It Makes You Wonder
These are some of the questions people ask about BUAV's opposition to animal experiments – and here are our answers.
Q: What's wrong with animal experiments?
Animal experimentation is morally unacceptable as it involves the deliberate infliction of suffering on another individual species, not for their benefit. We would find this wrong with humans and there is no rational argument for differentiating between us and other species that feel pain like we do. BUAV's case is strengthened by growing questions over the value of animal experimentation. Despite the use of 115 million animals worldwide, on average less than 30 brand new drugs are made available to patients via the main drug regulator every year. This is hugely wasteful. When alternatives to animal tests have been reviewed, they are often cheaper, quicker and more reliable.
Q: If animal experiments don't work, why are scientists and industry still using them?
Much more funding and political support is still given to animal-based research. And the conservatism of their industry means few scientists question animal experimentation. In one survey, only 49% of licensed
animal scientists knew that they had a legal obligation to use alternatives where possible. And sadly, some international regulators still require animal tests.
Q: If you're right, why doesn't the medical establishment agree with you?
The medical and scientific community is resistant to change – so it's difficult for individuals to challenge the status quo. However, growing numbers of eminent scientists are questioning the validity of animal experiments.
In fact, by its own admission, the UK uses more animals for research than any other country in Europe, and allows them to undergo a wide range of painful procedures and testing for everything from household products and food additives to recreational drugs. Industries often threaten to move overseas if animal welfare measures are strengthened, but there is no evidence that they do.
Q: What would you say to a person whose life has been saved by research on animals?
The fact that animals were used does not mean that they were the critical factor, or that there was not a better way. The BUAV wants to see cures for diseases, too – but we want an investment in modern, humane medicine that could lead to the breakthroughs we all desperately need.
Q: Why should I care about animals in research, when billions of them are used for the food industry?
With human rights abuses, we wouldn't justify one wrong by comparing it with another. These lab animals are subject to the deliberate infliction of pain and suffering: and so are worthy of our concern in their own right.
Q: How can you take medicines or have treatments in hospitals if you're opposed to animal experiments?
We can't change the past, so we would never ask people not to take existing medicines. All we can do is achieve change for the future, so medicines will be tested using more modern, humane methods.
Q: If it was the life of your child versus a rat, surely it's worth it?
This question assumes that one rat will provide a cure, when, in reality, millions of animals are used in research without a direct link to medical breakthroughs. Also: I may decide to save the life of my child over yours, but that does not give me the right to inflict pain and suffering on your child.
Q: Animal experiments have led to cures for all our major diseases, haven't they?
No. Non-animal research brought about breakthroughs in aspirin, antibiotics, anti-depressants, anaesthetics, asthma treatments and drugs for AIDS, leukaemia and cystic fibrosis. And sometimes animal research has actually hindered progress. When independently reviewed, animal tests predicted less than 50% results found in humans. You might as well toss a coin.
