|
|
|
Programme of Events for Michaelmas Term 2009 Details coming soon... Previous Events Trinity Term 2009 This term's talks gave an interesting insight into the work being done by animal protection organisations nationally and internationally. 30 April - Angela Walder on "Research Animals: Directional Change in the RSPCA"
14 May - Sir David Madden on the proposed "Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare"
Other events at Oxford: 21 May - Debate at the Oxford Union: "This House regrets the founding of the Oxford laboratory"
You can read the speakers' contributions here (in Microsoft Word format): Andre Menache, Alistair Currie, John Stein, Simon Festing (text not yet available) 5 June - Student fundraising stunt for non-animal research
11 June - JM Coetzee in Oxford A rare opportunity to hear Nobel Prize winning novelist and VERO patron JM Coetzee reading from his works at Oxford. To coincide with this visit, VERO member Dr Matthew Simpson published an article on Coetzee's work in the Oxford Magazine: Show Hilary Term 2009 5 March - Public Meeting: 'Replacing Animals in Research: What's Happening in Europe?'
With the European Parliament poised to debate a long-awaited revision of the outdated Directive (86/609) governing animal experimentation across the EU, this question could not have been more topical, nor the speakers better qualified to answer it. The meeting attracted a large audience, who heard about the progress of the new draft proposal so far: the attempts by animal protectionists on one hand to negotiate improved animal welfare and transparency measures, and the determination of commercial interests on the other to undermine such measures. The panel stressed the significance of this rare opportunity to put the EU ahead of the world both in terms of animal protection and the quality of its scientific research, and urged the public to support the campaign to achieve this. You can read a full report of the meeting here. 5 March - "Go3R" presentation: a visit from Germany
Further information on Go3R is available here:
Show 12 March - Talk by Dr Hilda Kean of Ruskin College (author of Animal Rights: Political and Social Change in Britain since 1800)
Michaelmas Term 2008 Once again, VERO had a stall at the University's Freshers' Fair, making our campaign known to the new students, hearing their views, and gaining new supporters. The term's events then began with an introductory evening at which VERO founder-member Dr Matthew Simpson gave a brief talk on the two UK vivisection acts of 1876 and 1986, followed by a showing of Jeffrey Masson's moving and encouraging film The Emotional Lives of Farm Animals. You can download Matthew Simpson's talk as a PDF file here:
Show Next, Dr Andrew Knight, a practising vet and director of Animal
Consultants International, argued the case for "scientific activism" as an
effective strategy for ending vivisection. Having led a successful campaign
as a student to persuade his university in Australia to take the cruelty out
of its veterinary science course, Andrew has since published a wealth of
resources on humane alternatives in science education, and offering advice
to biomedical students wishing to conscientiously object to harmful animal
use in their courses.
Trinity Term 2008 PETA EXHIBITION In 3rd week, VERO hosted the "Animal Liberation Project", a powerful exhibition by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) which compels us to question our treatment of animals and consider the parallels between human and animal oppression. Launched last year to coincide with the bicentenary of the abolition of slavery, it takes its name from the book by Peter Singer which is widely acknowledged to have inspired the modern animal rights movement. It was with a quote from that philosopher that Alistair Currie, Senior Research and Campaigns Co-ordinator for PETA Europe, began his presentation of the exhibition. "It's easy for us to criticise the prejudices of our grandfathers. It's more difficult to distance ourselves from our own views, so that we can dispassionately search for prejudices amongst the beliefs and values we hold".
