On August 21, 2006, a young, and by all accounts a good man, Peter Woodhams, was shot four times outside his home in East London by a gang member. The 22-year-old father of one, Mr. Woodhams had, for the better part of a year, been subjected to serious threats and bullying by local youths. No one knows why these teens targeted Woodhams—was he an easy target, did he have words with them previously which the kids took as a dissing, did he cross "their" territory? It seems nobody knows for sure.
All that we do know is that they made Woodham's life in his own neighborhood very uncomfortable, and six months before being fatally shot, these same gang members had cornered him and slashed him across the face. Earlier in the day on which he was shot, Woodhams had decided that he'd had enough and confronted the youths, chasing them off. One gang member, however, 18-year-old Bradley Tucker, got hysterical and demanded revenge. Later that same day, Woodhams had reason to confront the youths a second time and, when he ran out of the home, was shot by Tucker.
Hundreds attended his funeral and praised Woodhams as a hero, but one fact remains chillingly clear. The police did nothing to protect young Peter or his family. Even after getting his face slashed, the police provided no routine protection for him. Such is life in modern-day Britain under a Labour government that honestly considers itself "tough on crime."
Now then, how much would you be willing to bet that if Woodhams had been a vivisectionist working for some major pharmaceutical company or medical research lab and had been only idly threatened by animal rights campaigners, he'd have received round-the-clock police protection? I'd wager my home on it.
People just love to whip themselves up into a frenzy over animal rights extremism, which is often treated more seriously than jihadist terrorism. Tony Blair has consistently given support to animal research, even going so far as to sign an pro-vivisection petition called The People's Petition (which only gathered 13,000 names in a country of nearly 60 million, I feel compelled to add), and the police have been informed to crack down hard on protestors. Market stalls that disseminate animal rights or even animal welfare literature have been closed down in case they encourage extremists. In the recent case over the graverobbing by four animal rights activists, even normally pro-animal welfare papers such as the Daily Mirror editorialized about the "vicious" and "evil" acts of the animal rights protestors.
Yet, Islamic fanaticism thrives in Britain. It is estimated that up to 2,000 Britons may be actively involved in terror cells. Mosques routinely turn young Muslim men into pillars of rage and hatred, religiously indoctrinated robots perfectly willing to blow themselves up and hundreds more along with them. And yet, we worry about animal rights protestors. We close down animal welfare stalls and leave the mosques to fester in their own toxic juices.
The streets aren't even safe during the day, and yet David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, and who is about as clueless as they come, thinks we should hug "hoodies." (A brief digression if you will: If you dress like a criminal thug, then I will regard you as such.) Yet there are more armed officers guarding the doors of research labs all over the country and the homes of those that work in them than there are troops in the Canadian armed forces. Policemen on the beat is a thing of the past because they're otherwise engaged in helping to protect profits that are drenched in blood. This makes a lot of sense.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - JustOneMan
Mark,
I checking your profile I could find where you received your Phd in biomedical research. In addition your above meanderings would be meaningful if you presented ALTERNATIVES to animal testing.
JOM
2 - JustOneMan
correction "COULD NOT find where you received your Phd in biomedical research"
3 - NL
This rather snarky article exhibits the delusions and the rather hallucinatory self-righteousness of the "animal rights movement" operating at full blast.
First of all, it ignores the long, long record of systematic intimidation of medical researchers and of businesses, organizations, and individuals that can be even faintly linked to them, at least in the puritanical minds of antivivsectionists. It ignores the threats, sabotage, harassment, and occassional direct violence visited on these people for engaging in activities that are fully legal and approved by a substantial popular majority. So much for democracy when it collides with a few hundred fanatics whose bonnets are infused with the same peculiar bees.
The logic of the piece is entirely fractured, offering the opinion that because the British police are occassionally remiss in protecting citizens who have been threatened by gangs, they have no business protecting biomedical researchers threatened by animal rights ultras. This is customarily called a non-sequitur.
