Child's Play

Those that have followed the campaign to stop Oxford University building a new animal research laboratory will be aware of the almost slavish support that Evan Harris, the liberal democrat MP for Oxford West and Abingdon has given to Oxford University. Hardly a surprise there, however - Evan Harris is an Oxford University old boy who unquestionably defends the university.

Evan Harris, MPEvan Harris is a classic product of Oxford University; a yes man, whose role as an MP isn’t to look after or represent his constituents, but to support the big boys at Oxford University. During a recent demonstration by SPEAK supporters outside his constituency office, when asked by two local residents if he would represent their views in Parliament, Mr Harris replied that he would do so only if he agreed with them!

Mr. Harris is vehemently anti-animal rights, often making false claims about SPEAK, claiming that the campaign against Oxford University has been one of "violence, intimidation and harassment." Not true, Mr. Harris, but then again you can’t believe most of what Mr. Harris has to say. When confronted by campaigners who were upset at being labelled violent extremists by him, he refused to talk to them on the grounds that he doesn’t talk to extremists. Strange that, a casual Google image search will find photos of Mr. Harris campaigning alongside Peter Tatchell, the long time gay rights campaigner, and let’s not forget anti-vivisectionist, who’s not averse to a bit of direct action himself, in his fight for equal rights for gay people. Peter Tatchell has been labelled on many occasions as an extremist himself. It's therefore rich of Mr. Harris to label animal rights campaigners ‘extremists’. Perhaps what he should have said is that anyone that doesn’t agree with him is an extremist - a great attitude for a Liberal Democrat, don’t you think? What happened to all those libertarian values they preach?

In his latest attempt to undermine the anti vivisection message, instead of name calling, Mr. Harris has engaged in what can only be described as more playground politics. But then again, most of what Mr. Harris does could be construed as being just that, hence the name calling and now, as his ‘pièce de résistance’, he has taken to trying to derail a serious political move aimed at instigating a Scientific Independent Enquiry that could once and for all allow us to look at all the scientific evidence from both sides of the argument as to whether vivisection is the best way of finding cures for human disease.

Mr. Harris has tabled amendments to both the EMP’s EDM 92 (calling for independent enquiry into animal testing) and EDM 1704 - the BUAV (British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection) primate one. An Early Day Motion, or EDM, is a motion put down by Members of Parliament calling for a debate on a particular subject. Nowadays, there is rarely time to debate EDMs and their purpose these days is to enable MPs to draw attention to an issue and to canvass support for their views by inviting other Members to add their signatures in support of the motion. While the majority of EDMs are never considered for debate, those EDMs that get the greatest support can be debated and possibly voted on.

Harris’ alternative versions of the EDMs now reads like this:

92A http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=31246&SESSION=875
That this House, in common with Europeans for Medical Progress, expresses its concerns regarding the safeguarding of public health through data obtained from laboratory animals, particularly in light of large numbers of serious and fatal adverse drug reactions that were not predicted by animal studies; is concerned that the Government has not commissioned or evaluated any formal research on the efficacy of animal experiments, and has no plans to do so; and, in common with 83 per cent. of general practitioners in a recent survey, calls upon the Government to facilitate an independent and transparent scientific evaluation of the use of animals as surrogate humans in drug safety testing and medical research. is concerned about any unnecessary suffering of animals and insists on the toughest possible regulation of medical research using animals to be highest possible welfare standards and only where other effective options are not available; recognises however that medical research using animals is currently both essential and valuable, believes that efforts should be directed at the 3Rs - refining techniques to reduce suffering, replacing animals with non-animal techniques when these become available and reducing as far as possible the number of animals used; notes that complaints against claims made by Europeans for Medical Progress that harm is posed to humans through animal experimentation methods have been upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority ; further notes that the polling organisation which asked GPs their views on animal testing has disassociated itself from the interpretation put on the poll by EMP; and notes there have already been numerous independent inquiries into animal research and its efficacy including by a House of Lords Select Committee, the Animal Procedures Committee and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, all of which have concluded that the use of animals in medical research and drug safety testing is valid and - at present - necessary.

1704A http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=31247&SESSION=875
That this House notes the use of thousands of non-human primates each year in scientific procedures in the United Kingdom and across the EU; further notes that their level of sentience and highly developed social instincts make it extremely difficult to meet their behavioural needs in a laboratory setting; further notes that physical differences between human beings and other primates may make it impossible to predict reliably human outcomes from primate procedures; further notes public opposition to the use of primates; calls upon the Government to extend the current ban on the use of great apes to all primates as a matter of urgency; and further calls on the Government to press for an EU-wide ban on primate experiments as part of the impending review of European Union Directive 86/609/EEC. calls for the ban on the use of great apes to be extended to all primates when suitable alternatives become available, but recognises in the meantime that UK animal welfare standards are high, that primate research is only licensed when there is no alternative and that insights into diseases such as HIV/AIDS, TB and Parkinson's disease are crucially dependent on primate models.

You will note that the EDMs are now pretty much exactly the opposite of what they were originally.

Both new versions have been signed by about 14 MPs, all (bar one) Lib Dem, and most of them quite senior – including Ming Campbell (Leader), Chris Huhne (Environment), Sarah Teather (Education), etc. Six of these had signed EDM 1704, and have now taken their name off it to sign the alternative version instead. One of these turncoats, Andrew Stunell, (http://www.andrewstunell.org.uk/) had agreed so much with the previous version of 1704 that he’d issued a press release saying so.

However, the interesting thing about these particular tactics adopted by the pro vivisectionists and, one could even say, their tactics in general, are their puerile nature. Instead of mounting their own defence, the best they can come up with is either name calling or acts of sabotage, such as Mr. Harris’s attempt to stop an independent scientific enquiry from going ahead.

Aside from wondering why supporters of animal based research are so frightened of a proper scientific look at vivisection , the big question must surely be: with all the resources at their disposal, why are the pro vivisectionists so lousy at mounting any effective defence of their own position? Perhaps the answer is: it’s because they don’t actually have something they can defend!

Disclaimer: The information on this website is for the purpose of legal protest and information only. It should not be used to commit any criminal acts or harassment.