By Milan Perera, News Writer
A group of University of Bristol students took part in a sit-in protest at the Beacon House building on Queen’s Road on Thursday, March 23, demanding the University halt its use of Forced Swim Tests in scientific experiments.
The protesters entered Beacon House around 9:00 am on Thursday, March 23 and sat near the reception area and the front entrance with banners and placards. The protest group consisted of ten students and the demonstration lasted for nearly two hours before the protesters left the premises.
Student Against the Forced Swim Test, the student group behind the protest expressed their disappointment at the University for its continual use of Forced Swim Tests despite the ever-growing pressure to abandon, what they call, the ‘unscientific and barbaric’ practice.
This is the latest chapter in a lengthy stand-off between animal right activists and University authorities on the controversy surrounding University’s use of Forced Swim Tests for research purposes.
The Forced Swim Test (FST) is a widely used behavioural test in animal research, particularly in the field of neuroscience and pharmacology. It is a behavioural despair test that is commonly used to assess depressive-like behaviour in rodents. The test involves placing a rodent, such as a mouse, in a cylinder filled with water and monitoring its behaviour as it tries to escape.
The FST has been used extensively to study the neural mechanisms and potential treatments of depression and other mood disorders in rodents. However, the ethics and validity of the test, particularly regarding the use of animals in research and the relatability of those results to humans have been widely contested.
One of the protesters who wished to remain anonymous pointed out that: ‘Our university has just renewed their license to test on a total of 4000 rodents over the next five years. Last year the test was conducted 189 times at the university. We know this because of a freedom of information request submitted to the university.'
They went on to express their dismay at the University’s approach to the controversy despite the mounting pressure from various groups: ‘In 2021 our student body voted at an SU democratic event to lobby the University to ban the test. Instead, the minutes from University’s most recent Senate meeting show that there are plans to run a campaign with staff and students in order to increase support for animal testing and banning was not even debated.’
The spokesperson also pointed out the urgent need to abandon the practice for its 'unethical dimensions' : ‘Our university is stuck in the past. The University of Bristol is one of the last institutions who continue to use an unscientific and unethical experiment. There are widely held scientific concerns that the continued use of this test is in fact a waste of scientific resources in light of more precise and more promising alternatives.’
There are several other campaign groups such as Vegetarian and Vegan Society and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) who have been vocal in their opposition to Forced Swim Tests for the past two years. For example, in March 2023, a group of PETA activists gained access to the University of Bristol’s annual Neuroscience Festival at the Victoria Rooms, where they staged a demonstration against the use of Forced Swim Tests within the University. They also took part in a demonstration outside Senate House in October 2022 dressed as 'zombie scientists.'
The demonstrators from Student Against the Forced Swim Test expressed their desire to meet Professor Evelyn Welch, the Vice Chancellor of University of Bristol, in order to discuss these matters in detail in near future.
Regarding these developments a University of Bristol spokesperson pointed out: 'We recognise there are differing views about the use of animals in research, including some concerns around whether it is ethical.
'The University of Bristol has a successful track record of translating scientific discoveries into real-world advances. Wherever possible we rely on non-animal methods for example computer models, cells grown in the laboratory or human volunteers. When these methods are not suitable to address the scientific gaps, and therefore only when absolutely necessary, we use animals in research to improve our understanding of health and disease in both humans and animals. This includes cardiovascular and cancer research, diseases associated with infection and immunity and, in the case of forced swimming, significant advances in the treatment of depression and other stress-related illnesses.
'We are committed to a culture of openness and transparency regarding the research carried out here at Bristol, ensuring the animals are treated with compassion and respect. We keep up to date with the latest thinking on all aspects of research using animals (including advances in welfare) and have robust and thorough ethical review processes in place for every project.'
The University has issued the following statement in response:
"We recognise there are differing views about the use of animals in research, including some concerns around whether it is ethical.
“The University of Bristol has a successful track record of translating scientific discoveries into real-world advances. Wherever possible we rely on non-animal methods for example computer models, cells grown in the laboratory or human volunteers. When these methods are not suitable to address the scientific gaps, and therefore only when absolutely necessary, we use animals in research to improve our understanding of health and disease in both humans and animals. This includes cardiovascular and cancer research, diseases associated with infection and immunity and, in the case of forced swimming, significant advances in the treatment of depression and other stress-related illnesses.
“We are committed to a culture of openness and transparency regarding the research carried out here at Bristol, ensuring the animals are treated with compassion and respect. We keep up to date with the latest thinking on all aspects of research using animals (including advances in welfare) and have robust and thorough ethical review processes in place for every project.”
