Animal testing: wrong or right?

A marmoset performs a behavioural task to assess sensori-motor control

It’s an argument which has raged for decades. My recent visit to a pharmaceutical animal lab didn’t help solve the debate on an issue so tangled in complex ethical dilemmas, but it did offer an insight into the lives of people involved in this line of work. I’m talking specifically about those responsible for the welfare of the animals – ensuring they are clean, comfortable, fed and watered – as they undergo scientific experiments lasting anything from a few months to a few years.

To the untrained eye, the rabbits, mice and guinea pigs huddled in their spotless stainless steel cages all look perfectly normal – but then, contrary to my earlier suspicions, a genetically modified mouse does not have three eyes. The same can’t be said for the marmosets, who shake uncontrollably as they attempt to climb their cage with wobbly, uncertain limbs while others crouch in a corner, staring vacantly. A few months earlier each one of them had undergone precision surgery to destroy a small part of their brains, stimulating the onset of Parkinson’s Disease.

The marmosets now undergo regular behavioural tasks for researchers to assess the effectiveness of new drugs to control the condition. Remarkable as it sounds, it’s hit and miss as to whether the new drugs will work. According to one staff member, only around one in ten experiments results in a successful medical breakthrough.

A recent investigation by Cardiff University revealed signs of “deep emotional trauma” among those who care for animals used in research – and little wonder. None of the people I spoke to felt able to talk about their work to anyone outside of family and close friends and all found it difficult putting animals ‘to sleep’ at the end of an experiment. And despite the common portrayal of these people by animal rights activists as torturers and murderers, all of them possessed a strong – surprising, even – affection for the animals in their care. As Carol (not her real name) told me: “I enjoy working with the animals, but really I wouldn’t want to see them here at all.”

Last month the European Commission proposed a ban on the use of great apes such as gorillas, chimpanzees and orang-utans in scientific experiments throughout the EU. However this is largely a token gesture – great apes have not been used in EU research for the past six years and UK regulations forbid their use. What we really need is more funding into research for alternatives to animal testing. (According to the Dr Hadwen Trust, just 0.00002% of Britain’s science budget is spent on government funding of non-animal replacements.)

Another shocking statistic – less than 10% of animal research worldwide accounts for medical procedures, the rest being down to toxicology tests for cosmetics and household cleaning products. Medical research is justifiable when there are no viable alternatives, but testing for vanity is both unnecessary and inhumane. For an extensive list of cruelty-free products check out the BUAV website.