Pro Anima write to the Deputy

ˆ partir du 10/09/2009

 Paris, 28th of March 09

Madam Deputy, Deputy,

The European Directive CEE 86/609 aimed at establishing the policy of the European Commission towards animal experimentation in the coming years is about to be modified.

The Pro Anima Scientific Committee which works for the research, development and promotion of alternative methods to animal experimentation, aims to benefit the human race through progress in biological sciences.

We deplore the fact that the proposed amendments to the Directive do nothing to promote the development of alternative methods, and even less to speed up validation technique.

Nevertheless there are many scientific arguments against the use of animals in biomedical research, for example in toxicology. In the United Kingdom alone a survey among 500 doctors reported in the Scotsman (September 1, 2004), reported that more than 80% of doctors asked had no confidence in experiments carried out on animals and called for independent study of the effectiveness of animal testing.

In 2006, 250 European MPs signed an Early Day Motion to call Parliament’s attention to the need for independent and transparent scientific evaluation of the use of animals as human analogues to test the effectiveness of medicines, as well as in medical research. Dr. Gibson declared “We plan to lodge a further Early Day Motion, and I think we’ll get a lot of support from members. We’ll be asking for an evaluation of the effectiveness of animal testing”.

Elsewhere Dr. Alan Roses, responsible for genetics at Glaxo maintained “90% of medicines are effective for 30-50% of patients” (The Independent 08/12/03). This goes some way to explaining why secondary effects of medicine are the fourth cause of mortality in most Western countries (Journal of the American Medical Association April, 1998; British Medical Journal July, 2004).

In 2006 safety testing on monkeys led to the disastrous subsequent human clinical trial at Northwick Park; Vioxx, the pain suppressant has resulted in about 320,000 heart attacks (including 120,000 deaths), after the drug had been shown to be  beneficial in animals! (New England Journal of Medicine 2004, 351 : 1717-9)

This serious news gives us cause to question currently used methods of evaluating toxicity. It shows us that no species can be a reliable model for another; each is defined by its reproductive uniqueness. Research should therefore respect the specificity of species.

 We demand an urgent validation of alternative methods and that funding for invitro research match that devoted to animal testing.

 We also insist that, as in the Helsinki declaration, animal experimentation should become optional and not obligatory (as in the case of conscientious objection).

 These new methods which have come from advances in biology, in computing, and from medical imaging . . . are capable of generating new employment in the European Union.

 We cannot believe that the European Parliament would pass up a unique opportunity to become a pioneer in scientific experimentation without animals, becoming in the process an international standard bearer for science that is modern, ethical and viable.

 Thanking you in advance for your close attention to this vital issue, we assure you of our greatest respect.

Professeur Jean-François BEQUAIN                                         

Président     

P/O Christiane LAUPIE-KOECHLIN

Fondatrice – Secrétaire Générale                                                                      

Comité Scientifique Pro Anima