Animals and science - Vital tests must be policed

USING animals for medical experiments is one of those volatile, touchstone issues where the debate is informed by a lot of emotion and more often than not, little enough reason or compassion.

There seems little ground for compromise, little room for mutual acceptance. You either approve or you don’t.

Just like many other processes humanity is obliged to involve itself in to sustain itself with either food, warmth or medicines, it would be wonderful if there were alternative processes that did not have such a negative impact on some of the world’s other inhabitants.

We may not entirely like the notion of nuclear power plants, but are utterly dependent on the energy the process creates. We may be uneasy about the industrial production of animals for food but, as yet, our conscience has not overcome our appetites.

We may be increasingly uneasy about the impact private transport is having on the world’s climate but not very many of us, once again as yet, have decided to opt for public transport.

Animal testing is one of these issues that we are aware of but maybe are not prepared to consider too deeply for fear of what we might discover.

It is not hard to justify strictly controlled and properly monitored animal research for medical — either human or animal — reasons. Indeed there may even be a moral obligation to conduct such experiments — after all, the ultimate objective is to save or improve lives.

What right have we to close off an avenue that might lead to a cure for cancer?

However — and this has to be one of the louder howevers — these experiments are only acceptable as long as the end, a predetermined and specific end, justifies the means. After all, we have a duty of care to all of the animals over which we exert control.

It is far more difficult, if not impossible, to accept that using animals to test cosmetics is acceptable. The commercial exploitation of a person’s vanity by a company selling powders, perfumes and hair colourings is no reason to mistreat an animal. If you fancy the lip gloss, carry it, but leave the unfortunate chimp out of it.

The advocates of animal testing suggest that without it we would still await the benefits that antibiotics, anaesthetics, vaccines, insulin for diabetes, open heart surgery, kidney dialysis and transplants, treatments for asthma, leukaemia and high blood pressure have bestowed on humanity.

Opponents can point to cases of wanton and seemingly pointless cruelty, though thankfully these seem to be few and far between.

The news from the Department of Health that the number of animals used in drug tests and other experiments in Irish laboratories almost doubled last year does little to put uneasy minds at rest.

Otters and badgers were among the 73,794 animals used by companies, universities or research institutions during the year.

The reality is that we need the facility of animal testing to discover cures to illnesses. It is natural that reality be informed by a deep and genuine concern for the animals being used. Most of us can accept, even reluctantly, that these experiments are necessary but need reassurance that the process is strictly controlled.

As on so many other issues, we could put our minds at ease if we were convinced that we had a humane code of practice in place and that the industry was policed effectively.