We are supporting MPs who are calling for a properly moderated, public scientific debate about the continued practice of using laboratory animal models to try and predict what will happen in human patients. Highly trained scientific experts now show that this still mainstream method of medical research is not just misleading for human patients, but in fact entirely harmful to the effective path of human medical knowledge causing harm and fatalities to humans.
What makes the MPs’ call for public scientific debates unique, and why are these debates so important to us?
The debate conditions have been endorsed as “well set out and fair” by Britain’s foremost human rights defence barrister Michael Mansfield QC. A panel of judges will be present which will include experts from the fields of clinical medicine, complexity/chaos theory, philosophy of science, evolutionary biology, clinical research, drug development, and basic research. The debate conditions are specifically designed to achieve a scientific result which can be submitted as evidence in a wider legal action as well as to government bodies, in order to change now demonstrably outdated laws. The significance of this is in sharp contrast to the more casual ‘vote on line’ or show of hands at the end of previous debates, which all too often even muddle science and morality.
The first debate is on its way
Scientists from the animal model community are represented by a public relations company called ‘Understanding Animal Research’ (UAR) which has repeatedly agreed to participate in this debate, organised by the science-based campaign For Life On Earth. However, UAR still have not been able to provide the name of their main speaker for this event, which is delaying the debate indefinitely. As finding effective cures and saving lives is the issue, we are astonished why their problem is not one of too many names, rather than none at all. Additionally, UAR doubt the feasibility of ‘providing all the information to be debated in advance as well as verifying all references that may be used, before the debate’. We find this shocking not just because providing a position paper, complete with references, is absolutely integral to any serious scientific discourse, but also because such delay, as long as it continues, in effect demonstrates nothing less than a callous disregard for the suffering of human patients who live with frightening and painful, life threatening illnesses as an every day reality.
Please note that Parliamentary EDM 400, which calls for this thorough public scientific debate hearing, is now closed for the UK election on June 8th.