If th
ere's one thing sure to infuriate me it's the interminable hypocrisy surrounding the use of animals in human drugs' tests.
Any half-decent person must feel the pain and panic of helpless, terrified creatures caged up in laboratories ready for experiments, especially as we know the lethal effects some new drugs have had on willing human subjects.
But not all scientists are insentient clods and an independent group of professionals is campaigning for human-biology based tests to be compared with the animal tests currently required by law.
Kathy Archibold, director of the Safer Medicines Campaign (formerly Europeans for Medical Progress) wrote in a newsletter earlier this year:
"A million Britons are hospitalised by medicines every year, costing the NHS £2 billion. We believe 21st century science can do better".
The SMC brought together a cross-party group of MPs who launched the Safety of Medicines (Evaluation) Bill in January and four of their colleagues, who had won a ballot to table any Bill of their choice today, were urged to use the chance to advance the Bill. They were told:
"There is strong evidence that human biology-based technologies may offer significant improvements in safety as well as large reductions in cost and time. The comparison of safety testing methods proposed by the Bill is unprecedented and could benefit the NHS and patients dramatically. "
Meanwhile I'd asked Ivan Lewis, MP for Bury South (also Foreign Office Minister for the Middle East) if he would intervene.
As a Minister, he could not sign Early Day Motion 569 launched in support of the Bill but he wrote to colleague, Gillian Merron enclosing the relevant material.
Ms Merron, MP for Lincoln and Minister of State in the Department of Health, forwarded everything to Mike O'Brien, QC MP, Minister of State for Health Services.
However, I was disappointed to discover that much of Mr O'Brien's response is little more than well-mannered evasion. He wrote inter alia:
"Appropriate animal research plays an important role in providing vital safety for information for potential new medicines, and there is a rigorous procedure in place concerning the use of any animal in the discovery and development of new medicines ...
"Once the pharmacological, pharmacokinetic and toxicological profile of a product has been evaluated in animals, it is then tested in humans ...
"Many animal studies are designed to provide reassurance before proceeding to human trials, because some aspects of the toxicological assessment of products cannot be adequately assessed in man. For example, the assessment of the carcinogenic potential and of reproductive effects of new medicines relies on the results of animal studies, for both ethical and practical reasons."
But while the Government may have made "a commitment to minimising the use of animal testing and to encouraging the development of other in vitro methods" by doubling the amount of money to be available for research, I insist it will never be enough until animal testing is phased out altogether.
Meanwhile, women who care about what they put on their faces should
not be deceived by packaging which may include on of those cute bunny logos.
I'm still unsure whether I was ever able to convince my step-daughter and her chums when they were in their teens that animal test-free make-up often includes animal ingredients.
There are still remarkably few companies which provide
totally vegan cosmetics. Even my favourite, Beauty Without Cruelty, is shunned by ultra-strict vegans as - so I'm 
reliably informed! - it uses silk in its face-powder. So, now you know!
msniw
