And when they were wrong, they were very very wrong

Occasionally you see a factual error or two in a newspaper (gasp!), but this article in the Daily Mirror (British national tabloid newspaper) really takes the proverbial biscuit. As I read further and further down the article I got more and more annoyed before my three years of teaching got the better of me and I whipped out the red pen. Here are the results:

Click to Enlarge on this article about the number of animals used in medical research

Click to Enlarge on this article about the number of animals used in medical research

Click here to see the full 2011 statistics of animals used in research. Note how (page 39) the total number of animals used for testing household products is zero.

Perhaps it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, The Mirror has been posting a slew of anti-research articles – many seemingly cut and pasted from press releases of UK anti-animal-testing organisation the “British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection” (BUAV). Hopefully they’ll take the time to do their homework next time.

So please, go onto the Daily Mirror article and leave a comment debunking this #ARnonsense.

Tom

Addendum:

Looks like the reporter of the article, Nick Owens – who (more or less) copied BUAV press releases about monkeys in Mauritius and rabbit experiments – is a big fan of the animal rights group BUAV.

Nicholas Owens Twitter - BUAV

6 responses to “And when they were wrong, they were very very wrong

  1. You missed one, though it’s not as glaring as the others. They say the number of animals used is equivalent to over 10, 000 experiments a day, which only works if each experiment only involves one animal. A small mistake compared to the rest of the article, but indicative of a fundamental lack of knowledge or understanding about animal research…or any sort of research for that matter!

  2. Funnily enough I did two drafts of the above – the first one did include a note to that effect, but I ran out of space on the second draft and had to cut it.

  3. Printing BUAV press releases passes as journalism?

  4. do the BUAV have an out of date opinion of what animal research involves?