OPINION surveys over the last decade have shown consistently that most people can accept the use of animals in medical research, but this support is conditional. They want to know that animal research is done for serious medical purposes, that animals do not suffer unnecessarily, and that alternatives are fully considered. They are more concerned about monkeys than rodents; they want firm regulation. In short, support depends on why and how animal research is done.
Is the public interested in the numbers of animals used in research? The antivivisectionists seem to think so. They have just produced an annual worldwide estimate of 115 million animals used in 179 countries.
The authors admit “these data are very incomplete and variable, and may not justify a formal extrapolation to worldwide figures” and “do not command such high levels of confidence”.
Without any context, it can be difficult to grasp the significance of the figures. However, the numbers pale into insignificance compared with the estimate of 2.5 billion animals that we eat in the UK alone every year. About 800 million of these are chickens, and many suffer. A scientific paper recently pointed out that more than a quarter, or 200 million, have significant lameness.
Animal protection groups might do better to campaign where there is significant animal suffering for questionable benefit. Another statistic: According to the Washington Post, 170 million rodents were fed to pet reptiles and raptors in 1999 in the US alone.
Meanwhile, a calculation based on population, life expectancy and amount of animal research leads to the conclusion that we each get the lifetime medical benefits from research using three mice and one rat for the UK. The same calculation based on global figures, even using the dubious 115 million animals per year estimate, comes to just one mouse per person. This is surely worthwhile when so many die of potentially curable diseases.
