Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Wild Fragaria on September 01, 2005, 12:53:38 pm
-
Nature 437, 1-2 (1 September 2005) | doi: 10.1038/437001b
Still not deterred
Top of pageAbstractUniversities should back researchers determined to stand up for animal research in the face of terrorism.
Around 18 months ago, under the title "Defeated but not deterred", this magazine published an editorial on animal-rights activism in Britain. A campaign of violence and vandalism had just forced the University of Cambridge to cancel plans for a primate research laboratory. Nature suggested then that the victory would not necessarily be repeated. We wish we had been right, but that optimism now looks premature.
The extremists have now secured another success. Darley Oaks is a small family farm in the Midlands. The owners have been breeding guinea pigs for medical research for more than a decade. For the last six of those years, they have suffered a campaign of arson attacks and death threats, and have seen letters of abuse sent to people connected with their business. The campaign culminated in macabre fashion last October, when the remains of a family relative were dug up and removed by protestors demanding that the business close. Last week, the family decided to comply.
It was the second notable victory for the animal-rights extremists since the Cambridge decision. Work on a new animal house at the University of Oxford has been stalled for over a year, after threats and vandalism forced contractors to pull out. The increased support for animal research seen in the media and in public opinion polls, and highlighted in our editorial, has continued during that period. But the activists have become more focused and strategic — and more successful.
Analysis of the new tactics suggests that the fight against the extremists may take longer to win than anticipated. Activists have been concentrating on a small number of secondary targets, such as financial firms that act for animal testing laboratories. Attacks to individuals' homes are common. It is impossible for the police to defend such a wide range of targets and, as a consequence, many companies have ended associations with animal researchers and breeders. And it is not just British researchers who should be concerned: similar tactics are becoming increasingly common in the United States, where the FBI is investigating more than 100 cases, many involving arson.
Yet there is plenty to suggest that the extremists' actions will only prolong their fight, not allow them to win it. New UK legislation, aimed at punishing protestors who set out to cause economic damage to companies, came into force this summer. Perhaps because of publicity surrounding the new offences, attacks on company and private property connected with animal research fell sharply even before the new powers became law.
In the longer term, police must infiltrate the activists as they would any other extremist organization. It is a welcome sign that the UK government has made animal activists a major focus for the National Extremism Tactical Co-ordination Unit, a policing body established in March 2004.
Action from the research community is the final front in the fight. Here the news is encouraging, although a great deal remains to be done. A decade ago, the Research Defence Society (now known as the RDS), which supports the medical use of animals, could call on just two researchers when asked to supply scientists for media interviews. That number now stands at 25. This is still far too few, given that thousands of researchers in Britain use animals in their work. But it is a start. It is also good to see that more than 500 prominent scientists have put their names to an RDS statement released last week, the Declaration on Animals in Medical Research, that backs animal research.
Perhaps the only group not pulling its weight is the university sector. Some universities encourage researchers to speak out, but they are in the minority. Universities have just as a big a stake in animal research as any other science organization. This reluctance to talk to the public about their research merely plays into the hands of the extremists, who would be delighted to see scientists stay silent.
*********************************
What do you think? It upsets me to see people misuse their rights to protest about things that are doing human good.
-
[color=66ff00]They should be made to live without any of the devices/pharmaceuticals/amenities that have been made possible through animal testing.
When they realise how utterly important this testing is and how much of what we take for granted every single day relies on it, then they'd be shown as the hate filled hypocrites that they are.
Something that came to my attention that's related to this: Regenerative mice (www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16417002%255E30417,00.html).
[/color]
-
These are the people who make me want to wear my leather coat as much as possible.
-
The right to protest never included the right to steal the owners' mothers ashes and hold him to ransom for them, which is how that guinnea-pig farm was forced to stop trading.
These people are also very selective when complaining about cruelty to animals. Do you ever see them throwing paint over the leather jackets of Hells Angels? Think about that and you will spot a basic character trait of this kind of person.
