This petition supports members of the UK Parliament who are signing Early Day Motion 373
By signing this petition your letter will be sent to scientists directly from, and supportive of, the animal experimentation community, inviting them to participate in the MPs' call for properly moderated, public scientific debate hearings with the leading medical Board in its field which opposes such experiments purely on scientific grounds: namely that misapplying results from animal experiments, to try and 'predict' human responses, causes immense harm to human patients. Current understanding of evolutionary biology is now able to explain why this is the case.
THE BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL REFLECTS THIS CALL FOR DEBATE
In June 2014, The British Medical Journal (BMJ) published its Editors Choice reflecting the statistics highlighted by MPs calling for this debate. The BMJ's article titled 'How Predictive and Productive is Animal Research?' concluded by quoting from the paper it cited:
"If research conducted on animals continues to be unable to reasonably predict what can be expected in humans, the public's continuing endorsement and funding of preclinical animal research seems misplaced".
WHAT MAKES THESE DEBATES UNIQUE?
These debates are unique because their conditions have been endorsed as "well set out and fair" by Britain's foremost human rights defence barrister Michael Mansfield QC. A panel of judges will be present who will include experts from the fields of clinical medicine, complexity/chaos theory, philosophy of science, evolutionary biology, clinical research, drug development, and basic research. The debate conditions are specifically designed to achieve a scientific result which can be submitted as evidence in a wider legal action as well as to government bodies, in order to change now demonstrably outdated laws. The significance of this is in sharp contrast to the more casual 'vote on line' or show of hands at the end of previous debates, which all too often even muddle science and morality.
WHY ARE THESE DEBATES ESSENTIAL TO HELP END ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS AND ADVANCE HUMAN MEDICINE?
These debates will enable the public, and our government, to hear scientific evidence against the Victorian prediction principle which first institutionalised animal experiments in 1847. The debates will highlight the chasm between 167 year old research assumptions and current scientific knowledge - evidence that will be presented in order to recognise the invalidity of such animal experiments and justify their abandonment, confirmed by a precedent planning ruling in 2003, on "national interest, medical and scientific" grounds.
HOW MANY ANIMALS ARE USED ANNUALLY, FOR THESE EXPERIMENTS?
As Dr Andre Menache clarified in his recent talk, around 75% of the 4 million UK lab animals used in experiments during 2013 -14 were categorized as 'basic research' (curiosity driven) which masqueraded as 'applied research' (allegedly beneficial for humans) by falsely claiming to be 'predictive' of the responses of human patients, thereby essential in the search to find cures for illnesses such as cancer, heart disease and multiple sclerosis. Examples of these experiments are exposed monthly in the Victims of Charity campaign. In addition, 13% of lab animals were claimed by the Home Office as 'predictive' for the safety testing of new human medicines. These statistics are further explained in a recent medical blog by leading expert Dr Ray Greek, and the misplaced funding of such experiments was the focus of the British Medical Journal, Editors Choice June 2014, titled 'How Predictive and Productive is Animal Research?'
PERFECT TIMING: DECLARATION of OPENNESS ON ANIMAL RESEARCH
In 2012 over forty bioscience organisations and universities in the UK signed a "Declaration on Openness on Animal Research", committed to be more open and transparent with the public about animal use thus: 'Confidence in our research rests on the scientific community embracing an open approach and taking part in an on-going conversation about why and how animals are used in research and the benefits of this. We need to continue to develop open dialogue between the research community and the public.' EDM 22 cites this Declaration on Openness and we believe that if it is authentic, animal experimenters will welcome this chance to participate in public scientific debates to present and defend their continued use of laboratory animals.
CLARITY! Science not Ethics
The way society treats animals is unquestionably of great significance and value. It is often reported that Gandhi said "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” Even so, ethics about animals cannot enter a debate about medical facts which can only ever be about objectively verifiable, scientific evidence - including the "does this work or not?" questions. We therefore clearly state that our call for scientific debates must not be confused with any ethical debate motion; neither must it be confused with the National Center for 3Rs, (Reduction, Refinement Replacement) which states: "The 3Rs are a widely accepted ethical framework for conducting scientific experiments using animals humanely". In addition to our call for scientific debates, it should also be clearly stated here that we oppose the 3Rs (Reduction of animal numbers, Refinement of harmful procedures and Replacement with 'alternatives') which ignore current science and also betray animals.
PLEASE JOIN OUR GROWING ALLIANCE FOR SCIENCE; sign and share this petition that supports 83 MPs who are now calling for scientists, who experiment on animals, to be held to thorough public, scientific account.
Thank you :)
NO to Animal Experiments (comprising the campaigns Oppose B & K Universal, Lab Beagle 1030 and Save the Harlan Beagles) and Animal Justice Project, posting under their flagship, the science-based campaign For Life On Earth.
To read the petition's letter, please scroll down below the following list of its recipients: