Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Animal rights groups blast support for monkey tests

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 13 December 2006
A REPORT backing the use of monkeys in academic research was denounced by animal welfare groups yesterday.
The Weatherall committee, a group of experts set up by four leading scientific bodies, said there was a "strong scientific case" for allowing certain experiments on non-human primates.

But animal welfare organisations condemned the 18-month inqui
ry as a "whitewash" and a wasted opportunity.

They were especially critical of the absence of animal welfare representatives on the committee and its failure to consider the use of monkeys in drug tests.

Each year about 3,300 monkeys are involved in scientific or medical research in the UK - about 0.1 per cent of all animals used.

Three-quarters of these animals are used for testing the safety of new medicines. Only about 450 are involved in academic research.

It was this aspect of primate research that was examined by the expert group led by Oxford geneticist and professor of medicine Sir David Weatherall.

The inquiry group, set up by the Royal Society, the Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust and the Academy of Medical Sciences began in March 2005.

Over the course of ten meetings, it heard evidence from 35 witnesses, including representatives from academic organisations, animal welfare groups, the government and industry, as well as patients.

A total of 62 written submissions were also received.

The experts made 16 recommendations, including the setting up of a small number of specialist research centres where monkeys could be kept in the best possible conditions.

They envisaged about four centres, each housing around 100 monkeys.

The report also called for more information about the use of non-human primates in research to be made public.

It accepted that new techniques that did not involve animals, particularly in the areas of brain imaging and computer modelling, were reducing the need for monkeys in research.

For this reason, the report said, research proposals involving monkeys should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Michelle Thew, the chief executive of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, said: "This is yet another whitewash. They say the end justifies the means when it comes to research on non-human primates, but they haven't proved that.

"We don't need new primate research centres," she said. "What we need are cutting-edge new centres looking at modern, 21st-century techniques that don't cause animals to suffer."

Dr Vicky Robinson, the chief executive of the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), which investigates ways to avoid animal experiments, said the report should have gone further.

Dr Robinson said: "It is disappointing that, despite a ringing endorsement for the work being done to reduce primate use, the report did not go far enough in trying to map out the priorities for development and adoption of alternatives.

"Nor did it identify what gaps in our understanding need to be broached to move forward in areas that seem less promising. The committee has therefore missed an opportunity to give some much-needed direction in this critical aspect of the debate on using primates for research, which is central to helping society resolve the serious ethical dilemmas involved."

However, leading scientists from the report's sponsors welcomed the findings.

Professor Colin Blakemore, the chief executive of the Medical Research Council, said: "In many areas of research we are still reliant on primates to achieve our goals for improving human health. We greet the expert group's recommendations with interest and will be considering them in detail."

THE CASE FOR EXPERIMENTS


SCIENTISTS say some questions cannot be answered using rodents or other animals because they are too unlike humans.

In the main these relate to the immune, nervous and reproductive systems.

Monkey research is vital for the pre-testing of vaccines designed to tackle HIV and other major infectious diseases, such as malaria and tuberculosis, said the experts. Brain diseases, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, are also difficult to investigate without looking at the neural circuitry of non-human primates.

The report said: "There is a strong scientific case for maintaining work on non-human primates for carefully selected research problems in many of the areas studied."



The full article contains 721 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 13 December 2006 12:51 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Animal Testing
 
1

zxc,

13/12/2006 02:26:00

#1 - The women probably suffered quicker deaths, although in both examples, the victims screams for help go unheeded, with the terror & fear of their ordeals known only to themselves & their torturers/killers.

2

Jeremy,

13/12/2006 02:28:11

"They were especially critical of the absence of animal welfare representatives on the committee" - fine - next time they should have a pig, and a monkey, on the Committee. That sounds fair to me.

3

Mitchell,

13/12/2006 04:32:07

I'll give an animal rights when it learns how to sign it's name.

4

True Brit,

13/12/2006 07:09:18

Exactly #4

I`ll take my hat off the the first person who it can be shown refused medication on ethical grounds because it´s safe development needed animal testing and therefore having refused a life saving course of treatment then died. Believe me my hat will be on my head for a long, long time, if forever.

5

Joanna (really),

13/12/2006 08:18:09

This isn't just about direct medical research, it's about science, but even Blackmore is afraid to say so. We do as much as we can with modelling and rats, but monkeys are way closer to human behaviour than rats are. And yes, if we could understand primate behaviour better, we might be able to address some fairly major human problems.

