Worries over lab animals decision

Abstract

The move by a British farm raising animals for research to pull out in the face of animal rights activists has caused widespread concern and fears that new legislation to limit their activities may not be working. Nigel Williams reports. The move by a British farm raising animals for research to pull out in the face of animal rights activists has caused widespread concern and fears that new legislation to limit their activities may not be working. Nigel Williams reports. The British government and some of the country’s leading scientists have reacted with anger and frustration to the decision to end breeding of animals at a farm that has been relentlessly targeted by animal rights protesters, warning that there could be severe consequences for clinical research in the country, in spite of new legislation this year limiting their activities. The decision by the owners of Darley Oaks farm in Newchurch, Staffordshire follows a six-year campaign, one of several by animal rights activists that have caused growing concern in parliament. Though Darley Oaks farm’s announcement caused jubilation among animal rights activists, the government responded robustly, condemning the way that many protesters behaved. “It is wholly unacceptable that a small minority of animal extremists should mount a campaign of fear and intimidation in an attempt to stop individuals and companies going about their lawful and legitimate business,” a spokesman for the Department of Trade and Industry said. The chair of the science and technology select committee, Ian Gibson, who was one of the driving forces behind the government’s initial decision to act, said the decision showed the government “must now do more” to prevent the protesters. “This illustrates how we have got to be even more vigilant and prevent this kind of thing happening in the future. People are feeling really victimized and intimidated. It is completely unacceptable.” His view was echoed across the political spectrum. The Conservative MP Michael Fabricant, whose constituency includes the farm, described the protesters as “animal rights terrorists”. “It is a sad day when terror tactics are seen, albeit wrongly, to have succeeded and the rule of law in our country to have failed,” he said. Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat science spokesman, called the news “a victory for terrorism and extremism”. “The government must do more to protect the remaining sites where animal breeding and research takes place – it is a lawful, legitimate and valuable activity which is a vital tool in producing new medical treatments,” he said. “Animal rights extremists who use violence, intimidation and harassment to further their ends must be shunned and exposed.” Although the government also moved to reassure the scientific community that another supplier would replace Darley Oaks farm, which breeds guinea pigs, the news also prompted fresh fears about research in the UK. More than 500 UK scientists and clinicians pledged their support for animal testing in research in a document drawn up by the Research Defence Society. They supported a statement stating that a “a small but vital” part of medical research involves animals. The declaration, which is not linked to the Darley Oak’s decision, comes 15 years after a similar declaration by the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Simon Festing, executive director of RDS said: “We are delighted to have gathered 500 signatures from top UK academic scientists and doctors in less than one month. It shows the strength and depth of support for humane animal research in this country.” Wherever possible, the statement continues, animal experiments must be replaced by methods that do not use them, and the number of animals in research must be reduced. “We would rather not use any animals and we try hard to find alternatives,” said geneticist Robin Lovell-Badge, of the National Institute for Medical Research in London. The statement also promises to be more open about animal experimentation, urging research establishments to “provide clear information and promote rational discussion”. “We have seen a mood of increased openness amongst researchers over the last two years,” said Festing. “We are building on that and the declaration will help.” The new legislation became law earlier this year but has yet to be fully tested. It aims to crack down on the intimidation of companies involved in animal experimentation, making it an offence to protest outside employees’ homes. It also allows activists to be banned from returning to places with the intention of attempting to force people to stop doing things — such as animal experimentation — which are allowed by law.