Animal rights protesters have twisted priorities in Oxford row
Some ten days ago, Oxford played host to a relatively peaceful confrontation between those in favour of animal testing and those who see it as an unnecessary evil. Protesters in the pro-test camp will tell you that testing on animals has resulted in oodles of medical breakthroughs that have ultimately saved many human lives. This view is in stark contrast to that held by animal rights campaigners; that testing of this nature is cruel and unnecessary.
I sometimes wonder about the extremes of man's devotion to his co-habitants on this planet. That said, it's surely a commendable thing to see affection being displayed towards animals. It probably makes sense in Mother Nature's big plan to keep everyone in a happy co-existing state to stave off extinction and the like. The breeding, feeding and grooming of animals helps maintain this status quo and it is a healthy pastime in any person's life.
The French have their pet salons and are prone to giving them hairdos befitting of male models. Female celebrities can often be seen sporting a dog in their handbags. Divorce proceedings in the US regularly take account of pets when it comes to who-gets-what possession wrangling. In short, humans can sometimes exhibit overcaring behaviour towards the quadrupedal kind.
So it must be impossible for animal lovers to sanction what happens at the Oxford University labs. There must be ways and means of progressing medical science without resorting to the vivisection of animals? Yes, there are, but evidence to date suggests that none are as successful such as those that involve crude testing of animals with powerful chemicals.
Treatment for polio, leukaemia, cancer and diabetes have all come about as a result of testing animals. The Association of Medical Research Charities has said: "There is no truth in the argument that animal testing is no longer necessary". The fact that people can recover and lead normal lives is testament to the work being carried out in labs around the world.
Leading academics have no ulterior motives when it comes to animal testing. If there were more agreeable ways of coming up with cures for the millions of people suffering from maladies that as yet remain incurable, they would be used. In this light, it can only be concluded that the animal rights protesters have twisted priorities. The rights of hundreds, maybe thousands, of fish and rodents cannot be considered on a par with those of the crippled and terminally ill.
A nasty element of the protests has been the thousands of death threats and insufferable incidents of grief caused to those who work at the lab perpetrated by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). Indeed, the testing at Oxford was such a hot potato that construction of the £20m facility was delayed because no building company wanted to be associated with such a contentious issue. Simon Festing, director of the Research Defence Society, said: “ALF members are more interested in finding out who is building the lab so they can threaten them than in attacking campaigners."
Published by Colm.
I sometimes wonder about the extremes of man's devotion to his co-habitants on this planet. That said, it's surely a commendable thing to see affection being displayed towards animals. It probably makes sense in Mother Nature's big plan to keep everyone in a happy co-existing state to stave off extinction and the like. The breeding, feeding and grooming of animals helps maintain this status quo and it is a healthy pastime in any person's life.
The French have their pet salons and are prone to giving them hairdos befitting of male models. Female celebrities can often be seen sporting a dog in their handbags. Divorce proceedings in the US regularly take account of pets when it comes to who-gets-what possession wrangling. In short, humans can sometimes exhibit overcaring behaviour towards the quadrupedal kind.
So it must be impossible for animal lovers to sanction what happens at the Oxford University labs. There must be ways and means of progressing medical science without resorting to the vivisection of animals? Yes, there are, but evidence to date suggests that none are as successful such as those that involve crude testing of animals with powerful chemicals.
Treatment for polio, leukaemia, cancer and diabetes have all come about as a result of testing animals. The Association of Medical Research Charities has said: "There is no truth in the argument that animal testing is no longer necessary". The fact that people can recover and lead normal lives is testament to the work being carried out in labs around the world.
Leading academics have no ulterior motives when it comes to animal testing. If there were more agreeable ways of coming up with cures for the millions of people suffering from maladies that as yet remain incurable, they would be used. In this light, it can only be concluded that the animal rights protesters have twisted priorities. The rights of hundreds, maybe thousands, of fish and rodents cannot be considered on a par with those of the crippled and terminally ill.
A nasty element of the protests has been the thousands of death threats and insufferable incidents of grief caused to those who work at the lab perpetrated by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). Indeed, the testing at Oxford was such a hot potato that construction of the £20m facility was delayed because no building company wanted to be associated with such a contentious issue. Simon Festing, director of the Research Defence Society, said: “ALF members are more interested in finding out who is building the lab so they can threaten them than in attacking campaigners."
Published by Colm.
|