AIA Board member and Founder and Chair of Panorthodox Concern for Animals, Dr Christina Nellist, has just launched her two new books, published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
The books are Climate Crisis and Sustainable Creaturely Care: Integrated Theology, Governance and Justice and Climate Crisis and Creation Care: Historical Perspectives, Ecological Integrity and Justice.
Both books are being added to the BA (Hons) course ‘Animals and Society’ at Winchester University, UK.
The books consist of many scholarly contributions which Christina has edited and complied. Chapter 1 of Climate Crisis and Sustainable Creaturely Care, was written by members of AIA, and is titled “The Animal Interfaith Alliance’s Vision for the Place of Animals in a Sustainable World”. It is introduced by AIA’s President, Dr Richard Ryder and the conclusion has been drawn up by AIA CE, Barbara Gardner. There is a contribution from each of the main faiths, including the Jain and Hindu perspectives by Nitin Mehta MBE, the Buddhist perspective by Dr Will Tuttle, the Jewish perspective by Prof. Dan Cohn-Sherbok, the Eastern Orthodox perspective by Dr Christina Nellist, the Catholic perspective by Dr Deborah Jones, the Anglican perspective by Rev. Prof. Fr Martin Henig, the Unitarian Universalist perspective by Rev. Feargus O’Connor, the Islamic perspective by Faizan Jalil, and the Sikh perspective by Charanjit AjitSingh.
This volume encapsulates the thoughts and research of academics across the globe in regards to the biggest crisis of our generation: climate change. Considering the global crisis though the lens of creation care, this volume reviews the damage we have done to our environment and how our misuse of resources threatens all forms of life on earth via food insecurity, rising sea levels, mass migration and social unrest. This book presents a global voice on our historical impact on the world, the governance that allowed it and how creation care can present a way out of this crisis.
The book, Climate Crisis and Sustainable Creaturely Care, can be purchased here.
The other book, Climate Crisis and Creation Care, can be purchased here.
This, coupled with a 90-97% failure rate for drugs and topical medicines is why we support the ban of the animal-testing mode.
Please help them by writing to your MPs, asking them to support the EDM 175 in Parliament which is calling for a public scientific hearing on animal experiments – for independent scrutiny from independent scientists – on the animal-testing model.
Please share – for this will only change if Parliament stops repeating the outdated responses of the past and starts looking at the new science and the new evidence.
AIA Director Dr Andre Menache has responded to the Government’s comments. (These are shown below in red).
The Government believes animal use for research remains important and The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) provides specific protection for these animals..
There is an explicit exclusion under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA), to provide for the legitimate conduct of procedures on ‘protected animals’ for scientific or educational purposes that may cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. The use of animals in scientific research remains a vital tool in improving our understanding of how biological systems work both in health and disease. Such use is crucial for the development of new medicines and cutting-edge medical technologies for both humans and animals, and for the protection of our environment.
The 1986 Act effectively enshrines animal suffering by means of legal definitions, whereby an animal experiment becomes a ‘regulated procedure’ licensed to potentially cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm to a ‘protected animal’, which encompasses all living vertebrates other than humans, under the responsibility of humans.
Thus, identical acts of deliberate animal cruelty potentially punishable by custodial sentencing under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are essentially immune from prosecution under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
No animals may be used under ASPA if there is a validated non-animal alternative that would achieve the scientific outcomes sought. The protections for animals under ASPA include the need for three levels of licence for such procedures to occur, welfare standards which need to be met, and activities including inspection which assure compliance with ASPA. The Home Office is the department responsible for regulating the use of animals under ASPA. If any activity is found to be in breach of what is permitted under ASPA, then the AWA will apply.
The above statement represents a catch-22 situation : “No animals may be used under ASPA if there is a validated non-animal alternative that would achieve the scientific outcomes sought.”
If the scientific outcome sought is to study the effect of a chemical on a rat, then it is difficult to envisage how a non-animal “alternative” could replace the rat experiment. However, the use of rats is justified on the unscientific premise that animal models somehow are able to predict human outcome.
Validated non-animal “alternatives” do exist but are ignored by industry with impunity. Take the example of the human cell based method to replace the rabbit pyrogen test, developed by NIBSC researchers in 1988 (1). This non animal method (the Monocyte Activation Test) was validated in 2006 and yet is still ignored by certain sectors of industry (2). Please could you indicate the legal mechanism within the context of the ASPA that would oblige industry to use an existing validated non-animal method, including the imposition of fines and penalties. If you cannot find this information, it is probably due to the fact that it does not exist.
