1. Report this comment

    Si Hope said:

    “it will have to be more honest about the harms caused to animals – which can be very severe – and not just talk about the potential benefits of research” would it not be more reasonable to place the harm in context? If only 2% of experiments are in the substantial category, it would be misleading to imply really significant suffering is the norm. It should be talked about in a wider, representative context and in a way accessible to the public i.e. 95% of this stuff is about as severe as what goes on in a vet’s surgery, 2% incurs the potential for really bad animal suffering, this is why we did it, but you decide if it’s worth it to you personally.

    Of course it’s hard to talk about why you did it without mentioning potential benefits and it’s an important element. There’s a difference between robbing a bank to feed your crack habit or robbing a bank to feed your children, or shooting an animal for fun rather than food (the RSPCA really don’t talk enough about meat too). it’s kind of important to mention the benefits, particularly if animal groups are only mentioning the costs.

  2. Report this comment

    Dan Lyons said:

    This ‘declaration’ is nothing but an empty PR exercise – there is nothing substantive in the Declaration whatosever. It is an insult to the intelligent of anyone who knows anything about this subject. If these bodies were honest about wanting to be open about animal experimentation, then they would support the repeal of the blanket secrecy clause – Section 24 – when the law is updated in the next month. No sign of that, unfortunately. The sad thing is that this is a deliberate pretence at openness specifically designed to avoid the reality (as well as try to put some positive spin on the survey results – the methodology of which is pretty ropey anyway…).

Comments are closed.