6

paulr,

13/12/2006 08:33:36

lets just use the animal welfare groups instead of monkeys and be done with it!!

7

McMicrogal,

Edinburgh 13/12/2006 08:42:08

Would you hand over your newborn for testing? I think not and quite rightly so.

Primate testing is the final check in certain cases prior to human trials. The vast majority of the primates do not die and are not put through horrendous pain and suffering as the toxicity testing tends to be done on rodents and other mammals. Animals in a laboratory setting are protected by stringent regualtions governing their care, accomodation and quality of life - they have far superior lives than many seen in the big pet superstores. A visit to a primate unit would see groups of primates living happily in groups, well cared for, and not in the least bit traumatised. Much of the testing involves the taking of blood samples to track the progress of the novel pharamceutical agent and treatment for adverse reactions may be available in line with those for human adverse reactions.

Just wait until it is one of the animal terrorist's relatives who needs treatment, would they be denied for the sake of a few mice and a very contented monkey?

8

Dave,

Western Isles 13/12/2006 08:46:19

Animal rights activists are not known for their intelligence, just thuggery. No need to fear them, just set some bread and water out in your garden and let them get on with it.

9

Cadgers,

Perth 13/12/2006 09:48:23

#4 That rules out quite a percentage of the human race Mitchell!

10

Rubbersnap,

13/12/2006 09:58:38

Animal Welfare and Protection IS an important issue. As the life-form that has most shaped the world, we have a duty to look after our planet and its denizens.

It also means we have to learn how to eradicate that which would destroy us and them ... yup ... microbial life that is inimical to the health of the planet, ie ... Germs!!!

If they could talk, the animals would want us testing ourselves. And them. How else do they survive as a species?

Human and animal testing must carry on ... or the nay-sayers doom us to a useless life ending on a single planet in the Universe.

How very myopic of them! Maybe #7 has a point after all!

11

Guga,

Rockall 13/12/2006 11:10:09

I strongly disagree with those animal rights activists who are, in fact, terrorists. However, I would hope that any animal testing is confined to cases of genuine necessity, and not for trivia or scientific curiosity.

12

jon13,

England 13/12/2006 11:12:20

In many cases drugs for humans that were approved when tested on animals have turned out to be deadly for humans due to fundamental genetic and biological differences between humans and animals (even primates). I believe the following quote by Professor Charles R. Magel sums this up nicely:

"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals and the asnwer is 'because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals and the answer is 'because the animals are not like us.' Animals experimentation rests on a logical contradiction."

I would also invite anyone who wants to read letters submitted to UK press by neuroscientists who object to PD experiments on animals at Oxford to go to this link Universityhttp://www.peta.org.uk/feat/feat-oxford_experimenters.asp

13

Gayle Dean,

USA 13/12/2006 13:17:49

There is a simple argument that testing is either morally or scientifically dubious: The animals must be a great deal like us for the results to be scientifically unproblematic, but very different from us in order to be morally unproblematic. When we want scientifically useful results, the more like us they are, the better. When we want clear consciences over causing disease, suffering, and death to innocent creatures, the more like us the animals are, the worse. We cannot have it both ways?

14

sam the god,

13/12/2006 13:21:34

our prisons are full of murderers why not put them to some use at least they can comment on how the drugs etc are working

15

Gayle Dean,

USA 13/12/2006 13:29:32

Someone always insists that animal-testing is vital for finding treatments for the millions with chronic diseases like cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. They believe animal sacrifice is morally required to save these sick people. Setting aside the debate on testing, many people accept this moral justification without question. Inevitably, they will say: "I'll bet you sing a different tune when you get cancer!"

But there is a big problem:

The diseases that cause most of the illnesses and death are chronic diseases like cancer, diabetes, and heart disease and they are most often due to lifestyle choices, which means they are largely preventable.

According to the American Cancer Society:

Tobacco use, physical inactivity, obesity, and poor nutrition are major preventable causes of cancer and other diseases...The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2006, more than 170,000 cancer deaths will be caused by tobacco use alone. In addition, scientists estimate that approximately one-third (188, 277) of the 564, 830 cancer deaths expected to occur in 2006 will be related to poor nutrition, physical inactivity, overweight, and obesity.

This means that roughly two-thirds of all cancer deaths are due to lifestyle choices and are preventable. And those estimates don't even include the less deadly afflictions, many of which are also caused or exacerbated by diet and lifestyle.

The American Heart Association agrees that heart disease is "mostly preventable." The American Diabetic Association publishes similar estimates and analysis. In other words, the major killer diseases are largely self-inflicted.

