 |
Above: The emphasis in Professor Delgrado's research is the exact placing of the electrodes. His ability to implant them in large numbers in the brains of monkeys, cats and sometimes humans gives him complete control of his subject. This is useful in extreme cases of epilepsy or serious mental illness.
The NVS effectively points out that drugs passed as safe in animal tests have gone on to kill, or cause suffering in humans, while potentially beneficial drugs may be rejected because they initially proved dangerous to animals. The NAVS identifies species differences and the artificial nature of the laboratory as a "fundamental flaw" in animal research.
"You cannot be confident that anything you might extrapolate from animal experiments can be applied to humans." Said Ms Creamer.
The pro-vivisection AMRIC counters that scientists know how information obtained from laboratory animals provides clues to what they are likely to find in humans "Laboratory animal science is very exact", said Marjorie Johnson. "Scientists establish the best animal to use, they understand the difference and translate his knowledge into information which is useful to prepare human studies."
The number of experiments on animals has been falling in recent years, from 5.3 million in 1977 to 3.6 million in 1986 by the Animals (Scientific procedures) Act. In the debate leading up to the 1987 act, animal-rights campaigners asked the government to ban the following animal experiments.
The LD50 test, in which substances which might effect eyes or skin, or might be drunk or eaten were tested on animals force fed with the product until 50% die; and the Draize Eye Irritancy test, where products such as hair spray or shampoo are dripped or sprayed into the eye of the rabbit to establish what effect they might have on humans.
The new act did not ban these tests. Indeed the NAVS claims that the act was retrograde, but allowing certain procedures no previously allowed. The supporters of vivisection contend that the new act is tighter. Research projects must now be approved before they can begin.
The researchers must explain to government inspectors, who maintain a closer scrutiny of the animal research establishments than in many other state-supervised operations, what they want to do and why; why a certain animal is to be used; if its likely to suffer distress and how this will be minimised.. Every research project must be justified, as must the potential benefit of the research. If the distress to the animal is not justified by the importance of the work, the inspectors may not approve it.
The NAVS argues that government spending on alternative research methods is tiny compared to the sums spent on vivisection. It has gone on to fund its own research through the Lord Dowding Fund for Humane Research.
Above:Of similar build to man, the pig is increasingly used in vivisection experiments. Here, enclosed in a watertight tank, it is submitted to varying doses of radiation, with a view to establishing the appropriate response in the case of nuclear accidents
Its proposals include using human placenta as a medium on which surgeons may prasctice micro-surgery and the use of human cells in culture and human muscle tissue to study the growth of cancer cells. It proposes increased emphasis on preventative rather than medicine, an the pursuit of better health through improved diet, allied to a reduction in additives and chemicals, and a change in lifestyle.
The vivisectionists acknowledge that they are now able to do things in isolated cells cultures they were not able to do even five years ago, and a large amount of cancer work is carried out on human tumour tissue.
"But we are not going to get the same results from decaying tissue said AMRIC's Marjorie Johnson,"and in animals we are looking at the whole system, not just individual tissues. A drug for the heart may have an effect on the kidney. We can't look at those things in isolated cells."
AMRIC also play down the value of technological alternatives to animal research, such as molecular modelling, the use of computers in drug design.
Computers allow researchers to do more work in a shorter period. But its very difficult to carry out, for instance, toxicity testing. The problem is our understanding of what to put into the computer. How can we tell a computer what is likely to