Colleen McDuling
scientist-specialist in behaviour-biology rabbits and rodents
On 23 April 2007, a public debate was held at Southampton Solent University (United Kingdom) on the issue of animal experimentation in medical research.
Speaking in favour of using animals were Dr Simon Festing and Mr Robin Burkill. Festing is the Chief Executive Officer of the Research Defence Society (RDS), a British lobby group whose funding comes largely from the pharmaceutical industry.
It should be noted that the main focus of the RDS is to defend the use of animal testing in the UK.
They claim to be the leading pro-vivisection lobby in the UK.
Burkill is a second-year biology student at Oxford and a member of Pro-test, a group that receives financial support from the RDS and which was founded by a 16-year old schoolboy - described by British newspapers as being a 'drop-out'.
Pro-test was born out of an attempt to suppress anti-vivisection lobbyists opposed to the building of the Oxford Laboratory; a vivisection facility.
In opposition were Colleen McDuling and André Menache, two anti-vivisectionists who have campaigned tirelessly against animal research for many years.
McDuling is a molecular biochemist and animal behaviourist, while Menache is a veterinary surgeon.
In her arguments, McDuling gave scientific reasons why genetic modification of mice cannot add to knowledge of the mechanisms of human disease.
She further cited scientists who have gone to great lengths to prove that animals are worthy of being included within the circle of sentient life.
She advocated that the entire educational system needed a paradigm shift whereby the principles of compassion and good science would be instilled into students, and the entire mindset of the academic system be challenged.
Menache criticised the archaic use of animal tissues and animal-based tests, citing non-animal methods which should have been implemented many years ago.
He described how animal testing methods were responsible for the killing of millions of rabbits for the testing of fever-causing substances.
He emphasised that although alternative methods had become available, the regulatory authorities were inexplicably slow in adopting them.
The final vote of 22 to 3, with 6 abstentions, against the use of animals in medical research, represents a double victory.
It is a blow to the prestige of the RDS and Pro-test.
More importantly, however, it is a reflection of the winds of change and a strong indication that a well-informed and caring public no longer accepts 'bad science'.
* . * . * . *