Ethics

edteam

Neil Parish MP talks through the tough policy choices during the revision of the lab animal legislation

Editorial Team August 4th, 2011 1 Comment

We recently interviewed Neil Parish MP, the first reading rapporteur for the revision of law protecting lab animals. In our first video, Neil expressed the challenges he faced during this review to find the right balance between helping science advance, while protecting animals as much as possible.

In this second video, Neil goes into detail on what drove his decisions that shaped the final legislation; policy regarded by some as contradictory and by others as too pro-science.

However, Neil is made of sterner stuff and I respect his final comment in the video, “I wasn’t going to be dictated by just the popular view, I was actually going to take a view that I could stand up in [sic] my conscience and live with”.

I’d be interested to hear your views on our chat with Neil, particularly his comments on the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) policy. He believes the 3Rs focuses science and industry on reducing and find alternatives to using animals in research, do you?

Related content
How did we arrive at the 3 Rs: Replacement, Reduction, Refinement?

Understanding Directive 2010/63: the new legislation governing the use of lab animals

Finding the right balance between animal welfare & human welfare

Comments - we recommend you read our code of conduct

  1. Sylvia Jackson says:

    I have read recently that the Environmental Protection Agency quotes"The human cell based systems of drug development and safety testing are quicker, safer andd cheaper than the animal models".

    What a scandal that this science is now avaiable and yet it receives little publicity.  With 6.5% of hospital admissions being caused by adverse reactions to "tested" drugs at a cost of more than 2B and  with many adverse reactions going unreported isn't it about time the Goverment justified the continuation of a costly, ineffective method of testing drugs. 

    Animalaid are now launching a campaign to make people aware of the alternatives to animal testing, naming the charities who donate to them and campaiging for people to stop their donations. I am one of them. I no longer give to Cancer UK, Heart Research or Alzheimers Socieity.  I support Dr Hadwen Trust for Humane Research.  There are many medical charities that do not test on animals. They will produce safer drugs with less side-effects.

    Next time you buy your prescription look at the list possible side effects!! Why so many? Simple answer – our bodies do not work the same as an animals body. Simple example – a rat cannot vomit- so wny test on it!

    The secrecty surrounding animal testing is an absolute disgrace. The public have a right to know that alternative cheaper humane testing is availabe and the Goverment have no right to withold this information.

    Shameful

    Thank goodness for people like you Neil,  prepared to stand up to people who only have their own interests at heart.

    How can anything be too pro science for goodness sake!

    Money talks, drug companies are protected by goverment- but the truth will out and sooner than they think.

    .

     

     

     

     

Post Comment