Animal research debate votes against full ban

Students taking part in a huge nationwide debate have overwhelmingly disagreed with the notion of a full ban on animal testing in research

October 22, 2013

So far 24 university debating societies participating in The Great Animal Research Debate have rejected the motion “This house would ban animal research”, with approximately 4 in 5 students voting against a ban (1,163 of 1,430 votes). No debating society has yet declared a win for the motion.

The event, which took place from 14-17 October to coincide with National Biology Week, was organised to foster greater transparency and understanding and allow people to come to an informed decision on the issue.

Many of the debates, including those at University College London, the University of Nottingham and University of Liverpool, were streamed live over the internet to allow the general public as well as students to hear views for and against.

Some of the world’s leading university debaters took part, along with guest speakers on both sides of the argument involved in the wider discussion on animal rights and animal research.

Alexander Cavell, debate programmes coordinator for International Debate Education Association UK, one of the event’s organisers, said it was “delighted” so many young people took part.

“The debaters framed their cases carefully, and their arguments on the scientific and moral issues touched on by the motion were sensitive while also being accessible and engaging,” he said.

Wendy Jarrett, chief executive of co-organiser Understanding Animal Research, added: “The debates were a fantastic chance for many students to be introduced to this difficult issue. I hope many will take the time to research the subject further and reflect on what they heard during the debates.”

The event was endorsed by a raft of MPs, medical research charities and advocacy organisations involved in policy making, science education, medical and biological research and the search for alternatives to the use of animals in scientific research.

However, Dan Lyons, chief executive of the Centre for Animals and Social Justice told Times Higher Education he was disappointed that the debate had not “allowed for honest disagreement”.

He claimed by having a single simplistic motion, the debates channelled participants into casting a vote which would present animal testing in a favourable light.

The event did not allow for a debate around the differences between types of research, which can vary enormously in terms both of medical outcomes and the suffering inflicted upon animals, he said.

“Public tolerance of some limited animal experimentation in the short term does not mean support for everything that is currently being done to animals in laboratories,” he said. “Let’s have this debate on an even keel instead of hiding behind propaganda and spin.”

Already registered?

Sign in now if you are already registered or a current subscriber. Or subscribe for unrestricted access to our digital editions and iPad and iPhone app.

Reader's comments (1)

I think that testing on animals is sick. Image you being pinned down and getting needles and what not stabbed into you and not knowing if you will live or die. Animals are just smaller furrier more helpless humans so let's stop and be wise about this, stop thinking about money for a second and think about animals. If you want to test something on an individual, I'm sure someone out there would love to get paid to be tested on... If you think it's so dangerous maybe don't test it at all. Thanks

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

Board Member BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY (MAIN OFFICE)

Most Commented

Elderly woman looking up at sky

A recent paper claims that the quality of researchers declines with age. Five senior scientists consider the data and how they’ve contributed through the years

Otto illustration (5 May 2016)

Craig Brandist on the proletarianisation of a profession and how it leads to behaviours that could hobble higher education

Woman tearing up I can't sign

Schools and universities are increasingly looking at how improving personalities can boost social mobility. But in doing so, they may be forced to choose between teaching what is helpful, and what is true, says David Matthews

Eleanor Shakespeare illustration 19 May 2016

Tim Blackman’s vision of higher education for the 21st century is one in which students of varying abilities learn successfully together

James Minchall illustration (12 May 2016)

An online experiment proves that part of the bill for complying with the Freedom of Information Act is self-inflicted, says Louis Goddard