-
:lol: Good one Flipside. I'd love to see them try that :)
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]They should be made to live without any of the devices/pharmaceuticals/amenities that have been made possible through animal testing.[/color]
I've been saying that for years. Penn and Teller did a show on PETA and you should hear the s**t those people come out with. One of the founder members is actually a diabetic so they asked her how she could be complaining about people using animals for this sort of thing when she herself injected insulin (which is harvested from pancreas of dead animals remember) in order to live.
Her response was that if she was dead she wouldn't be able to fight for animals rights so it was perfectly okay to slaughter animals for her need. :wtf:
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]When they realise how utterly important this testing is and how much of what we take for granted every single day relies on it, then they'd be shown as the hate filled hypocrites that they are.[/color]
Like all fanatics they won't listen to reason though. These are people who have in the past resorted to bombing charity shops because they give money to labs to research into a cure for cancer. F**ker like that need to die.
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]Something that came to my attention that's related to this: Regenerative mice (www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16417002%255E30417,00.html).
[/color]
"It is quite remarkable. The only organ that did not grow back was the brain.
So no hope for the anti-vivesectionists being cured by this technique then. :D
-
It is fine if people want to speak up what they have in mind, but what the extremists had done was just plain wrong. I think they forget that they might benefit from the research one day. Why get in the way of good deed.
And good for you Ford Perfect :D
-
*Pulls leather jacket out of cupboard*
*Remembers what his girlfriend said he looks like in it*
*Puts jacket back in cupboard*
:D
-
Originally posted by karajorma
:lol: Good one Flipside. I'd love to see them try that :)
I've been saying that for years. Penn and Teller did a show on PETA and you should hear the s**t those people come out with. One of the founder members is actually a diabetic so they asked her how she could be complaining about people using animals for this sort of thing when she herself injected insulin (which is harvested from pancreas of dead animals remember) in order to live.
Her response was that if she was dead she wouldn't be able to fight for animals rights so it was perfectly okay to slaughter animals for her need. :wtf:
Like all fanatics they won't listen to reason though. These are people who have in the past resorted to bombing charity shops because they give money to labs to research into a cure for cancer. F**ker like that need to die. [/QUOTE}
Absolutely. People like her don't deserve to live really. Wasting resources and causing troubles.
Originally posted by karajorma
So no hope for the anti-vivesectionists being cured by this technique then. :D
There are hopes to regenerate lungs and the research has started.
Originally posted by Maeglamor
Something that came to my attention that's related to this: Regenerative mice.
Indeed.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
*Pulls leather jacket out of cupboard*
*Remembers what his girlfriend said he looks like in it*
*Puts jacket back in cupboard*
:D
Maybe she should buy you one she likes to see you in? :lol:
-
I dread to think what she would like to see me in that would be made out of leather :lol:
Getting back to the topic though I have said before that next time I see one of those people on the street with a picture of a some sad looking animal and a petition to end vivisection I'm going to give them a good talking to.
The bastards always lie about what they're getting people to sign by trying to claim that they're trying to end cruelty to animals but once you get down to it their real agenda is revealed.
Cause when you get down to it most of these people are actually misanthropes who prefer animals to humans.
-
I love animals...
Allthough I hate the vary idea of harming them , I know that sometimes you just can't* avoid it...
However if any animal testing is doine if should be monitored - who is doing hte testing, for what purpose and how humane is it. If you can't do it in a humane manner, don't do it at all.
And we should allos face reality that farmaceuticla companies don't give a damn about the people, only about money. Most drugs that are gained by animal testing will never make it into the hands of those who really neeed them:(
* maby not hte best word. They can avoid it, but it's not adisable..The only thing anyone really has to do is...die..
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
However if any animal testing is doine if should be monitored - who is doing hte testing, for what purpose and how humane is it. If you can't do it in a humane manner, don't do it at all.
