Cross-Question Pro-Vivisection Scientific Advisers to the Home Office
Support Britain's MPs as they Lead the Way Internationally, Calling for a Groundbreaking Up-To-Date Science Inquiry
A group of MPs have formally called upon the Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) to open a scientific inquiry 'as a matter of urgency' about the claim that 'animal experiments save people's lives'. The HASC oversee the workings of the Home Office which issues licenses for experiments on animals.
Government scientific advisers who brief the Home Office about medical research still continue to claim that results from animal experiments can 'predict' human responses i.e. claim that animal experiments are essential to find cures for human diseases. For example, in the Guardian newspaper 17th November 2013, a chief proponent of vivisection Prof. Colin Blakemore made the following claim: “animal experiments…it is an unavoidable fact that we need them if we are to develop new medicines and treatments that will save people's lives”. This claim has been proved unequivocally false by current understanding of evolutionary biology, best illustrated by the seminal work Animal Models in Light of Evolution Shanks PhD and Greek MD (2009).
OUR MPs NEED YOUR SUPPORT!!
By signing this petition your letter will automatically arrive at the HASC, helping our cross-party MPs demonstrate that there is strong public support for their call for this scientific inquiry, to be conducted at the level currently held by up-to-date scientific knowledge.
The Questions Prepared for this Inquiry
The questions prepared for the HASC to employ in their cross-questioning have been written by highly qualified experts at the medical Board AFMA/EFMA who will be represented in person at the inquiry, so as to be available to be cross-questioned in turn, including about the answers already received from the government's pro-vivisection advisers. EFMA have a track record of success in the UK, defeating Cambridge University's plans to build a high profile primate laboratory in 2003, with a precedent ruling on 'medical and scientific, national interest grounds'. Read more about this landmark ruling here.
HISTORY IN THE MAKING
This ground-breaking and historic initiative aims to expose as both scientifically and legally entirely unacceptable any call that laboratory animal numbers should be merely 'reduced'. Merely reducing animal numbers ignores up-to-date scientific knowledge thereby failing human patients.'Reduction' of animal numbers is also morally unsound, leaving so many sentient animal incarcerated, languishing in terrible pain and traumatic fear in laboratories all over the world. Merely 'reducing' animal numbers fails everyone.
A Brief Historical Perspective:
Animal experiments – as claimed able to predict human responses - were first institutionalised in 1847 by Claude Bernard who went on to reject the Theory of Evolution! This gives a clear view on how out-of-date animal experiments - as applied to human medicine – really are. Read more about this key historical aspect here. There are many supporting scientific experts outside those on the AFMA/EFMA Board which has prepared the questions for this inquiry. For example, senior cancer investigator Dr Jim Woodgett comments in Nature science journal here and a Professor of Medicine voted one of America's top doctors says 'mouse models are ready for retirement'. Indeed, pharmaceutical companies acknowledge the failure of animal experiments in their drug development process and write about this openly and often in the scientific literature.
What Does This Petition Mean for Beagle Dogs and Non-Human Primates?
Loveable, friendly Beagles are the chosen breed of dog for these experiments. The latest figures from the Home Office show that in 2012, 85% of all Beagles experimented on were used for such experiments, claimed as able to 'predict' human responses - that's 2,647 individual dogs out the total 3,118. (Essentially these dogs were used to test the toxicity levels for new human medicines and for ADME studies for the same). These figures also apply to highly intelligent non-human primates. The total number of primates experimented on in 2012 was 2,186, of which 1,918 - or 88% - were used in experiments claimed as applicable for human patients - as 'applied human studies'. And again, this is reflected in experiments on rats: out of a total of 273,046 individual rats, 200,526, - that's 73% - were used in experiments claimed as applicable to humans.
PLEASE SIGN AND SHARE THIS PETITION, JOIN US!
Further ways you can keep in touch
Please Like our new, accessible science facebook page! Like our new community Beagle page here! Follow our growing Alliance for Science on twitter @forlifeonearth; @LabBeagle1030 ; @closedownharlan; @OpposeBandK
THANK YOU from all at:
Human Rights: Patient Group, NO to Animal Experiments, incorporating the campaigns Save the Harlan Beagles and Oppose B and K Universal, posting under their flagship, the Parliamentary-based campaign For Life On Earth
- The Home Affairs Select Committee
I write to ask you please to act quickly to begin the cross-questioning of appropriate scientific advisers to the Home Office, which has been called for ‘as a matter of urgency’ by MPs in a letter posted and emailed, together with relevant documentation, to the office of the Home Affairs Select Committee in July 2013.
I support this call for an inquiry as a matter of urgency and indeed scientific necessity. We have reached a crucial turning-point for human medicine: up-to-date scientific knowledge now provides evidence demonstrating unequivocally the misleading, still current practice of trying to use results from animal experiments to ‘predict’ medical responses of human patients.
Previously, in Cambridge, this evidence secured a ruling of international precedence – on ‘national interest…scientific/medical’ grounds – at a local inquiry, defeating Cambridge University’s plans to build a new non-human primate laboratory in 2003.
Animal experiments, as claimed able to ‘predict’ medical responses of human patients, were first institutionalised in France in 1847 by the physiologist Claude Bernard, who went on to reject the Theory of Evolution. Up-to-date scientific evidence for this cross-party request is provided by the experts at Americans and Europeans for Medical Advancement (AFMA/EFMA) who specialise in the lifesaving significance current understanding of evolutionary biology holds for human medicine. AFMA/EFMA also illustrate the scientific evidence for the new Parliamentary-based campaign For Life On Earth (available here http://www.forlifeonearth.org ).
History will judge the Home Affairs Select Committee at our present-day crucial turning point for science and human medicine. Please implement this inquiry without further delay. Thank you.
Today: For Life is counting on you
For Life On Earth needs your help with “The Home Affairs Select Committee: Cross-Question Pro-Vivisection Scientific Advisers to the Home Office”. Join For Life and 3,872 supporters today.