Study will debate monkey future

[gertvegan]

23 March 2005, news.bbc.co.uk

A major study will examine what limits should be put on the continued use of non-human primates in UK experiments.

The review is being undertaken by four of Britain's leading medical and scientific organisations.

It follows the fractious arguments between the research community and the animal welfare lobby over the need for new testing centres in the country.

Some 3,000 primates - mostly marmoset and macaque monkeys - are used in British labs each year.

Three-quarters of them are employed in toxicology tests - checking to see if new drug compounds are likely to be harmful if carried forward into human trials.

Alternative route

Mainstream science has taken the view that monkeys' physiological similarities to humans - we are also primates - make them powerful tools to investigate the diseases and fundamental biology of people.

But that closeness also raises an acute ethical dilemma - and there is growing pressure for the relatively small numbers of non-human primates used in tests to be reduced still further.

But that closeness also raises an acute ethical dilemma - and there is growing pressure for the relatively small numbers of non-human primates used in tests to be reduced still further.

Now, the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Royal Society, the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust are setting up a working group to examine the recent, current and future scientific basis for biological and medical research involving non-human primates.

Click HERE for full article.

[gertvegan]

PROPAGANDA!

ANIMAL AID RESPONSE TO PROPOSED INQUIRY INTO PRIMATE RESEARCH

A prominent group of pro-animal experimentation research and scientific bodies* today announces a major study that will examine medical research using primates.

We fear, based on their track records showing a deep commitment to the use of all animals, that what will ensue is not a true and open assessment of whether or not primate research benefits human medicine, but merely a propaganda exercise designed to assuage public concern about whether the use of primates is justified morally and scientifically.

At a public inquiry in 2002 into Cambridge University's plans to build a new primate research centre, presided over by an independent Government inspector, evidence was submitted both for and against the use of primates in research. Animal Aid played a key role in coordinating scientific evidence against such research. The inspector concluded that the University had not substantiated its claims that the experiments would benefit human health nor that they were of 'national importance', and recommended that planning permission be turned down.

* comprising the Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust & Royal Society.

Click HERE to read The scientific case against primate research.

[tails4wagging]

BBC interviewed a scientist that said primates in the wild do not live long enough to get alzheimers or parkinsons but they do in captivity!!. So he was saying in other words lets lock um up for a few years so they can possibly get theses diseases!!.

[Spiral]

Did anyone see the BBC news yesterday? A nice biased piece showing the reporter being taken around a primate facility. All the monkeys looked relaxed ( before they'd been subjected to experimentation no doubt) and one monkey even put his leg out through the bars of the cage unpromted to have a blood sample taken (they're treated so well that they positively beg to be experimented on ). No footage of actual experiments of course, and the odious Colin Blakemore was interviewed making the usual excuses.

[Kevster]

BBC interviewed a scientist that said primates in the wild do not live long enough to get alzheimers or parkinsons but they do in captivity!!. So he was saying in other words lets lock um up for a few years so they can possibly get theses diseases!!.

Does that mean we live in captivity?.....

[gertvegan]

Study into primate research: pro-vivisection agenda exposed as campaigners put ban on election agenda

Uncaged Campaigns (1) can reveal that three of the four organisations behind the study, announced yesterday (23/03/05), into the scientific aspects of research on primates are part of a pro-vivisection propaganda coalition.

The Academy of Medical Sciences, the Medical Research Council (MRC), and the Wellcome Trust are all members of the self-styled 'Coalition for Medical Progress' (CMP), a drug industry-backed lobby group dedicated to promoting animal experiments and preventing proper regulation.

On its website the CMP claims that: "... a research project [cannot] start until the Home Office accepts the potential benefits justify any distress or suffering that might be caused to the animals." (2) However, an extraordinary legal victory, gained on public interest grounds by Mr Lyons and Uncaged in April 2003, revealed in unique fashion a catalogue of failure and severe suffering in pig organ transplant experiments on primates. (3) A complaint against the Government's failure to enforce regulations is still been investigated by the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

Uncaged also argue that the use of 117,359 animals in poisoning tests for unequivocally non-medical purposes (4) completely undermines the CMP claim that UK law requires that the suffering of animals has to be justified by the results of experiments.

Dan Lyons, director of Uncaged Campaigns, comments:

"The CMP is just the latest in a long line of organisations going back over 120 years who have been dedicated to frustrating the will of the public and Parliament. Their pretence that animal research is strictly regulated is designed to conceal the horrific truth of animal experimentation and prevent any real progress in tackling animal suffering. How can anyone have faith in an inquiry sponsored by groups with such an illegitimate agenda?"


Uncaged are also concerned that the launch statements from these organisations show that the outcome of the inquiry is a foregone conclusion. For example, the heads of the MRC and the Wellcome Trust both prejudge the inquiry by claiming that experiments on primates continue to be necessary. (5) Meanwhile, the President of the Academy of Medical Sciences implies that the goal of the inquiry is to advance the future needs of primate researchers rather than conduct an open-minded examination of the scientific issues surrounding primate experiments. (6)

Dan Lyons says:

"Unfortunately, there is no indication that this review will be conducted in an open and unbiased fashion. The scientific establishment appears to be incapable of self-reflection or genuine sensitivity to public opinion and ethical issues. What we have instead seems to be a self-serving political exercise designed to head off public pressure on the Government for a ban on primate experiments, which we will be actively pushing onto the agenda in the General Election campaign."

The article for references is here.