It is even more egregious in that it ignores the fact that "animal researchers and vivesectionists", far from being a despicable crew of depraved sadists, are among the most humane and valuable members of our culture--in contrast to bloviating journalists, say. Mr. Manning passes on, without serious argument and with but a glancing reference to a screwball website that itself offers no serious argument, that animal subject research is "unscientific" and "useless". Conceding the obvious, tautological point that non-human animals are physiiologically different from humans, it remains nonethess certain that substantial similarities make animals indispensible for all kinds of medical research, including research from which Mr. Manning and his family have doubtless benefitted enormously. He buys into the the grotesque fallacy that because animal models are imperfect, they are worthless. This is drivel. Animal models are not only absolutely necessary for drug and vaccine development, they are also indispensible to advances in surgical technique, including the training necessary for surgeons to master a new procedure, medical imaging, prosthetics, and an endless list of technical modalities whose evolution would have been difficult if not impossible without the availability of animal subjects.
Why do animal rights supporters continue to make these bombastic, stupid, and mendacious claims about the futility of animal research? Clearly, they haven't the moral courage to accept the full consequences of their sympathies, which would require them to accept a huge toll of human death and suffering for years or centuries into the future in order to spare the lives of lab rats ans rabbits. That's not a dilemma with which animal-rights yahoos are comfortable; therefore they accept and try to promulgate a huge lump of silly and tendentious fictions, as much to soothe their vestigial consciences as to gull the public into the wildly false belief that they have nothing to lose if animal research in biomedicine is halted.
Jails are the right places for such people the instant they cross the line separating mere pontification from personal threats and sabotage.
4 - JustOneMan
From the FBI
Officials say this is part of a growing trend that in recent years has included more than 1,200 incidents of arson, bombings, theft, animal releases, vandalism, and office takeovers. Targets of what activists call "direct actions" have included laboratories, mink ranches, SUV dealerships, fast-food outlets, and new housing developments. Damages have totaled hundreds of millions of dollars.
"We have seen an escalation in violent rhetoric and tactics," John Lewis, the FBI's deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, told a Senate hearing recently. "Attacks are also growing in frequency and size. Harassing phone calls and vandalism now coexist with improvised explosive devices and personal threats to employees."
JOM
5 - Right On
Here are some alternatives to animal testing: sexual abuse, extortion, murder, armed robbery, and rape. These acts are just as scientific as vivisection (i.e., not at all), and can be equally satisfying to losers who in the 21st century still believe that scientific and medical progress cannot be achieved without abusing, torturing, and "sacrificing" other living beings.
Does one really need to provide alternatives to rape or murder in order to establish that they are wrong? What a load of crap.
6 - Right On
Mr. Lewis, who like many other government officials is serving his masters in big pharma and other segments of corporate America, forgot to mention that despite the terrible "escalation in violent rhetoric and tactics", not a single person was killed or hurt in 30 years of actions by the ALF and ELF in the United States. Not one! Is this a coincidence? You'd have to be a total moron to think that.
How fortunate it is for the FBI that the ELF and ALF exist. Without them, they would have to justify their existence in this day and age by finding real terrorists, the kind that really go out there to kill people, y'know? To hide their incompetence in catching real terrorists, the FBI turns the spotlight on nonviolent activists, tagging them "America's number one domestic terrorist threat", raiding their homes with SWAT teams and helicopters, sending agents to spy, eavesdrop, and harass them, and sending them to jail for years and years when they are found guilty breaking some bullshit law that was invented specifically to protect vivisectionists and their supporters.
At the bottom line, it's a win-win, see? The FBI shows "results" in the form of jailed activists, Capitol Hill is happy and secures next year's "anti terrorism" budget, Big Pharma is happy and secures next year's payolas for the corrupt officials, and apart from a few unlucky vegans who don't mean anything to anyone anyway, no one gets hurt!
7 - Mark Edward Manning
RightOn: "Here are some alternatives to animal testing: sexual abuse, extortion, murder, armed robbery, and rape. These acts are just as scientific as vivisection (i.e., not at all), and can be equally satisfying to losers who in the 21st century still believe that scientific and medical progress cannot be achieved without abusing, torturing, and 'sacrificing' other living beings ...Does one really need to provide alternatives to rape or murder in order to establish that they are wrong? What a load of crap."
Thank you. Exactly my point. I resent the fact that people make thousands of dollars in salary for torture -- Saddam Hussein and his Ba'athists were all living the high life too -- PLUS they receive no end of protection from the law whereas you or I, because we're not torturing the lesser creatures on behalf of mankind, are considered worthless.
