Have now got permission to post this, and I think given its length and the serious issues raised, it's worth putting it in a separate post, rather than the comments on an old post.
"I was very disappointed to learn about your blog on animal experimentation (the Wrong Way of Going about Things). Whilst I agree that the tactics used by the SHAC activists seemed to have worked counterproductive in terms of a negative public attitude towards critically questioning the utility of animal experimentation, the sentences that await them seem disproportionately high compared to other (serious) crimes committed.
The question every politician should be asking themselves is why these activists felt this was their only way of campaigning. After years of law-abiding peaceful protests, letter writing and other legal methods aimed at trying to influence public perception and policy, nothing much has changed. In fact, animal use is going up each year. How can you (and Labour) be so complacent about the effectiveness of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act?
You commented: “But when it comes to finding cures for devastating illnesses, then - reluctantly - we think vivisection might play its part.” However, ‘think’ in this context is not good enough. In order to justify animal experimentation, you have to be absolutely certain that their use will not be in vain. And this issue is usually ignored by most politicians and scientists. There is no scientific evidence that demonstrates that animal use is essential in combating human disease. To the contrary, these claims rely on anecdotes and hand-picked examples of where animal use has played a role in the development of therapeutic or diagnostic methods.
True, when doing millions of animal experiments, some will be effective; they are bound to be. But the question is whether the use of animals is efficient (as well as effective and ethical). A recent article in the ‘USA Today’ argued that this is not the case: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/12/opposing-view-1.html (and please click on the link to ‘numerous reports’ within the article). I am attaching a draft of my latest scientific paper about alternative methods which has been accepted by a Japanese scientific journal, and will be published within the next few weeks.
Being vegan, I would have thought that you would know more about the scientific arguments that underpin the lack of utility of animals for human disease. I would urge you to read up on these arguments before deciding to defend animal research.
Finally, Animals Count would seek the following policies to be implemented by the government:
· To immediately ban the harmful use of all non-human primates in experiments.
· To ban all harmful use of animals in scientific research, toxicity testing and education.
· To establish an independent transparent scientific inquiry to thoroughly review the ethical, scientific and economic implications of scientific research, toxicity testing and education.
· To facilitate increased funding for the development, validation and implementation of non-animal alternatives.
Animals Count hopes to contest the 2009 European Parliament elections, and think we will be able to draw votes from across the political spectrum, including Labour, as has been shown by the successful Dutch political Party for the Animals, which now has 20 representatives in national and local government, and which is set to win at least one EP seat next year.
Kind regards from a fellow vegan,
Jasmijn de Boo
Chair, Animals Count"
16 comments:
· To immediately ban the harmful use of all non-human primates in experiments.
· To ban all harmful use of animals in scientific research, toxicity testing and education.
· To establish an independent transparent scientific inquiry to thoroughly review the ethical, scientific and economic implications of scientific research, toxicity testing and education.
· To facilitate increased funding for the development, validation and implementation of non-animal alternatives.
All those things are spot on and something the government could do if it had the will. Sadly,it has shown itself to be more interested in propping up the industrial interests who have a vested interest in there not being any progress on these issues. It does the same with the nuclear industry, shooting and so on.
It also continues to criminalise peaceful protest. At what point will lobbying and campaigning on a whole host of animal welfare issues come under threat from the powers that be? We are getting closer to that all the time.
Labour has lost countless supporters and voters over animal issues because of broken promises and lack of action on a whole range of issues regarding animal welfare.
As a microbiologist by training, I cannot even begin to point out how wrong your correspondent is regarding animal testing: this torrent of idiocy is just... well... sorry Kerry, but I just don't know how to explain the complexities of such things to someone so obviously ignorant of the issues -- the science -- underpinning this stuff.
I would have to start at the basics of biology and move up from there and I don't, I am afraid, have the time.
Animal testing is necessary, OK? Even were it not the best way of trying to define side-effects and effectiveness anyway, the EU demands it to a large extent.
If you don't like animal testing, campaign for us to leave the EU and we can then start to discuss this (hopefully) like sensible people.
Until then, everyone is simply pissing in the wind.
DK
P.S. Being vegan qualifies absolutely nobody to "know more about the scientific arguments that underpin the lack of utility of animals". Seriously.
DK
DK - I think the suggestion was that as a vegan I might have looked into the issue more than someone who doesn't give such things a second thought, rather than having any special insight.
Chris - where's Otis Ferry spending his Christmas?
Is that the same Dutch party for animals that campaigned to legalise people having sex with animals if it was "consensual"?
Talk of campaigning peacefully for years and then being forced to take illegal action is codswallop.
