With the present statement, IHP Italian Horse Protection association intends to counter the contents of the letter sent on 7th May to the Italian President of the Republic by Marco Melosi and Massenzio Fornasier (presidents of ANMVI-Italian National Veterinary doctors Association and SIVAL-Italian Society of Lab Animals Veterinarians), in which was asked for the animal experimentation to continue, without leaving any room to proposals of its reduction in favor of alternative methods.

The letter leaves us at least perplexed, because we had expected the veterinary world to propose new and more reliable solutions in the research field and not, once again, the insane attempt to defend practices less and less justifiable, for ethic and scientific reasons.

The animal experimentation has caused – and still causes – serious mistakes and delays for science. The lab animals give the most various of results, and they can confirm or deny any kind of hypothesis.

We would like to point out to ANMVI and SIVAL that to leave aside some methods of research because they are obsolete or rejected by the people for ethical reasons, it’s not an obstacle for science, but an incentive to scientific research. Moreover, if we would accept that researchers can disregard ethical considerations, then the path for the use of humans experimentation will be opened again, as it happened in the past, in name of a science without conscience.

In their letter, Melosi and Fornasier wish that “the debate inside the civil society stays inside the borders of democracy and of the respect of the values of the Constitution” and quote the intervention of Senator D’Ambrosio Lettieri in support of animal experimentation.

If they call democracy, then they should ask to the people what they think, and not just to those using such practices; otherwise it’s a clear violation of the democratic process.

Also, quoting a single senator (who experimented on animals?) in the course of a debate of a Senate Commission doesn’t prove anything. It’s just the rightful opinion of a single person, which counts as much as the opinion of any other member of the Parliament. This is another sign of a special trend that tries to muddle the waters by mixing opinions and facts.

The scientific community is divided about the topic. Thus, since it doesn’t exist the unanimous chorus this letter wants to present, it’s appropriate to adopt a principle of increased protection of animals from suffering, as it has been also requested by art.13 of Lisbon Treaty.

Luckily the scientific world is rebelling against a research method they don’t approve, and there are various signals, such as the total ban, starting from 2013, of cosmetics testing on animals, the REACH (7FP) regulation, DG European enterprise for alternative methods, and the criticism to the animal model on scientific publications.

They exist – and several are getting validated – alternative methods to the animal experimentation, which have demonstrated to be more predictable and reliable, such as in-vitro techniques, chemical analysis, clinical research (analysis on human biological material, genetic analysis, imagining techniques), epidemiologic studies (fundamental in the battle against cancer), bioinformatics models, and new technologies such as cellular microcircuits and bio-artificial organs.