The undemocratic but humane society

I wrote about how necessary animal research is towards medical progress, how at some point our worldwide societies are confronted with new diseases, pandemics etc. and how there are so many questions that need answers. Writing remains easy. Sometimes though listening to others can help us advance. Moving forward through action rather than words is what many prefer and action there is. Much of it through medling and being present there where you and I can not vote nor exert influence except for here on a web page.

Here's an article about Ebola and the Reston Virus that affects primates but not these Asian Orang-Utans. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22465-orangutans-infected-by-mystery-ebolalike-virus.html
This kind of work is also animal research.

 And then you have people such as the HSUS and affiliated HSI that through clout affiliations and partnership impose their views on society through the back door. Not one of them has been elected, they are not part of the democratic process, yet their views and opinions are present in legislative proposals, in boardrooms, the US Congress , the United Nations and their influence leans on work by civil servants that are in favor of their views. Here is an excerpt of one such view and statement published on their web pages
(source : http://www.hsi.org/issues/chemical_product_testing/qa/troy_seidle_qa.html). Is this an example of a balanced debate? Is this what one calls positive change ? Who of you has voted for this?

One can only assume that those that suffer from HIV, Ebola or tuberculose or whatever other disease, malfunction or disorder will just have to fend for themselves once these extremists have eradicated any animal use (wool, fur, food, pharma, entertainment, conservation, re-introduction, etc).

Q: Where do you see animal testing headed over the next 10 years?

A: Towards extinction! The move to embrace “21st century” non-animal safety testing continues to gain momentum and has officially gone global. It’s already possible, for one-fifth the cost of a single animal cancer test, to screen up to 1,000 chemicals in 200 different robot-automated cell or gene tests in as little as 2 weeks.
In the face of these incredible gains in terms of cost, efficiency, and more human-relevant test results, coupled with the law-changing clout of organizations like HSI, I have every confidence in our ability to replace most, if not all, animal testing by 2025.

Q: Who are your heroes/heroines and why?

A: Many of the people I most respect and admire won’t be anyone you’ve heard of. They’re not high-profile politicians, celebrities or campaign figureheads, but the many hard-working political assistants, civil servants, company scientists, and others who work tirelessly behind-the-scenes to advance more humane and relevant approaches to testing and research for the betterment of both animal and human welfare.  

No comments:

Post a Comment