Skip navigation

Here is a list of some of the most pervasive BS you will hear from the hardcore animal rights anti-vivisection movement, and how it has been debunked by recent Dutch governmental research into the use of animal testing in the Netherlands:

– there are alternatives to animal testing that are just as good as or better than the animal equivalents DEBUNKED: These alternative methods have never been and cannot be tested vis a vis animal testing because it would be prohibitively expensive to do so. Apparently not a single one of these animal rights organizations fighting vivisection has ever bothered to put aside even a fraction of their millions of dollars to perform these tests conclusively proving the viability of alternatives: “Alternative methods are permitted, but it must be demonstrated that these have the same predictive value as animal testing.”

the alternative tests are economically viable DEBUNKED See basically what I just wrote about above. Alternative methods may only be used if the lab can prove that they are as good or better than animal testing. No one can afford to do that for alternative methods, not a single animal rights organization wants to fund this research (obviously because they too run the risk of being debunked by science showing these alternative methods to be lacking) so that makes the use of alternatives prohibitively expensive. “In practice, the required validation procedure is often complicated, costly and time-consuming.”

it is because of the antiquated laws that alternative testing isn’t adopted DEBUNKED It’s not the law that is the problem. The Dutch law explicitly allows for alternative testing methods that do not employ lab animals. It is the lack of evidence proving alternative methods to be a viable alternative that is the problem. It is perfectly sane to have a law that defines a threshold for alternative methods to reach before widespread acceptance. The real threshold, however, is science itself holding itself up to task. It is scientific guidelines, and not laws, that necessitate the use of animals: “For instance, medicines must be evaluated in accordance with strict scientific guidelines. These guidelines are not legally binding, but they do determine whether marketing authorization is eventually granted. Although the guidelines devote extensive attention to reducing animal testing, they make frequent references to such tests and contain requirements that any alternatives to animal testing must meet.”
Every single one of these arguments is debunked by the following research conducted by the Dutch government. How did the usual suspects in the extremist American animal rights movement respond to this research. They didn
‘t. I haven’t found a single article on a single animal rights/anti-vivisection website respond to the findings of this recent Dutch research. The research was published in English and made freely available on the internet as a .pdf download (no need to go through an academic paywall to get it), seemingly as a come-on to the anti-vivisectionists to read it and respond to it, but they wouldn’t. They have to act like this research and its findings do not exist.
Press release from the Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (Dutch: Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu or simply RIVM) about this new research:

http://www.rivm.nl/Documenten_en_publicaties/Algemeen_Actueel/Nieuwsberichten/2015/Geneesmiddelenwet_en_regelgeving_weinig_stimulerend_voor_alternatieven_voor_dierproeven

Link to the .pdf of the research itself (in English, 50 pages):
http://www.rivm.nl/dsresource?objectid=rivmp:285181&type=org&disposition=inline&ns_nc=1

Other articles about the research:

Translated title: “Animal testing is still the best way to perform tests”
http://www.spitsnieuws.nl/binnenland/2015/08/dierproeven-nog-steeds-beste-manier-om-te-testen

Translated title: “Scientific practice maintains animal testing”
http://www.skipr.nl/actueel/id23401-wetenschappelijke-praktijk-houdt-dierproeven-in-stand.html

Quoting from NU.nl:

De geneesmiddelenwetgeving belemmert het gebruik van alternatieven niet, maar stimuleert het ook nauwelijks, aldus het RIVM. (…)
Uit het onderzoek blijkt onder meer dat er een gebrek is aan alternatieve methoden die de dierproeven kunnen vervangen. Ook worden nieuwe alternatieve manieren niet altijd in alle landen geaccepteerd door registratieautoriteiten.

http://www.nu.nl/wetenschap/4104643/alternatieven-dierproeven-in-wetenschap-omslachtig.html

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: