|
Archive-Name: politics/animal-rights/myths/part2
Posting-Frequency: Monthly See reader questions & answers on this topic! - Help others by sharing your knowledge
MYTH 2.11 "There are no laws or regulations protecting
lab animals. "
In the UK, the use of animals in research is governed by the
Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1996. This has been referred
to several times in this FAQ and is worth looking at in more
detail (1).
The Act requires that animal procedures:
*take place only in laboratories which have appropriate animal
accommodation and veterinary facilities, and have gained a
certificate of designation
*are part of an approved research or testing programme which has
been given a _project licence_
* are carried out by people with sufficient training, skills and
experience as shown in their _personal licence_
Licences are only granted if:
*the potential results are important enough to justify the use of
animals
* the research cannot be done using non-animal methods
*the minimum number of animals will be used
*dogs, cats or primates are only used when other species are not
suitable
*any discomfort or suffering is kept to a minimum by appropriate
use of anaesthetics or pain killers
*researchers and technicians conducting procedures have the
necessary training, skills and experience
*research premises have the necessary facilities to look after
the animals properly (laid down in a Home Office Code of
Practice)
The Act is enforced by a team of Inspectors (all qualified vets
or doctors). They visit each establishment an average of 8
times/year, often without prior notice. In addition, a named vet
must be on call at each establishment at all times. Animals must
be examined every day and any animal in severe pain or distress
that cannot be relieved must be painlessly put down.
Other countries in Europe and North America have similar laws and
regulations governing animal research. for example the US Animal
Welfare Act and the 'Guide for the care and Use of Laboratory
Animals' of the Public Health Service.
1) Description taken from 'Facts and figures on animal research
in Great Britain' (1995) RDS
*****
MYTH 2.12 "Researchers don't care about the well-being of
animals."
Like most people, most researchers love animals and care about
their well-being. Many have family pets, and unlike animal rights
organisations they do not wish to see domestic animals eradicated.
That's why scientists and doctors support the principle of the 3 Rs
-Reduction, Refinement and Replacement - a principle first
established by scientists themselves (1).
Scientists, like everyone else, will be happy to see the use of
animal in research stop. However this can only happen when it is
no longer necessary to advance science and medicine - and this
will not be possible in the foreseeable future.
1. Burch R & Russell W The Principles of Humane Experimental
Technique (1959)
*****
MYTH 2.13 "Animal rights is a 'progressive' philosophy"
There is nothing 'progressive' about depriving the seriously ill
of medical advances. Opposition to the AR cause cuts
across traditional the traditional left-right divide. Indeed,
the only modern regime to enact the type of legislation
demanded by the AR movement was Nazi Germany. The Nazis
enthusiasm for animal rights is illustrated by the news article
reproduced below (taken from the Animal Research Database cited
in Section 3):
The following is a translation of document #186 in Medizin im
Nationalsozialismus by Walter Wuttke-Groneberg (Rottenberg:
Shwaebische Verlagsgesellschaft) 1982.
Translator's remarks and literal German words in {}.
Vivisection Forbidden in Prussia!
The New Germany leads all civilized nations in the area of animal
protection!
The famous national socialist Graf E. Reventkow published in the
Reichswart, the official publication of the "union of patriotic
Europeans", the lead article "Protection and Rights {Recht} for
the Animal". National Socialism, he writes, has for the first time
in Germany begun to show Germans the importance of the individual's
{italics} duty toward the animal {end italics}. Most Germans
have been raised with the attitude that animals are created by God
for the use and benefit of man. The church gets this idea from the
Jewish tradition. We have met with not a few clerics who defend this
position with utmost steadfastness and vigor, yes one could say
almost brutally. Usually they defend their position with the
unstated intent of deepening and widening the chasm between man
who has soul and soulless (how do they know that?) animals...
The friend of animals knows to what inexpressible extent the
mutual understanding between man and animal and feelings of
togetherness can be developed, and there are many friends of animals
in Germany, and also many who cannot accept animal torture out
of simple humanitarian reasons. In general however, we still find
ourselves in a desert of unfeeling and brutality as well as sadism.
There is much to be done and we would first like to address vivisection,
for which the words "cultural shame" do not even come close; in fact it must be viewed as a
criminal activity.
Graf Reventkow presents a number of examples of beastial
vivisection crimes and affirms at the end, with mention of Adolph Hitler's
sharp anti-vivisectionist positions, our demand that once and for all
an end has to be brought to this animal exploitation.
We German friends of animals and anti-vivisectionists have
placed our hopes upon the Chancellor of the Reich and his comrades in arms
who are, as we know, friends of animals. Our trust has not been
betrayed!
