Friday, November 09, 2007
Animal testing rises in Britain and France
The Guardian
Animal testing rises
Research using animals in the EU rose by 3.2% between 2002 and 2005. It is now time for a mature debate on the issue.
November 8, 2007 4:42 PM
New figures released by the EU today on animal testing reveal that the number of animals used in experiments went up by 3.2% between 2002 and 2005. UK researchers are second on the list in terms of numbers of animals used behind France.
In 2005 EU researchers used 12.1m animals in experiments - 78% were rodents, mostly mice. As in 2002, no great apes (chimps, gorillas or orang utans) were used in research but just over 10,000 primates were used, very slightly more than in 2002.
Testing in France and Britain rose by 5% and 3% respectively. While Germany, in third place in terms of the number of animals used, cut its testing by 12%.
The number of animals used in costmetics testing increased by 50% to 5571. Almost all of this testing occurred in France despite a 1999 European directive banning the use of animals for cosmetics testing. All member states must adhere to the directive by 2009 and by 2012 no cosmetic can be sold or marketed in the EU that has been tested on animals. No cosmetic testing using animals took place in Britain.
There is no doubt that using animals in research is necessary. It is simply impossible to answer many questions without them. And the British public are broadly in favour too, so long as the experiments are justified and tightly regulated. A YouGov poll carried out in May last year found that 70% believe that animal testing is justified and 72% say there is no alternative.
But that is not to say that the scientists should have carte blanche to do what they want. By their actions, a small number of animal extremists have created a bunker mentality amongst scientists who feel that any questioning of animals experiments is "playing into the hands of the other side". This is wrong and has been bad for proper debate on the issue. Thankfully it now seems to be changing.
At this year's British Association Festival of Science a report from the CAMARADES Collaboration that reviewed 288 animal studies of prospective treatments for stroke concluded that many animal experiments are flawed. The report found that animal studies frequently do not use experimental techniques that are the "gold standard" for clinical trials.
For example, only a third of the studies randomised which animals went into the treatment and control groups. And in only a third of cases were the experimenters who assessed the expeimental outcome blinded to the whether each animal had been given the treatment or not - a well known source of unconscious bias.
Another problem highlighted by the EU's Science and Research Commissioner Janez Potocnik today is that too often the same tests are duplicated - particularly by companies not willing to share data.
Now that some of the poision has been drawn from the animal testing debate perhaps we can have a more productive discussion about how scientists can carry out animal experiments more effectively and - where possible - reduce the numbers involved.
Comments
Animal testing rises
Research using animals in the EU rose by 3.2% between 2002 and 2005. It is now time for a mature debate on the issue.
November 8, 2007 4:42 PM
New figures released by the EU today on animal testing reveal that the number of animals used in experiments went up by 3.2% between 2002 and 2005. UK researchers are second on the list in terms of numbers of animals used behind France.
In 2005 EU researchers used 12.1m animals in experiments - 78% were rodents, mostly mice. As in 2002, no great apes (chimps, gorillas or orang utans) were used in research but just over 10,000 primates were used, very slightly more than in 2002.
Testing in France and Britain rose by 5% and 3% respectively. While Germany, in third place in terms of the number of animals used, cut its testing by 12%.
The number of animals used in costmetics testing increased by 50% to 5571. Almost all of this testing occurred in France despite a 1999 European directive banning the use of animals for cosmetics testing. All member states must adhere to the directive by 2009 and by 2012 no cosmetic can be sold or marketed in the EU that has been tested on animals. No cosmetic testing using animals took place in Britain.
There is no doubt that using animals in research is necessary. It is simply impossible to answer many questions without them. And the British public are broadly in favour too, so long as the experiments are justified and tightly regulated. A YouGov poll carried out in May last year found that 70% believe that animal testing is justified and 72% say there is no alternative.
But that is not to say that the scientists should have carte blanche to do what they want. By their actions, a small number of animal extremists have created a bunker mentality amongst scientists who feel that any questioning of animals experiments is "playing into the hands of the other side". This is wrong and has been bad for proper debate on the issue. Thankfully it now seems to be changing.
At this year's British Association Festival of Science a report from the CAMARADES Collaboration that reviewed 288 animal studies of prospective treatments for stroke concluded that many animal experiments are flawed. The report found that animal studies frequently do not use experimental techniques that are the "gold standard" for clinical trials.
For example, only a third of the studies randomised which animals went into the treatment and control groups. And in only a third of cases were the experimenters who assessed the expeimental outcome blinded to the whether each animal had been given the treatment or not - a well known source of unconscious bias.
Another problem highlighted by the EU's Science and Research Commissioner Janez Potocnik today is that too often the same tests are duplicated - particularly by companies not willing to share data.
Now that some of the poision has been drawn from the animal testing debate perhaps we can have a more productive discussion about how scientists can carry out animal experiments more effectively and - where possible - reduce the numbers involved.
Comments
# posted by jaredcow @ 11:24 AM 
