ASA Non-broadcast Adjudication: Association of Medical Research Charities

Complaint

Europeans for Medical Advancement objected to a leaflet that was headed "Why do we still need animals for medical research?" The leaflet claimed "Finding cures for diseases can take many years of painstaking and detailed research. Most is carried out in a laboratory, with computers or on patients. But at some stages of research there is no alternative to using animals if we are to beat the diseases which blight our lives and claim our families and friends ... Some of the major advances in the last century would have been impossible without animal research - imagine a life without anaesthetics, insulin, vaccines, penicillin or antibiotics. The list of medical advances made possible with animal research includes: 1950s Kidney transplants Replacement heart valves Polio vaccine Hip replacement surgery 1960s Heart bypass operations Drugs to treat mental illness 1970s Drugs to treat stomach ulcers, asthma and leukaemia 1980s Drugs to control transplant rejection Life support systems for premature babies 1990s Meningitis vaccine Combined drug therapies for AIDS". The complainants challenged the claims:

1. "But at some stages of research there is no alternative to using animals if we are to beat the diseases which blight our lives and claim our families and friends";

2. "Some of the major advances in the last century would have been impossible without animal research - imagine a life without anaesthetics, insulin, vaccines, penicillin or antibiotics" and

3. "The list of medical advances made possible with animal research includes: 1950s Kidney transplants ... Combined drug therapies for AIDS" because they believed animal research had not been necessary for those advances and had, in some cases, misled researchers.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Ruling

The advertisers said the leaflet was no longer in circulation.

1. Complaint not upheld

The advertisers said the Government licensed animal research only when no valid alternatives were available and the fact that the Government licensed animal research showed that there were no alternatives. They also said scientists generally accepted that there were no alternatives to animal research. They cited the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which stated that licences for animal procedures would not be granted unless the Secretary of State was "satisfied that the applicant had given adequate consideration to the feasibility of achieving the purpose of the programme ... by means not involving the use of protected animals." They acknowledged that alternatives to animal research might be developed in the future but said none existed at the moment. They cited the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures (2001-02), which stated "There is at present a continued need for animal experiments both in applied research, and in research aimed purely at extending knowledge" and the Department of Health's memorandum to that committee, which stated "Use of in-vitro systems such as different types of cultured cells cannot replicate the complex dynamic, interactive and multi-organ events that occur in vivo". They said the complainants did not develop alternatives to animal research and did not have expertise in that area.

The Authority noted legislation requiring developers of new drugs to test for safety and efficacy effectively required developers to use animal models, because the pharmacological and toxicological tests that had to be carried out before a new medicine could be licensed left developers with little option but to carry out animal research or rely on the results of previous research on animals. It acknowledged that the results of research on animals was not always replicated in humans and that research on humans might be more reliable; it considered, however, that the ethical limits on research in humans and technical limits on alternative methods meant that, in practice, there was currently no alternative to animal research. It acknowledged that alternative research methods might be developed in future that could enable new medicines to be developed without research on animals but considered that readers would interpret the claim as meaning that there was currently no practical alternative to animal research; it considered that the advertisers had justified that implication and concluded that the claim was not misleading.

2. Complaint upheld

The advertisers sent information about the animal research that had been carried out in the course of developing the medical advances mentioned. The complainants sent information that explained why they believed animal research carried out in connection with those advances had been superfluous or misleading.

The Authority considered that the information sent by the advertisers showed that animal research had played a part in the development of the listed advances. It considered, however, that the claim implied those advances could not have been achieved through non-animal research; it considered that, because the advertisers could not show what would have happened if research had been carried out differently, they could not prove that claim. It concluded that the claim was misleading; it told the advertisers not to repeat it and to amend the claim to "Some of the major advances in the last century relied on animal research ...", or similar, in future advertisements.

3. Complaint not upheld

The advertisers sent information about the animal research that had been carried out in the course of developing the listed medical advances. The complainants sent information that explained why they believed animal research carried out in connection with those advances had been superfluous or misleading.

The Authority considered that the claim implied the listed advances were based on animal research, not that animal research was the only way those advances could ever have been made. It considered that the information sent by the advertisers showed that animal research had played a part in the development of the listed advances. It noted the complainants believed animal research was not essential to the advances and had, in some cases, misled researchers, but considered that they had not shown that animal research had not contributed to the development of those treatments. The Authority concluded that the advertisers had justified the claim.