Cheltenham MP leads fight against animal testing
CHELTENHAM MP Martin Horwood is heading up a political campaign to reduce the level of scientific research on animals in the UK.
More than 250 MPs have signed the Lib Dem's early day motion, which calls on the Government to take action over animal testing.
-
The petition is the fifth most popular out of more than 2,000 EDMs submitted by members.
Mr Horwood said: "I am absolutely delighted by the response from right across the House of Commons, including more than 120 Labour MPs, more than 50 Conservatives and nearly all of the parliamentary Liberal Democrat party.
"I think this demonstrates a mood for change and for much more active promotion of alternatives to animal research."
Animals in UK laboratories are used to test new medicines and pharmaceutical products, among others.
The EDM is supported by Cheltenham- based campaign group Naturewatch and highlights statistics which show more than 3.5 million animal experiments were carried out in the UK last year.
Dawn Lewis, campaign manager for Naturewatch, said: "Given sufficient funding and support, humane scientific research is the way forward.
"Non-animal alternatives are becoming a reality. Through the EDM, Parliament has demonstrated solid support for humane scientific research. This sends a clear message to Government to take immediate and positive steps to promote non-animal alternatives and reduce the number of animals in experiments.
"Mr Horwood's support for EDM 545 has been invaluable in achieving this wonderful result."
Among the MPs to have signed the EDM are Labour MP for Stroud David Drew and Gloucester's Labour MP Parmjit Dhanda.
High-profile signatories include Jacqui Smith, Vince Cable, Menzies Campbell, Charles Kennedy, Oliver Letwin and Anne Widdecombe.
Non-animal research methods were highlighted as part of last month's Cheltenham Science Festival.
A spokesman for Pro-Test, which supports testing, said procedures involving animals could save human lives. He said: "Pro-Test, backed by the weight of scientific literature, believes that animal experimentation is both scientifically useful and valid.
"From antibiotics to blood trans- fusions to chemotherapy, practically every present-day protocol for the prevention, treatment, cure and control of disease, pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained through research with lab animals.
"Scientists and their lab technicians care deeply about the welfare of the animals they work with and are often animal lovers themselves.
"The UK has one of the tightest systems of regulation in the world and, wherever possible, animals are anaesthetised during testing, meaning they feel no pain."
5 Comments
by Chris, Glos
Sunday, July 26 2009, 7:13PM
“So we have a 'Have Your Say' on makers of child porn and drug dealers merely getting cautions where the general consensus appears to be that we are too soft on criminals and there is no deterrent to crime and we have another on alternatives to animal testing, am I the only person that can see a way of killing two birds with one stone?
Repeat offenders and those who commit serious offences void their human rights and their time at Her Majesty's leisure is used to give something back to mankind in the form of advancing medical research, it's win-win.
No more animal testing, no flawed results from a lack of human test subjects and a real deterrent to ending up in prison.”
by Beth, Cheltenham
Sunday, July 26 2009, 4:02PM
“"If not animals?" ....Modern scientific methods, including tissue engineering, computer modelling and "bio-chips" are replacing some of the need for animal testing. Scientists in the UK have already developed an artificial human airway that is used to test the toxicity of airborne pollutants and drugs, and not an animal in sight. Moreover these non-animal methods have the potential to produce results more relevant to you and I - surely a good thing.
Good science isn't about sticking in the same old rut, it's about good practice in scientific method that uses the right tools for the job and stretching the boundaries.
It's good to see that some of our MP's have the foresight to recognise this, that there is a better way.”
by Mrs Dell, Cheltenham
Sunday, July 26 2009, 12:13PM
“Ultimately any new drug needs testing on humans, even when animal tests have been used; the results of animal tests are only borne out in humans about 25% of the time. Thalidomide is only the best known example of the information gleaned from animal testing proving wrong when applied to humans. Where animal models have proved reliable it is usually in instances where the same illness or condition naturally occurs in the animal used, diabetes for example occurs in a number of species; since human physiology differs from that of most animals used in testing animal tests can only be of limited reliability.”
by Anon, Cheltenham
Sunday, July 26 2009, 9:59AM
“Whilst I'm sure that there is a lot of testing that doesn't need to be done on animals - I mean do we really need to test each new shampoo on animals? I am sure there is a lot of testing done which for now cannot be done any other way, unless of course people are going to volunteer to have tests done on them which could permanently harm them, or even kill them.”
by George Davis, Cheltenham
Saturday, July 25 2009, 2:51PM
“If not animals, then people. I assume our MP will put himself forward as a test bed. Good luck to him.”