Motion 68M(PO) 2004

Our aim this year was to remove the confusion caused last year by the Executive Committee's motion 32M(PO) 2003. This is the motion I proposed:

"This Association recognises fundamental differences, both in purpose and in law, between the use of animals in the University's educational curriculum and the use of animals in its research. This Association therefore resolves to delete Motion 32M(PO) 2003 on the grounds that it confuses research with undergraduate experiments."

And this is what I had to say about it.

"Frankly, what happened last year was a bit of a mess, quite apart from my own inadvertant attempts to sabotage my own motion! [Readers: You may remember that instead of proposing motion 33M(PO), I used my notes for opposing the EC's motion 32M(PO) by mistake! Oops!] Last year the EC's well-meaning Motion 32M(PO) which is the one we want to delete attempted to pull together various aspects of ethical science into one bit of policy. Our motions 33 and 34, which were carried last year, covered all the necessary ground such as

• sufficiently detailed descriptions in course brochures
• reducing and replacing animal experiments with humane alternatives
• ensuring that no student's academic record be adversely affected by refusal to participate in animal experiments and that
• animal tissue should be ethically sourced. So far, so good.

Which brings us to three main reasons why we want to delete last year's motion 32.

Firstly, research

Motion 32 refers to research. But animals used in research must be dealt with separately because in fact it is impossible to use animals ethically in research because they are either harmed or killed as part of the research, and that in itself is not ethical. Now, in the University, in the Science Faculty's website, and in law, research and education are two different arenas, and as such should not be cobbled together in the same bit of policy and the policy we're discussing here is about educational experiments. It is about education. It is not about research. Research is about new ideas. Research is about the discovery of new knowledge. Research is not about teaching old tricks to new students. So, that bit needs to go.

Secondly, interpretation

On the whole Motion 32 was badly drafted. Reference is made to "such experimentation" when the experimentation had not been defined. The phrase "where alternatives cannot be used or found" allows the university to potentially make subjective or spurious arguments against the use of alternatives; and it refers to 'refusal' but doesn't clarify what the student is refusing to do, or refusing to experience.

Finally, get the name right

The final paragraph of 32 refers incorrectly to the Science Faculty Committee, whereas 33 correctly identifies it as the Animal Ethical Committee. So let's get rid of the confusion. Please vote in support of Motion 68, and let's remove last year's 32 in the pursuit of clear policy. Thank you."

The motion went to a count and was resoundingly carried 73/43.