Vivisection
Sir: As you truly remark in your article on vivisection by Bernard Dixon (Sept 9) there is today a groundswell of interest in the matter among members of Parliament, 137 of whom have signed an Early Day Motion calling for a research institute which would collate information about methods to replace vivisection. There certainly should be such an institute, so it is to be hoped that the Select Cornmitte on Science and Technology decide to inquire into the subject.
We, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, are building up a fund to build such an institute, which we should call the Hadwen Research Institute, never guessing that there was any chance of the Government financing such an institute.
Of course there are lots of researchers who do use the more humane and better guiding methods instead of vivisection, but they say there are still some things regarding which there is not yet a known humane replacement, and an institute for the study of this would soon, one would think, make it inexcusable that experiments on animals should ever be carried out.
There is, however, cause to feel that experimenters repeat each other's experiments to a tremendous extent, instead of being content that a confrere has proved a certain thing. For instance, you say in your article that over 400,000 animals were used last years in the UK in cancer research. Can that be other than many repeats? We know that hundreds of dogs are made to smoke cigarettes through a hole made in their throats. What more is found out through hundreds than through one? We still only know that smoking causes cancer — and
we can't get to know how to prevent it or cure it through these experiments.
L. Houghton 96 Acheson Road, Hall Green, Birmingham B28 OTR.
Previous page