The New Germany brings proof that it is not only the hearth but
bringer of a new, higher, more refined, culture:
Vivisection, a cultural shame in the whole civilized world,
against which the Best in all states have fought in vain for decades,
will be banned in the New Germany!
A Reich Animal Protection Law which includes a ban on
vivisection is imminent and just now comes the news, elating all friends of
animals, that the greatest German state, Prussia, has outlawed
vivisection with no exceptions!
The National Socialist German Workers' Party { NSDAP } press
release states:
"The Prussian minister-president Goering has released a statement
stating that starting 16 August 1933 vivisection of animals of
all kinds is forbidden in Prussia. He has requested that the
concerned ministries draft a law after which vivisection will be punished
with a high penalty *). Until the law goes into effect, persons who,
despite this prohibition, order, participate or perform vivisections on
animals of any kind will be deported to concentration camps."
Among all civilized nations, Germany is thus the first to put an
end to the cultural shame of vivisection! The New Germany not only
frees man from the curse of materialism, sadism, and cultural
Bolshevism, but gives the cruelly persecuted, tortured, and until now, wholly
defenceless animals their rights { Recht }. Animal friends and
anti-vivisectionists of all states will joyfully welcome this
action of the National Socialist government of the New Germany!
What Reichschancellor Adolph Hitler and Minister-president
Goering have done and will do for the protection of animals should set
the course for the leaders of all civilized nations! It is a deed
which will bring the New Germany innumerable new elated friends in all
nations. Millions of friends of animals and anti-vivisectionists of
all civilized nations thank these two leaders from their hearts
for this exemplary civil deed!
Buddha, the Great loving spirit of the East, says: "He who is
kind-hearted to animals, heaven will protect!" May this blessing
fulfil the leaders of the New Germany, who have done great
things for animals, until the end. May the blessing hand of fate protect
these bringers of a New Spirit, until their godgiven earthly mission is
fulfilled!
R.O.Schmidt
*) As we in the meantime have learned, a similar ban has been
proclaimed in Bavaria. The formal laws are imminent - thanks to
the energetic initiative of our Peoples' chancellor Adolph Hitler,
for whom all friends of animals of the world will maintain forever
their gratitude, their love, and their loyalty.
From: Die Weisse Fahne {The White Flag} 14 (1933) : 710-711.
This support for animal rights is also found in today's
fascists. German neo-Nazis have used the slogan "Stop animal
experiments - use Turks instead" (1).
In the UK, the animal rights policies of fascist groups have been
documented by the internationally-respected anti-fascist journal
Searchlight (2). A leading Green Party member was sufficiently
to concerned to say that "Eco-fascism is on the march" and noted
that "Despite their hatred of other races the far right have
become animal lovers" (3)
A group of UK fascists aligned with Italy's neo-fascists
established an AR organisation called Greenwave. Its aims
include:
"Total ban on all animal experiments
Total ban on the use of animals in ANY form of entertainment
Total ban on ALL hunting or shooting of animals"
In its 4th issue, the UK AR magazine Arkangel published no less
than 5 letters from members of this group and other fascists,
defending the rights of fascists to take part in AR groups and
spelling out their AR credentials(4).
None of this is intended to imply that *all* AR supporters are
card-carrying fascists. However, it does make it clear that
support for AR is certainly not 'progressive' and in fact is
confined to the political fringes. No major political party of
the left or right supports the AR agenda.
1) Searchlight (1988) no.161:19.
2)'The Greening of the Brownshirts' Searchlight(1989) no.165
3)' The Green Shirt Effect' Searchlight(1989) no.168:4-5
4)'They're no Arkangels' Searchlight (1991) no.189:12
*****
MYTH 2.14 "Animal rights groups' propaganda is truthful."
AR propaganda routinely makes fictitious claims, in order to win
support, and of course money, from people who have no access to
other information.
In the UK material produced by AR groups has repeatedly fallen
foul of the Advertising Standards Authority. Aside from the
examples cited elsewhere in this FAQ, the following AR claims (by
the National Anti Vivisection Society) were found not to meet the
ASA's 'legal, decent, honest, truthful' standard in 1994 (ASA
ref. B93-00281):
"Animal experiments are...misleading and unproductive"
"Animal experiments are bad science"
"They [animals] suffer from different diseases [to humans]"
PETA have also fallen foul of the ASA with their claim that
thalidomide passed animal tests with 'flying colours' (1)
When the group Anti Vivisection Agency placed an advertisement in several UK
newspapers in December 1992. Virtually every sentence was found
to be in breach of ASA standards(2) !
However, first prize for dishonesty has to go to the group Plan 2000. This AR group
produced fund-raising leaflets in which nearly every claim was found not to meet the ASA's
standards(3).