Details of the code of practice for housing and accommodation of animals regulated under ASPA approved by Parliament which form a core pillar of compliance assurance activities under ASPA are available at: Code of practice for the housing and care of animals bred, supplied or used for scientific purposes – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).
Animal testing is required by all global medicines regulators, including the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), to protect human health and safety.
The regulatory requirement that all medicines be tested on animals to protect human health and safety is based on outdated laws, dating back to 1946 at the time of the Doctors’ Trial at Nuremberg. Science has moved forward since then by 75 years but the laws have not yet caught up with the science (3). To continue to ignore current science is tantamount to medical negligence (4).
Without the testing of potential medicines on animals the development, registration and marketing of new, safe, and effective medicines would not be possible. The animal species for animal testing of potential medicines are specifically chosen to give as much human relevant information as possible and to avoid species specific reactions which would not predict human effects. Many products which would not be safe or effective in humans are detected through animal testing thus avoiding harm to humans. Potential medicines fail in development for many reasons but the fact that medicines are stopped in development for reasons other than unsatisfactory animal testing does not mean that the testing is not essential.
Extraordinary claims (those above) require extraordinary evidence. Yet you have not provided a single peer reviewed scientific reference to support your claims. In contrast, there is a vast body of evidence-based science to demonstrate that no animal species can predict human response with respect to drug development or human diseases (5, 6, 7, 8).
The Government has a policy to limit the number of animals used in science through replacement, reduction, and refinement of research design – the ‘3Rs’. Applicants for licences must demonstrate that they have considered using non-animal alternatives as far as possible. Meanwhile the Government actively supports and funds the development and dissemination of techniques that replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in research (the 3Rs). This is achieved primarily through funding for the National Centre for the 3Rs (NC3Rs), which works nationally and internationally to drive the uptake of 3Rs technologies and ensure that advances in the 3Rs are reflected in animal research policy, practice and regulations. NC3Rs has committed £100 million. This includes almost £27 million in contracts through its CRACK IT Challenges scheme to UK and EU-based institutions, mainly focusing on new approaches for the safety assessment of pharmaceuticals and chemicals that reduce the use of animals.
From the 22 completed CRACK IT Challenges, 12 new products and services have been delivered for industrial and academic end-users. These include miniature wireless devices for recording neural activity in mice; novel human-relevant microphysiological systems and organ on-a-chip platforms for kidney, cardiac and neuronal toxicity assessment; and AI/ in silico modelling platforms for infection, welfare monitoring and toxicology studies. The MHRA work closely with the NC3Rs, bringing together stakeholders in academia, industry, government and animal welfare organisations to facilitate the exchange of information and ideas, and the translation of research findings into practice that benefits animals and science.
The 3Rs concept was indeed innovative when it was proposed in 1959. Today, the 3Rs concept is out of step with current science and technology.
The NC3Rs was launched in 2004 with an annual budget of £696k from the Department of Trade and Industry, the Medical Research Council (MRC), the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)) and the Home Office (hence taxpayer money). Since then the budget has grown considerably, totalling five million pounds in research grants in 2017.
The stated mission of the NC3Rs is to “drive scientific and technological developments that replace, reduce or refine the use of animals in research (the 3Rs); ensure animal experiments are as robust and reproducible as possible; and provide the best welfare for laboratory animals”.
According to official Home Office statistics, a total of 2,778,692 animals were used in scientific procedures in 2004 (the year the NC3Rs was launched). This figure has risen by almost one million animals to reach 3,721,744 in 2017. Clearly, the NC3Rs mission to “replace, reduce or refine the use of animals in research” has been a huge disappointment.
Equally alarming is the fact that in 2017, the annual report of the NC3Rs acknowledged the “ongoing reproducibility crisis and concerns about the reliability of animal research”.
The fact that 85% of animal study results cannot be reproduced by other research teams (and sometimes even by the same research team) is a huge embarrassment to the animal research community (9). Could it get any worse ? Yes, because even if the methodology used to conduct the animal experiments was carried out to the letter, the results obtained would still not be predictive of human outcome, due to species differences between animals and humans (10).
