contents
Ethical questions dominated the debate on animal and so-called human experiments. For one side, animal experiments are basically unnecessary, for the other, Switzerland as a research location is endangered.
Rarely have the Federal Council, members of parliament and representatives of a wide range of interest groups been in such agreement. The initiative for a ban on animal and human testing is too radical for a broad front. The bill did not receive a single vote in Parliament. Accordingly, according to the GFS survey commissioned by the SRG, the population will also clearly vote no on February 13th. Just 26 percent of those surveyed are in favor of it.
In the “voting arena”, Renato Werndli from the IG animal testing ban initiative tried to make up ground. Around 556,000 animals were used in experiments in 2020. “But countless studies by research methodologists have come to the conclusion that animal experiments are unreliable because animals are not suitable as measuring devices,” said Werndli. A large number of the animal experiments carried out yielded results that could not be transferred to humans.
The general practitioner cited Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s as “prime examples” of animal testing being unnecessary. Animal experiments have been used to research suitable medicines for decades, and yet there has been no solution to this.
Werndli believes that research would have been much further if it had never relied on animal experiments and had instead promoted alternative methods. The latter would be systematically disadvantaged by politics.
Both sides are calling for less animal testing
The opponents of the template basically shared the vision of the initiators on the show. They, too, think there is a need for action, and they too want to do as little testing as possible on live animals. The absolute ban is the wrong way at this point, said SP National Councilor Gabriela Suter.
“If the initiative is accepted, there will be no more new drugs in two years,” said Suter. That definitely goes too far for her. The initiative would work “on the principle of hope”. But there would also be a responsibility towards people.
As has been shown in the “Arena”, the ban on animal testing inevitably leads to a fundamental ethical debate. The question of whether humans should put themselves above animals was discussed emotionally.
From the point of view of animal rights activist Edith Zellweger, animal experiments are, together with agriculture, “the greatest crime in human history”. Animals in experimental laboratories would have sad fates. “A person with common sense cannot imagine this suffering,” said Zellweger, who has also been involved in animal liberation campaigns. “Animal torture in the name of science must stop.”
Michael Hengartner, President of the ETH Board, who himself has been researching roundworms for years, said that animal experiments are always a moral tightrope walk. “The goal of research and university hospitals is to develop new methods to help patients, and that requires knowledge.” Experiments are part of this process. However, animals are only used in research if this is necessary. Finally, he recalled that animals also benefited from experiments on animals.
Fundamentally different attitude
The “voting arena” has shown that when it comes to animal and so-called human experiments, different basic attitudes collide. The knowledge that is so important for one side in terms of social benefits is (basically) losing value for the other because of the experiments on animals and humans.