Julia Stephenson: The Green Goddess
While
the debate rages on, lab rats are still suffering
The last time I visited the Houses of Parliament was seven years
ago to have tea with my then romantic interest,
who was a member of the House of Lords. It was a comforting occasion,
with homely waitresses, toasted teacakes and lashings of "your lordships".
This antiquated vision has fortunately been swept away and replaced
by Blair's hand-picked cronies. Far more democratic!
I only share this blast from my past because
my most recent visit wasn't so comforting. For a start, the queues!
It's easier to get through customs at Tel Aviv airport these days
than through security at the House of Commons.
This time I was attending a debate: "Is animal experimentation
helpful to medicine?" Pro-vivisectionists Professor Colin Blakemore,
chief executive of the Medical Research Council,
and Dr Simon Festing, executive director of the Research Defence Society
were ranged against Dr Jarrod Bailey, science director of Europeans
for Medical Progress, and Dr John Pippin, consultant to the Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine.
Drs Bailey and Pippin explained how human tissue,
imaging, computer models and microdosing offer more reliable data
than can ever be obtained from animals.
Exciting developments like pharmacogenomics
that use human DNA chips allow the right medicines
to be prescribed for the right patients. This
reduces adverse drug reactions, which kill
thousands of people and cost the NHS £500m
every year.
Owing to habit and cost, most companies still
rely on animal tests - even though they often
fail to predict hazards for humans. The arthritis
drug Vioxx was linked with fatal heart attacks
and strokes, though tests in mice and monkeys
had shown it was "safe".
Testing on animals tells us about animals, not
people. Aspirin can be fatal to cats; penicillin kills guinea pigs;
arsenic poisons humans but not sheep; lemon juice poisons cats and
rabbits; thalidomide can be hazardous to humans but is safe for most
animals; 30 HIV vaccines worked well in monkeys but all have failed
in human trials; 700 stroke treatments have succeeded in animals but
not one has succeeded in patients.
I was shocked that instead of refuting any of
these arguments, Dr Festing (who has never been a research scientist)
suddenly began accusing Dr Pippin of being a radical animal rights
campaigner and connected to Peta. Dr Pippin reiterated he had no links
with any animal rights groups or charities, that he was a fully paid-up
scientist and committed to proving the ineffectiveness of animal testing
through scientific means only.
It makes me livid that anyone who argues against
vivisection is branded a radical (some of us are quite reasonable).
This tarnishes the fair-minded guardians of animal welfare and makes
it harder for them to get a fair hearing.
Interestingly, Dr Festing's father is a consultant
for Harlan UK, which is one of the world's largest suppliers of animals
to research laboratories. He also holds financial interests in a number
of pharmaceutical companies, including GlaxoSmithKline and Celltech.
The tragic thing is that while we humans bicker
and pharmaceutical companies line their pockets, in laboratories all
over the world animals are suffering unimaginably agonising deaths
when there are already far more effective testing methods available.
j.stephenson@independent.co.uk
|
