In favour of animal testing

How disgraceful that a 16-year-old boy has put the medical and scientific establishment, drug companies and universities to shame. Laurie Pycroft was in Oxford when he was outraged to see animal rights protesters marching through the street. He wrote out his own pro-testing placard and waved it furiously. Within days Laurie had enthused thousands of students and academics. The whole tenor of the discussion changed, and a debate at the Oxford Union voted massively in favour of animal research.
It is also a shame that no minister or official from the Home Office, which regulates animal research, was prepared to speak in that debate; the department wanted all kinds of guarantees before it would consider sending a representative.

We live longer and healthier lives than ever before. Animal research has improved the treatment of infections, helped with immunisation, improved cancer treatment and had a big impact on managing heart disease, brain disorders, arthritis and transplantation. My own field, the prevention of genetic disorders in babies, has been possible only because of humane work on animals.

Animal rights activists talk about cruelty and torture, some backing their assertions by publishing out-of-date photographs of "experiments" banned long ago. This is a misrepresentation. The work we do is performed with compassion, care, humanity and humility. I have never seen an animal suffer pain. All my rabbits, when I worked with them years ago, were stroked and petted every day. All had names. I still remember Marigold and Wilhemina, who used to lollop around the lab with me and whose contribution changed the understanding of ectopic pregnancy - the most common cause of maternal death in many countries. My rodents breed happily, and their offspring are indistinguishable from those of other rats and mice. The rigour with which animal licence applications are granted by the Home Office prevents work that is cruel.

Some so-called anti-vivisection organisations would have people believe that animal research does not work. This is simply a lie. Animals do not give information that is 100% accurate when applied to humans, but they do provide invaluable information that cannot be replaced by computer modelling, cell culture or human experimentation. Mice have virtually the same genes as humans, which is why they are so useful for exploring human physiology.

Animal research has contributed to 70% of the Nobel prizes for physiology or medicine; many award-winning scientists say that they could not have made their discoveries without animals. Polio would still be claiming hundreds of lives a year in Britain if it wasn't for animal research by the Nobel laureate Albert Sabin. "There could have been no oral polio vaccine without the use of innumerable animals," he once said.

In reference to a clinical trial at a London hospital in March that left six men seriously ill, the anti-vivisection group Europeans for Medical Progress claimed that "superior human-based tests could have predicted the effects of TGN 1412 [to treat inflammatory conditions and leukemia], where animal tests failed so tragically". This tragedy was a rare case, and the best guard against it probably would have been more research on animals before the human trial. In my view, every drug packet should be marked: "The safety and efficacy of this product were only made possible with animal tests."

The last big drug disaster in the UK happened because of a lack of animal research. Four decades ago, when thalidomide's awful effects were revealed, the drug was returned to the lab to be tested on pregnant animals for the first time. Birth defects were quickly seen in mice and rabbits. This prompted an overhaul of the legislation and is the basis for our laws on drug development.

It is time my colleagues got real. All British universities doing worthwhile research use animals, and, instead of hiding, they should be boasting of their achievements. Pharmaceutical companies could do far more to promote investigations that are humane, ethical and legal. Scientists should demonstrate the care taken in their research and the benefits it brings to society. And government? Shockingly, my family feels nervous because I speak out on animal research. So politicians have a duty to pursue animal extremists with vigour.