According to Alistair, the slavery theme has a particular resonance for us today because it shows that you don't have to be evil to do evil. Many slave traders and slave owners weren't the ruthless monsters we might imagine them to have been: in fact they often professed a sense of respect and affection towards their slaves, and would find ways of rationalising their own behaviour and convincing themselves that the relationship was mutually beneficial. On the much debated concept of "animal rights", Alistair had this to say: "Our weaknesses give us rights, not our strengths, and if animals share those weaknesses, they should share those rights, in so far as they make sense. No one is saying that animals should have the right to vote or should be tried in court - we're just saying that they shouldn't be killed, imprisoned or abused just because the strong think they'll benefit from it." Summing up why animal liberation is so important given the amount of human suffering in the world, Alistair quoted John Newton, the slave trader turned abolitionist who wrote the words to Amazing Grace: "The real or supposed necessity of treating the Negroes with rigour gradually brings a numbness upon the heart and renders those who are engaged in it too indifferent to the sufferings of their fellow-creatures." It could therefore be argued, Alistair suggested, that we humans are "one of the animals that stands to gain the most from animal liberation". For more information and to view the Animal Liberation exhibition online, see: www.peta.org.uk/animalliberation/introduction.asp ACER seminar on animal replacement At VERO's meeting with the University's Committee on Animal Care and Ethical Review (ACER) in May 2007, we had expressed concern that the optional seminars organised periodically by the Committee for members of the University engaged in animal research rarely seemed to address the issue of replacement, the most important of the 3 "R"s in VERO's view. After a period of correspondence between the two parties, ACER undertook to organise a seminar in May of this year focusing on recent developments in imaging techniques and their potential for replacing animals. The speakers, proposed by ACER and VERO respectively, were Dr Matthew Rushworth, University Research Lecturer and Reader in Cognitive Neuroscience, Department of Experimental Psychology, and Dr Gill Langley, Science Director of the Hadwen Trust for Humane Research and former member of the government's advisory Animal Procedures Committee. The seminar was well attended, and gave rise to some lively discussion. Dr Rushworth - a former recipient of a Dr Hadwen Trust grant - spoke first, arguing that the usefulness of current imaging techniques was limited by their insufficient spatial and temporal resolution. Dr Langley in turn pointed out the limitations of animal methods (physiological differences, poor predictivity) and stressed the advantages of recently developed imaging methods (repeatability, feedback from the test subject). Her main focus was on the ethics of the matter, however, to which some members of the audience took exception, clearly feeling that this was extraneous to the scientific discussion. It is of course VERO's view that - in accordance with the spirit of the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act - any discussion of the pros and cons of a scientific technique must necessarily take into account its ethical acceptability to ordinary people. This occasion showed how important it is that the scientific community should be continually reminded of this imperative. In all, therefore, the seminar proved a useful and informative event for all concerned, VERO included, and we very much hope to see this kind of constructive dialogue continue within the University. Petition hand-in event in Brussels VERO members were delighted to attend the hand-in of the Dr Hadwen Trust petition on animal replacement at the European Parliament in May of this year. Over 150,000 signatures had been collected with the aid of animal protection groups across thirteen member states, clearly demonstrating that EU citizens are united in their support for non-animal research. The petition, which calls for a coordinated EU strategy to replace animal experiments, was presented by renowned primatologist and UN Messenger of Peace Dr Jane Goodall DBE.
Together with the Humane Society International, the Dr Hadwen Trust hosted an expert briefing at the European Parliament in Brussels, supported by MEPs Jens Holm, Chris Davies, John Bowis, Caroline Lucas and Dan Jorgensen. The event highlighted the welfare, scientific, human health and economic benefits of replacing animal experiments. After an introduction by Caroline Lucas, the case for replacement was outlined by Dr Jane Goodall and Dr Gill Langley, Science Director of the Dr Hadwen Trust. The second part of the briefing looked at current replacement initiatives. The contributors were Prof. Geoff Pilkington, Professor of Cellular & Molecular Neuro-oncology at Portsmouth University, on his work with brain tumours; Prof. Horst Spielmann, head of ZEBET, the German Centre for Documentation and Evaluation of Alternatives to Animal Experiments, on the innovative new search engine "Go3R"; and Prof. Irene Tracey, Director of Oxford's fMRIB Centre, on the use of imaging techniques in pain research. The third part of the briefing examined how improved animal protection could be embodied in the revised Directive. The speakers were Dr Herman Koeter from the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), which was asked to contribute its scientific opinion to the revision process, and Emily McIvor, EU Director of the Humane Society International, who gave an account of the current political situation. The will to reform is clearly there among MEPs (witness the recent Written Declaration against primate research), but progress continues to be frustrated by the Commission, which has yet to put forward a proposal.
1) Protection of laboratory animals should be extended to all sentient
species and use of those species which suffer most in laboratory conditions
should be banned, as should experiments causing severe suffering
"We should admit that the infliction of suffering on beings who are
capable of feeling is ethically problematic, and that the amazing human
brain should set to work to find new ways of testing and experimenting that
will not involve the use of live, sentient beings. The scientific
establishment should actively encourage such research. More funding should
be made available for it. And rewards - such as a Nobel Prize - should be
given for it. It is a goal worthy of great energy and scientific ingenuity.
It is a goal towards which all civilized nations should be moving."
Hilary Term 2008 Once again, a series of wide-ranging and thought-provoking talks was organised at Mansfield College, and people were encouraged by the friendly atmosphere and refreshments to linger and discuss the matters at issue.