Fortunately for the researchers, the public is unaware of this state of affairs, otherwise taxpayer funding and support for animal experiments would dry up very quickly.
It should be noted that the emphasis at the NC3Rs is not the replacement of animals as can be seen in their 2012 report, in which grants for replacement accounted for 33% of total funding.
In other words, two-thirds of their budget is allocated to reduction and refinement of animal experiments, rather than actual replacement. Following are some examples of the research projects funded by the NC3Rs in the fields of reduction and refinement:
Researchers at Newcastle University were awarded £247,800 to study the assessment of pain using facial expressions in laboratory mice, rats, rabbits and macaques. The same University received £484,656 to assess pain in macaque monkeys used in neuroscience experiments and again (£380,748) to study the welfare of mice used in cancer research.
Researchers at Imperial College, London, received £270,784 to study bacterial infections in mice.
A researcher at Aston University received £152,048 to develop a less painful model of epilepsy in rats.
The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine was awarded £317,995 to study malaria in mice. Researchers at the University of Sheffield received £353,324 to study the relationship between nerve activity and blood flow in the brain of zebra fish.
We do not need three Rs, the only R required for human medical advancement is that of full replacement of a broken system by one that is relevant and predictive for human medicine. The sooner this message is understood and acted upon by society and government, the better for all concerned – human and animal.
To conclude the Government has no plans to amend the Animal Welfare Act (2006). We consider enabling the properly regulated use of animals in science is essential to improving the health and lives of humans and animals and to the safety and sustainability of our environment. Underpinning this is a strong commitment to a rigorous regulatory framework that fully implements the 3Rs and the continued development of non-animal alternatives.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
The debate surrounding animal experiments will not go away until it is dealt with in a responsible and transparent manner. The main reason that animal researchers have managed to pursue their careers for so long is because of a lack of any scientific audit of their work. The general public and most members of parliament do not have the science background necessary to challenge the validity of the claims made by animal researchers. When faced with the mantra that animal research is a “necessary evil” the public has no choice but to accept the promises of future cures for human diseases.
One way forward is EDM 175, which calls on the UK Government to mandate a rigorous public scientific hearing, judged by independent experts from the relevant science fields, to stop the funding of the now proven failed practice of animal experimentation and increase funding for state-of-the-art human-based research, such as human-on-a-chip and gene-based medicine, to prioritise treatments and cures for human patients and stop the suffering of laboratory dogs and other animals (11).
The Petitions Committee will take a look at this petition and its response. They can press the government for action and gather evidence. If this petition reaches 100,000 signatures, the Committee will consider it for a debate.
Register now and join Dharma Voices for Animals on Saturday 31st July 2021 for a special DVA Speakers Series event, In Conversation: With Thomas Wade Jackson, director of the award-winning, feature-length documentary, A Prayer for Compassion, and Bob Isaacson, President and Co-Founder of Dharma Voices for Animals.
When you register, you will be given access to a free screening of A Prayer for Compassion to watch before the webinar.
On 2 July 2021 the Animal Interfaith Alliance wrote an open letter to the Chief Executive of AstraZeneca urging the use of non animal testing methods instead of relying on outdated animal models. They sent the same letter to the Chief Executive of Glaxosmithkline. The letter is reproduced here:
2 July 2021
Dear Pascal Soriot,
We, the Animal Interfaith Alliance, a group of 17 faith-based animal advocacy organisations (listed below), write to you in your capacity as CEO of AstraZeneca to ask you to engage in a genuine dialogue concerning some of the corporate practices of your company.
We appeal first and foremost to your corporate social responsibility, generally defined as the self-regulation of a business model that helps a company be socially and morally accountable to itself, its stakeholders and the public.
The specific issue we wish to raise is the use of animals used to develop and test new pharmaceutical products intended for human use. We fully realise that the use of animals is currently a legal requirement, based on national and international regulations. These regulatory requirements can be traced back to the Doctors’ Trial at Nuremberg at the end of the Second World War, 1946 (1).
Science has moved forward since then by 75 years, but the laws have not yet caught up with the science. The result of this legal inertia is a continued reliance on outdated and unreliable animal testing, which can be summed up in the following paragraph:
“In 2004, the FDA estimated that 92 percent of drugs that pass preclinical tests, including “pivotal” animal tests, fail to proceed to the market. More recent analysis suggests that, despite efforts to improve the predictability of animal testing, the failure rate has actually increased and is now closer to 96 percent. The main causes of failure are lack of effectiveness and safety problems that were not predicted by animal tests” (2).
