dr Lyons' research was carried out on a part-time basis through
the Department of Politics at the University of Sheffield, which is one
of the leading politics research centres in the UK. His extensive thesis
described and explained the entire evolution of animal research policy
in Britain, from its inception prior to the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act
to the present day.
Previous studies have been severely hampered by the secrecy surrounding
this policy area - going back to Victorian times - which has meant
that there has been no reliable evidence concerning the real processes
and effects of animal research policy. However, Dr Lyons' research
represents a major step forward in this field as it employs a unique
case study involving unprecedented primary empirical data concerning
Imutran's xenotransplantation experiments. These documents were
disclosed following Dr Lyons' and Uncaged's historic public
interest legal victory over Novartis.
When the Imutran case is analysed in the context of this policy area's
evolution, it reveals that the pivotal moment in the history of animal
research policy was the institutionalisation of covert, insider relationships
between the experimenters' lobby groups [1] and
the Home Office in 1882. Since that point, the interests of animals and
public opinion have been given scant consideration in an elitist policy
process characterised by research interests' domination and the
exclusion of animal protection groups.
The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 represents another critical
juncture in the evolution of animal research policy. At first sight the
1986 Act appeared to introduce policy changes that would mean greater
scrutiny and accountability in relation to animal research proposals.
However, continued secrecy, the absence of detailed rules, a pervasive
ideology of professional self-regulation, an insignificant and pro-animal
research Inspectorate, and the entrenched structural power of animal
research interests have prevented meaningful changes.
The Imutran case study revealed that the adverse effects suffered by
animals significantly exceeded the level posited by the regulatory assessment.
On the other hand, Imutran did not achieve the scientific and medical
advances that they and the Home Office predicted and formed the legal
justification for the research. Thus, the case vividly illustrates that,
when granting licences to conduct animal experiments, animals' interests
are afforded little effective weight relative to researchers' demands.
Furthermore, policy implementation is revealed to be inconsistent with
formal policy requirements and official statements on the implementation
of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
Notes:
- In particular, the Association for the Advancement
of Medicine by Research - the forerunner of today's Research
Defence Society.
Uncaged Campaigns 16.01.07 |