Michaelmas Term 2007
Freshers' Fair 2007
VERO's stall at Freshers' Fair 2007 provided a great opportunity to
publicise our peaceful campaign and attracted a lot of interest among the
new student intake, with many commenting on how glad they were to see a
University-based group bringing some balance to the animal research debate.
Our display focused on humane thought at Oxford through the ages - a
tradition we are determined to continue.
Animal Experimentation - A Discussion with Peter Singer
Gulbenkian Lecture Theatre, Oxford University
Seminar Programme Hilary Term 2007 Animal experimentation for medical research: issues and perspectives
The seminars were very successful, drawing substantial numbers of people to
discuss the various aspects of animal experimentation for medical research
Week 1 (16/1/07): 'Aspects of a history of the anti-vivisection movement'
Week 2 (23/1/07): 'The future of animal law'
Week 3 (30/1/07): 'Speciesism'
Week 4 (6/2/07): 'Do animals have rights?'
Week 5 (13/2/07):
Week 6 (20/2/07): 'A medical researcher's perspective on animal testing'
Week 7 (27/2/07): 'Animal minds and human morals'
Week 8 (6/3/07): 'Replacing animal experiments'
Public meeting held on November 28th 2006
|
One of 25 Trustees responsible for formulating RSPCA policy, Angela has been instrumental in bringing about a shift in the organisation to a more radical stance on vivisection. At its last AGM, her amended motion to the effect that no species capable of feeling pain should be subject to experimentation was passed unanimously. Her long career in animal protection began following her own experiences of working in cancer research, where she was shocked to find that animal researchers - even if their work involves a severe dispution of an animal's physiology - do not have to have a veterinary or medical qualification. Among her past activities was a stint with the Daily Mirror, investigating the use of stolen pets in vivisection laboratories. In her view, there had been little real progress since 1976, when lab animal welfare really became an issue and a new bill was first mooted. In order to achieve change, it was necessary to get across to the public the dangers of animal research for human health. For this reason, she was pushing the RSPCA to challenge the Charities Commission ruling of 1932 which prevents charities from campaigning against vivisection (a precedent had already been set by the patient safety organisation "Safer Medicines Campaign"). The campaign, she said, needed to become "more cerebral and less emotional". At the ensuing discussion, it was suggested that much could be achieved by "the better scientists talking to the better journalists".
Since retiring from the diplomatic service, Sir David has put the skills and experience gained in the roles of British Ambassador to Greece and High Commissioner of Cyprus at the disposal of international animal welfare organisations WSPA, the Brooke charity and the Eurogroup for Animals. In particular, he has been involved in the development and promotion of the UDAW, for which WSPA acts as secretariat. The aim of this initiative, he explained, was to establish an agreed set of global general principles - similar to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights - recognising the importance of animal sentience. Its approach was essentially an anthropocentric one, stressing the positive impact of better animal care on human health, social development, poverty and hunger reduction, disaster management and environmental sustainability, with reference to the Millennium Development Goals agreed by the UN. In Sir David's view, however, the pragmatism of the campaign and its use of existing mechanisms and recognised concepts such as the "five freedoms" and the "3Rs" was one of its strengths. Also conducive to its success was the fact that it was consensual rather than didactic, evolving incrementally through "bottom-up", international collaboration. The UDAW had already obtained the support of a growing list of governments and veterinary associations from both developing and developed countries, and, significantly, the EU. The next step was to get it on the G77 agenda, with the ultimate aim of adoption by the UN General Assembly. This was clearly not an easy task, but Sir David cited the development of the EU since the Second World War as an example of how progress can be made through institutions, and the value of having an overarching vision. In answer to the criticism that the UDAW was non-mandatory and therefore had no teeth, he argued that such agreements acquire moral authority over the years, and that in time, a monitoring body might be set up along the lines of the Human Rights Commission.
The motion was proposed by Andre Menache (Chief Executive Officer of Antidote Europe) and
Alistair Currie (Research and Campaigns Co-ordinator for PETA in the UK), and opposed by Simon
Festing (Executive Director of Understanding Animals in Science) and John Stein (Professor of
Physiology at Oxford University). Before the debate began, the President of the Union announced
that the dinner laid on by the Union for its guests that evening had been a wholly
vegan event - a Union first (and, let's hope, a precedent) which received an encouraging round
of applause from the House. The four main speeches which followed can be read here. The
motion was defeated by 148 votes to 76.
