We must welcome discussion, not be swayed by emotion
Last Friday, ISIS hosted a debate on the need for animal research, the venue being The Mitre pub in Oxford. The ‘pro’ side was represented by Laurie Pycroft and myself, and the ‘anti’ by Mel Broughton of SPEAK, and Kathie Archibald of the Europeans for Medical Progress (EMP).
Once Laurie and I had made our case, Mel Broughton called for a return to democracy stating that the anti-vivisectionists are not allowed to state their case! This was strange coming from someone who has served three years in prison for arson and who openly calls for action against those involved in research, and indeed the people of Oxford. What I found most surprising was an extended presentation by Kathie Archibald attempting to show that no benefit has come of animal research.
It even went so far as to state that aspirin, antibiotics, anaesthetics and even the work I do owe nothing to animal research. I pointed out several facts; if aspirin was not studied in animals we would not have the wide ranging anti-inflammatory medications that are so critical to treating arthritis.
She quotes Viox as a major disaster, but loses sight of the fact that the side effects occurred in a minute percentage of the millions of people that took the drug with great benefit (including my mother). She states that antibiotics were never developed using animals. However, Florey and Chain isolated penicillin here in Oxford and tested its efficacy in rats. The case in point is that the demand for a perfectly safe drug will never be met.
Animal research is vital to test many possible drugs for effect and may involve hundreds of rodents, and then a few primates. If the drug looks promising, a ‘phase one’ trial of safety in man is performed in perhaps a dozen people, followed by a ‘phase two’ trial with several hundred people for efficacy prior to release. Rare side effects will only become apparent once hundreds of thousands have taken a drug.
I see the terrible consequences of brain haemorrhage secondary to clot busting drugs in my role as a neurosurgeon, but realise that there are millions whose lives are saved by them. Archibald quotes that deep brain stimulation did not come from animal research but does not quote the work of Delagado (1950s) using bulls, or GW Harris here in Oxford using guinea pigs (1930s).
She quotes Dr Alim Benabid as introducing deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease, a piece of misinformation that he would be the first to deny. I am quoted by the EMP as claiming that I discovered deep brain stimulation, and not - as I stated - that I was central to discovering the subthalamic nucleus as a target for deep brain stimulation. The EMP has outshone itself in the use of misinformation on the basis that lies oft repeated end up being believed.
The attitude and their ability to do so will soon be limited by the number of times the advertising standards have found against them. Finally, Mel Broughton’s calls for democracy must be seen in the context of the past actions that have been taken by some activists against Oxford scientists. For example, the attacks on Professor Colin Blakemore, the arson against Oxford colleges, and harassment of the shareholders of the construction company of the laboratory.
I feel the British public are keen to hear how much animal research has benefited man and animals alike. In parting I would like to say that no medical treatment exists today or will exist in the future without animal research. Quoting scanning techniques, computer modelling, or cell cultures is misleading. Micro-dosing has nothing to do with drug safety or efficacy, only with how a drug is metabolised in the body.
11th May 2006