People know this, but they still refuse to make the required lifestyle changes. Doctors suggest these "cures", but they know that most people will not make the recommended changes. As members of the instant gratification generation, people would rather abuse themselves now, and call on doctors later,

16

Gayle Dean,

USA 13/12/2006 13:41:59

Someone always insists that animal-testing is vital for finding treatments for the millions with chronic diseases like cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. They believe animal sacrifice is morally required to save these sick people. Setting aside the debate on testing, many people accept this moral justification without question. Inevitably, they will say: "I'll bet you sing a different tune when you get cancer!"

But there is a big problem:

The diseases that cause most of the illnesses and death are chronic diseases like cancer, diabetes, and heart disease and they are most often due to lifestyle choices, which means they are largely preventable.

According to the American Cancer Society:

Tobacco use, physical inactivity, obesity, and poor nutrition are major preventable causes of cancer and other diseases...The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2006, more than 170,000 cancer deaths will be caused by tobacco alone. In addition, scientists estimate that approximately one-third (188, 277) of the 564, 830 cancer deaths expected to occur in 2006 will be related to poor nutrition, physical inactivity, overweight, and obesity.

This means that roughly two-thirds of all cancer deaths are due to lifestyle choices and are preventable. And those estimates don't even include the less deadly afflictions, many of which are also caused or exacerbated by diet and lifestyle.

The American Heart Association agrees that heart disease is "mostly preventable." The American Diabetic Association publishes similar estimates and analysis. In other words, the major killer diseases are largely self-inflicted.

People know this, but they still refuse to make the required lifestyle changes. Doctors suggest these "cures", but they know that most people will not make the recommended changes. As members of the instant gratification generation, people would rather abuse themselves now, and call on doctors later, to pre

17

Media 1,

Cape Town 13/12/2006 13:51:45

So whats the alternative? Should we test on kids or the elderly?

A monkey is lower down the food chain! End of story!

18

petrol head,

Edinburgh 13/12/2006 13:55:45

I've got a great idea. Lets just do the testing on the "animal rights" campaigners and let the monkeys take over their day jobs (if they have any). I'm sure that the monkeys would be able to cope and it's already shown on telly that you can get suits to fit monkeys.

One thing is for certain, the monkeys would be causing a whole lot less hassle and coming out with much less crap than the "animal rights" campaigners do at present!

19

Dave,

Western Isles 13/12/2006 14:25:47

We should test on you Media 1.

With the drivel you spout in the Independance report, you appear to have the cranium functionality of a primate.

Hang on, that's an insult. I apologies to all primates in advance.

20

Mitchell,

13/12/2006 15:25:13

pff ethics. people can invite ethics on the spot. You can't do business with a monkey, they are considered property and property itself does not have any rights. Those who own property own the rights to it, and as humans, we own the world.

21

Gayle Dean,

Jacksonville USA 13/12/2006 15:39:45

What does being lower on the food chain have to do with it? If aliens landed who were more powerful or of higher intelligence than humans, would that justify their killing and eating us?

If might-makes-right or level-of-intelligence-makes-right, then it would be perfectly moral for the powerful to exploit the weak, or for those with high intelligence to exploit the less intelligent. Are you ready to see the retarded and the weak and foolish rounded up and sent to the product-testing labs?

Gayle

22

Allan,

13/12/2006 16:03:13

Agree with #12 Guga, however lets experiment on animal rights actavists for fun! We could release them into special enclosures, and allow unrestricted access, it might even make life safer for the hookers, as no one would care about a few dead tree huggers, and the chance to play Manhunt for real could be a big boost to the econemy!

23

nell from falkirk,

falkirk 13/12/2006 16:47:32

#20 exactly the argument put forward by the proponents of the slave trade - "blacks are property, and as such to be used as their owners see fit".

This is now accepted by most of us to have been fundamentally wrong.
Eventually, it will be accepted as equally wrong to misuse and abuse other species for our own ends too, no matter what "justification" abusers come up with.

24

James England,

13/12/2006 17:05:54

So the animal- researchers should not use animals for experimentation shout the ANIMAL WELFORE ORGANISATIONS.
These organisations are avoiding the fundamental truth that there is no substitute other than experiments on animals to find a cure for diseases because it's a fundamental fact that the use of computers to minic the human body does not give the best result. while experiments on animals do find cures for serious diseases. while the computer will pruduce very dangerously misleading results.this is why every country in the world is using animals for experiments.

