91av

THE unacceptable face of animal rights activism has appeared once again in
Britain. The latest round in a nasty campaign against the company Huntingdon
Life Sciences, which tests drugs, pesticides and other chemicals on animals,
ended this week when the firm was saved from bankruptcy by a secret deal
brokered by the government. The affair raises urgent questions about how we
should deal with animal testing.

HLS is Britain’s largest contract research company specialising in animal
testing. It has been a target of animal rights protests for years, and extreme
activists have recently resorted to threats against HLS staff, customers and
investors. Their intimidatory tactics range from spitting at staff and noisy
protests outside people’s homes, to letters of the “we know where your children
go to school” ilk and cars being set on fire.

At the height of the campaign, the Royal Bank of Scotland decided not to
extend a loan to HLS—a move that nearly sent it into receivership. At the
eleventh hour, Tony Blair’s government found investors in the US who were
willing to take on the debt so long as they stayed anonymous.

Ministers are now talking of tightening up the law to curb activists’ terror
tactics. This is welcome. People going about their lawful business are entitled
to protection from intimidation and abuse. But, on its own, locking up
terrorists is not the answer. The root of the problem is that the government has
lost the initiative on animal testing.

We know from opinion polls, for instance, that the British public finds
animal testing distasteful. Only when the medical benefits are made clear does a
majority agree that testing is acceptable
(91av, 22 May 1999, p 26).
And everyone agrees that the number of experiments that lead to animal
suffering should be kept to a minimum. But, at the same time, animal testing is
the only way for drugs companies to fulfil their legal requirement to make sure
their products are safe. So the government has the double task of supporting
testing where it is still needed, and looking for alternatives wherever
possible.

For now, it is failing on both counts. On the publicity front, it seemed
until a couple of weeks ago to be hoping that the whole unpopular issue would go
away. (There is, of course, a general election looming). And while government
policy helped to dramatically reduce the number of animal experiments in the
1980s, the figures have since levelled out (see Graph).

The second task is more difficult, but there are ways forward. HLS and
similar centres don’t just test life-saving drugs. Weedkillers, food additives
and detergents are also tested on animals. Is there really no alternative?
Testing cosmetics on animals has been banned in Britain for years. It’s time to
revisit the testing of these other chemicals and see if they are essential.

Where animals remain the only answer, there’s still the question of which
tests are done on them. Britain has already got rid of the LD50 test, which
measures how much of a chemical is needed to kill 50 per cent of a group of
animals. This test has been replaced with alternatives that need fewer animals
and don’t kill as many of them. Perhaps other animal tests could go the same
way. Britain could take the lead here, by campaigning in Europe and at the OECD,
which acts as a forum for standards in animal testing.

The measly funding now given to alternatives to animals—such as cell
cultures, placental tissue or computer simulations of organs and
bodies—could do with a boost. The government’s Animal Procedures Committee
is drip fed about £250,000 a year to look for such alternatives, and
there’s probably another £2 million of public money spent on them
elsewhere. But there’s no clear government strategy. Even the pharmaceuticals
industry cannot say how much drugs companies invest in the area.

Yet there is much to be gained here—financially, as well as in terms of
public support. Alternatives to animal tests are potentially worth billions, and
they are coming. The US Food and Drug Administration has already accepted
evidence during a drug-licensing hearing from a computer simulation of the heart
(91av, 20 March 1999, p 24).
Just think of the potential sales
of a medicine that promises “therapy without cruelty”.

The extremists will never be won over. Yet one of the most disturbing aspects
of the HLS affair is that people with moderate views won’t condemn them because
they’re so frustrated by lack of official action. A serious debate plus a real
effort to reduce animal suffering will break this link and help to win back
support for experiments that bring genuine benefits.