13 October 2008
Last week, five leading members of the activist group, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (Shac) faced trial on suspicion of threatening scientists working at the besieged laboratory. The accused were alleged to have launched a campaign of terror which included leaving hoax bombs at one scientist’s house, posting soiled sanitary towels through his letterbox (which were claimed to be “infected with the Aids virus”) and spreading rumours that he was a paedophile.

This is not the first time that such action has made the news; three years ago Darley Oaks farm in Staffordshire, which bred guinea pigs for use in experiments, was forced to close following a similar intimidation campaign. In this particular case the owner capitulated following the theft of the remains of his dead mother-in-law.

Although most people would condemn these actions, they might seem to gather some legitimacy from the general confusion and emotional hysteria surrounding animal testing in general. It seems that every other week there are stalls on Princes Street pasted with photos of bloodied dogs and sensationalist captions such as “Puppy Killers!”

Taking time to talk to one of these generally compassionate activists (as opposed to the militants mentioned above), you will generally hear a series of “facts” that expose animal testing as a sham. The main arguments are that animal biochemical systems differ so much from a human's that it renders any experiments invalid, and that any tests for medicines need to be repeated on humans anyway before they can be cleared.

A brief inspection into the history of medicine and science shows that this is untrue. The efficacy of penicillin, blood transfusions, vaccines or insulin, to name a few, was demonstrated via animal experiments. In the case of penicillin, mice were injected with a lethal dose of streptococci bacteria; half of them were further injected with penicillin. These were the only mice that survived. Penicillin has subsequently saved millions of lives worldwide.

After that, you may be asked “What about false positives?” Unfortunately these have occurred. The most famous case involved the drug thalidomide, which was given to pregnant women during the sixties as a treatment for morning sickness. It was initially tested on animals and was shown to be non-lethal. Tragically, the drug was later linked to birth deformities in children whose mothers took it. This side-effect was not detected, as the effect on unborn babies was not tested before its sale. Science does not get everything right first time, and in the cases when it is wrong the consequences can be awful. Yet that is just one case; as mentioned before, there have been countless true positives discovered through animal tests, which save many more lives then false positives cost.

After mentioning this to your considerate campaigner, they may admit that’s true, but then state that animal tests are obsolete anyway, since necessary experiments can be performed on cells in vitro, or via theoretical simulations. This is a relatively new argument against animal tests – but again it quickly falls flat. Penicillin was tested in mice as the human dose required is 3,000 times the amount needed in rodents, so it was essential to test for toxicity in animals first. Vaccines cannot be tested on isolated tissue cultures as the effects of disease on the entire host need to be monitored.

It is not the case that researchers will automatically experiment on animals if a drug or chemical needs to be tested. UK law forbids the use of animals in tests unless there are no alternatives. If animal tests need to be performed, then the Scientific Procedures Act 1986 requires that the institution, head researcher and each individual researcher own a licence before experiments commence. And research councils are always looking for methods that will reduce the need for animal tests. All these restrictions have come about due to legitimate concerns about the use of animals in experiments and how to ensure they are well treated.

Therein lies the crux. Scientists engage in legitimate, mature discussion all the time about the ethics of animal experimentation, with courses on this forming an integral part of any university science degree. Some are completely against it; but most agree that it is a necessary evil, which can enhance the wellbeing of society if performed correctly. Such debate is what is needed, rather then the hysterical appeals to emotional authority put across by animal welfare activists. To bypass them, and ensure that this subject is treated openly and rationally, will show up the brutal activists for the charlatans they really are.
Matthew Hartfield is a PhD candidate in Biology at the University of Edinburgh