Killing in the name of Science: the response

Following The Tab’s investigation into the use of animals as test subjects in scientific research by the University of Leicester, the debate over the use of animals in scientific tests has ignited.

The Freedom of Information request discovered that the university killed 18,753 animals last year during research treatments for Alzheimers, Parkinsons and heart conditions, sparking a heated debate between university staff and animal rights campaigners, as well as dividing the student population.

The University of Leicester was responsible for killing:

• 18,203 mice

• 386 rats

• 108 fish

After the information was published, Professor Mike Barer was quick to justify the university’s position on vivisection, saying: “We don’t come in, in the morning, thinking we’re going to kill 20 animals today.” He explained that the University has a “carefully regulated system” and that “every single case is carefully scrutinised and judged into whether euthanasia can be justified.”

But his response didn’t convince Michelle Thew, Chief Executive Officer of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV), who said it was “disappointing” that the number of rodents used in the university’s research is so high when “humane alternatives exist and continue to develop.”

With the debate amongst professionals heating up, The Tab went to speak to two zoology students, Olivia Bell and Danni Marrison, to find out what they thought of the figures.

Olivia replied: “Of course I’d prefer them to use alternatives to animal testing and I’m sure they do where possible, but vaccinations and medicines must be tested on animals before they go to human trials. That’s the law.” Danni initially seemed reluctant to comment but said: “I don’t have enough information to base my judgement on. Where do the animals come from? Have they been reared in cages? Are they looked after well while in the science facility?”

The site of the mysterious central research facility

The students didn’t want to sound like they were disinterested in the figures but urged people to understand that “medicine is part of supply and demand. The world wants advances in vaccination and treatment but they have a problem in the way the advances are made. The fact Leicester is using far less animals than many other Universities is something we should be proud of.”

When we asked why it mattered how they lived, Danni replied “everyone cares about how they die (by euthanasia) but no one cares about how they live. Plenty of students eat battery farmed chickens which probably live far worse lives than these animals and are then slaughtered inhumanely.”

The students then explained how using animals in practicals had been beneficial to their learning process. Both had dissected fish which had been freshly euthanised. “When we’re told about the struggle fish face when they are parasitized by things that can take up half their body mass it’s hard to picture it at a two dimensional level. Being able to dissect a fish and see the effects these parasites on the fish gives us that insight.”

Olivia continued by saying “in another experiment we use fish from the fish mongers which would be eaten anyway! See, an example of how Leicester finds alternatives where it can.”

One topic that kept popping up in this conversation that irritated the students was that “everyone cares about the cute, fluffy animals.” Danni went on to say: “In this article they are only concerned about cute and fluffy animals such as mice and rabbits. What about the insects that are used in labs every day? If you’re gonna put up a fight for animal rights it should include all animals, not just the ones you can cuddle.”

Prof. Barer says: “every single case is carefully scrutinised and judged into whether euthanasia can be justified. It is never taken lightly.” What do you think?