|
More Uncaged sites:
Contact us:
Uncaged Campaigns,
5th Floor,
Alliance House,
9 Leopold Street,
Sheffield,
S1 2GY, UK
+44 (0) 114 272 2220
info@uncaged.co.uk
|
|
 |
| Number
of Experiments by Species (Great Britain, 2005)
Mice:
1,961,049
Rats: 424,527
Guinea Pigs: 29,019
Hamsters: 4,232
Gerbils: 5,057
Other Rodents: 3,159
Rabbits: 22,818
Cats: 500
Dogs: 7,670
Ferrets: 970
Other Carnivores: 946
Horses/Donkeys/Cross-Bred Equids: 9,002
Pigs: 3,574
Goats: 330
Sheep: 29,329
Cattle: 19,110
Deer: 56
Birds: 113156
Reptiles: 878
Amphibians: 20,970
Fish: 232,854
Marmoset/Tamarin Monkeys: 910
Squirrel/Owl/Spider Monkeys: 24
Macaque Monkeys: 3,718
Other Mammals: 2,333
GM Animals: 957,451 |
 |
Scientists
are finally beginning to admit the obvious: the bleak confinement
of life in a laboratory cage causes brain damage to animals.
Recent observations were published
in the journal Nature, and are based on evidence that caged animals
develop repetitive behaviour called stereotypies, which is caused
by brain damage. Stereotypies are rhythmic, involuntary actions
or repetitive limb movements.
They were first noticed in
animals in laboratories when a Swiss researcher used an infra-red
camera to find out what mice got up to when researchers switched
off the lights and went home. In the darkness, the mice began
an obsessive ritual of bar-biting and cage-scratching - classic
stereotypies.
This psychological trauma not
only underlines the suffering inherent to vivisection, but also
creates further scientific problems: if cage life causes biological
disturbances, how can the effects of the experiments be identified?
Dan Lyons, Uncaged Campaigns'
Director, comments:
"It is a chilling indictment
of vivisectors that they have taken so long to admit the obvious:
that the very fact of confinement in a laboratory cage causes emotional
and psychological suffering.
"All animals in laboratories
are closely related to animals that have evolved over millions
of years to exist freely in environments that allow them to satisfy
their needs.
"It is inevitable that the
complete denial of these liberties caused by laboratory incarceration
will lead to severe mental disturbance.
"Vivisectors are incapable
of admitting the intelligence and sensitivity of the creatures
they torture - presumably that's one of the reasons why they continue
with this evil practice." |
 |
Animal Experimentation
- The Facts
Contents
Animal experimentation involves the incarceration of animals - which
itself causes intense psychological distress - who are then poisoned,
mutilated, given diseases and killed. It is arguably the most severe
form of systematic violence in the modern world. Other terms for animal
experimentation include 'vivisection', 'animal testing',
and 'animal research'.
The Law in Britain
The Myth of 'Strict Regulation'
2005 saw the fourth consecutive annual increase in animal experiments
in Great Britain. 2,896,198 experiments were performed on 2,812,850
individual animals (some animals are subjected to more than one procedure).
Compared with 2004, this represents a rise of about 41,300 experiments.
The figures cover experiments that are expected to cause 'pain,
suffering distress or lasting harm'. [1]
These figures are evidence of the UK Government's cruel and biased policy
on animal experiments. Claims of 'strict regulation' from the Government
and animal researchers' are cynical, cruel lies designed to fool the
public into thinking that animal experiments are a medical necessity
and that suffering is minimal. The reality is that virtually anything
goes, and animal researchers are a law unto themselves. The Government
puts more effort into covering-up the cruelty and law-breaking of vivisectors
than it does into enforcing regulations.
Feeble and Biased Inspection
The level of inspection is completely inadequate, and the Inspectorate
is grossly biased in favour of animal research. 23 Inspectors are supposed
to conduct a careful, professional cost-benefit assessment of over
three thousand research projects, each of which is made up of various
different kinds of experiment and involves an average of almost a thousand
animals. In addition, the Inspectors are supposed to visit laboratories
- contained within some 218 establishments - to check up on what is
actually happening in the experiments. With the best will in the world,
the Inspectors could not uphold the law properly. Given that over 80%
of Inspectors are former vivisectors [2],
then the prospects for truly independent regulation are bleak indeed.
The Consequences
Trivial and Flawed Research
The Government consistently issues blatantly dishonest statements, claiming
that UK regulations 'permit only essential research with clear medical
benefits'. [3] In fact, the statistics
show that thousands of animals are used in poisoning tests for non-pharmaceutical
substances. [4] The Government
refuses to ban suffering for unarguably trivial purposes such as new
laundry liquids, and allows painful and traumatic animals tests for
substances like refrigerants and industrial chemicals. Furthermore,
the Government admits that they have never actually conducted research
to evaluate whether animal experiments benefit human medicine, [5] despite
scientific doubts over their applicability [6] and
thousands of human deaths caused by drug side-effects not revealed
by previous animal tests.
