I’m talking about highly invasive procedures on living primates like open brain operations and vision experiments, HIV research and various xenotransplantation procedures.
Importantly, did you know that you are actually paying for these?
If you didn’t know this, it’s no surprise. It’s one of our governments and universities’ best kept secrets. Collectively, through misdirection and obfuscation, they continue to detract from the issue, suppress information and outright lie to keep you in the dark.
Ok so that sounds a little ‘conspirationalist’? Well, hear me out.
One of the things we do at HRA is obtain information and expose it. We break down scientific jargon, usually found in medical journals, to reveal what is actually happening to animals and we challenge the justification put forward by researchers. Unless, as a society, we know what is going on, it is not possible to have an open and honest debate about whether or not animal experimentation is a valid method of research.
Such information however, is never easy to obtain. Research institutions are never forthcoming with details about animal abuse and neither are governments.
Here are some examples:
Names of license holders
Aside from the obvious (universities) and ad hoc findings through publications and website searches, we don’t even know what institutions in Victoria are using animals in research. Surely acquiring such a list is a very basic request. Yet, despite several Freedom of Information (FOI) requests and subsequent appeals, this information has been continually denied to us – as it has to previous applicants going back several decades.
Our last request was quite simple and very general – “A list of the names of institutions currently holding Scientific Procedures Premises Licenses in Victoria.” It did not request the names of researchers nor the nature of their work, yet it was argued by the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport & Resources (which issues the licenses) that its disclosure “would be reasonably likely to endanger the lives or physical safety” of researchers. We didn’t actually request (or even want) names of people – just the names of the institutions, as being an organisation that supports research using alternatives to animal experiments it would be prudent to know what institutions are actually conducting them in order to discuss the issue directly.
The argument about protecting researchers from marauding groups of vicious anti-vivisection assailants hurling bricks and Molotov cocktails has long been exhausted. If it wasn’t still rolled out as the excuse it would be almost amusing. It does however reflect badly on the researchers and universities that unlike organizations such as HRA, remain firmly wedged in the 19th century in both outlook and arguments including their antiquated arguments for retaining the use of animals in research.
Previous requests of a similar nature by other parties have also been declined and decisions upheld at both the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Victoria (now the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) and the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria.[1]
Incidentally, HRA also submitted an FOI request to the Australia Federal Police to enquire as to whether there have been any threats against researchers. Surprisingly, our request was agreed and responded to. Unsurprisingly, there were no recorded threats against any researcher that could be identified.
Statistics
Numbers of animals used in research each year should be, you would think, another simple request, but even obtaining this basic information is problematic. While some states do provide detailed statistics on a regular basis, others do not, making accurate national figures almost impossible to determine.
For example, HRA has received partial statistics from South Australia – only after a long winded FOI process – and even then, the government advised that the data provided was incomplete. Queensland does not provide them at all. So, the national statistics are collected through a painstaking process of following up each state/territory government, then estimating those from missing states based on the last numbers recorded, then collated by HRA to provide what we consider to be a conservative national figure.
Surely these statistics are necessary to determine whether the 3Rs Principle (Replace, Reduce, Refine animal use) is being adhered to and measure it’s success, yet rather than our governments (state and federal) working together on this, it is left to HRA to provide the closest estimate possible.
Incident reports of animal use
You may recall our report on Conan and Scar – two baboons used in a very controversial type of research (xenotransplantation). Just to recap:
… we became aware of a very controversial procedure conducted on a baboon named Conan. Shortly after the procedure, Conan was killed due to the development of disseminated intravascular coagulation [Widespread activation of clotting in small blood vessels throughout the body leading to failing blood flow and multiple organ damage.] The experiment had failed.
While we had sufficient evidence that this had occurred, we were unable to use it, so we sought similar research in medical journals and then sent a request under the Government Information Public Access (GIPA) Act to the relevant body to enquire whether the research had proceeded to the level we were aware of [simply put, that Conan was killed]. We were told it hadn’t (which we clearly believed to be untrue). We therefore resubmitted a new GIPA application naming Conan and specifically requesting details of his death. The response was “to refuse access to the information you have requested because there is an overriding public interest against disclosure of the information.”
What that public interest was or could be has never been disclosed. Surely there is an overriding public interest in knowing and understanding that information or, to paraphrase Jack Nicholson, does the government seriously suggest we can’t handle the truth?
When you strip it all away (you hope) it’s probably down to some overworked, lowly paid government bureaucrat who may have run this by his/her boss quickly one day before responding in the negative playing the public interest card no doubt played many thousand times previously. To think the alternative – that the government thoughtfully considered the requests and sought expert opinion from all different quarters before making this type of decision - is a little difficult to believe in what is considered to be a free and open society. Isn’t it?
Well we still didn’t have any further information about Conan, nor his colleagues Scar, Frazer and Belvedere, so we lodged another GIPA application requesting incident reports from the Wallacia baboon colony. Specifically, “A copy of any incident reports relating to death, injury or illness”. It was hoped that this might provide us with information on the fate of these baboons. Surprisingly (note my sarcasm) our application was denied on the grounds that it was against the public interest, as was the subsequent review by the Information and Privacy Commission NSW for the very same reason. To this day, we still don’t know the fate of these unfortunate animals.
So, going back to my previous point about open and honest debate, unless we know what is going on, it is not possible to have a rational discussion on whether or not animal experimentation is a valid method of research.
What we undeniably do know is that Australia uses millions of animals every year and subjects many of them to highly invasive procedures. They are cruel, they are unjustified, they are scientifically flawed at best, downright dangerous at worst. They are not a “necessary evil”. But as long as we are kept in the dark they will continue, as an alternate case cannot be argued without knowing the facts, and our governments and universities seemingly know this all too well.
For further information about animal experiments: Please visit www.HumaneResearch.org.au
Like us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/HumaneResearchAustralia/
Like us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/HumaneResearchAustralia/
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HRAust
[1] Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs v Bennie (1989) VR 836 and Schifferegger v Department of Agriculture (1995) 9 VAR 61.
No comments:
Post a Comment