The ArgusAnimal testing at University of Brighton increase five-fold (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Animal testing at University of Brighton increase five-fold

The Argus: Animal testing at University of Brighton increase five-fold Animal testing at University of Brighton increase five-fold

Animal testing at the University of Brighton has increased five-fold in three years.

New figures show that 940 animals were used in experiments at the university in 2013.

In total 858 mice were used in research by the university last year – compared to 178 mice in 2011 and a further 342 in 2010.

Animal rights campaigners condemned the university as “inhumane” and “macabre”.

However, the university defended the use of mice in research projects into treatments for chronic illnesses and childhood diseases.

The university said researchers stuck to strict guidelines to ensure animals used were killed quickly and painlessly.

The Anti-Vivisection Coalition (AVC) – which represents the interests of animals in laboratories – obtained figures under the Freedom of Information Act showing that 858 mice, 24 rats, 47 guinea pigs and 11 urban foxes were involved in research at the university last year.

The foxes were part of a study for Autumn Watch and not harmed.

Sophie Kennerley, director of communications, for AVC said: “It is unacceptable that the numbers of animals used in experiments by Brighton University has increased by more than 500% since 2011.

“Such macabre practices are not reflective of a civilised society where animals merit respect. AVC call on Brighton University to take replace animal experiments with humane alternatives.”

A university spokeswoman said: “The university uses a minimum number of mice to support research into chronic illnesses and to assist in the development of effective treatments for such conditions as dementia, kidney disease and childhood disease.

“All our research is conducted under strict Home Office guidelines and in certified facilities which provide the highest quality of animal care.

“There is annual fluctuation in the number of mice we use and we always seek to keep them to a minimum."

Earlier this month a study found that an increasing proportion of people – particularly young adults and women – were against animals being using in medical testing.

The poll by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) found 54% of under-30s against it now – a 23% rise compared with what people thought in 2001.

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:31pm Mon 3 Mar 14

spa301 says...

I always thought that the 'University of Brighton' was just a fancy name for what used to be called a Polytechnic. Why would such a mediocre establishment be allowed to conduct such experiments hiding behind the 'medical research' excuse.
Very surprised and disgusted by this report.
I always thought that the 'University of Brighton' was just a fancy name for what used to be called a Polytechnic. Why would such a mediocre establishment be allowed to conduct such experiments hiding behind the 'medical research' excuse. Very surprised and disgusted by this report. spa301
  • Score: 6

5:27pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Frank28 says...

How obscene. Morally, there should be no vivisection undertaken in 21st century Britain.
How obscene. Morally, there should be no vivisection undertaken in 21st century Britain. Frank28
  • Score: 11

5:48pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Goldenwight says...

Frank28 wrote:
How obscene. Morally, there should be no vivisection undertaken in 21st century Britain.
Before you use the word "vivisection" may I politely suggest that you actually find out what it means?
[quote][p][bold]Frank28[/bold] wrote: How obscene. Morally, there should be no vivisection undertaken in 21st century Britain.[/p][/quote]Before you use the word "vivisection" may I politely suggest that you actually find out what it means? Goldenwight
  • Score: 6

5:56pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Goldenwight says...

Obviously the Anti-vivisection coaltion are an entirely independent body, and are totally free from biais in any direction. But the story does not show how many animals were actually harmed, nor it seems do the makers of the original FOA request seem to wish to make this public- better by far to make a splash headline suggesting that the animals were tortuted and then put to death, I suppose.. It does make it clear that none of the foxes were actually killed- could the Argus report how many of the other animals were euthanized please? And would it be worth pointing out that animal testing could just include running rats around a maze?
Obviously the Anti-vivisection coaltion are an entirely independent body, and are totally free from biais in any direction. But the story does not show how many animals were actually harmed, nor it seems do the makers of the original FOA request seem to wish to make this public- better by far to make a splash headline suggesting that the animals were tortuted and then put to death, I suppose.. It does make it clear that none of the foxes were actually killed- could the Argus report how many of the other animals were euthanized please? And would it be worth pointing out that animal testing could just include running rats around a maze? Goldenwight
  • Score: 2

6:39pm Mon 3 Mar 14

stir up says...

