Most recently I stumbled upon an older article in Spiked called: ''In defence of animal experimentation'' by Patrick Hayes. If you wish to read it you can find it here.
The journalist does make some valid points, especially when it comes to alternatives and concessions made. There is just no way you can make an omelet without braking the eggs. Far too often are we caught in ethical debates when in fact animal use is just inevitable. His concluding paragraph says it all.
Is that to say that there should be no alternatives to animal use? No, quite the opposite. Finding alternatives is another tool in the life saving toolbox. Stem cell research and computer modeling are tools that contribute. From what I have read however, when it comes to more complex living systems, animal models can't be beaten. One can not afford either, to give up the animal research step in order to go straight into human trails. It is a safety mechanism, a precautionary step rightfully imposed, using two animal species. Nothing to be apologetic about but to be rather proud of. After all, these are life saving contributions to mankind. If you do enjoy rants about opinionated activism and its consequences read this article.
It does become more painful when researchers themselves have to publicly say that enough animal rights activism is enough as was the case in 2009 at UCLA. Letter to the editor Journal of Neurophysiology
Similar debates have taken place in the UK and now three years later the general public has a better understanding of why animal research is needed. That is not to say that animal activism has stopped. No it has spilled over into continental Europe and Asia and it has tumored into other areas of human activity where animals are used. Such as for example the fur industry, the agricultural industry ( did you know that US horses now have to be slaughtered in Mexico or Canada?) , the companionship industry and the display industry.
All of this because of increased animal welfare concerns? No, because of 'No Animal Use' activism. Even Zoo's and Aquaria do not find grace in the eyes of animal rights groups, claiming that animals were meant to be born free. Never mind their efforts in wildlife conservation towards re-introduction into the wild. Just think where the debating and activism will lead us if animal sentiency and manlike status are adopted or enshrined into laws?
The pharmaceutical industry is spending millions of dollars to establish close ties with academic researchers in an effort to get to cutting edge drug discovery and research. We all know about the drug pipeline problems and the coming off patent situation, but if the academic world is prevented from live animal supply and from valid animal models , where does that lead to? BUAV primate cargo cruelty campaign
and lobbying airlines
Airlines say no to primate transport
Certainly not more animal use alternatives. Rather the loss of potential cures or the delay in life saving research and potentially a few million victims because of animal rights. Avian influenza anyone?
The journalist does make some valid points, especially when it comes to alternatives and concessions made. There is just no way you can make an omelet without braking the eggs. Far too often are we caught in ethical debates when in fact animal use is just inevitable. His concluding paragraph says it all.
Is that to say that there should be no alternatives to animal use? No, quite the opposite. Finding alternatives is another tool in the life saving toolbox. Stem cell research and computer modeling are tools that contribute. From what I have read however, when it comes to more complex living systems, animal models can't be beaten. One can not afford either, to give up the animal research step in order to go straight into human trails. It is a safety mechanism, a precautionary step rightfully imposed, using two animal species. Nothing to be apologetic about but to be rather proud of. After all, these are life saving contributions to mankind. If you do enjoy rants about opinionated activism and its consequences read this article.
It does become more painful when researchers themselves have to publicly say that enough animal rights activism is enough as was the case in 2009 at UCLA. Letter to the editor Journal of Neurophysiology
Similar debates have taken place in the UK and now three years later the general public has a better understanding of why animal research is needed. That is not to say that animal activism has stopped. No it has spilled over into continental Europe and Asia and it has tumored into other areas of human activity where animals are used. Such as for example the fur industry, the agricultural industry ( did you know that US horses now have to be slaughtered in Mexico or Canada?) , the companionship industry and the display industry.
All of this because of increased animal welfare concerns? No, because of 'No Animal Use' activism. Even Zoo's and Aquaria do not find grace in the eyes of animal rights groups, claiming that animals were meant to be born free. Never mind their efforts in wildlife conservation towards re-introduction into the wild. Just think where the debating and activism will lead us if animal sentiency and manlike status are adopted or enshrined into laws?
The pharmaceutical industry is spending millions of dollars to establish close ties with academic researchers in an effort to get to cutting edge drug discovery and research. We all know about the drug pipeline problems and the coming off patent situation, but if the academic world is prevented from live animal supply and from valid animal models , where does that lead to? BUAV primate cargo cruelty campaign
and lobbying airlines
Airlines say no to primate transport
Certainly not more animal use alternatives. Rather the loss of potential cures or the delay in life saving research and potentially a few million victims because of animal rights. Avian influenza anyone?
No comments:
Post a Comment