Animal protection associations had been worried as the text does not put an end to animal testing in scientific research. For this reason, they had called on the EU to reject the new Directive. Even if the Directive is admitted as being a step towards a better legislation in such matters, animal rights activists are all but happy as they blame the EU for backing an indiscriminate use of animals in laboratories. Many associations point to the use of domestic animals and non human primates as the worst shame of the approved Directive. Under the fire of criticism also the use of animals for many tests and the ways of “ending their suffering”.
On the other hand, many researchers have been keen on underlining the importance of animal testing in medical research. According to many experts, laboratory animals are still fundamental to try to discover cures against acute diseases such as cancer and tumours. Mice, pigs and some kinds of monkeys are genetically very close to human beings and are thus important for a first step medical testing.
Nevertheless, many criticized the Directive for protecting the interests of major pharmaceutical companies in testing non life-saving drugs such as cosmetics, even though no mention of it is reported in the Directive. For this reason, many see this vote as a result of the powerful lobby of such companies. Even non-profit organisations unsuccessfully strived to push MEPs to reject this Directive by getting thousands of people involved to send emails to all MEPs.
when possible Member states endeavour to substitute animal testing with more effective techniques in research which does not take animals for its purpose
“More could be done” is the common feeling. Indeed many say that the Directive does not encourage so called ’alternative methods’. Experts such as Michael Benatar from the Emory University of Atlanta and Robert Weinberg from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology say that alternative scientific research methods do exist and should be developed. Thomas Hartung, interviewed by the magazine Nature, expressed the same idea: “We are not mice of 70 kg” he said, referring to the different reactions of human beings and animals to the same drugs.
Nevertheless most researchers believe animal testing to be still fundamental to science. In addition to that the Directive foresees many measures to improve the life conditions of such animals. The Directive, indeed, contains high standards for the breeding, feeding and treating of laboratory animals, taking into account detailed differences according to the species. The EU’s intention is for this law to shed some light on this issue renewing a 1989 legislation. Above all the new text sanctions that “when possible Member states endeavour to substitute animal testing with more effective techniques in research which does not take animals for its purpose”. Member states are also allowed to adapt the European legislation at a national level by taking into consideration their own needs. Special conditions are considered for endangered species such as many kinds of monkeys.
In spite of all these measures, animal rights activists look back at the 2008 draft Directive regretting that the output is not better. In any case, the Directive 86/609 has been approved by now. Animal protection associations are already looking towards national governments.
Follow the comments:
|