I have yet to find anybody who is against the use of animals for testing who was prepared to take their place. Over many years this testing has produced life saving drugs and treatments. I have even asked some of the antis re animal testing if they have ever had antibiotics and if they so strongly object that they should refuse all medicines when they or their family become ill.
Of course none of them would answer me and just kept on about it should be stopped. When one of them actually volunteers to take the place of an animal for a drug test then I will believe they actually mean it. Or perhaps they should be allowed to get TB and other illnesses and be told sorry the drugs were tested on animals so we take it you will not accept treatment
I have yet to find anybody who is against the use of animals for testing who was prepared to take their place. Over many years this testing has produced life saving drugs and treatments. I have even asked some of the antis re animal testing if they have ever had antibiotics and if they so strongly object that they should refuse all medicines when they or their family become ill. Of course none of them would answer me and just kept on about it should be stopped. When one of them actually volunteers to take the place of an animal for a drug test then I will believe they actually mean it. Or perhaps they should be allowed to get TB and other illnesses and be told sorry the drugs were tested on animals so we take it you will not accept treatment stir up
  • Score: 1

7:54pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Anna Phylactic says...

Research using mice or rats in order to make our future generations healthier is absolutely appropriate.
Research using mice or rats in order to make our future generations healthier is absolutely appropriate. Anna Phylactic
  • Score: -3

8:42pm Mon 3 Mar 14

From beer to uncertainty says...

Most people experiment on animals - mainly to see if they're cooked yet.
Most people experiment on animals - mainly to see if they're cooked yet. From beer to uncertainty
  • Score: -2

11:12pm Mon 3 Mar 14

mimseycal says...

Goldenwight wrote:
Obviously the Anti-vivisection coaltion are an entirely independent body, and are totally free from biais in any direction. But the story does not show how many animals were actually harmed, nor it seems do the makers of the original FOA request seem to wish to make this public- better by far to make a splash headline suggesting that the animals were tortuted and then put to death, I suppose.. It does make it clear that none of the foxes were actually killed- could the Argus report how many of the other animals were euthanized please? And would it be worth pointing out that animal testing could just include running rats around a maze?
The University itself said that the animals used were killed quickly and painlessly. A bit further down in the same article it mentions that none of the foxes were harmed. And further, the animals mentioned were mice, not rats.

So here goes:
Unharmed foxes = no foxes killed. Killed quickly and painlessly does not equate to running around aimlessly in a maze and though both are rodents, rats are from the genus rattus, mice are from the genus mus. Distinctly different creatures really.
[quote][p][bold]Goldenwight[/bold] wrote: Obviously the Anti-vivisection coaltion are an entirely independent body, and are totally free from biais in any direction. But the story does not show how many animals were actually harmed, nor it seems do the makers of the original FOA request seem to wish to make this public- better by far to make a splash headline suggesting that the animals were tortuted and then put to death, I suppose.. It does make it clear that none of the foxes were actually killed- could the Argus report how many of the other animals were euthanized please? And would it be worth pointing out that animal testing could just include running rats around a maze?[/p][/quote]The University itself said that the animals used were killed quickly and painlessly. A bit further down in the same article it mentions that none of the foxes were harmed. And further, the animals mentioned were mice, not rats. So here goes: Unharmed foxes = no foxes killed. Killed quickly and painlessly does not equate to running around aimlessly in a maze and though both are rodents, rats are from the genus rattus, mice are from the genus mus. Distinctly different creatures really. mimseycal
  • Score: 0

11:58pm Mon 3 Mar 14

Dave At Home says...

They should take all the drunks, beggars and homeless off the streets of Brighton, bang em in a cage and use them for these tests instead of using animals. This would do several things.... ahh you are ahead of me already.
They should take all the drunks, beggars and homeless off the streets of Brighton, bang em in a cage and use them for these tests instead of using animals. This would do several things.... ahh you are ahead of me already. Dave At Home
  • Score: -4

12:16am Tue 4 Mar 14

whatevernext2013 says...