A crowd of well-wishers crammed into the barbers on Oxford High Street to witness the
heroic Ellie Hale of St Hughes College having her head shaved for Against Breast
Cancer (
Organised by VERO at Oxford Friends Meeting House
At the public meeting (see above), it was interesting to hear Caroline
Lucas cite the German national centre for alternatives to animal experiments
(ZEBET) as a particularly progressive institution within Europe. As
it happened, a representative of that organisation, Dr. Barbara Grune, had
visited Oxford on the very same day, in order to give a presentation to the
various animal-research ethics committees of the University. This visit was
inititated and arranged by VERO. Established in 1989, ZEBET is incorporated
within Germany's Federal Institute for Risk Assessment and - unlike most
national centres - is state-funded. It is strong on replacement and has
pioneered many new techniques internationally, as well as documenting and
evaluating alternatives and coordinating validation studies. One promising
new project, which VERO members had initially heard about at an expert
briefing on replacement at the European Parliament last year, concerns a
"semantic search engine" called "Go3R" (
In 'The Great Cat and Dog Massacre of World War II', Dr Kean told the
astonishing story of the voluntary putting-down by their owners of hundreds
of thousands of pet dogs and cats in the first weeks of the Second War. Why
did it happen? Dr Kean's search for an answer uncovered many fascinating
documents of the time, including government advice on the care of dogs and
cats during air raids and Mass Observation studies of the relations between
pet animals and humans. This material all seemed to record the close and
loyal terms on which people and animals shared war-time experiences. The
"massacre" is therefore a puzzling anomaly: was it fear of gas attacks which
animals couldn't survive, fear of infections or of food shortages, or
general panic? This is work in progress for Dr Kean, as yet unpublished, and
she provided no single, conclusive answer. The talk brilliantly exemplified
her pioneering work in the writing of animal history.
Dr Dan Lyons, Director of Uncaged Campaigns, looked at the politics of
animal experiments and highlighted the urgent need for greater transparency
and accountability on the part of the Home Office, based on his
award-winning thesis on the administration of the 1986 Animals (Scientific
Procedures) Act. He illustrated his argument with the shocking case of
xeno-transplantation (pig-to-primate) experiments performed by Imutrans and
dramatically exposed by Uncaged in 2003.
Finally, Oxford's own Revd Professor Andrew Linzey, Director of the
Oxford Centre of Animal Ethics and the leading authority on the place of
animals in Christian thought, presented a powerful case for "why animal
suffering matters morally". He argued that the reasons traditionally given
for treating animals as our inferiors - for instance that they lack
language, foresight, moral awareness or an immortal soul - make them more
rather than less an object of our ethical concern.
This aptly sums up the purpose of the exhibition. In Alistair's words,
"it's about what we can learn from history and how we can open our eyes to
what goes on around us". The striking parallel images before us - chained
African slaves versus tethered "dancing" bears, forced labourers versus
battery-farmed hens, restrained torture victims versus helpless laboratory
animals - begged a simple question. "If massacre, torture, enslavement and
the like are wrong for human beings, aren't they wrong for animals too?
Surely, after all, it's what we do that's right or wrong, and not who it's
done to that makes it right or wrong".
This call comes as the European Commission prepares to publish draft
legislation to update the EU law on animal experimentation (Directive 86/609
EEC), which is now more than twenty years old. The Dr Hadwen Trust wants to
use the revision as an opportunity to focus Europe on the ultimate goal of
replacing animal use with more advanced and reliable alternative methods.
The hand-in event also coincided with the launch of a new report
co-written by the Dr Hadwen Trust and Humane Society International and
entitled "Towards a European science without animal experiments". The key
elements of the EU strategy proposed by the report are as follows:
In 3rd week, Andre Menache, Scientific Consultant of Antidote Europe, highlighted the hopeless inadequacy of current animal-based methods to test the approx. 30,000 chemicals proposed by the EU REACH directive (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of Chemicals). Such methods would require 12.8 million animals, cost billions and take 2,000 years to complete! The real way forward, Andre argued, was to use the modern, human-based technique of toxicogenomics, which is species-specific, fast, cost-effective and able to cope with the “cocktail effect”.
In 5th week, Katherine Morris, founding VERO member and fellow in philosophy at Mansfield College, posed the question "Do we really need all those medicines?, arguing that adverse drug reactions are not merely the result of animal testing, but a symptom of the general medicalisation of our society, where over-reliance on drugs distracts us from the real causes of illness and destroys our ability to deal with it in an autonomous way.
In 7th week, Nick Jukes, Coordinator of InterNICHE, the International Network for Humane Education, stressed the importance of "ethical and emotional literacy" in life science education, and gave a fascinating demonstration of some of the alternative tools his organisation is helping to disseminate throughout the world, including multimedia computer simulations and a state-of-the-art dog model enabling veterinary students to hone their skills far more effectively and humanely.
