Bill Parry
Institute of Biology, 20 Queensberry Place, London SW7 2OZ

https://doi.org/10.36866/pn.44.9

Nothing is more conducive to bringing an issue to the fore than a crisis. The near closure of Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) by animal rights activists and an alarming rise in violent attacks by extremists have led researchers and the lucrative UK pharmaceutical industry to reconsider their futures here. In turn, society and the government have been forced to address this thorny issue before more harm is caused, and to engage in debate rather than skirt it.

For 14 years, Colin Blakemore, Waynflete Professor of Physiology at Oxford University, has campaigned to promote open, frank and constructive debate on the issue. In addition to his individual efforts, he co-founded the Boyd Group, which provides ‘a forum for the open exchange of views on issues of concern related to the use of animals in research.’ While such efforts have been supported by many (often tacitly), he, his family and colleagues have suffered the gamut of threats, abuse and attacks by animal rights activists.

I spoke to him at his office in Oxford, a room wallpapered to the ceiling with books concerning such things as the mind, brain, cognition, cloning and, somewhat surprisingly, St Augustine. I asked him about licensing procedures for animal experimentation, the government’s changing approach to the issue, and public perception and acceptance of this emotive and volatile issue. And, to confirm my suspicions, why the office doors throughout the building have just numbers, no names.

Licensing system

Britain has the most stringent animal research laws of any country, regulated and enforced by the Home Office. Gaining approval for a new Project Licence (and even for amendment of an existing Licence) is now a notoriously lengthy process and can result in significant delays relative to other countries: typically a few weeks in the United States and elsewhere in Europe, but six months or more in Britain. Do the licensing laws have his support? In spirit, absolutely. Blakemore feels they symbolise Britain’s commitment to high standards and that they promote the three Rs of animal use: replacement, reduction and refinement. However, he says ‘implementation is the problem; it has become incredibly bureaucratised,’ adding: ‘It is very difficult to compete scientifically when it takes so long to get permission.’

Part of the reason for delays, he says, is a shortage of Inspectors at the Home Office: not enough to review the licence applications efficiently, and not enough to inspect the facilities and monitor animal experiments adequately. This should soon see an improvement, as the Home Office announced on 22 March plans to increase the Inspectorate by 50% over the next three years. The introduction of an additional hurdle in the application procedure, namely the local Ethical Review Process (ERP), has also undoubtedly contributed to delays. Blakemore hopes and expects that the review of ERP, now being undertaken by the Home Office, might lead to streamlining of the procedure.

New Labour

However, some of the delays were political, Blakemore feels. During its first two years in office, Labour endorsed and pursued policies sympathetic to animal welfare and rights organisations. Animal welfare groups, which had donated £2.1 million to the Labour party, believed and expected that radical legislative changes were imminent. Labour quickly realised, however, that certain policies were untenable, such as a Royal Commission on animal experimentation, which had been proposed in a pre-Manifesto document. There now seems to be rather general agreement that such a lengthy and costly exercise is not justified only a decade or so after the introduction of the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The number of animals used in scientific procedures, which had steadily declined by 50% over the previous two decades, actually saw a small rise in Labour’s first two years in office. Although this was clearly due to a rapid expansion in the use of transgenic animals, which can provide remarkably effective models of human disease, the rise in animal use tarnished Labour’s ‘animal-friendly’ image. Blakemore wonders whether the increasing delays in processing Licence applications might initially have been welcomed by the government, since it gave the impression of a tougher approach to licensing, and, conveniently, to counter the rise in animal use.

Newer Labour

Blakemore notes a considerable, positive change in Labour’s policies over the last eight months. He comments: ‘Labour realised that their loose pre-election pledges and initial stance may actually have stimulated a rise in terrorism and activism, by raising false expectations.’ He also speaks optimistically and supportively of Lord Sainsbury’s recognition of the scientific community’s concerns, which Sainsbury has committed the government to addressing and resolving.

