British Prime Minister Tony Blair contributed an opinion to The Telegraph today, and it seems to have been picked up by all the other UK media outlets, most of whom are covering his attitude toward the animal rights protestors who are engaging in direct action, not the animals themselves. For instance, I didn't see this part quoted in any of the articles I scanned before posting:
A growing number of stages of vital research and testing can now be done, thankfully, without the use of animals. We all hope that the time will come when no animal testing is needed at all. But that's not the case at the moment. The new techniques available, including the use of tissue cell cultures and computer modelling, are used widely but are not sophisticated enough to replicate all the biological functions of living organisms. There is no alternative for the foreseeable future to using animals if we are to see the full benefits of scientific advances.Until there is a proven, effective alternative to animal testing -- or a preponderance of evidence that shows animal research offers more cons than pros (to humans, natch) -- even slightly more animal-friendly governments are still going to support animal testing. It's abundantly clear that the vast majority of humans are willing to sacrifice animals to save human lives, assuming with little thought that whatever goes behind closed doors must be worth thousands or millions of animal lives to save just one human life. I have to wonder what's going to happen to our species' population, and the negative impact on our planet, when we are successful in treating every disease and living well over a hundred years. Even if we were to level off our global life expectancy now, our population will continue to grow... perhaps until a natural "correction" occurs.
Britain, of course, has a proud history of animal welfare and protection. We should be more assertive about one of the very toughest licensing and control regimes in the world which is being tightened continually as new replacement procedures become available. Testing on great apes including chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans is banned here. In 1998 this Government outlawed testing of cosmetics on animals.
The result is that experiments involving animals are subject to the tightest restrictions and monitoring. No animal procedures are allowed unless it can be demonstrated to an independent panel that the research is essential, that there is no realistic alternative and that any suffering is kept to an absolute minimum.
Of course I want to see animal research end, but I am certain it will not occur at the hands of activists who threaten business people and scientists. It will only end when the electorate and their governments believe this "necessary evil" is no longer necessary. Rather than spending time entrenching attitudes and creating victims, animals would be better served in the long run if the discussion was recast, new paths of scientific progress promoted (away from testing, of course), and if activists otherwise reached across the aisle to help legitimate researchers move away from animal testing and toward methods that are safer for people and more effective in providing valid scientific results.
In the meantime, we need to do everything we can to eliminate suffering until animals are no longer exploited for their natural or genetically-manipulated similarities to humans. In order to achieve this aim, of course, activists ought to press the government to require the treatment of animals in research to be entirely transparent to the public. The populace should know what scientists are doing to animals, how much money they're receiving, and for what kinds of work, as well as which ones have track records of cruelty, rather than taking every precaution with an animal's well-being, considering the circumstances. Hiding their work only makes it easier for scientists and lab assistants to downplay the inherent cruelty in animal research, and to allow society to sweep an important debate about the ethics of animal testing under the rug. How can one honestly and ethically weigh the pros and cons of this work if one is under- or misinformed?
Tags: Tony Blair | animal research | animal testing | vivisection