Dave At Home wrote:
They should take all the drunks, beggars and homeless off the streets of Brighton, bang em in a cage and use them for these tests instead of using animals. This would do several things.... ahh you are ahead of me already.
why stop there what about the old the sick and the unemployed and the disabled ,or even better why not start with the local green councillors
[quote][p][bold]Dave At Home[/bold] wrote: They should take all the drunks, beggars and homeless off the streets of Brighton, bang em in a cage and use them for these tests instead of using animals. This would do several things.... ahh you are ahead of me already.[/p][/quote]why stop there what about the old the sick and the unemployed and the disabled ,or even better why not start with the local green councillors whatevernext2013
  • Score: -1

6:00am Tue 4 Mar 14

madzukun88 says...

whatevernext2013 wrote:
Dave At Home wrote:
They should take all the drunks, beggars and homeless off the streets of Brighton, bang em in a cage and use them for these tests instead of using animals. This would do several things.... ahh you are ahead of me already.
why stop there what about the old the sick and the unemployed and the disabled ,or even better why not start with the local green councillors
Or, as a more serious answer, why not test on murderers, rapists, child molesters. You know, people that gave up their human rights the minute they performed an act that landed them in prison for life. It'd free up prisons and they'd actually be contributing to society, instead of being a drain on it.
[quote][p][bold]whatevernext2013[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dave At Home[/bold] wrote: They should take all the drunks, beggars and homeless off the streets of Brighton, bang em in a cage and use them for these tests instead of using animals. This would do several things.... ahh you are ahead of me already.[/p][/quote]why stop there what about the old the sick and the unemployed and the disabled ,or even better why not start with the local green councillors[/p][/quote]Or, as a more serious answer, why not test on murderers, rapists, child molesters. You know, people that gave up their human rights the minute they performed an act that landed them in prison for life. It'd free up prisons and they'd actually be contributing to society, instead of being a drain on it. madzukun88
  • Score: 5

9:11am Tue 4 Mar 14

Ihopenoonehasthisusername says...

stir up wrote:
I have yet to find anybody who is against the use of animals for testing who was prepared to take their place. Over many years this testing has produced life saving drugs and treatments. I have even asked some of the antis re animal testing if they have ever had antibiotics and if they so strongly object that they should refuse all medicines when they or their family become ill.
Of course none of them would answer me and just kept on about it should be stopped. When one of them actually volunteers to take the place of an animal for a drug test then I will believe they actually mean it. Or perhaps they should be allowed to get TB and other illnesses and be told sorry the drugs were tested on animals so we take it you will not accept treatment
Don't you think that possibly using animal models has help science back? It's all about money, you know.
[quote][p][bold]stir up[/bold] wrote: I have yet to find anybody who is against the use of animals for testing who was prepared to take their place. Over many years this testing has produced life saving drugs and treatments. I have even asked some of the antis re animal testing if they have ever had antibiotics and if they so strongly object that they should refuse all medicines when they or their family become ill. Of course none of them would answer me and just kept on about it should be stopped. When one of them actually volunteers to take the place of an animal for a drug test then I will believe they actually mean it. Or perhaps they should be allowed to get TB and other illnesses and be told sorry the drugs were tested on animals so we take it you will not accept treatment[/p][/quote]Don't you think that possibly using animal models has help science back? It's all about money, you know. Ihopenoonehasthisusername
  • Score: 2

9:12am Tue 4 Mar 14

Ihopenoonehasthisusername says...

Anna Phylactic wrote:
Research using mice or rats in order to make our future generations healthier is absolutely appropriate.
It's not, it's completely immoral.
[quote][p][bold]Anna Phylactic[/bold] wrote: Research using mice or rats in order to make our future generations healthier is absolutely appropriate.[/p][/quote]It's not, it's completely immoral. Ihopenoonehasthisusername
  • Score: 1

9:14am Tue 4 Mar 14

Ihopenoonehasthisusername says...

mimseycal wrote:
Goldenwight wrote:
Obviously the Anti-vivisection coaltion are an entirely independent body, and are totally free from biais in any direction. But the story does not show how many animals were actually harmed, nor it seems do the makers of the original FOA request seem to wish to make this public- better by far to make a splash headline suggesting that the animals were tortuted and then put to death, I suppose.. It does make it clear that none of the foxes were actually killed- could the Argus report how many of the other animals were euthanized please? And would it be worth pointing out that animal testing could just include running rats around a maze?
The University itself said that the animals used were killed quickly and painlessly. A bit further down in the same article it mentions that none of the foxes were harmed. And further, the animals mentioned were mice, not rats.