But are Labour’s changes too late, as many argue, particularly in the light of recent events at HLS? Labour’s response has sent a clear, albeit belated, message of its support and commitment to researchers and the industry. Blakemore is, however, convinced that significant damage has already been caused: ‘It is hard to imagine that a major drug company would set up a new research facility in this country because of the present climate and lack of support in the past from government.’ He adds: ‘I think if HLS goes down, there will be a migration of drug companies out of Britain.’

To put the consequences of such a migration into perspective, some figures: the UK pharmaceutical industry provides £7 million of research investment per day, according to the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI). The industry employs some 60,000 people, 15,000 of whom are highly skilled scientists, and employs another 250,000 in service industries. It earns £2 billion a year for the UK economy in its balance of trade. According to Blakemore, its level of reinvestment in research and development is proportionately higher than any other industry in the UK, and its contribution to the economy is huge.

Criminal Justice & Police Bill

Labour is now attempting to curb animal rights extremism in a number of ways, including the addition of critical amendments to the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, which was rushed through before the end of the parliamentary session. Blakemore welcomes the proposed changes to this, particularly now that it will clearly help to protect academic staff as well as individuals working for commercial organisations. He speaks enthusiastically of a meeting with Jack Straw, who conveyed Tony Blair’s personal commitment to oppose extremism.

But does he feel that the proposed changes to the law are sufficient? ‘It depends on how animal rights activists and the courts respond to the new law. I have no doubt that the activists will try to challenge it,’ he says. If there is a continuing series of large, well-organised demonstrations involving scores of protestors at different locations around the country, he imagines ‘it would be difficult for the police to implement the law.’ Much will depend on the attitudes of the courts: ‘In the end it’s up to a magistrate or a judge to decide if someone is guilty; I think we’ll see a battle in the courts, with this issue represented as a challenge to the freedom of speech.’

This issue of ‘freedom of speech’ touches a nerve in Blakemore: ‘I like to think that I am, by nature, a libertarian and I wouldn’t want to interfere with anyone’s freedom of speech. On the other hand, I’ve suffered at the receiving end of terrible harassment. It’s a disgusting tactic, clearly aimed at depriving me and other scientists of our freedoms of expression. I can’t imagine any circumstances, at least in a proper democracy, in which it’s a necessary part of personal freedom to allow protestors to express their views so forcefully outside the home of someone they have decided to target. A single-issue group or terrorist group, in choosing to target an individual in this way, is taking the law into their own hands, acting as judge, jury and executioner, and meting out their punishment not only on their chosen victim but also on his or her family and neighbours. That contradicts the whole process of the democratic rule of law, and deprives the victim of the basic right to a fair hearing. I can’t see that it’s an essential part of freedom of speech. There are always other ways and other places to protest.’

Changing Public Opinion

A shift in public opinion, Blakemore says, is imperative – and there are positive signs of this. When asked the simple question, ‘Should scientists be allowed to use animals in research?’ a majority of the public are opposed. However, when informed that such research is required to understand diseases and to create safe treatments, a majority support it. To him this proves that people are perfectly able to perform a quite sophisticated cost-benefit analysis – if they have the facts. He cites the fact that public support for animal research actually increased during the intense media coverage of the attack on HLS, despite ‘the very frank presentation about the role of animals.’ This shows, he says, that ‘the public are willing to listen to things that they don’t really want to hear, and to weigh benefits against costs. We shouldn’t underestimate their capacity to understand what is done and why it has to be done.’

Part of the problem in shifting public opinion, however, is in making information readily available. In preparation for this interview with Blakemore, I spent many hours searching for material from various websites and had to try to determine its validity and veracity. Should the public have to seek out reliable information, or should such information find them? Animal rights activists, in contrast, are extremely effective in promoting their views either via media coverage or on the High Street. Blakemore identifies five groups that could and should work to promote awareness and inform public opinion: scientists, drug companies, the government, the medical profession and the media. ‘Scientists must be much more willing to talk about what they do,’ he says. ‘When we describe our research, we shouldn’t hide the fact that animals are involved. We should be absolutely upfront.’ The veil of secrecy surrounding their work has given rise to the ‘notion that researchers are eccentric boffins doing horrid things to animals behind locked doors,’ he says.

Drug companies, he feels, should shoulder more responsibility in the debate, for two main reasons: they are increasingly a target of activists, and they have the money to do so.

In addition to implementing and enacting laws, the government should ensure that school pupils are better informed about the uses of animals, including in research. ‘Schools are crucial,’ says Blakemore. ‘The National Curriculum should include more explicit topics on the use of animals, with good coverage of scientific and medical arguments, as well as the moral objections, so that every kid will think about the issue, write essays about it, debate it.’

Ninety-five percent of medical doctors support the continuation of animal research, and they could play a crucial role in informing the public about it. Blakemore says they should feel an obligation to do so, since their training and the medications they prescribe are dependent on animal research. In addition, he says, ‘the public still trust doctors more than they trust scientists, the media or politicians.’ Yet the majority of doctors are reluctant to voice their support openly, like many, for fear of the potential reprisals by activists.

Blakemore proposes ‘a disclaimer at the bottom of every prescription, stating: “The treatment you are receiving was developed through the use of animals and was safety-tested on animals.” In this way people would be reminded of the necessary role animal testing plays in developing medicines, and would see a direct, personal benefit.

He believes that the media ought to take a more serious approach, ‘not just presenting the animal issue in sentimental or sensational terms, but discussing it frankly and dispassionately when they report medical breakthroughs.’ The public should be told how those benefits were arrived at.

Food for thought

The current Foot and Mouth crisis presented the UK with horrific images of carcasses piled high awaiting disposal and of pyres illuminating the night sky. As this article goes to press, some 1600 confirmed cases have accounted for the slaughter of over 2.8 million healthy but potentially infected cattle, sheep, pigs and goats, according to MAFF, all in order to eradicate the virus – and, more importantly, to restore exports. We are appalled by the carnage and the wasted life and revenue, but generally accept it as a necessary evil. Surprisingly, animal welfare groups have been generally quiet on this issue.

The number seems large, but to put it into perspective, we slaughter some 700 million animals a year for food. By comparison, we use about 2.6 million animals in lab research, 83.1% of which are mice and rats (in contrast, cats, dogs and primates combined accounted for 0.6%, according to data published by the ABPI [1999 statistics]). In addition, for every rat used in scientific research, we exterminate 10 as pests. It seems odd that scientific researchers and pharmaceutical companies, working to improve our lives, should be the primary target of animal welfare groups when a vastly greater number of animals, subject to less stringent welfare control laws, are reared for human consumption. Blakemore agrees: ‘The total number of animals used in the UK translates to just over two rodents per person per lifetime as your total contribution to the improvement in human health. How does that compare with the number of chickens you eat each week? When you consider all the ways in which people use animals, from hunting them and eating them, to wearing bits of them, using them to advance science and to cure disease seems just about the most noble use. And yet it provokes the most vociferous criticism.’

Colin Blakemore speaks passionately and openly about his views. Despite the appalling violence and intimidation he and his family have endured – and still endure – his continued commitment to addressing the issue, to raising awareness and to soliciting constructive dialogue with all sides in the debate must be respected, whatever your views on animal testing. Only through such openness, free of threats and violence, can suspicion be eroded, understanding and consensus reached, and common goals identified and realised.

Links:

www.boyd-group.demon.co.uk
The Boyd Group: In addition to information about the Group and its policies, ethos and work, there are links to animal welfare organisations; anti-vivisection societies; bodies that fund or are directly engaged in research involving animals; legislation; scientific societies and professional associations; philosophical resources; and veterinary organisations.

www.abpi.org.uk
The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry: the trade association for about 100 companies in the UK producing prescription medicines.

www.rds-online.org.uk
The Research Defence Society is the leading organisation in the UK which represents scientists in the public and political debate about the use of animals in medical research.

www.bret.org.uk
The Biomedical Research Education Trust is a charity that provides secondary schools with speakers and educational materials about the humane and responsible use of animals in medical research.