The Green Party are dangerously wrong on animal rights
Posted by gimpy on September 5, 2009
Some months ago I contacted the Green Party expressing an interest in blogging the following claims made on their website and requested details of the evidence base supporting them.
Experiments on animals are unreliable as a guide to human biology.
Different species react differently to drugs and toxic substances.
Many drugs that cause damaging side-effects in people have passed animal tests.
There are viable alternatives to animal testing including epidemiology, the use of cell cultures, human tissue and computer simulation.
The Green Party office put me in touch with Sue Baumgardt, the ‘animal rights spokesperson’. Sue’s response was enlightening.
I think you’ll find most of the answers you want on the following website: www.safermedicines.org This is an organisation opposed to animal testing on medical rather than ethical grounds. Our policies are based on lots of information out there from various organisations, also including British Union of Anti-Vivisectionists (BUAV) and the Dr Hadwin Trust[sic] (who research alternatives to animals).
[...]I hope that this information will be useful to you. Science is moving on all the time and even the head of cancer research in the USA has said that we can cure cancer in a mouse but not in humans. More scientists are putting their heads above the parapet but animal testing is very entrenched and many people’s careers, grants and incomes are based on it. Of course, not all animal testing is for ‘wonder cures’. Lots is for household/agricultural/industrials chemicals, warfare and inquisitive and basic research at universities. It is this cavalier approach to other sentient species which I personally so abhor. Also, with all the billions which have been poured into eg. cancer research, we still have more and more people dying of cancer. The environmental causes are not really being dealt with – big question marks over the use of plastic packaging for food and drinks to name but one thing.
With the banning of animal testing for cosmetics within the EU, industry has come up with other methods – it’s concentrated their minds whereas before they could just continue using the old methods with animals seen as disposable objects. A phasing out of other animal testing will have the same effect.
This initial response is very interesting as it clearly lays out a couple of concerns I have with the Green Party’s approach to policy on scientific matters:
1. They only use narrow and highly biased sources of information when formulating policy. Both the BUAV and the Dr Hadwen Trust are arguing from an ideological position that all animal research is unnecessary.
2. They have no understanding of scientific research or medicine. They don’t understand that animals experimentation is expensive and if there were cheaper effective alternatives they would be widely used. They don’t understand that cancer has as many causes as there are genes in the genome, it is not a single entity. They don’t understand that basic research is the bedrock of science and that ‘wonder cures’ are a consequence of it, not a separate branch of science.
While there is nothing wrong with approaching policy from ideology, indeed it is a desirable trait in politics, I feel The Green Party (and their advisers) haven’t thought through the consequences of a ban on the use of animals in research. There would be no more biomedical science. There would be an end to research to improve farming conditions for livestock. Without the use of animal models of disease there would be no more wonder cures. When questioned on the implications of this Sue Baumgardt informed me that:
[...] we mustn’t keep concentrating on the medical experiments using animals. Animals are used in industrial, agricultural and household chemical tests as well as disgusting warfare stuff such as biological, gas and chemical warfare. A couple of years back they were using goats in Gosport for hyperbaric tests. As if we don’t have enough divers who’ve suffered the bends who we could observe and run tests on. When I wrote to the MoD about how some other countries were using a non-animal test they said it hadn’t yet been proven in this country!!!!!!!!!! Also the tests on Botox that were done at Wickham Labs on mice (only discovered because an activist got into the labs and took paperwork). The French use a test called Snap 24(?) which doesn’t use animals. Again the Home Office told me that our pharma companies hadn’t accepted it yet. These are the things that make us so angy, especially as animals are suffering and dying for this immoral and cavalier approach to life. And of course there’s the inquisitive, basic research done at universities. Some have been doing stuff on drugs such as cocaine, LSD, Es, canabis and their effects on animals. Also alcohol research. Now what’s all that about? We’ve got loads of alcoholics and drug addicts we can look at, test and observe without using non-human animal life. It sort of reminds me how researchers have used blacks, native Americans, the disabled, Aborigines etc etc – and the Jews, Gypsies and other less worthy beings (in the eyes of the abusers).
I am not sure if Ms Baumgardt is presenting official Green Policy alternatives but the irony of comparing the horrors of past atrocities with animal experimentation then recommending the use of diseased or drug addicted individuals instead has escaped her.
Ms Baumgardt, incidentally, links to SHAC on her website. When I questioned the wisdom of this she responded:
The Shoreham Protester has nothing to do with the Green Party. It’s a digest of animal rights news from here and other parts of the world. As such it reports events and mentions groups and activities. The hard copy paper and the website have been going since long before I was spokepserson – a role I was given as my knowledge of animal rights subjects is vast. Not everyone who supports the closing of HLS has done illegal activities, although I will say that the media hype in branding any direct action as terrorism is quite a ridiculous use of the word. I personally don’t support some of the actions but I do understand the frustration of those with great compassion for the suffering of the animals and with less restraint than others. This frustration has grown out of our government’s total support for the company, even to the point of giving them banking facilities with the Bank of England, getting the Royal Bank of Scotland to wipe out their huge debt, allowng them not to submit audited accounts etc etc. despite the fact that HLS has been exposed about 6 or 7 times for sloppy research, falsification of results, breaches of regulations and animal cruelty, both here and in the USA. If you look at the environmental movement there have also been actions that in the USA have been labelled as terrorism. There has been a recent discussion in the USA as to why the man who shot and killed the pro-abortionist hasn’t been labelled a terrorist, yet animal rights and environmental protesters are considered the No1 domestic threat (Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act). What they mean is that they are hitting at big business while the anti-abortionist is only hitting a person. All movements for social change have resorted to illegal direct actions throughout history. That’s just a fact, not necessarily an endorsement. Even the government that is so hot on everyone being so peaceful (and ineffective re the status quo), is happy to resort to violence in its national and international dealings. Perhaps you should take a look at the Sea Shepherd website. Captain Paul Watson (a Greenpeace founder) has said that he’s prepared to take direct action to stop illegal whaling and that includes damage to property but never to people.
Even if the website is personal it is highly inappropriate for an official spokesperson to appear to support criminal acts for an ideological cause.
My advice to The Green Party, and this was communicated to some members, would be that if they want to be taken seriously on matters of science they need to consult with experts in areas subject to the effects of their policies. In this case this would mean contacting scientists working on animals, and organisations that support them, such as Understanding Animal Research. They shouldn’t rely on voices that they perceive as friendly to give them advice. They should be bold and engage directly with relevant experts on the subject of their policies. By only listening to voices you judge as sympathetic there is a danger that you will be blind to the flaws in their arguments, unaware of their lack of expertise and will become blinkered to alternatives.
I would also advise The Green Party to choose their spokespeople and experts with care. Ms Baumgardt struck me as a principled person with a strong and passioante commitment to her cause. But the rod of ideology that runs through a political party must be willing to bend with the prevailing winds to draw new supporters to your cause. Ms Baumgardt and her views did not strike me as being particularly flexible.
According to a tweet from @TheGreenParty this morning they seem to have a new animals rights spokesperson since I last corresponded with Ms Baumgardt.
@gimpyblog Julia Stephenson is our animal rights spokesperson: http://www.greenparty.org.uk/people/169.html
Julia Stephenson has some infamy as being distinctly unscientific in her interpretation of reality. I am not hopeful that the Green Party are capable of approaching scientific issues in a rational and evidence based manner.
I know many sceptical and rational types disillusioned with the current mire of mainstream politics have cast their vote in protest in support of the Green Party in the hope of a better tomorrow. I hope they will demand that the Green Party change and embrace a scientific understanding of the world. But until they do I will not and cannot support them.
(this post is likely to be updated, published quickly due to necessity and time constraints. Please comment freely and I will endeavour to incorporate arguments into updates.)
*Update*
Minor spelling/grammar.
@TheGreenParty on twitter have said about their animals rights spokesperson:
@gimpyblog The explanation is simply that you were referred to the wrong person. Julia has been our animal rights spokesperson since Jan 09.
This means that Sue Baumgardt and the Greens corresponded with me for nearly three months without realising this mistake. This is astonishing.
*Update 2*
Even if Julia Stephenson is the Green Party’s spokesperson, something google belies, it seems she has a stake in Vestey Foods Group, well known producers of meat. I wonder if she profits from factory farming? This is an aspect of animal treatment that I am distinctly uncomfortable with and would support stricter regulation of.
