WE all approve of openness, don鈥檛 we? Certainly the government is keen to
radically improve everyone鈥檚 ability to participate in public decision making.
But according to a recent Home Office consultation paper on Openness and
Animal Procedures, this kind of thinking is really based on 鈥渢he assumption
that information should be released except where disclosure would not be in the
public interest鈥�. I definitely agree with such openness when it comes to certain
matters.
There is something very wrong when scientists at Britain鈥檚 premier medical
research labs in north London must think twice about walking home on Wednesday
evenings because that鈥檚 when a small group of protesters stands outside. It鈥檚
the sort of harassment that researchers trying to improve human and animal
health often have to face.
One senior scientist has suggested that these pressure groups are out to
build up lists of research workers who use animals in their work and get details
of what they propose to do. 鈥淭he lists would make intimidation that much
easier,鈥� he says.
Advertisement
He then goes on to say that if anyone wants to know about his research, it is
available for them to see鈥攁s is any scientist鈥檚 research鈥攊n the
scientific literature. Articles in such publications are peer reviewed, so the
methods must describe the work in sufficient detail for other scientists to
repeat the experiments. 鈥淚 am completely open in what I do with animals and why
I do it. It is all in the public domain. I have nothing to apologise about and
would be happy to describe my research on television, because most people do not
appreciate the worsening problems of animal health on our farms,鈥� he adds.
Perhaps all animal and human medicines and vaccines which have been tested on
animals, should be clearly labelled as such. It would enable anyone who objects
to animal testing to boycott them. It would certainly bring home to them just
what benefits we have all gained from such research.
GOOD news for dolphins, turtles and albatrosses. Wildlife is among the
responsibilities that Chris Mullin has as a junior minister in the Department of
Environment, Transport and the Regions. He recently filled me in on some of the
decisions reached at the meeting on the Bonn Convention on the Conservation of
Migratory Species of Wild Animals last November.
Mullin said signatories to the convention had generally agreed on plans for
the next five years and the budget for 2001/2002. Specifically, money was
earmarked to help protect some of the world鈥檚 most endangered migratory
species.
The meeting accepted Britain鈥檚 proposal for tackling the problems of
by-catch鈥攖he accidental snaring of unwanted animals particularly in
long-line fishing when boats tow kilometres-long wire trailing hundreds of lines
with bait attached. All nations must now toughen up measures to minimise
accidental killing of migratory species, especially turtles, seabirds and
dolphins, in fisheries under their control. Cooperation is being sought from the
Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation
to protect these endangered species.
The meeting agreed a number of initiatives, including ones intended to
protect and conserve the houbara and great bustards, marine turtles on the
Atlantic coast of Africa and the Indian Ocean, antelopes in the Sahara and Sahel
region, and elephants in central and west Africa. A resolution was also adopted
supporting the speedy development and conclusion of an agreement for the
conservation of the southern hemisphere albatrosses, under threat from
pollution, disease and the effects of climate change, as well as by-catch.
Britain also announced that it would sign and ratify the Agreement on the
Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous
Atlantic Area on behalf of Gibraltar, said Mullin.