And we should allos face reality that farmaceuticla companies don't give a damn about the people, only about money. Most drugs that are gained by animal testing will never make it into the hands of those who really neeed them:(
One, at least in the US/UK where these animal rights wackos are active, there are fairly stringent regulations in place to prevent animal abuse while testing. Even if they are to be killed as part of experimentation, they must be given a "comfortable" life until such time as they are experimented on. The USDA, for example, can and does randomly spot check any facility that uses animals in testing to assure compliance with those standard-of-life expectations.
Secondly, this has nothing to do with the economics of the big pharmacutical companies. Lets not take this thread there, please.
-
The only good human is a dead human!
-
Originally posted by Rictor
The only good human is a dead human!
Then be a good boy now Rictor.
-
[color=66ff00]The thing that gets me is that animal testing is one of the most rigourously monitored things I've ever seen. Hell there's probably a few power stations that have more lax guidelines than animal testing facilities.
What you've simply got is a bunch of uneducated asshats with too much time that would turn to tested products as soon as their skin blemished.
[/color]
-
sence they are so enamored by the idea, maybe we should make them the next test subjects, sence the animals are almost always disected and have there organse removed for testing and such I think this would be a perfict use for these 'activists'
-
You know, all those hundreds of guinnea pigs they 'saved' when this thing closes down will merely be destroyed by injection.
Way to go with those rights :)
-
Persoinally I prefer animals to most people....
Which reminds me..do those cosmetics labs still preform tests on amimals? A vaccine is one thing but cosmetics??
EDIT:
Testing on humans might not be such a bad idea afterall...
Those who need most medicine usaully can't affor it and will die... and would glady bu subjected to tests if there's a chance tehy will be cured (hell, I would - would you prefer to die or take a chance that you might live).
Results gained this way are more accurate anyway..
Of course the best way would be to give the medicine to all who need it but you cna bet that that will happen..
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Testing on humans might not be such a bad idea afterall...
Those who need most medicine usaully can't affor it and will die... and would glady bu subjected to tests if there's a chance tehy will be cured (hell, I would - would you prefer to die or take a chance that you might live).
Results gained this way are more accurate anyway..
[color=66ff00]You don't understand the testing regimen.
You get a licence to start with something like mice or rats, you need to prove whatever you are testing is safe before they will allow you to move to a 'higher' mammal. Obviously there are some things it's not possible to use rodents for, if you for instance have a biomedical device that is of a certain size it's often impossible to use something smaller than say, a medium sized dog.
The only way you get to test something on a person is by first proving that the side effects to an animal are not so utterly horrible as to cause more harm than good. This goes for both devices and chemicals.
Addendum: I forgot to mention that if a device or drug is significantly similar to something that's already gone through a testing regimen then the FDA automatically grants it marketability provided the proof is there. This is why you don't get a lot of makeup testing on animals today, it's all been done before and safe chemicals are well documented.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Persoinally I prefer animals to most people....
Which reminds me..do those cosmetics labs still preform tests on amimals? A vaccine is one thing but cosmetics??
I guess you don't use stuff like shaving foam or shampoo? There aren't just cosmetics that get tested on animal you know.
Originally posted by TrashMan
EDIT:
Testing on humans might not be such a bad idea afterall...
Those who need most medicine usaully can't affor it and will die... and would glady bu subjected to tests if there's a chance tehy will be cured (hell, I would - would you prefer to die or take a chance that you might live).
Results gained this way are more accurate anyway..
So you rather be the testing object? We are talking about scientific and medical research that will need more than one animal to obtain some realiable information. The whole point of involving animals in research is to find the safer and better ways to help human. By your suggestion - testing on human, you are not helping people with the diseases but shortening their lives faster.
Originally posted by TrashMan
Of course the best way would be to give the medicine to all who need it but you cna bet that that will happen..
Have to make sure those people aren't protesting for the animal rights :D