Animal
Research Essential,
UK Government Says
Excerpt
By Manfreda
Cavazza, Reuter's Health
LONDON (Reuters Health) - Animal testing is essential for discovering
and testing human medicines, the British government said on Tuesday,
sparking anger and disappointment from animal rights groups.
In a speech to the Association of Medical Research Charities in
Northampton, Health Minister Lord Philip Hunt for the first time
set out in full the government's policy on the use of animals in
medical research.
"Of course, animals should only be used in experiments where
there is no alternative," he said. "But it is also clear that
properly regulated animal research is absolutely essential to
the discovery of new treatments, as well as to the assessment
of the safety and efficacy of medicines."
"That is why we have strengthened the law that protects all
involved in research--in the private, public and charitable sectors--to
ensure that this vital work can continue."
Britain's oldest animal laboratory, Huntingdon Life Sciences,
has been the target of a determined and sometimes violent campaign
by protesters to cut off its funding.
In January it quit the London stock market for the USA where
laws protecting shareholders are stronger, prompting the British
government to vow it would not allow other firms to be hounded
overseas.
"The Government endorses the right to democratic protest," Lord
Hunt said on Tuesday. "Equally, we condemn the violent intimidation
that has taken place, and have introduced strong measures against
harassment of people involved with animal research."
Andrew Tyler, director of Animal Aid, the largest animal rights
group in the UK, condemned the announcement, calling it "part
of a rather sordid and unconvincing propaganda offensive from
the Government, because the argument for animal testing is slipping
away from them."
"Scientists and physicians from France, Italy, Germany and the
US are all saying that data obtained from animal testing is not
reliable," Tyler said. "Humans act differently to animals. Animal
testing is simply not necessary and can even be a danger to public
health."
Jan Creamer, director of the National Anti-vivisection Society,
also expressed disappointment.
"We are just as in favour of medical research as anyone else.
We are people after all. But all we are asking is to give us a
chance to challenge the need for animal testing."
"Every time the government has issued licenses to use animal
testing, we have been able to find an alternative method," she
said.
Currently, most scientists believe that tests in animals are
still the best way to study disease or to gauge the effectiveness
of treatments before they are tried in humans.
Reference
Source 89
For more information on how to prevent other diseases, use
PreventDisease.com's "Quick
Prevention Resources".
|