So here goes:
Unharmed foxes = no foxes killed. Killed quickly and painlessly does not equate to running around aimlessly in a maze and though both are rodents, rats are from the genus rattus, mice are from the genus mus. Distinctly different creatures really.
Your point?
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Goldenwight[/bold] wrote: Obviously the Anti-vivisection coaltion are an entirely independent body, and are totally free from biais in any direction. But the story does not show how many animals were actually harmed, nor it seems do the makers of the original FOA request seem to wish to make this public- better by far to make a splash headline suggesting that the animals were tortuted and then put to death, I suppose.. It does make it clear that none of the foxes were actually killed- could the Argus report how many of the other animals were euthanized please? And would it be worth pointing out that animal testing could just include running rats around a maze?[/p][/quote]The University itself said that the animals used were killed quickly and painlessly. A bit further down in the same article it mentions that none of the foxes were harmed. And further, the animals mentioned were mice, not rats. So here goes: Unharmed foxes = no foxes killed. Killed quickly and painlessly does not equate to running around aimlessly in a maze and though both are rodents, rats are from the genus rattus, mice are from the genus mus. Distinctly different creatures really.[/p][/quote]Your point? Ihopenoonehasthisusername
  • Score: 2

12:20pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Alison Smith says...

I'm sure if like me you live with a chronic, as yet incurable disease you would have a different opinion to the AVC.
I'm sure if like me you live with a chronic, as yet incurable disease you would have a different opinion to the AVC. Alison Smith
  • Score: 2

4:41pm Tue 4 Mar 14

sabbat36 says...

stir up wrote:
I have yet to find anybody who is against the use of animals for testing who was prepared to take their place. Over many years this testing has produced life saving drugs and treatments. I have even asked some of the antis re animal testing if they have ever had antibiotics and if they so strongly object that they should refuse all medicines when they or their family become ill.
Of course none of them would answer me and just kept on about it should be stopped. When one of them actually volunteers to take the place of an animal for a drug test then I will believe they actually mean it. Or perhaps they should be allowed to get TB and other illnesses and be told sorry the drugs were tested on animals so we take it you will not accept treatment
CAN YOU CITE YOUR INFORMATION.

Which treatments, for humans, have resulted from animals tests?

I'll give you a cow and some magic beans if you can come up with one, just 1 from say Brighton uni testing.
[quote][p][bold]stir up[/bold] wrote: I have yet to find anybody who is against the use of animals for testing who was prepared to take their place. Over many years this testing has produced life saving drugs and treatments. I have even asked some of the antis re animal testing if they have ever had antibiotics and if they so strongly object that they should refuse all medicines when they or their family become ill. Of course none of them would answer me and just kept on about it should be stopped. When one of them actually volunteers to take the place of an animal for a drug test then I will believe they actually mean it. Or perhaps they should be allowed to get TB and other illnesses and be told sorry the drugs were tested on animals so we take it you will not accept treatment[/p][/quote]CAN YOU CITE YOUR INFORMATION. Which treatments, for humans, have resulted from animals tests? I'll give you a cow and some magic beans if you can come up with one, just 1 from say Brighton uni testing. sabbat36
  • Score: 0

6:26am Wed 5 Mar 14

Anna Phylactic says...

Ihopenoonehasthisuse
rname
wrote:
Anna Phylactic wrote:
Research using mice or rats in order to make our future generations healthier is absolutely appropriate.
It's not, it's completely immoral.
YOU'RE completely immoral.
[quote][p][bold]Ihopenoonehasthisuse rname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Anna Phylactic[/bold] wrote: Research using mice or rats in order to make our future generations healthier is absolutely appropriate.[/p][/quote]It's not, it's completely immoral.[/p][/quote]YOU'RE completely immoral. Anna Phylactic
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree