The debate on the use of animals in research should be ramped up by the news Thursday out of Italy, where 2,500 beagles were rescued from breeding operation.
An article by Nature published last week reports a court ruled the allegations of mistreatment of the dogs warranted investigation and apparently the removal of the dogs. The dogs are going to foster homes while the investigation continues.
The main article did not report on the conditions of the dogs, but an update notes – “The court said it was concerned that some puppies came down with diarrhoea and respiratory conditions. Andy Smith, vice-president of Marshall Biosciences which owns Green Hill, says the conditions occurred when the company was banned from caring for the animals.”
Why would the facility be banned from caring for the animals? This sounds like the typical spin from a puppy mill breeder.
An article from Opposing Views asks the question – Is animal research necessary? And it links to another Nature piece concerning a panel discussion in 2010 at UCLA.
The point is made that animal testing in too many cases fails to predict results for humans and much of it is unnecessary. The other side, of course, claims the successes are enough to allow the research to go on.
I fully understand that some research has resulted in the development of drugs or treatment for humans. But it is clear we need FAR MORE in the way of regulation. Too often, we’re reading about animals suffering horribly in research labs. And as is the case with puppy mills, it seems the exposure of the horrors routinely comes from undercover video or someone who just happens to report the horrors.
The Italian breeding facility was reportedly inspected regularly. Was this like the AKC inspecting kennels?
And what about redundant testing? This has certainly been the case for the cosmetic industry. I know the other side will bring up the notion that testing needs to carry so many case trials before a result might be concluded. But how many times do they need to pour a particular chemical into a rabbit’s eyes before you conclude it’s not a good thing. They’ve been doing this for decades.
I can only conclude that some testing continues long after a conclusion has been reached, merely to keep the facility in operation – to justify its existence. It is long-past time to completely reevaluate animal testing and toss out the aspects where logic concludes it can be banned – and where modern technology offers an alternative. At least we can do this.
And in areas where it might continue, we need extremely stringent regulations and oversight. The treatment and care of the animals should be covered under strict guidelines. And we need for the curtain to be lifted on this research. It needs a lot of sunshine.