In Defence of the Indefensible

On 16th January, the London School of Economics (LSE) hosted a debate between pro and anti-vivisectionists, with Kathy Archibald and Dr Margaret Clotworthy of Europeans for Medical Progress representing the anti-vivisectionists and Professor John Stein of Oxford University and Ian Simpson from Pro-test representing the opposing view. The LSE forum gave both sides the opportunity to put their case in front of a mixed audience of students and members of the public, with a questions and answers session to close. At the same time, the scientific arguments against vivisection were presented to John Stein, who is one of Oxford University’s leading academics and animal researchers. 

Kathy Archibald and Dr Clotworthy systematically dismantled Stein’s and Simpson’s arguments for the continued use of animals in medical research and drug safety testing. Stein publicly reiterated the view he has previously expressed that 'animals do not feel pain', yet interestingly, this view is somewhat inconsistent with the account of an experiment he himself conducted with Tipu Aziz (among others) at Oxford University in 2002. In the final stages of an experiment, in which the vivisectors tried to mimic Parkinson’s disease in two macaque monkeys, both animals were given a large dose of MPTP (a by-product of synthetic heroin), which essentially paralysed  them. The animals were allowed to suffer the debilitating effects of this drug for ten days, during which time they required intensive nursing to keep them alive. If one were to accept Stein’s stated view, then the use of the vocabulary to describe this experiment would be considered emotive at the very least: surely the words suffer, debilitating and intensive nursing more than suggest that suffering was involved? If animals do not feel pain, how can it be appropriate to use the word “suffer”? If animals do not feel pain, then why bother nursing them? Why bother having Home Office rules? Inadequate these rules may be, but they acknowledge that animals do suffer and do feel pain. Stein’s distinctly Cartesian viewpoint rubbishes this notion, and invalidates the rules and regulations, which allegedly prevent animal suffering in the laboratory. In convincing himself and trying to encourage others to believe that animals do not feel pain, he encourages further excess to continue in the modern torture chambers of the vivisection lab.

In a debate that presented them with an opportunity to argue the viability of their case, Stein and Simpson instead stooped to name-calling and ridicule in defence of what is often called the indefensible. Such a response is better suited to the bully in the playground than to supposedly learned men. It is a known fact that bullies exhibit particular behaviours and personality traits. Among these traits are: a need to feel in control, no sense of remorse for hurting another, and a refusal to accept responsibility for their behaviour. Bullying exposes the weak underbelly of the bully. In every trait cited here, we can see its application in the mind of the vivisector, who is incapable of empathy or guilt and who is desperate to cling to power, and will resort to lies to hold onto it when under threat.

That they felt under threat is likely. The debate exposed the fundamental flaws in the vivisection case and the gulf between what it promises and actually delivers. The dishonesty and weakness of its arguments simply did not match up to the true facts about animal research. It was interesting to note that neither Stein nor Simpson could produce one bit of documentation to support their case. This contrasted sharply with the EMP who produced published data to support all the claims they made about the dangerous effects of relying on non-human animals to model human disease. In fact both Stein and Simpson relied solely on anecdotal evidence and fell back on the now familiar mantra of the animal research community 'that there would have been no progress without animal research’ - a claim that Kathy and Margaret were able to refute with sourced documentation.

Stein and Simpson’s ethical arguments for animal experimentation were risible at best. Indeed, at one point, Stein claimed it was ok, to use rodents because peoples’ pet cats kill them anyway. Hardly the sort of burningly passionate academic language with which to floor an opponent! He chided members of the audience for being anthropomorphic when discussing the suffering of laboratory animals – something of which he himself could have been accused less than two years ago when he told the Oxford Mail that the monkeys in my lab enjoy watching soap operas on t.v. and have the life of Riley. Stein has been caught out over and over again for his double standards and doublespeak. His debating skills have repeatedly exposed not only his own inadequacies but also those of the institution and industry he has been set up to represent, and this debate proved no different. It once again exposed Oxford University’s vivisectors and Pro-test for what they are: a bunch of animal abusing charlatans, who have no satisfactory arguments to support the continuation of their vile practice.

The reasoned scientific and ethical case against the continued use of animals in bio-medical research is steadily gaining ground: the vivisectors know it and we know it – the media just have to catch up with the truth instead of what they are sold as the truth by the vivisection industry. The debate was a salient reminder that a few very powerful people in the world of animal research are holding to ransom the future of human based research by clinging to the scientifically unsustainable and morally insupportable practise of animal experimentation. Primates like 'Felix' are being used and abused and killed in Oxford University now. It is vital we challenge them at every step, and oppose their dreams of expansion. Doing that tomorrow or the next day will not be soon enough. The time to oppose vivisection at Oxford University is now. The end of vivisection at Oxford University could herald its demise in the UK. Let us all work together to ensure that outcome in the shortest possible time, and to marshal in the dawn of a new age of medical science based on truth, compassion and ethics.