Review of BBC programme on animal experimentation

[Guest guest]

http://www.uncaged.co.uk/news/2006/monkeys.htm

Monkeying around with the truth

TV Review: 'Monkeys, Rats and Me', BBC2, Monday 27 November 2006

 

This documentary examined the ethics of animal experiments by using the

SPEAK campaign and Professor Tipu Aziz's research as a case study. However,

there were a number of fundamental flaws in the programme that amounted to a

systematic pro-vivisection bias. This may come as a surprise to reviewers

such as Lucy Mangan in the Guardian

[1<http://www.uncaged.co.uk/news/2006/monkeys.htm#notes>

]. But her lack of knowledge of the subject means that she doesn't

understand how the programme misled through omitting key issues, assuming

controversial assertions were true, and by framing the debate in terms that

directly reflect the perspective put forward by the pro-vivisection lobby.

An axe to grind?

 

Perhaps one of the most revealing comments made by the reporter, Adam

Wishart, was that he had 'no qualms about killing a rat he found in his

kitchen'. It's one thing to be prepared to kill an animal, but his total

lack of compunction reveals his extremely unsympathetic attitude to animals.

Wishart's value judgements were also betrayed by his description of

non-humans as 'lower animals'. Wishart claimed that he 'had no axe to grind'

- really?

Presenting controversies as facts

 

The concerns about underlying bias are exacerbated by the fact that Tipu

Aziz's claims regarding the validity and benefits of his research were not

subject to even cursory examination. Indeed, from the very beginning the

programme's narrative worked on the assumption that Aziz's vivisection of

monkeys was valid, predictive and necessary. Repeatedly, the claim that

there would be no medicine if it were not for animal research went

unchallenged, despite such an argument being rejected by the pro-vivisection

Nuffield thinktank [2 <http://www.uncaged.co.uk/news/2006/monkeys.htm#notes>

].

 

Instead of exploring scientific critiques of Aziz's work, Wishart presented

researchers as infallible experts driven purely by altruism. There was no

investigation of the role of economic and professional self-interest in

motivating animal research, or the historical context that now structures

researchers' choices about experimental methods

[3<http://www.uncaged.co.uk/news/2006/monkeys.htm#notes>

]. Similarly, features of pro-vivisection activity likely to be particularly

controversial were evaded. Thus Aziz's extreme position, exemplified by his

support for cosmetic testing on animals

[4<http://www.uncaged.co.uk/news/2006/monkeys.htm#notes>

], and the financial relationship between the Pro-Test group and the

pharmaceutical industry (via the Research Defence Society) were overlooked [

5 <http://www.uncaged.co.uk/news/2006/monkeys.htm#notes>].

Negative positioning of anti-vivisectionists

 

In contrast, the show portrayed anti-vivisection campaigners as violent and

irrational - no scientific or academic critiques of animal research were

aired. There was even an attempt to undermine the moral basis of campaigners

through the suggestion that the main motivation of activists was a sense of

belonging to a like-minded network. Interestingly, Wishart never attempted

to second-guess the motivations of vivisectors.

The truth about vivisection secrecy

 

This positioning of the anti-vivisection movement was designed to present it

in an unpopular light, and fed into one of the documentary's most misleading

themes (once again unquestioningly reflecting Aziz's claims): that the

secrecy surrounding vivisection was due entirely to 'extremist' action. Was

this lazy or dishonest journalism? For, the fact of the matter is that

secrecy in this policy area predates animal rights militancy by about 100

years. The most detailed historical study of animal research policy is

Richard French's (1975) *Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian

Society* (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Discussing his

methodology, he notes:

 

'My account of the administration of the [1876 Cruelty to Animals] Act is

largely based upon Home Office ~156 letterbooks. It is a measure of the

sensitivity of the vivisection issue that these documents remain under one

hundred year restriction and I am most grateful to the Home Office for

permitting me to examine the nineteenth-century letterbooks for the purposes

of this study'.

 

The underlying reason for secrecy in this policy area is to minimise public

awareness of animal suffering and thus control the political agenda. In

reality, what is happening at the moment is that a tight-knit network

comprised of government policy-makers, animal research industry leaders and

some in the media with a fairly extreme pro-animal research agenda are

promoting the storyline of 'animal rights extremism' as a way of positioning

and discrediting anyone critical of the status quo in animal research

policy, and to suppress legitimate freedom of information. The Research

Defence Society's internal newsletter gives the game away. Contradicting

their public statements, they state: 'it is very safe to speak out in the

media'. [6 <http://www.uncaged.co.uk/news/2006/monkeys.htm#notes>]

Hiding animal suffering

 

To complete the set of pro-vivisection myths, the programme promoted the

idea that animal experiments were not painful. Once again, Aziz was

permitted to make false assertions with impunity. He claimed that pain 'was

not part of the process of his research'. Yet anyone with any knowledge of

his research knows this is untrue. The programme showed the initial stages

of his research, where Felix the monkey was forced to spend hours in a tiny

cage as he was trained to perform certain movements. This was disturbing

enough in terms of the severe behavioural limitations imposed on the monkey

and resultant psychological suffering. However, the later and most severe

stage of the experiments - which were not broadcast - involved the

artificial induction of 'Parkinsonism' (NB this is not the same as human

Parkinson's Disease) through damaging the brain of the monkey, resulting in

a range of significant disabilities and illnesses. Similar earlier

experiments were recognised by the Home Office as having to cause

'substantial' pain and suffering

[7<http://www.uncaged.co.uk/news/2006/monkeys.htm#notes>

].

 

The inaccurate, sanitised image of animal experimentation presented by the

programme typified its general pro-vivisection agenda. Interestingly, Aziz's

denial of animal pain in his experiments suggests that he is incapable of

fulfilling the legal responsibilities of a licence holder - not that the

Home Office is genuinely bothered about compliance with the Animals

(Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

 

In conclusion, 'Monkeys, Rats and Me' presented a heavily one-sided and

distorted perspective on this most heated of controversies, a manifestation

of the boasts of pro-vivisectionists about their privileged access to

journalists. Ironically, in a context where pleas are made for rational

debate as a means of resolving the more extreme aspects of this conflict,

this piece of propaganda will do nothing to encourage a reduction in the

'extremism' it purported to highlight.

Useful links:

 

- Animal Experiments - the facts<http://www.uncaged.co.uk/vivisect.htm>

 

References:

 

1. www.guardian.co.uk/tv_and_radio/story/0,,1958573,00.html

2. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2005), The ethics of research

involving animals: xviii

3. Nuffield: 36-7.

4. The Guardian, 'Scientist backs animal testing for cosmetics' March

4 2006 www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1723194,00.html -

accessed 29 November 2006).

5. Pro-Test website (www.pro-test.org.uk/about.php) accessed 29

November 2006.

6. RDS Newsletter, Autumn 2006.

7. Animal Procedures Committee, Report for 1997: 12.

 

Uncaged Campaigns 29.11.06