Tortured Guinea Pigs: Nottingham University Responded!
Alternatives to Animal Testing, Experimentation and Dissection - An Animal Rights Article from All-Creatures.org

FROM AnimalJusticeProject.com
April 2020

TAKE ACTION HERE!

Animal experimentation is unreliable and often sloppily reported in scientific journals. A huge amount of time and resources are put into vivisection as it is cheap and accessible, but it is time we think about how we should be responsibly and effectively researching for a better future.

Guinea Pigs

Nottingham University responded to our Campus Without Cruelty campaigns highlighting their torturous experiments on vulnerable guinea pigs. What did you think? We think it is NOT good enough! Overall, their response leans on their following of the 'NC3Rs': Replacement, Refinement and Reduction. With an increase of A QUARTER – around 4,000 MORE animals compared to 2018 – in their animal use, how is this following any of the 'NC3Rs'? This shows no replacement, it shows no refinement and it certainly shows no reduction. It drastically shows the opposite!

See their RESPONSE HERE (PDF)...

They state that they are “committed to using animal-free research methods where at all possible”, but how so? Their use of animals has increased dramatically in just a single year. Other groups such as Animal Free Research UK are able to carry out effective and ethical research without the use of any animals. Why can’t Nottingham University strive for the same?

One of their justifications for carrying on using animals is that it is “widely recognised in society” that “animal studies are still required for certain aspects of research”. Is it really widely recognised? Does the public know enough about non-animal-based research methods versus animal experimentation to be able to justifiably agree that the need for vivisection is “widely recognised”? Or are the public only fed propaganda from researchers and companies that have a vested interest in keeping animal experimentation going?

Nottingham University goes on to say they have “highly dedicated” staff to ensure that “appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure animal welfare”. If the welfare and rights of these animals were considered, would we be having this debate in the first place?

Our latest research highlighted guinea pigs as young as 23 days old undergoing brain surgery to have metal electrodes inserted into their brains before being injected with various chemicals. Once the experiment was over, all of the guinea pigs involved were killed and had their brains dissected. Does this sounds like their “welfare” is considered? Or does this sound like exploitation, torture and killing?

Their response continues to mention “reducing animal use and refining” as well as their “animal technicians” who are “extremely dedicated to the care of their animals”. Does this care include when rats are placed on hot plates after being injected with recreational drugs to test their pain level responses? And does it include when guinea pigs are placed into a custom-built box and have loud and continuous noise blasted into their ears for an hour straight to cause them to have tinnitus? It appears Nottingham University’s definitions of “welfare” and “care” do not follow the standard definitions.

We appreciate that there is a huge demand and need to new drugs and treatments to help treat and cure diseases of both human and non-human animals, but causing suffering to even more animals will never be the way forward. Animal experimentation is unreliable and often sloppily reported in scientific journals. A huge amount of time and resources are put into vivisection as it is cheap and accessible, but it is time we think about how we should be responsibly and effectively researching for a better future.

TAKE ACTION HERE!


Return to Alternatives to Animal Testing, Experimentation and Dissection