TO BE HONEST, I never expected to find myself in bed with Esther Rantzen. I now discover, however, that she is a patron of Patients’ Voice for Medical Advance (until recently known as Seriously Ill for Medical Research), a fine organisation that defends animal experimentation. Which puts us on the same side on one of the most divisive issues of the day.

Another patron of Patients’ Voice is Jane Asher, the actress and fancy-cake queen. Which puts her on the other side of the rationalism barricades from Sir Paul McCartney, her Sixties partner, who now claims he was converted to animal rights by watching Walt Disney’s Bambi.

“Whose side are you on?” is a famous slogan of the old Left-Right divide, which you don’t often hear in our age of soulless managerial politics when, as the Monty Python song predicted, accountancy really does seem to make the world go around. But there are different divisions that matter today, drawing new lines in the political and cultural sands. One such divide is embodied by two protests around animal research due to take place in Oxford tomorrow.

On one side will be the usual anti-vivisection demonstration against the building of Oxford University’s biomedical research laboratory. On the other side will be a demonstration in support of the lab and animal research. It has been called by a group called Pro-Test, set up by a 16-year-old from Swindon and now run by Oxford students, that stands for “science, reasoned debate, and above all, the welfare of mankind” (www.pro-test.org.uk). Neither of these is likely to be a mass demo. But the clash does symbolise something bigger, and to declare which side you are on is to make a statement about the sort of world in which you want to live.

The medical arguments for animal research are well established; in short, if you have ever taken a painkiller or an antibiotic you have benefited from it, and if we ever hope to see cures for cancer, HIV/Aids or other serious diseases we will need more of it. But as opposition to animal experiments continues to rise in the face of these facts, it is obviously more than a matter of evidence. It is an issue of belief.

Do we endorse a human-centred morality, or accept the ethic that puts animal welfare first? Will we fight for the advance of medical science, or are we willing to abandon its gains? These questions and more are raised by attitudes to animal research, revealing divisions that often cut across the old political lines.

There is too much focus on a few animal rights extremists. The misanthropic “four legs good, two legs bad” prejudices that motivate them go far deeper and higher in society today. Never mind barbarians at the gate; Oxford University has within its hallowed halls a “professor of ethics, theology and animal welfare” who writes prayers for the souls of research animals, and preaches that we should bear our ills rather than inflict “Christ-like suffering ” on laboratory animals. Feel their pain, and throw out the paracetamol.

Many in authority do recognise the importance of animal research, of course. Yet too often they are shy about speaking up, allowing its opponents to dominate debate. It is time to stick some human heads above parapets. Speaking of which, there is an old military version of the question “whose side are you on?”, where a sentinel asks a stranger “Qui vive?” — derived from a French phrase for “whom do you wish to live?” or “long live who? ” So, Qui vive? — man, or mouse?

• THE FURORE about the Prince of Wales’s diaries and politicking has led many to question whether he can be King. The reason why we ought to do away with the monarchy, however, has nothing to do with his describing China’s autocratic rulers as “appalling old waxworks” (surely a case of the crayon calling the candle “wax”). It should be because we do not want an unelected, unaccountable head of state.

  The revelations also confirm that government ministers have continually covered up for Prince Charles over his controversial interventions. The latest nonsensical response to the threat of bird flu — locking up the ravens in the Tower of London — may recall the old warning that, should the birds leave the Tower, the Crown will fall. But there is little danger of that while the all-party flock of royal toadies continues to rule the Westminter roost.

  Mick.Hume@spiked-online.com

Times Recommends

• In the real world, the public sector must pay
• Playing politics in a land of double Dutch
• Be like the plinth people: not set in stone