These are all examples of an independent body finding that claims
made by AR groups are dishonest and misleading.
In fact, such misleading material tends to be the rule rather
than the exception, leading to the conclusion that it is a
deliberate tactic rather than an unfortunate accident.
1) ASA Monthly Report no. 65 October 1996
2) ASA Monthly Report no. 19 December 1992
3) ASA Monthly Report no. 43 December 1994
*****
MYTH 2.15 "Animal rights groups should be supported by
animal lovers."
In fact AR groups such as PETA have many extreme proposals that
pet-lovers in particular should be shocked by:
"Pet ownership is an abysmal situation brought about by human
manipulation" (Ingrid Newkirk, PETA founder Washingtonian Aug.
1986)
"In the end I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole
notion of pets altogether" (Ingrid Newkirk Newsday, Feb. 21 1988)
"One day we would like an end to pet shops and breeding animals
[Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild" (Ingrid
Newkirk, Chicago Daily Herald Mar 1, 1990)
"Eventually companion animals will be phased out...." (Ingrid
Newkirk, "Just Like Us? Toward a Notion of Animal Right"
(symposium), Harper's, August 1988)
"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles- from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." (John Bryant, _Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic_ (Washington D C, PeTA, 1982).
p. 15)
"The cat, like the dog, must disappear..... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." (John Bryant, _Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of a
Changing Ethic_ (Washington, D.C.: People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals, 1982), p.15)
From the above, it is clear that pet-lovers have a great deal to
fear from the AR movement.
People who describe themselves as supporters of 'animal rights'
are often shocked to discover the real agenda of the AR
organisations. This is because being an animal lover is not the
same as supporting animal rights. Most people who describe
themselves as animal lovers, including most scientists, are in
fact supporters of _animal welfare_ rather than
animal rights.
*****
MYTH 2.16 "Many scientists and doctors support the AR position."
Doctors and scientists involved in biomedical research are
overwhelmingly in favour of the continued use of animals in
research.
In 1988 and 1989 the AMA surveyed 500,000 active physicians,
both members and non-members. 97% supported the use of
animals in medical research.
A survey of the attitudes of UK doctors was carried out by the British Medical Association in
1993(1).
Over 94% agreed with the statement that "animal experiments have made an important
contribution to many advances in medicine". Only 2.3% disagreed.
83% agreed that "animal experiments have an important role in developing new treatments.
The BMA produced an official statement on animal research:
"The BMA believes that animal experimentation is necessary at present to develop a better
understanding of diseases and how to treat them, but believes that, wherever possible,
alternative methods should be used."
Section 2.6 of this FAQ describes the British Association for
the Advancement of Science's Declaration on Animal Experiments
and its overwhelming support among eminent scientists and
doctors.
The most recent survey is that of all living Nobel Laureates in medicine and physiology,
carried out in 1996 to commemorate the centenary of Nobel's death(2) 39/71 Laureates
replied and their responses are instructive:
100% agreed that "animal experiments had been vital to the discovery and development of
many advances in physiology and medicine".
100% agreed that "animal experiments are still crucial to the investigation and development
of many medical treatments".
100% agreed that "Because there is no complete alternative yet, a total and immediate ban
on animal experiments would hamper much medical progress".
From all of the above it is clear that the overwhelming majority of scientists and doctors
support the use of animals in biomedical research.
More specific myths involving individuals are dealt with below.
1) BMA News Review, June 1993 (Representative sample of 800 surveyed/350 replied)
2) Centenary Survey of Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine (1996) SIMR
*****
MYTH 2.16.1 "Charles Darwin opposed animal research"
In fact, he was a strong supporter of it.
In a letter to a Swedish professor of physiology in 1881, Darwin
wrote (1):
"I know that physiology cannot possibly progress except by means
of experiments on living animals, and I feel the deepest
conviction that he who retards the progress of physiology
commits a crime against mankind."
1. The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (1959) Darwin, Francis,
ed. New York: BasicBooks, Inc., 382-383.
*****
MYTH 2.16.2 "Albert Schweitzer opposed animal research"
In fact, he had the same attitude as today's scientists.
In a letter to the New York Times (1), James A. Pittman, M.D.,
recalled visiting Schweitzer in 1957 in French Equatorial Africa;
"At that time, I asked him specifically about his views on the
use of laboratory animals for biomedical research. His response
(as translated from the German) was: 'It is necessary for the
advancement of medical understanding.' There was absolutely no
equivocation in his statement."
Schweitzer's own words on animal research can be found in The
Teaching of Reverence for Life (Holt, Rinehart, Winston; 1965).
Schweitzer makes the same moral distinction made by the research
community: while all life is meaningful, the goal of improving
human and animal health requires the sacrifice of some life in
order to preserve others.