Not only is the continued use of animals responsible for an enormous amount of avoidable animal suffering but it is also responsible for a significant incidence of human adverse drug reactions (3). This is not surprising in view of our current knowledge of inter and even intra-species differences, based on genomics, complexity theory and evolutionary biology (4).
The following paragraph makes the connection between animal testing and shareholder expectations:
“Pharmaceutical firms seek to fulfil their responsibilities to stakeholders by developing drugs that treat diseases. We evaluate the social and financial costs of developing new drugs relative to the realized benefits and find the industry falls short of its potential. This is primarily due to legislation-mandated reliance on animal test results in early stages of the drug development process, leading to a mere 10 percent success rate for new drugs entering human clinical trials. We cite hundreds of biomedical studies from journals including Nature, Science, and the Journal of the American Medical Association to show animal modelling is ineffective, misleading to scientists, unable to prevent the development of dangerous drugs, and prone to prevent the development of useful drugs.” (5).
The pharmaceutical industry is best placed to make the paradigm change needed to replace outdated and unreliable animal tests with human relevant test methods, including human 3D cell culture, organs on chips, pharmacogenomics, and similar 21st century technologies that were previously unavailable.
Only the pharmaceutical industry has the resources to scientifically validate human based test methods and steer them through the regulatory framework.
The development, manufacture and mass marketing of the COVID-19 vaccine was achieved in just 10 months instead of the normal 10 to 15 years. The pharmaceutical industry has already had 75 years in which to replace animal tests. Now is the time to invest some of the profits made from the COVID-19 vaccine and to improve Big Pharma reputations by using the non-animal tests that are currently available, whilst establishing a group of committed scientists dedicated to the creation of new non-animal methodologies. We are sure you will agree that this would represent a win-win situation for your company, for human health and for animal welfare.
On Saturday 29th May 2021, Dr Richard Ryder (AIA’s President) was awarded the 7th Peter Singer Prize for strategies to reduce the suffering of animals. The video of the event can be viewed here.
The prize was founded by Dr Walter Neussel who sadly passed away just days before the event and we would like to express our deepest sympathies to his family and our sincerest gratitude to Walter for the work he has done to promote animal rights through the foundation of the Peter Singer prize.
Peter Singer was the keynote speaker and had been the winner of the first Peter Singer prize. The ceremony was introduced by Udo Neussel (Walter Neussel’s son) and moderated by Prof. Edna Hillmann, professor for Animal Husbandry at Humboldt University in Berlin. It included talks from key players in the animal rights movement including:
Dr H.C. Dieter Birnbacher of the Institute of Philosophy at Heinrich Heine University, Dusseldorf on “Speciesism – a Re-Evaluation”;
Prof Dr Bernd Ladwig of the Otto Suhr Institute of Political Science, Berlin on “Why the Critique of Speciesism should not be based on the Argument from Human Marginal Cases”;
Dr Colette Vogeler, Chair of Comparative Politics and Public Policy, Technical University at Braunschweig on “The Role of Farm Animal Welfare in Agricultural Policies in International Comparative Perspective”; and
Marlene Thleme, Founder of the Dutch Party for the Animals on “Why the World Needs a Political Party on Animals”.
Further information about Dr Ryder and the prize can be read here.
As we celebrate World Environment Day on June 5th, we should not overlook the significance of its connection to the World Day Against Speciesism, also on June 5th. So much of our environmental damage is the result of our disregard for our fellow species with whom we share the Creation. Because we eat them, we destroy natural environments and burn down virgin forests to create land to grow crops to feed them. We may think that by putting them in factory farms we are saving space, but we need significantly more space to grow crops to inefficiently feed farmed animals than we would need simply to feed ourselves directly.
Speciesism is the irrational prejudice that puts humans on a pedestal. It assumes humans are superior to all other species and have the right to exploit them and make them suffer for our needs and wants. It is a prejudice similar to sexism or racism. The term was coined by the psychologist, ethicist, writer and political animal lobbyist, Dr Richard D. Ryder in 1970.
For those looking for a way to help the environment on World Environment Day, consider the way we treat our fellow creatures. By extending our circle of compassion to include them, we will do much to end their suffering and save planet Earth.