KateV said
I’m not sure you’re not making the same mistake as the Green Party, in looking at the broad picture rather than the detail. You’re right that animal testing is necessary in some circumstances, they’re right that a lot of unnecessary testing is still carried on. e.g. the LD50 gets nastier and nastier as chemicals get safer and safer because it takes higher and higher doses to kill half the test animals. It is a political matter when safety regulations require testing on animals when there are better and cheaper methods available. You ask for evidence for four claims. The first three can be answered with a single word: thalidamide.
jdc325 said
Kate, you claim that thalidomide can provide the evidence for the first three claims (Experiments on animals are unreliable as a guide to human biology; Different species react differently to drugs and toxic substances; Many drugs that cause damaging side-effects in people have passed animal tests). However, thalidomide was not tested in pregnant animals prior to its approval – if *more* animal testing had been done (specifically in pregnant animals) it is likely that thalidomide would have been discovered to be a teratogen and never recommended for pregnant women. It is my understanding that thalidomide was tested in rabbits following reports of birth defects and the same birth defects were observed in rabbits. I don’t think that thalidomide is a good example to choose in order to refute any of the four claims Gimpy mentioned.
KateV said
Thalidamide was passed for use after tests on rodents, so animals are unrelable as a guide to human biology, different species react differently … and ok it was only one example.
KateV said
Thalidamide was passed for use after tests on rodents but the metabolic pathways are different so the tetragenic effects did not materialise: so animals are unrelable as a guide to human biology, different species react differently … and ok it was only one example.
jdc325 said
@KateV: “Thalidamide was passed for use after tests on rodents but the metabolic pathways are different so the tetragenic effects did not materialise: so animals are unrelable as a guide to human biology, different species react differently … and ok it was only one example.”
I thought it was the case that thalidomide was not tested on pregnant animals before it was approved – your comment seems to imply that it *was* and that the reason that teratogenic effects were not seen was the difference (in metabolic pathways) between the pregnant animals tested and the pregnant women who later took the drug. Please can you clarify this point? Was thalidomide really tested on pregnant animals?
Chris said
I am glad that those of us in the USA missed out on the thalidomide bit due to a Canadian-born doctor who refused to allow its use until safety data was provided (she also happened to be from the same island that my spouse is from!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Oldham_Kelsey
gimpy said
Kate, this about more than testing. This is about the use of animals in basic research, drug developmentm etc. IMHO LD50 tests are a distraction from the real issue which is the utter idiocy of the greens on animal research. I support the reduction of animal tests when unnecessary. But this is a tiny fraction of total animal usage in science.
I don’t see how one drug negates the use of all animal testing, what about the millions of compounds sucessfully tested on animals?
KateV said
Sorry, Gimpy you’re still missing my point: I didn’t say one drug negates the use of all animal testing and I didn’t say I was against all animal testing, which includes research.
I disagree that only a small percentage of animal tests are unnecessary – the number of animals used in research has declined quite dramatically over the years but scientists are always
absolutely adamant every test they want to do is essential. It took a long time to get the OECD to rule against use of the LD50 test – although it is still used in some places – despite the fact there is huge variability between species and scientists themselves were very unhappy about it.
It doesn’t help to simply oppose someone simply because you disagree with their overall position. That’s just kneejerk. Better to look at their arguments individually and see if any have merit. Concede on those and it makes your opposition to the rest more valid. The Greens are finally making some headway – surely it’s better to inform than sneer?
Incidentally: a long time ago, when the Green Party was still the Ecology Party, I helped formulate an agriculture policy. This did not go down well with the ponytail and veggie footwear brigade because it included meat. Not just, actually not mainly, as a source of protein but because of the need for non-petroleum based fertiliser and land management (especially uplands and marginal land). They couldn’t see past slaughterhouses so I left. But they’ve got a lot bigger since then.
Oh, and I worked for seven years for one of the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world, four years of them in marketing. So I have a pretty good handle on why drugs are developed.
gimpy said
HI Kate, sure there is some varibility between species but you’d be amazed at how well essential biochemical and other pathways are conserved between organisms with over a billion years of divergent evolution between them. This is one reason why animals are used in basic research and development.
Please don’t see this as a kneejerk attack on the Greens. It is premeditated and kicks off from discussions with certain members of the green party who desire a more rational approach to science policy. External events forced my hand to blog this today but none of the issues or emails raised above will come as a surprise to the Green Party.
sdv said
Whilst I can read and accept the analysis of errors in the Green Parties policy on aminal testing.
The statement that it is not an attack on the Green Party is plainly wrong, how you can be expect anyone to not read it as an attack on the political party is even more serious than the parties error.
gimpy said
You think Green Party policy which would result in the destruction of basic scientific research and the apparent advocacy of their spokesperson for animal rights terrorism of less concern than my criticism of same policy? Get some perspective man. Read the informtion in the email excerpts posted and appreciate how much worse this could have been if presented with malicious intent.
woodchopper said
Just a quick point regarding the use of animals in research on “disgusting warfare stuff such as biological, gas and chemical warfare.”
While I have no doubt that some of the research is useless and reprihensible and carried out in order to develop new ways to kill and maim people, as the perhaps overused phrase goes, its a bit more complicated than that.
I don’t have time to write a long and fully referenced post here, so feel free to follow up any of the points.
First, the use of weapons in war is governed by International Hummanitarian Law (IHL) as codified in the Geneva Conventions and other similar documents. Weapons need to tested to ensure compliance with IHL and as far as I recall some of this testing involves live animals.
Second, the development of biological weapons has been banned since the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, and the development of chemical weapons was banned in the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention. There is no point calling for a ban on the use of animal testing to develop new chemical or biological weapons – such research is already illegal.
I assume that the tests to which she refers are used in research on treatments for the victims of chemical or biological attacks or means to prevent death or injury (such as new vaccines against Anthrax).
Its very easy to wave one’s hands and condemn all research by the military. If Sue Baumgartner were to consider the issues for a few minutes she might find it much harder to call for an end to animal testing designed to uphold the Geneva Conventions or reduce casualties from chemical or biological weapons.
Gimpy – you or another blogger with more time than I might well contact the Internetional Committee of the Red Cross to get their stance on the issue.
dissembly said
Second, the development of biological weapons has been banned since the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, and the development of chemical weapons was banned in the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention. There is no point calling for a ban on the use of animal testing to develop new chemical or biological weapons – such research is already illegal.
I don’t know what the story is with modern chemical/biological weapons, but i would be cautious about making such statements. Western governments don’t have a history of showing much respect for such international conventions. I would be surprised if the illegality of developing chemical and biological weapons had actually prevented it from happening.
woodchopper said
Dissembly, governments could be acting illegally, though of course we can only speculate. Nevertheless, it is still pointless to call for the introduction of new laws to ban something that is already illegal under UK law.
If you or anyone else has any information to suggest that someone is using animal testing in order to develop chemical or biological weapons you should immediately report to the police a potential violation of the 1996 Chemical Weapons Act or the 1974 Biological Weapons Act.
You can read the text of the laws at:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960006_en_1
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1974/cukpga_19740006_en_1
Mojo said
Ms. Stephenson also believes in cutting carbon dioxide emissions by using the train to visit her homoeopath in Switzerland.
warhelmet said
Class – with her electro-smog deflector and man-mule as well.
Neuroskeptic said
The “update” is astonishing, if the Green party can’t even get their spokespeople right I’m not sure how they can expect to be taken seriously. And I really do want to take them seriously.
gimpy said
Plenty of evidence online to suggest that Ms Baumgardt is referred to as spokesperson in 2009
Jim said
Thanks for the heads-up; useful information on the Green’s parochial scientific perspective. It’ll be interesting to see what information Martin Robbins has gleaned from the party conference today.
Zebedee said
Gimpy, fantastic blog. The Greens should know their claims have no evidence base. If Julia Stephenson’s writings are anything to go by, they’ve never even heard of evidence-based science and medicine. And to write policy on the shocking untruths perpetrated by the likes of BUAV and SHAC is surely irresponsible.
I’d like to know how the Greens think new environmentally friendly products are developed, let alone new medicines.