In 8th week, founding VERO member Matthew Simpson gave a talk entitled How Physiology came to Oxford: the New Lab and its Adversaries in the 1880s'. He showed that some of the leading figures of the University had fought a passionate campaign against the introduction of vivisection at Oxford. At their head was the newly appointed Bodley's Librarian, E.W.B.Nicholson. There were unprecedented scenes in the Sheldonian Theatre when the matter was finally debated, and although the votes went against Nicholson's party, a whole Oxford generation had been taught a lesson in tomorrow's ethics. The lesson, as we know, continues.
The first VERO event of the term was an introductory evening at
Mansfield College (the venue for all this term's meetings) on October 15th,
when our speaker was PETER TATCHELL, the human and animal rights
campaigner, VERO supporter, and prospective Green Party candidate for Oxford
East. Peter spoke about the huge sums of money spent on conventional
animal-based research into AIDS treatment over two decades, and of its
negligible and even misleading results. What we really know now, and what we
can learn in the future, said Peter, is and will be derived from human-based
studies, but at present this sort of work, which many scientists would be
able and willing to do, is systematically underfunded. This was necessarily
a sombre account, but Peter believes that vivisection is out of date and
will in time disprove itself: our business is to hurry forward that time.
After the talk and discussion there was vegan food and drink (notably fresh
fruit juice made on the spot by VERO member Paul Freestone). This was a
feature of all the term's events, which we hope made them more friendly and
productive.
Our next speaker on November 1st was MARK GOLD, the author and
animal rights campaigner, former Director of Animal Aid, and still the
editor of its magazine Outrage. His title was 'Extending the Circle of
Compassion', and he gave a moving account of the prophets and proponents
of humane living, from classical times to the 20th century. Among those whom
Mark was introducing for the first time to many in his audience were Henry
Salt (1851-1939) and J.Howard Moore (1862-1916). Henry Salt's career
illustrated how naturally a concern for animal rights belongs to a wider
desire for justice in society. From J.Howard Moore, Mark read a passage
which memorably expresses that admiration for all life upon which the animal
rights movement is founded. As an experienced leader, Mark gave wise and
authoritative advice on the most fruitful attitudes and conduct in animal
advocacy.
On November 15th, DR MARGARET CLOTWORTHY, Scientific Consultant to
Europeans for Medical Progress, presented the new EMP film Safer
Medicines. This film provides a fascinating survey of advanced
techniques in medical research, including for instance the work of Asterand's
Dr Bob Coleman on the use of human tissue in drug-development, and the
"virtual heart" which Professor Denis Noble has been developing for many
years at Oxford itself. These are not merely alternatives to animal-based
research, but far more accurate and reliable technologies, of just the sort
which Peter Tatchell had been speaking about earlier in the term. Dr
Clotworthy is a cell biologist with extensive experience in non-animal
medical research, and after the film she gave lucid, informative answers to
questions. EMP makes its film available free to schools and other
institutions, and it will surely have a strong influence for good in the
vivisection debate.
VERO's last event of the term, on November 29th, was a talk by our own
PAUL FREESTONE called 'The Future of Food'. This connected our
theme of animal-exploitation and medicine to a more general tragedy: the
story of how commercial interests, government subsidies, and our own loss of
food sense, have corrupted this most basic of human relations with the
physical world. Paul showed the results in drug dependency, ruined
environments, and squandered resources. It was a brilliant talk, illustrated
with many astonishing statistics (the world's livestock produces 18% of
greenhouse gases - more even than transport; 30% of food produced is thrown
away uneaten; 88 varieties of crisps at Asda), and also with the foods
spread out in front of him as he spoke (including a visibly greasy Starbuck's
muffin, worth 571 calories, and a commercially prepared leek and potato soup
comprising 17 ingredients). By 2050, at the present rate of recklessness, we
will be needing five more planets to keep us fed. Paul's own cooking, plus
samples of commercially produced vegan fare, showed the right way ahead and
provided a delightful end to the evening.
purposes, ranging through historical, legal, ethical, psychological,
theological and medical aspects, and including one talk by a medical
researcher who himself engaged in animal experimentation (and who expressed
himself pleasantly surprised at the civilised reception he had from audience
members). All of the lectures provided a lively focus for discussion which
continued in the University Club afterwards over refreshments.
We hope this will feed into the positive dialogue which VERO is attempting
to build up within the University, and encourage a process of information
sharing between institutions and disciplines.
Organised by VERO to debate the subject
Humane Alternatives to Animal Research: the Way Forward for 21st Century Medicine. Read
the report