Pro-test press officer Iain Simpson outlines why he supports scientific
animal testing

Animal testing hasn’t had a great press. For many people, it seems to conjure up mental images of photogenic bunny rabbits having shampoo poured in their eyes whilst evil scientists dance around cackling with glee. So why do I support it?
Let’s begin by stating some simple facts about the current status of UK legislation on the use of animals in research.
Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the use of animals in cosmetic research is illegal within the UK. The use of animals for scientific, medical research is amongst the most tightly controlled in the world in this country.
Animal research is responsible for almost all of modern medicine.
Without animal research we would not have medical science as we understand it today. The development of insulin was the direct result of animal research. It was through research on dogs that scientists were able to identify the pancreas as being where insulin is made, and through careful investigation were able to isolate, and then later synthesise, insulin.
Since this discovery, millions of people with diabetes have been able to live much longer, happier lives.
What the animal research debate boils down to is this. Imagine yourself with a drowsy, whimpering three-year-old with meningitis.
Fifty years ago, that child would have died. Now, due to the discovery and isolation of penicillin, we can stop that child dying. Penicillin has saved countless millions of lives since its discovery, and the lives it has saved outweighs the fact that Ernest Chain tested penicillin on 6 mice.
Some say that whilst animal research has yielded useful discoveries in the past and was justified on those grounds, it is no longer necessary. This then changes the debate from a moral one into a scientific one.
Almost every single scientist involved in biomedical research, those who are most informed to make that judgement, believes that there are simply no alternatives to animal research in somesituations.
Indeed, a licence to conduct animal research will not be given if the data can be obtained by any other means.
For all the recent advances in computing power, we are still incapable of accurately and fully modelling the interaction of just one protein with a cell membrane. We are nowhere near the point of being able to ‘computer model’ how a new drug will affect every single different organ and cell in the human body.
Diseases like Parkinson’s are still nowhere near fully understood, and quite simply we are not in a position where we know enough about the brain’s motor-cortex to even begin to construct a model accurate enough to predict which drugs will work and which won’t.
Maybe one day we will be in a position where it is all as simple as some of those opposed to animal research claim, where everything can be computer modelled to perfection.
It’s probably safe to say that that point is at least 20 years off.
Whilst millions of people continue to suffer and die from diseases like AIDS and cancer, we are not only justified in carrying out biomedical animal research, we have a moral obligation to do so.
Human life and human suffering outweigh animal life and animal suffering. This is not to say animal suffering is insignificant, of course it isn’t, and it is for that reason that cosmetic research on animals is banned in the UK.
But if any of us had to choose between our pets and our family, I think I know which way people would choose.
Thalidomide is another example of why animal research must be allowed to continue.
Thalidomide caused 12,000 children in 46 countries to be born with birth defects, and this tragedy could have been avoided very easily.
Thalidomide also creates deformities in the offspring of pregnant mice, rabbits and almost all other mammals, yet proper testing had never been carried out.
When a licence was being considered for Thalidomide in the early 1960s in the US, the company behind the drug were unable to supply the paperwork and certificates proving that sufficient animal testing had been carried out.
As a result the US refused to allow Thalidomide to be prescribed in the states, thus potentially saving thousands more.
Given that we can’t accurately predict all the side effects of new drugs without animal research, such research is essential if we are to avoid fresh tragedies.
The case for animal research is a simple one.
There is overwhelming scientific evidence showing that not only is animal research essentialto discover new drugs, but also that the animal testing of new drugs helps prevent horrific side effects.
And then all that remains is the moral value judgement, do you believe human life is more important than animal life?
Would you choose your sister above your pet?
If so, for now animal research is necessary and should be supported.

www.pro-test.org.uk