National Anti-Vivisection Society – NAV

The National Anti-Vivisection Society ( NAV ) is a national, non-profit animal welfare organization based in London that actively campaigns against animal testing for commercial, educational or research purposes.


The net value of the UK is the world’s first anti-vivisection organization, which was founded in 1875 by Frances drives Cobbe, a humanitarian who published many pamphlets and articles opposing animal experimentation and gathered many prominent people in the day to support its cause, including Queen Victoria and Lord Shaftesbury. [1] Many of the social reformers of the day, which works for children’s rights and women’s rights, supported the purpose of the NAV.

The association was formed December 2, 1875 in Victoria Street, London, under the name Victoria Street Society. At the time there were about 300 animal experiments each year. Public resistance against vivisection led the government to appoint the first Royal Commission on Vivisection in July 1875; It reported its findings January 8, 1876 to recommend that a special law be adopted as control vivisection. This led to cruelty to animals Act 1876, which reached the statute book August 15, 1876. This law was for 110 years, until it was replaced by the animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [1]

The Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 regulated legal vivisection, and to give privacy to the vivisectors and laboratories, without public accountability. The interior ministry issued licenses to vivisectors in secret, the placement of the laboratories were secret. No access allowed – if the member of parliament, the media, public or local authority. And so, the number of animals used and the number of licenses assigned continued to rise in a century, protected by successive governments. But opposition to vivisection also increased, and in 1897 the growing Victoria Street Society changed its name to the National Anti-Vivisection Society. [1]

NAV in 1969 formed the International Association against painful experiments on animals (IAAPEA). [2]

1990 Society has grown premises in the Harley Street had occupied since 1964 (a move engineered by the then Secretary, Wilfred Risdon), moved to Goldhawk Road, London, with a subsequent step in 2006 to Millbank Tower, London.


From the beginning, the Victoria Street Society had called for the total abolition of vivisection, and though this has always been, and still is the main target of net value, at a Council meeting February 9, 1898 the following resolution was adopted:

The resolution was carried by 29 votes to 23. Miss Cobbe not accept this because she did not want society to promote any measure short of abolition. As a result, after the resolution was adopted, leaving Miss Cobbe net value and formed the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection requiring total and immediate abolition of animal testing. This Resolution 1898 has remained policies NAV.

Brown Dog business

In 1906, there was a statue was erected in Battersea Park, a brown terrier, one of a number of animals described in the journals of two Swedish anti-vivisection campaigners who were reported to have been illegally dissected during a demonstration for medical students at the University of London. The inscription on the statue reads:

The statue became the subject of animal researchers and London University medical students; Students riot at the site; anti-vivisectionists defended his statue; older Frances Cobbe runs attacked in her office. After years of conflict, the statue mysteriously disappeared 1910th

The net value and other [ citation needed ] built a new statue with the inscription 1985, again in Battersea Park, where it remains to this day.

Other Royal Commission on Vivisection

In 1906, the government appointed the second Royal Commission on Vivisection. This second Royal Commission heard a lot of evidence from the net value and other stakeholders. It published its findings in 1912, recommends an increase in the number of Home Office inspectors; additional restrictions on the use of curare (paralyzing drug that did not dampen the pain, but can increase it); stricter provisions as the definition and practice of pithing; additional restrictions governing painless destruction of animals showing signs of distress after the experiment; a change in the way to choose, and in the formation of the advisory body to the Secretary of State *; and the keeping of special records of vivisectors. (* This body, in accordance with the new 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, known as animal experimentation committee).

This was far from elimination; it does not address the issue of privacy and public accountability; it left vivisection society are protected from outside scrutiny and review. Although each successive Interior Minister attached “pain” for all experiments was the “conditions” so formulated that they gave protection to the animals at any time.

The net value believes that there are good scientific arguments against the use of animals in research, not least because of the misleading results from animal studies, due to species differences. Thus, they argue, to abolish animal testing would be of general interest. But operating such a case would be prohibitively expensive.

In 1963, with the animal runs into millions each year, and the public is deprived of information about the issue, the Government appointed a “Committee department Experiments on live animals” to consider the use of animals in research, and any changes in the law were necessary. In 1965 Littlewood Committee, as it was called, published 83 recommendations, and even though none of the recommendations was to put an end to animal testing, no legislation was adopted to put any of them into effect anyway.

Throughout the 20th century, the net value lobbied the government and drafted several bills against a seemingly unstoppable rise in animal experiments “reaches nearly 6 million per year in the UK in the 1970s.” When trade in monkeys for use in vaccine testing devastated India’s population of rhesus macaques, NAV representatives went to India and successfully lobbied for a ban on the export of these animals, which was introduced 1978th

In 1973, NAV, now based in Harley Street, London, sought a new strategy founded Lord Dowding Fund for Humane Research. The fund was named after Lord Dowding, the Air Chief Marshal and the Battle of Britain WW2 hero. After the war, Lord Dowding became chairman of the net value and the House of Lords made many passionate speech about animal experiments. His wife Lady Dowding was also a member of the Council NAV (later became president after her husband’s death).

The new strategy was to make positive steps to replace the use of animals in research, and to show that animal testing is not necessary for medical and scientific progress. Lord Dowding Fund will continue to be responsible for groundbreaking medical and scientific research that does not involve animals. Tens of thousands of animals have been rescued, through the introduction of technology and technology funded by Lord Dowding Fund for Humane Research.