The fact that the public have not bought into your emotive beagle ads and simpering campign leaflets may in fact mean that the "people" do not give a fig and have far bigger things to spend time thinking about.
Just because earnest numpties spend every waking moment rending their blouses over mice does not mean the rest of us have to buy in.
Where the odious Ferry is spending xmas is not really a response to the points I raised and does not deflect from how badly the vast majority of animal welfare/rights campaigners view Labour.
Michael Meacher I note, wrote a much more in tune and insightful message on animal issues on his blog yesterday and he doesnt even have an 'animal welfare profile' that you supposedly have. Then again hes not a New Labour apparatchik like yourself...
"In order to justify animal experimentation, you have to be absolutely certain that their use will not be in vain."
Passionate ignorance at its best. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of scientific research is in vain. Only a tiny fraction of projects ever yield anything of practical value. A Research Manager's job largely consists of finding new ways to kill off the more unpromising projects as early as possible.
Nature of the beast, I'm afraid.
BTW for the toxicological testing of Pharma and Agro products the majority of test animals are bacteria. A numerical trick but true.
Devil's Kitchen, since when are all animals the same? Precisely at molecular level there are important differences between species (human and non-human animals). Your comment that animal testing is necessary is just an opinion and not based on any scientific evidence. Please see www.animalexperiments.info for systematic reviews that demonstrate lack of utility of a large majority of animal studies.
Barnsley, you couldn't be further from the truth. That Dutch group never got anywhere because despite being a progressive country, Dutch people would never allow bestiality. The Dutch Party for the Animals (www.partyfortheanimals.nl) is the fastest growing political party in Europe and has influenced politics not only in the Netherlands, but far beyond. Animal welfare is at the top of the political agenda again in the Netherlands, where it should be.
There is similar interest in animal issues in the UK, with around 3 million people supporting animal charities. You are right, 9 out of 10 people may not be interested, but fortunately, more and more people don't want to be '9 out of 10' anymore. The fact that up to 40% of British people don't vote at elections, is an indication of how poorly people's interests are represented by politicians.
Jasmijn is right, she is also right on how the political class in this country favours vested commercial interests (very often ones where senior govt figures have some interest) above making progress on the issues.
Many people in animal protection have either given up on politics or gone to other parties because the system is so stacked in favour of big business or the bloodsports lobby, as with shooting.
But you didn't make those points when you met TB in Bristol a few years ago, did you Chris? I seem to remember you being quite enthusiastic then.
Devil's Kitchen wrote "Animal Testing is necessary, OK" ... er, for what exactly?
A thorough review of the literature demonstrates over and over again the folly and futility of using non-human animsls as a substitute for a proper investigation into human disease. Rats and mice are not just small, furry humans, however convenient (and profitable!) it may be to pretend otherwise, and we have learned nothing regarding human disease by poisoning and killing them by the million.
To take a healthy, pain-sensitive, sentient non-human being and deliberately make him or her fatally ill with a mere approximation (and too often a very bad approximation!) of a human disease (from which he or she would not naturally suffer) is monstrously unethical, deplorably brutal and staggeringly inept in terms of the science and "knowledge" thereby gleaned from such "experiments".
Whatever may be the tradition, and whatever may be - presently - most profitable should be no guide to the future course of medical research. It is surely time to reflect soberly on the damage we have done to both non-humans and humans by our callous disregard of the scientific principle that it is the *data* that matters, not profit, not careerist opportunism, and certainly not the fallacious, arrogant assumption that might makes right and just because we CAN cause such violent harm to others that we should do so.
I know that anyone involved in any way with animal-experimentation must necessarily have a hole where his or her heart belongs, at least as regards those unfortunate enough to belong to a species other than the laughably self-styled human race, but I hope to goodness that they do not all conform to the noxious blend of misplaced arrogance and truth-blindness betrayed by the odious Devil's Kitchen. The fact is that, even if the efficacy of animal-experimentation were verifiable to any significant degree, this would not grant one species the moral justification to use and abuse any other for its own gain, merely because of its dominant status. Sentiency, not species, is the issue, and all creatures which have the capacity for suffering deserve protection against it. The presumption of the human race is that, because it identifies more with the suffering of its own species, this affords people moral precedence.
I think that was just before the election.There were others in the room who would also not have agreed with Mr Blair on many things but at that time I was intent on helping to win an election.
I would do so again as I will never sit back and let the Tories take power.
That does not deflect from the situation as how others view things though.Happy New Year.
It was June 2006.
Oh ok, thanks, a lot happened over those couple of years, it seems like one election rolls into another.Anyway I would still work for a Labour win.
Post a Comment