The BUAV is wrong to suggest that the recent university debates on animal research were in聽any way 鈥渃ontrolled鈥 (鈥Rigged results鈥, Letters, 31聽October). Student debating societies ran the聽events and the prohibitionist organisation should apologise for dismissing their hard work. Furthermore, the motion being debated was: 鈥淭his House would ban all forms of animal research鈥 - the outcome that the BUAV has spent more than a century campaigning for.
The fact that the students鈥 universities are legally required to withhold some information on animal experiments is another issue entirely. Originally intended to protect scientists from physical attacks by animal extremists, Section 24 is now being revised by the government, something the BUAV knows full well because it has been involved in the discussions about how to proceed.
The BUAV should not project dark intentions upon student-organised debates or universities fulfilling their legal obligation to ensure the health and safety of staff, but that nevertheless have been willing to help the government introduce workable reforms to the law.
Elisabeth Harley
Policy and communications officer
Understanding Animal Research
Register to continue
Why register?
- Registration is free and only takes a moment
- Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
- Sign up for our newsletter
Subscribe
Or subscribe for unlimited access to:
- Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
- Digital editions
- Digital access to 罢贬贰鈥檚 university and college rankings analysis
Already registered or a current subscriber?