KateV, the LD50 is not used for medicines testing any longer. It may be used for some non-medicines testing (but only when no other method is suitable), which is a very very tiny part of animal research as a whole. Like a lot of the antivivisection posturing, opposition to the LD50 is a distraction from the real issues, as Gimpy says. I’d go so far to say that it’s often used as a strawman argument.
No animal research = little understanding of the basis of diseases = no way to develop effective therapies = no new medicines. Without animal research, medicines could not even be developed to the stage where they need to be safety tested on animals. If school children can understand this logic, why are the Greens blind to it?
Naomi Mc said
I say this by way of explanation rather than excuse, but the Green Party E&W is small, with no money for policy development, is in the process of – but has by no means achieved – professionalisation of the party, relies on volunteers as spokespeople and although is not great on the scientific areas you highlight, is better on others i.e. has been banging the drum for climate change science for longer than any of the other parties.
Yes, I don’t think this helps them to be taken seriously but policy development within political parties is not a straightforward process and has varying degrees of democratic control. This is important in terms of the GPEW with an active wizard contingent in the membership. This doesn’t mean that they don’t have experienced and able people elected to office in various parts of the country but given the resources of the party you are going to have to give them some time to change some of the more lunatic areas of policy.
The reason to support that process rather than dismiss them as a party altogether, is that right now we need political parties like the Greens. We need political diversity and ideally proportional representation. The Greens are unlikely to be in a position of power to affect animal testing any time soon, but I do want them on the political landscape holding the other parties to account on climate change, poverty, sustainable development and diversity – things that I have no confidence that the mainstream parties take a principled position or will deliver on.
Yeah, not exactly ideal in terms of evidence-based policy. But life’s shit innit?
gimpy said
I agree with your points about PR and political diversity, but the raison d’etre for the greens is their position on the environment, if they cannot demonstrate a scientific approach then this position is compromised. As you say, they have been banging the drum for climate science, but doing this while being unscientific in other areas will undermine their entire credibility.
Chris said
If you want to do something useful about the Green Party animal testing policy, then, as well as picking holes in the technical side of their argument, you could perhaps help them with valid ways of reducing the amount of animal testing that goes on, and agree that testing on animals is a disgusting practice, even if we feel forced to do it sometimes.
BobP said
Chris – Gimpy’s point is that the Greens have got a number of things wrong, and it undermines their credibility. (It’s the title of this blog post, after all)
They will never achieve anything as a political party unless they have consistnet and credible policies – no-one would vote for them
dissembly said
“I know many sceptical and rational types disillusioned with the current mire of mainstream politics have cast their vote in protest in support of the Green Party in the hope of a better tomorrow. I hope they will demand that the Green Party change and embrace a scientific understanding of the world. But until they do I will not and cannot support them.”
It seems to me that this is a bit of a reckless attitude to politics. We deal with a political situation marked by seemingly endless war, mass abject poverty, and fundamental inequalities in the way many societies are constructed, and the way politics itself is conducted.
How can you pick out one single issue and lambast a party for it?
This, for you, is evidence that the Green Party fail to “embrace a scientific worldview” – enough to prevent you from voting for them. What, then, is your standard for the major parties? If they evict a few hundred Chagos islanders to set up a US air base in the Indian Ocean, then lie and cheat to stop the islanders from seeking justice, is it okay as long as they seem to “embrace a scientific worldview” on animal testing? If they trick people into a war, cripple public infrastructure, beat down unions and other grassroots movements, actively work to impoverish entire continents such as Africa – which of these crimes deserves them to be considered as irresponsible as a party that commits the crime of an “unscientific approach to animal testing”?
I mean, isn’t this all a little bit narrow? There must be other ways to approach this issue.
“you’d be amazed at how well essential biochemical and other pathways are conserved between organisms with over a billion years of divergent evolution between them.”
What organisms are these? Plants? If testing could be carried out on plant tissue, i’m sure there wouldn’t be a problem. But ‘essential biochemical pathways’ aren’t the reason animal testing is carried out, afaik. You could just do tests on tissue alone if that were the case. The problem is what happens to the whole organism.
And the issue is whether that is *right* or not. This basically comes down to an ethical question about how we treat other species, and it’s disturbing that you’ve turned it into “scientists versus non-scientists”. I am scientifically trained (with a zoology background), and i still see an ethical dillema here, and it’s one that doesn’t get resolved by picking out a particularly poor (or harried) spokesperson and then claiming the mantle of truth over them.
Jim said
It’s not like we’d be asking The Greens to accede to a new religion or something.
Demanding higher expectations of political bodies is surely a means by which we stimulate them to improve. All we would expect from them is to appreciate or understand that science isn’t just about technologies and medicine, it’s fundamentally about finding things out and the means by which to do so. As any political party strives to manage a very physical world, natural and social, is it unreasonable to ask that they pursue knowledge and understanding of it following a systematic methodology based on evidence?
It wouldn’t hurt them to take a similar approach with all their policies, and understand the greater impact of their policy decisions rather than just saying what they expect most people want to hear.
dissembly said
I think there may be some misunderstanding, so to clarify: i’m not saying you guys shouldn’t expect the Greens to take on board different ideas, or that you shouldn’t demand they match higher expectations. I’m all for that. If you were to take your criticism and use it to make them better – or at least hash it out with them, more power to you. Or form your own party and campaign on your points. Or form a protest group to make your points and publicise them, or post on a blog making your arguments…
But to say “until they do I will not and cannot support them” is a totally different kettle of fish. In the context of a representative democracy where you’re not yourself running for election, saying “until they do i will not and cannot support them” (especially over a relatively small part of their platform) is the equivalent of supporting the parties they oppose.
I’m asking why the Greens are held to such an immensely rigorous standard that failing on this point automatically gets them the “cannot and will not support them” treatment. That’s not holding someone to a high standard, that’s throwing them out of the running. And – this is my key point – in doing that, you benefit every party that you’re failing to examine in as much detail. At least in the kind of democracy we’ve landed with.
And it seems to be the acceptable thing to do – to treat major parties as if they are competent, because they are established. This is the context of our political system: If you’re a minor party, the smallest mistep gets you the “kook” label. But if you’re a major party, then you can kill any number of people, you can show any degree of callousness or bigotry, you can advocate mass exploitation, you can make it your lifes mission to reduce our democracy at every chance, you can adhere to a truly kooky, almost religious brand of economic theory that benefits you and your mates while screwing everyone else and crippling your countries productive capacity – but you’re still established. There’s no way a large number of people are going to call you kooky – because you’re familiar.
So, criticise them all you want if you think you have a valid point – do everything you can to improve them if you like. But take care with positions like “until they do I will not and cannot support them” – keep in mind that when you say that, and that specifically, you’re granting your good name to the tacit support of whoever the established party is. (Unless you actually do disagree with their entire platform, start to finish – in which case i’d be having a totally different argument here.)
“As any political party strives to manage a very physical world, natural and social, is it unreasonable to ask that they pursue knowledge and understanding of it following a systematic methodology based on evidence?”
Absolutely. But just to clarify my own position, that doesn’t necessarily mean agreeing with animal testing. Science is a method of understanding, it’s epistemological: it can inform ethical judgements, but it can’t make the decision.
warhelmet said
David Icke, anyone?
Liam said
It really irritates me to see that the entire ‘animal rights’ movement seems to focus on how animal testing is bad science. The fact is that in the majority of cases it is good science. Argued from ethical grounds, I think animal testing is totally wrong, but mis-educating the public won’t help them or the animals being experimented on.
Not to mention, its more than slightly hypocritical to have an issue with animal testing, which likely does have some real human benefits, whilst still supporting the use of animals for food, which is completely frivolous and causes far more suffering than animal experimentation.
gimpy said
Hi Liam, you will notice that the Green Party are silent on the ethics of factory farming and are certainly not committed to banning it, as they are with experiments…
Veterinary Tech said
This is an ethical issue, I don’t know why people need to stray from that focus.
Medical Myths: Thalidomide « Stuff And Nonsense said
[...] Animal rights protesters have claimed that thalidomide is a good example of the uselessness of animal testing. Here are a couple of quotes: “one must never forget that Thalidomide, was fully tested on rats…“; “Thalidamide was passed for use after tests on rodents, so animals are unrelable as a guide to human biology, different species react differently …“ [...]
motels washington indiana said
motels washington indiana…
[...]The Green Party are dangerously wrong on animal rights « gimpy’s blog[...]…