Therefore the bottom line is this let the ANIMAL RIGHTS SUPPORTERS VOLUNTEER for medical science for a cure in cancer etc.etc.

25

nell from falkirk,

falkirk 13/12/2006 17:09:36

strewth, if the criterion for use in experimentation is to be lack of intelligence, they don't have to look much beyond the posters of some of these comments for potential subjects....

26

Mitchell,

13/12/2006 18:05:06

Nell, you missed the part about not being able to do business with monkeys. They don't participate in society, so they don't deserve the protections that society offers.

27

Media 1,

Cape Town 13/12/2006 18:38:55

If doctors and other medical people require to use animals then I am all for it. We must permit them to carry out their work.

28

Angus,

Balloch 13/12/2006 21:50:21

From another perspective:

Animal testing is obviously used to further the aim of the human species ie. to live longer and free of disease.

However, there are too many humans on the planet for the environment to sustain so it could be argued that advances in medical science is counter to our species best interests.

So medical scientists could be the cause of our demise as a species rather than saviours.

29

Arthur,

13/12/2006 22:42:18

This issue is just typical of modern attitudes, I am right, you are wrong. Abject arrogance from both sides, and no compromise.
These animal rights activists push people away from their cause by their unreasonable, sometimes illegal behaviour. Animal testing is a neccessary evil, I wish it were not so, and so do a lot of people involved in it, but they know as I do that sometimes their is no other way.

30

zxc,

13/12/2006 23:24:19

#21 - Chairman Gordon, No, it's your facts" that are irrelevant, since they are likely to be every bit as stupid as your pieces of propoganda.

31

Gayle Dean,

Jacksonville USA 14/12/2006 00:15:33

James England said: "...experiments on animals do find cures for serious diseases".

Testing on animals is an unreliable method for finding drugs to treat humans. In fact, Mike Leavitt, Health and Human Services Secretary, USDA said the following in a press release January 12, 2006.

"Currently, nine out of ten experimental drugs fail in clinical studies because we cannot accurately predict how they will behave in people based on laboratory and animal studies."

32

Sunflower,

Edinburgh 14/12/2006 11:41:40

lets use Chairman Gordon for some tests then shall we !

33

Sunflower,

Jupiter 14/12/2006 11:48:26

another idea lets use neds and I agree with #16, lets use prisioners as well. detox them to get all the drugs and rubbish out of their system first of course!
they should not have any human rights at all, they lost their rights the minute they broke the law & ruined someone elses life.

anyway what gives humans the right to think they are so mighty? all humans do is destroy and ruin things, most people are selfish and greedy. Why should a living creature suffer in pain for a human?

34

James F,

Glasgow 15/12/2006 01:55:11

The big problem with animal testing is that we look at it from a false perspective. We kill millions of animals because of the futile misconception that we need to eat them for food. We don't.
This fundamental mistake creates a culture which allows animal researchers to get away with a lot of animal experimentation that we don't need (ladies' make-up etc.)
Some animal experimentation may be necessary, but the intellectual argument for that case cannot be argued coherently until we rationalise our food production. Today's New Scientist has an interesting article on this topic.
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn10786?DCMP=...

35

Vivien Pomfrey MSc,

Cornwall 16/12/2006 19:19:15

There are some very misguided and irrelevant messages here. The vast majority of animal rights activists are completely non-violent, so why focus on the extremist minority? We need more intelligent public debate on the scientific merits of animal models for human conditions. Having studied science for ten years, and having gained a distinction-grade Masters degree in medical science (so much for accusations of ignorance) and having read hundreds of scientific papers, I am more opposed to harmful animal experiments than ever before. They continue due to vested interests and inertia, and hinder progress in medical science. As for people opposed to vivisection being supposedly hypocritical if they use things that have been tested on animals, firstly drugs are not labelled as to whether or not they have been so tested, secondly we are not offered acceptable alternatives, and thirdly so many things are tested on animals, including food, that the logical conclusion is that we should simply die. Whilst some ignorant commentators would doubtless welcome this, I intend to continue my research and my attempts, along with many others, to move medical science towards being a compassionate and rational activity which benefits humans as well as other animals.

36

Pete39,

Tassy 18/12/2006 08:13:57

Well the food chain has a lot to answer for, I totally disagree with experimenting with animals. These guys have a lifestyle that includes family life, bringing up the kids, and all the grot that the human infestation of the world brings. It is the time to say no more, if we wish to cure human ills, then we should experiment on humans. Well there are enough of the grotty ones around, oH! sorry, not politically correct.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.