May 23, 2005

scientists react to publication of animal research report

The report on the ethics of animal research was published by the Nuffield Council.

Professor Colin Blakemore, MRC Chief Executive, said:

“The ethics of research involving animals makes a useful contribution to the debate about animal research in this country. It is a good example of the way in which individuals with very different moral positions on this issue can talk rationally, reach consensus on some points and define the basis of residual differences of opinion. The Medical Research Council (MRC) welcomes the recommendation that the debate about research involving animals must be conducted in a reasonable and civilised manner.”

Brian Howard, president of the Laboratory Animals Science Association, said:

“The Nuffield Council on Bioethics is to be congratulated on having addressed a field which is vigorously debated but rarely illuminated. I have not previously encountered a document in which the arguments for and against the use of animals in science are presented in such a dispassionate and balanced way.

“LASA fully supports the call for abstracts of approved Project Licence authorities to be made available in an easily assimilated form to the general public. It may take time to achieve this objective, but only in such a context can informed public debate take place.”

Dr. Dominic J Wells, Reader in Transgenic Biology, Imperial College Faculty of Medicine, said:

“The Nuffield report is an excellent, well-balanced and thought provoking document. It should be required reading for all of those interested in the use of animals in research. Despite the very disparate views held by members of the Working Party, the report makes a number of valuable recommendations that will help to inform future debate and improve animal welfare.”

Dr Gill Langley, scientific adviser to the Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane Research, said:

“The report rightly counsels that there’s no room for complacency about the validity of animal experiments. Their predictive value is often over-stated. A more realistic view of their limitations would prompt increased investment in advanced non-animal methods to the benefit of people and animals.”

Professor Tipu Aziz, Consultant Neurosurgeon, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford, said:

” feel that this difficult topic has been well reviewed by the council. I welcome the call for more open discussion between scientists and the concerned public. Only in this way will we all benefit from the research that this country is so highly regarded for.”

Vicky Robinson, Chief Executive, National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, said:

“We welcome the Nuffield Council’s review of the complex ethical issues associated with the use of animals in scientific research. The National Centre will give close consideration to the recommendations in the report as part of our work to advance the ethical principles of the 3Rs which underlie the humane use of animals.”

Alistair Kent, director of the Genetic Interest Group, said:

“This report is a very balanced and thorough overview of the issues relating to the use of animals in biomedical research today and the working party is to be congratulated on its efforts. What is noteworthy though is the fact that, despite the expertise gathered together and the time, energy and resource devoted to the issues the members were unable to achieve consensus on a range of the issues they considered. This mirrors the deeply held views of individuals in our society on animals used in research. What proved difficult for the Nuffield Council is likely to be impossible for open minded citizens given the emotions raised by this issue and the propaganda generated in support of polarised positions.

“The report’s unequivocal condemnation of violence and intimidation as a substitute for reasoned debate is welcome and should be trumpeted abroad. Few patients like the idea of benefits accruing from others suffering, but most see the necessity for properly regulated high quality research on animals as essential, as the cost of waiting for alternatives to be developed is unacceptable in that potentially treatable diseases will remain untreated while we wait for new methods to find novel therapies to emerge.”

Dr Simon Festing, Executive Director of RDS, said:

“RDS welcomes this important, thorough and independent report on the ethics and benefits of research involving animals. It correctly highlights the medical advances achieved through animal research and the very high standards of animal research in the UK. The report rightly calls for more research to replace animals, reduce their use and ensure their well-being.”

“The report unequivocally condemns animal rights extremism as morally wrong and a barrier to open debate. It urges the research community to be more transparent and engage more in public dialogue. We are already making progress in that area and we particularly welcome recommendations to improve the quality of debate.”

Philip Connolly, Director, Coalition for Medical Progress, said:

“Nuffield emphasises reducing the highest cost of research using animals – the few procedures that cause the most suffering. This will strike a chord with British people who can appreciate that the medical benefits they value come at a cost. Concerns are not so much about the majority of procedures, which are little different from what happens in GP clinics and hospitals throughout the land. Focussing on the small extremity makes sense.

“This is the third independent report (House of Lords Select Committee, 2002, Animals Procedures Committee 2003 and now Nuffield) to say that animal experiments do enable scientific and medical advances. It’s a common argument by certain anti vivisectionists that they don’t.”