1. Letter from James A. Pittman, M.D., Dean, University of
Alabama School of Medicine, to
the New York Times, May 26, 1990, p. 22.
*****
MYTH 2.17 "Many lab animals are used in testing tobacco
products."
In fact, just two project licences for procedures connected with
tobacco were issued in the UK in 1995 (1). Both were concerned
with investigating the link between smoking and Sudden Infant
Death Syndrome. The experiments did not use dogs, as AR
literature likes to imply, but embryonated chicken eggs .
1. Report of the Animal Procedures Committee for 1995 (1996)
HMSO, London
******
MYTH 2.18 "The number of animals used in research each year is 100 million/250 million/ a
billion"
AR groups make a habit of exaggerating the numbers of animals used in research. The UK
AR group Plan 2000 fell foul of the Advertising standards authority for that very reason (see
Myth 2.14 above). The true world figure is around 50 million. In other words, one rat, per
person, per 100 years.
That breaks down as follows (figures in millions):
USA 22 (1)
EU 11.8 (2)
Japan* 2.5
Canada 2.1 (3)
Switzerland 0.86 (4)
Australia 0.75(5)
others* 10
total 50.01
* Estimated on the side of caution
NB UK figures have shown a steady decrease over the last 20 years and in line with that it is
likely that the world total is now considerably lower that 50 million.
1. US Congress Office of Technology Assessment (1986)
2. Commission of the European Communities (1994)
3. Canadian Council on Animal Care (1995) Resource 18
4. Swiss Federal Office of Veterinary Care (1993)
5. Report of the Australian Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare: Animal
Experimentation (1989)
***********
3 WHERE TO GET RELIABLE INFORMATION ABOUT BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH
Americans for Medical Progress
AMP is a wonderful organisation that campaigns on behalf of the
seriously ill and others who benefit from medical progress (i.e.
all of us!). Many will be familiar with their successful
"Hollywood Hypocrisy" campaign and other actions in support of
AIDS sufferers. The AMP WWW pages have a great deal of
information about the AR movement's aims and tactics, the
benefits of biomedical research, AMP campaigns and much else. Why
not visit them and join in their fight to stop AR supporters
halting medical advance. Their URL is: http://www.ampef.org/
Research Defence Society
The RDS is a UK association of doctors and biomedical scientists.
It produces a great deal of carefully researched
information showing how the use of animals has been essential in biomedical advance.
The RDS also runs proactive campaigns to bring this home to the public. The RDS WWW
site is an invaluable resource for all
those interested in defending biomedical research. Their URL is:
http://www.uel.ac.uk/research/rds/
Biomedical Research Education Trust
BRET produce excellent material aimed at schools and non-scientists. Their material
explains the need for animals in research in an informative but jargon-free way.
Recommended. URL: http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~bret/
Foundation for Biomedical Research
The FBR is a sort of American RDS and produces an impressive
selection of education and publicity material. If you are
interested in the truth about the use of animals in biomedical
research, this is another URL you should have in your bookmarks
file: http://www.fbresearch.org/
European Biomedical Research Association
This site contains a wealth of detailed information about animal use in the EC, and the EC
regulations governing it. You can find it at http://www.uel.ac.uk:80/research/ebra/
Other useful WWW resources:
The Animal Research Database, compiled by Greg Popken, can be
accessed at: http://www.fcs.uga.edu/~mhulsey/GDB.html This
contains a great deal of useful material, including information
about Nazi support for animal rights, from which the translated
document reproduced in 2.13 was extracted.
The Mouse and Rat Research Home Page
This is the place to go for scientific information about how 85% of lab animals are used. The
URL is http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~mercer/htmls/rodent_page.html
I am always happy to hear about other resources - if you know of
any you think should be included, please send me the details.
******
4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The material collected here has been compiled from a number of
different sources. A significant amount was taken (with
permission) from material produced by the Research Defence
Society, much of it by Dr J. Botting. Material was also taken
from the web sites of Biomedical Research Foundation and
Americans for Medical Progress. I would like to take this
opportunity to thank those who work for these fine organisations,
often at some personal risk. Their activities are helping to make
this world a better place.
I take responsibility for any mistakes and the overall
compilation.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
The author of this FAQ is Kevin O'Donnell
(kevin@embra.compulink.co.uk). Permission is granted to
reproduce and distribute this FAQ providing it is copied in its
entirety, including the Acknowledgement and copyright notice
and provided no charge is made.
User Contributions:Part1 - Part2 [ Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index ] Send corrections/additions to the FAQ Maintainer: kevin@embra.compulink.co.uk (Kevin O'Donnell)
Last Update March 27 2014 @ 02:12 PM
|
Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic: