Jan Creamer and Simon Festing disagree

Dear Simon,

Every year millions of animals die in unviable experiments.  Each species responds differently to substances and laboratory results not only vary between species but also between laboratories, for the same species.   Studies show that these results are affected by the animal’s characteristics, its diet and keep.

Examples of such species differences are: morphine calms people and rats, but excites cats and mice; aspirin causes birth defects in cats and dogs, but not in people; penicillin kills guinea pigs.   Animal research also causes delays through misleading information – blood transfusions were delayed over 200 years.

Medical science’s progress without animal experiments includes: the inventor of the artificial hip, John Charnley, never using animals; introducing anaesthetic substances; asepsis – understanding sterile techniques; discovering the link between cancer and smoking.

Most research does not involve animals, but uses sophisticated solutions such as scanning, tissue culture, computer modelling, analysis and databases.  These techniques have direct relevance to humans.

The Lord Dowding Fund for Humane Research spends around £300,000 annually, funding non-animal research projects such as the latest neuro-imaging techniques to examine the human brain, instead of placing bolts and electrodes into the heads of terrified monkeys.   Given the choice, which data would you trust – especially if your life depended upon it?

Yours, Jan

Dear Jan,

Throughout the world people live longer and enjoy a better quality of life, because of advances made possible through medical research, and the development of new medicines and other treatments.

It is a great success that most research is now carried out in cell-cultures, computers or with patients. But you cannot study a beating heart in a test-tube, nor get your computer to cough! At certain stages of most biomedical studies there is no alternative to using animals, and they remain a small but vital part of medical research.

Leading doctors and medical organisations around the world agree that virtually every medical advance of the past century depended on the use of animals in some way. Numerous independent inquiries have concluded that animal research provides information which can be relevant to humans and does lead to medical benefits - contrary to anti-vivisection claims.

Certainly some drugs behave differently in some animals. That is why scientists choose species very carefully, use control groups in their experiments, and take dose effects into account. If proof of species similarities were needed, up to 90 per cent of veterinary medicines are the same as, or very similar to, those used to treat human patients.

Yours, Simon

Dear Simon,

To claim that improvements in quality and expectancy of life have relied upon animal research is a gross overstatement.  History demonstrates that the real reasons are improvements in nutrition, lifestyle, hygiene and sanitation. Declining mortality was mainly due to a reduction of infectious diseases, which declined before therapies were introduced.  The World Health Organisation estimates that diseases related to dirty water account for 30,000 child deaths every day. Such findings have made a huge contribution to the nation’s health.

Many medical advances have been achieved without animals – inhalation anaesthetics, drugs for leukaemia and numerous others. Animal experiments can even delay medical progress.

The physiological differences between species flaws animal tests – the wrong body and cells are being used. The drug tamoxifen was designed as an oral contraceptive – it worked in rats, but had the opposite effect in women; it is now a successful breast cancer treatment in women yet causes cancer in rats.

A more modern, scientific approach, such as the advanced techniques that we fund, is needed: combinations of computer technology, tissue cultures, human data, human and environmental studies. These systems can be based on human data, avoiding the problem of species differences.  The way forward in medical research is studies at the cellular level, using advanced techniques – a more intelligent approach.

Yours, Jan

Dear Jan,

There is much concern about a global epidemic of influenza, a killer disease which strikes down the vulnerable - the young, the elderly and the sick. It killed more soldiers during World War I than died in combat. Mice get influenza. The most recent medicine for the prevention and treatment of this disease was developed in animals and is highly effective.

Of course anti-vivisection groups raise all sorts of spurious pseudo-scientific arguments against animal research. That's their job. But they have no credibility.

We've had three major independent inquiries in the UK into animal research in the past four years (from a House of Lords Committee, the Animal Procedures Committee and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics). None of these committees had a vested interest in animal research. All included people with non-scientific backgrounds.

The reports examined all aspects of the debate, and considered the scientific arguments in great depth. They all concluded that animal research provides information which can be of relevance to humans and does lead to medical benefits. In every case they rejected claims by anti-vivisection groups to the contrary.

The most intelligent approach is to use the best technology available. Sometimes that's cell-cultures or computers. Sometimes it's animals.

That's the approach of every major research institute in the world. And it's highly successful.

Yours, Simon

Dear Simon,

Influenza virus does not make your case either - the viruses constantly mutate. The ‘pseudo-scientific’ comment just reduces the debate to name-calling.  If you consider our evidence scientifically unsound you have either not read the subject, or you are claiming that the authors of the papers that we use (published in scientific journals) are pseudo-scientists.

You mislead us about the inquiries; they only drew evidence from a small sector of the community and had a broad remit rather than a detailed examination of the efficacy of animal research. It was inevitable that they would be cautious and not challenge the status quo.  However, animal research was criticised by the House of Lords and development of more advanced techniques recommended.  At the Cambridge Public Inquiry, both sides were asked to put the case on the ‘need’ for tests on monkeys, and after hearing the evidence the Inspector concluded that the need had not been demonstrated.

Like any entrenched industry, animal researchers are resistant to change. Your group even opposed banning cosmetic tests on animals. Researchers use the tools available – if they have an animal house then it will be animals. They are unlikely to transfer the work to another scientist.

Yours, Jan

Dear Jan,

After consulting widely, the independent House of Lords Committee stated in 2002 it was ‘convinced that experiments on animals have contributed greatly to scientific advances, both for human medicine and for animal health. Animal experimentation is a valuable research method which has proved itself over time.’ A Royal Society report in 2004 agreed: ‘virtually every medical achievement in the past century [was] reliant on the use of animals in some way.’

The House of Lords Committee also took a thorough look at anti-vivisection claims. It concluded that ‘sentimental and sometimes misleading information is disseminated by some anti-vivisection groups.’ Contrary to your claim, RDS played a major role in achieving the UK ban on cosmetics testing using animals in 1997.

Most animal research is for biomedical purposes and involves rodents. In neuroscience for instance, studies of mice that mimic aspects of Alzheimer's disease have led to human trials of new ways to prevent memory loss. Recent research using rats is now showing benefits for patients paralysed by spinal injury. But sometimes in complex brain disorders we have to study higher animals. Deep brain stimulation, an operation that has transformed the lives of about 200,000 patients with Parkinson’s disease, arose directly from research using monkeys.

Yours, Simon

Jan Creamer is Chief Executive, Animal Defenders International

Dr Simon Festing is Executive Director, RDS Understanding Animal Research in Medicine