Since medical measures played a relatively minor role in increasing life expectancy, it follows that animal experiments could also have played only a small part, even assuming they were used or were necessary to develop the treatments. Such views are in stark contrast to those expressed by the pro- vivisection lobby. When Britain’s pharmaceutical industry publicly claimed that animal experiments had been largely responsible for the increase in life expectancy, Dr David St. George of Surrey’s Department of Community Medicine, complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). He pointed out that life expectancy had already increased considerably before the introduction of specific remedies and furthermore that their introduction has been associated with a tailing off in the improvement of life expectancy.15
© Lorraine Kay/Dr. Robert Sharpe
(4)Life expectancy. USA. Improvements preceded the pharmaceutical revolution of the 1950s. In fact, the expansion of drug therapy has been associated with a tailing off in the improvement of life expectancy.
However, St. George was informed that the industry’s advertisement was exempt from the provisions of the ASA Code of Advertising because it was deemed to be “a political advertisement”, even though St. George had shown it to be misleading. The advertisement was seen as an expression of the industry’s opinion in the public controversy surrounding
animal research and, as such, immune from reality.
|<<Previous||Back to Animal Experiments Irrelevant||Next>>|