Uncontrolled Suffering
Animal researchers and the Home Office mislead the public over the true
level of suffering experienced by animals. In 2003, Uncaged won a historic
legal battle, on public interest grounds, to publish leaked confidential
documents describing pig-to-primate organ transplant experiments conducted
by Imutran at Huntingdon Life Sciences. In procedures assessed by the
Home Office as of 'moderate' severity, pig hearts and kidneys were
transplanted into the necks and abdomens of hundreds of monkeys, who
were then administered lethal doses of immunosuppressants in a futile
attempt to prevent rejection. 59% of animal research projects are classed
as of at least 'moderate' severity.
Many primates were literally 'found dead' in their cages
before they could be euthanased. Additionally, the following observations
of the primates were made by researchers - 'very distressed
and having difficulty breathing... animal collapsed', 'uncoordinated
limb spasms', 'suffered a stroke', 'retching
and salivating', 'abdomen swollen and appears fluid filled.
Salivating. Very laboured breathing. Extreme difficulty trying to walk', 'large
volume of bloody mucoid faeces', 'Collapsed on cage floor,
appears weak and unable to get up, breathing shallow and rapid, salivating,
heavy lidded eyes, body and limb tremors'.
The research failed to achieve any of its main objectives, yet was allowed
to continue for over five years before Uncaged's revelation forced
the company to close.
Failure to Enforce Use of Alternatives
The Government has also refused to implement UK and EU law that states
where a non-animal or less painful alternative method exists, the traditional
animal test method should no longer be allowed. Twice, anti-vivisection
campaigners have successfully taken the Home Office to court for failing
to stop extremely cruel tests when alternatives were acknowledged to
be available. The Government is more concerned with not inconveniencing
researchers than preventing or minimising animal suffering.
The Government has also been repeatedly criticised for its derisory
funding for research into non-animal testing and research methods.
No Deterrents to Illegal Cruelty
Enforcing the 'highest possible standards of welfare' for
animals in the laboratory requires that serious regulatory infringements
should incur proportionate sanctions. However, the few officially-recognised
breaches that have caused significant animal suffering have been treated
with virtual indifference by the Government:
-
In the Imutran case, the Government admitted that several
monkeys were allowed to suffer from kidney failure and drug poisoning
in breach of the law. However, those responsible were merely sent a
'letter of admonishment'.
-
In November 2001, it emerged that researchers
at Cambridge University had subjected 300 mice to a horrific experiment
involving the street drug 'speed' and exposure to extremely loud music.
As a result, some of the mice died during the experiment, others suffered
seizures and brain damage, and some displayed abnormal repetitive behaviour,
a sign of severe mental disturbance. After months of pressure from
the anti-vivisection group BUAV, the Government finally admitted that
the research was unlicensed and therefore illegal. However, once again,
the culprits were merely 'admonished'!
 Scientific Relevance?
Cancer, heart disease, stroke, AIDS, Parkinson's,
multiple sclerosis, asthma, diabetes... the list of life-threatening
diseases goes on and on. As many as 1 in 2 people will suffer heart problems,
1 in 3 will contract cancer, and childhood asthma is rising steeply.
Are experiments on animals necessary to provide the cures?
Deadly Drugs
There is another big killer, one that we don't hear quite so much
about - adverse drug reactions (ADRs). A concerned NHS executive has
estimated that drug side-effects could be causing '70,000 deaths
and cases of serious disability in England each year - putting ADRs behind
only heart disease and stroke as a cause of death'.
The drug industry - whose fundamental mission is to sell as many drugs
for as much profit as possible - admits that most of its products are
ineffective in most patients. With the vast majority of drugs sold on
the back of animal tests, how can they claim that vivisection ensures
safe and effective medicines?
Animals as Human Models?
The truth is that animal experiments are a cruel and fundamentally flawed
method of medical research. Humans evolved from other animals millions
of years ago. With each generation, each different species evolves
a unique biology to help them survive in their environment.
Our bodies contain many systems such as those that coordinate immune
reactions and hormones. These systems interact and work in incredibly
complicated ways. Each small difference affects the way the whole body
works. That's why each animal reacts differently to substances
and suffers distinct diseases. For example, despite chimpanzees being
our closest relatives, they do not develop human-type AIDS when injected
with HIV.
Now, there is growing disquiet and dissent in the scientific community
as the fatal weaknesses in vivisection are beginning to be taken on board.
One group of researchers, publishing in the prestigious British Medical
Journal in February 2004, uncovered evidence that 'seriously
undermined the principle that animal experiments are necessary to inform
human medicine'.
New NHS Report Confirms Failings of Animal Experiments
Six recent studies funded by the NHS set out to examine the relevance
to humans of testing treatments on animals. The report, Testing
Treatment on Animals: Relevance to Humans, [7] was
commissioned by the NHS and published in May 2006. Its purpose was
to test the extent to which animal experiments concur with the human
medicine. The study revealed that:
- animal researchers don't talk to hospital doctors about
their work
- clinical trials with human patients get underway even before
the animal research is completed
- drugs that fail in animals are used
in humans anyway
- a drug that increased overall mortality in animals
was, nonetheless, used in people
- most of the animal research that was
analysed was poorly conducted and gave conflicting results
 Human Disease
Cancer
In March 2004 a survey amongst medical experts produced some hard-hitting
analysis to explain why we're losing the 'war on cancer'.
Pharmaceutical research has concentrated heavily on experiments on
mice. Even though mouse DNA is similar in some respects to human DNA,
there are huge biological differences between mice and humans. Many
cancer treatments that work in mice don't work in humans and,
just as importantly - some of those that don't work in mice could
work in humans. Richard Sullivan, head of clinical programmes at Cancer
Research UK recently said 'More and more we talk about man as
the model. Animals are a very dirty guide'.
At the May 2005 launch of the Nuffield report into animal experiments,
Prof. Steve Brown of the Government's Medical Research Council
acknowledged that, despite the suffering of millions of animals in cancer
and AIDS research, treatments had not worked in humans because the diseases
induced in animals failed to replicate the human illness.
Multiple Sclerosis
In February 2004 a report published in the New Scientist stated scientists
admit animal experiments delayed medical progress with research into
Multiple Sclerosis (MS). Researchers studying human brain tissue from
MS patients discovered that animal experiments had led to false theories
about MS.
Vioxx
Vioxx was a painkiller that was prescribed to arthritis sufferers. In
line with standard practice, Vioxx was tested in at least two animal
species before entering human trials. The experiments on animals indicated
that the drug was safe and even beneficial to the heart. But when it
went on to the market it caused an estimated 140,000 heart attacks
and strokes. One expert suggested it was the world's worst drug
disaster. Vioxx was withdrawn in 2004.
Drug Trial Disaster
TGN1412 - an experimental monoclonal antibody - had been tested in both
rats and monkeys. The drug company in question, TeGenero, had mistakenly
assumed that tests in monkeys would predict human reactions because
the antibody reacted with both its human target protein and a similar
protein in cynomolgus monkey cells, But despite the fact that the human
doses were 500 times smaller than in the primate tests, a catastrophic
chain reaction occurred in the human volunteers that was entirely unanticipated
by the monkey tests. The TGN1412 case demonstrates that even those
animals claimed to be the 'best' models give false reassurance
regarding human safety. [Click here
for more information about the TGN1412 trial fiasco]
 Humane Medical Progress
While promoters of vivisection like to give the impression that it is
vital to human health, the reality is that 90% of
medical research does not involve experimenting on animals. Instead, many medical researchers
use a whole raft of different approaches to learn about human disease
and develop treatments and medications. These examples are taken from
Dr Ray Greek's book “Sacred Cows and Golden Geese”,
which analyses the medical relevance of animal research.
Clinical Studies of Humans
Careful observation and analysis of patients has led to many great discoveries
and breakthroughs including the successful treatment of childhood leukaemia
and our present level of HIV therapy. But, as many of you may have
experienced, thorough investigation and diagnosis is rare in modern
medicine. Improved observation would both help patient care and advance
vital knowledge.
With consent from patients and volunteers, it is possible to study potential
drugs by using very small doses and checking carefully for reactions.
Autopsies and epidemiology (the study of how diseases spread in human
populations) add to the vast amount of relevant knowledge that can be
garnered by studying humans.
Test Tube Research
Scientists can study human cells 'in vitro' (literally 'in
glass') and observe the effects of different chemicals. Advances
in technology have led to the development of sensitive and sophisticated
equipment that is able to monitor the cells and detect minute chemical
changes that indicate potential poisons or medicines.
Scans
State of the art diagnostic imaging technology allows scientists to study
any part of the human body. MRI scanners can monitor brain activity.
Transcranial magnetic stimulation allows scientists to temporarily
switch off specific areas of function in the human brain instead of
the old fashioned approach of removing parts of animals brains.
Computer Modelling
Computers are able to simulate human body parts through complex mathematical
equations. Scientists are using this method to model 'slices' of
human brains to investigate disorders such as epilepsy. Computer graphics
can create 3-D structures of drug molecules on screen, allowing scientists
to study their potential. Useful drugs - such as the high blood pressure
medication Captopril - have already been developed using this new technique.
Genetic Research
The Human Genome Project is bringing great changes in medicine. DNA sequencing
and gene mapping allow scientists to discover what genes do. Different
genes influence susceptibility to disease and help to predict how drugs
can work.
Non-animal methods of research are being developed, but a
lack of funding and apathy from scientists is widely acknowledged as
a major problem.
NOTES:
- The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, Section
2(1).
- Written Answer, Mike O'Brien MP, 6/4/00, Hansard.
- Home
Office Press Release, 7 Sept 2004, Ref 280/2004. See also Prof Chris
Higgins, Medical Research Council Chief Executive: "But, of course,
if the medical benefit potentially outweighs that suffering permission
is granted." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3633468.stm
- 79,824
procedures involving toxicology testing of substances other than pharmaceuticals,
table 13, 2005 statistics.
- Written Answer, Caroline Flint MP, 31 March
2004, Hansard.
- Pound et al., "Where is the evidence that animal
research benefits humans",
BMJ 2004; 328: 514-517.
- Available via www.pcpoh.bham.ac.uk/publichealth/nccrm/publications.htm.
|