1979 established the net value of the World Day for Laboratory (also called Lab Animal Day) April 24 – Lord Dowding birthday. This international day commemoration is recognized by the United Nations, and is now marked each year by anti-vivisectionists on every continent.

London and Provincial Anti-Vivisection Society

In 1957 the London and Provincial Anti-Vivisection Society (LPAVS) became part of the NAV. This merger was administered and promoted by the contemporary Committee Secretary, Wilfred Risdon, who was secretary of the net value accordingly. A former active member of LPAVS was Norah Elam, who had been a member (possibly also a founding member) from the very beginning around 1900. Elam was a prominent suffragette who was part of Pankhurst inner circle from the end of 1912 to 1917 (under the name Dacre Fox ).

During 1916/1917 obtained Elam work as a supervisor for a typing pool at the Medical Research Council (MRC), get a wealth of information she would later use in articles published under the auspices of LPAVS during 1934 and 1935. In March 1921 Elam advertised in The Times and conduct a public meeting in LPAVS to discuss “the Dog Bill (Bill to ban vivisection of Dogs), which was debated in Parliament at the time. The meeting was held at the Aeolian Hall in London and as chairman, Elam read out the 20 letters from MPs in support of the bill and noted that “A large majority of the public was strongly of the action, and she felt sure that victory would be theirs if a powerful effort was made, especially if the women have made correct use of its new political power “. [3]

In 1932, the MRC had produced a paper called “Vitamins, a survey of current knowledge”. Elam 1934 reply was entitled “Vitamin Survey, an answer” and was a critical review of the study and its results. This was followed in 1935 by “The Medical Research Council, what it is and how it works. The second article was based on the same argument about MRC research methods and missions that the first paper, but distilled and argued more convincingly on a broader front. Elam argument was that “powerful vested interests” had managed to “consolidate” behind “state-sponsored research”, and had managed to make himself unaccountably; the public could not influence decisions about what research should be done, and it worked like a closed shop only responsible for himself. Elam also claimed that the research involved cruel and inhumane use of animals, and that every thinking person had to ask how and why research and results based on animal models could safely be extrapolated to humans. Finally, she complained that the animal was doubly cruel because of the unnecessary repetition of experiments to replicate or prove the same point, as in many cases, she claimed to have come up with a simple, common sense. These papers were scattered and copies could be found in libraries across the UK. [3]

Modern operating

After persistent pressure from animal welfare organizations and other stakeholders, in 1983 the British government announced that it intended to replace animal cruelty law (at that time still in force despite the introduction of almost a hundred years earlier), and published a white paper that (after consultation ) would eventually form the basis for the new legislation. In view of the perceived weakness of the government’s proposal, and realize that complete abolition was unattainable in the current political climate worked NAV with other British groups such as the BUAV, Animal Aid and the Scottish society, the elaboration of a list of key experiments should be banned under the new legislation . This list includes a ban on the use of animals in testing cosmetics, tobacco, alcohol products; warfare experiments; psychological and behavioral tests; a ban on the median lethal dose and Draize eye irritation tests, as well as other measures in connection with the administration of law. Although the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act received Royal Assent May 20, 1986, and later described as a major factor in the UK with “tightest regulatory system in the world”, [4] this view is not supported by animal welfare organizations. [ Citation needed ]

It would not be until the late 1990s that a change of government brought in the ban on the use of animals for cosmetics research and bans the use of great apes would begin the process of change. These were followed by the UK’s Freedom of Information Act, which allowed wider public scrutiny of some scientific experiments.

More recently, in 2009, the year when the EU Directive on animal experiments rules was that over in their entirety for the first time in over two decades, NAV and its animals and the environmental group, Animal Defenders International, was a call for Europe-wide ban on the use of non-human primates in research. Although only minor concessions secured in this area when the law was then adopted in September 2010, the authors of the Directive acknowledged that it was “an important step towards achieving the final goal of full replacement of procedures on live animals for scientific and educational purposes as soon as it is scientifically possible to do so. ” [5] The authors also recommended that the Directive be reviewed regularly to reflect the scientific progress made in this area, leaving open the possibility that future legislation will provide more guarantees to ensure the protection and welfare of animals used in scientific experiments.


NAV claim is that they strive to educate researchers, physicians, manufacturers, educators and government leaders in the discovery of new humane methods that will save millions of animals every year and still give our children a safer, healthier and happier future.

The International Foundation for Ethical Research (IFER) is a mechanism research and funding of the NAV, a distinct 501 (c) (3) organism “supports the development, validation and implementation of innovative scientific methods that advance the science and replace the use of animals in research , testing and training. ” [6] [7]


  1. ^ Jump up to: abc “History of the net value”. National Anti-Vivisection Society. July 24, 2012. Retrieved 13 October, 2013.
  2. Jump up ^ David Henry Smyth – Alternatives to animal testing , p. 218 – Scolar Press, 1978 – OCLC 465121635
  3. ^ Jump up to: ab McPherson, Angela; McPherson, Susan (2010). Mosley old Suffragette – A Biography of Norah Elam . ISBN 978-1-4452-7308-2.
  4. Jump up ^ “Committee of animals in scientific procedures”. Retrieved eleven May 2013.
  5. Jump up ^ “Directive 2010/63 / EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes”. Retrieved eleven May 2013.
  6. Jump up ^ International Foundation for Ethical Research (IFER) website
  7. Jump up ^ IFER Mission