I believe in an egalitarian society, where EVERYBODY has the full, uncompromised protection of the law -- unless, of course, you've done something to compromise that protection like becoming a criminal yourself.
As for the extremism being performed in the name of animal rights, that's wrong. Of course it is. And it certainly goes a long way towards making those who genuinely care about animals look bad. And that's a shame because those who campaign for animals are the compassionate ones.
The animal extremists are loonies, yes, but you get loonies from all quarters of life. People get attached to one ideology -- animal rights, Islam, independence, whatever -- and they go haywire with it ... But in no way does that mean that vivisection is completely outdated, unempirical and just plain wrong. There are alternatives, the scientific community just doesn't want to use and promote them because they're comfortable with animal experiments.
8 - Mark Edward Manning
NL: "Clearly, they haven't the moral courage to accept the full consequences of their sympathies, which would require them to accept a huge toll of human death and suffering for years or centuries into the future in order to spare the lives of lab rats ans rabbits."
And cold-blooded creatures like yourself, NL, can't accept something called NATURE. If your time is up, it's up ... and I'd be perfectly willing to apply that sentiment to myself. I don't want any other living thing to suffer just because of me. I'd rather die than suffer the guilt of knowing what made my longevity possible.
You also take the attitude that human beings are the only species with a right to live terror-free lives on this planet. And you want to talk about being bombastic?
9 - Mark Edward Manning
RightOn: "How fortunate it is for the FBI that the ELF and ALF exist. Without them, they would have to justify their existence in this day and age by finding real terrorists, the kind that really go out there to kill people, y'know?"
**clap, clap, clap** BRAVO!
10 - JustOneMan
Manning and Right On..simple question..
Are you Pro Abortion or Pro Life?
Please answer...
JOM
11 - Mark Edward Manning
Consider this: if most sane, decent adults read in their morning newspaper about some kids who'd tortured someone's pet -- cat, dog, hamster, whatever the animal was -- they'd be outraged.
"Oh my God, who could do such a thing? Those kids are sick!," they'd say to themselves.
And yet these same people are perfectly happy to let a "scientist" perform the kind of "techniques" on animals that would otherwise be considered torture if some random thugs were doing the same thing. Because the animal experimenter wears a white coat, has an advanced degree and assures you that what he's doing is for the benefit of you and yours, then suddenly it's not torture, it's vital medical research. (?!?)
It's a confusing world.
12 - Mark Edward Manning
Just One Man: I'm pro-life (that is, anti-abortion).
13 - BCE
NL ***... it ignores the long, long record of systematic intimidation of medical researchers and of businesses... for engaging in activities that are fully legal and approved by a substantial popular majority...***
For over a century medical professionals who have voiced their opposition to vivisection or refused to tow the party line have been ostracised or denounced as heretics. It has been deliberate policy, ever since the first ALF raids, which gained popular public support at the time, to portray all antivivisectionists as fanatical, misguided extremists. Public debates are usually stage managed in favour of provivisectionists, and resources concentrated on 'propagandising' the media, schools, colleges etc. These efforts are now being stepped up, resulting in draconian measures and restrictions re freedom of speech and sentencing for protestors.
Just because something is legal does not mean it is right. The once legal institution of slavery, for example, is now considered evil.It is easy to go along with contemporary mores, taking vivisection for granted and treating its opponents as trouble-makers. Conformity, apathy and inertia are powerful forces.
The notion that scientists would not indulge in anything unscientific or always have less than altruistic motives is naive. The vested interests involved in the chemical/medical/vivisection combine are of gargantuan proportions. The propaganda is incessant. Throughout history, it is clear that scientists, if left uncurbed, have no regard for welfare, humans, ethics, or morality. It is often activists who have halted their actions or improved laws.
Just because animals are used in experiments does not mean that they are indispensible or that the same or better results could not have been reached without them.Our most effective and safe medicines are the result of prolonged usage in humans. Surgery techniques are the result of observing surgeons in practice and working under their close supervision on patients. Surgeons who had to practise on animals often complain of having to to relearn everything again re humans.
The only way to settle the matter is through an independent and transparent scientific evaluation. The burden of proof is on pro-vivisectionists to convince sceptics.
14 - Clavos
The burden of proof is on pro-vivisectionists to convince sceptics.
Wrong.
If you want to change what IS, it is up to you to convince society to do so.
The law is the law, whether you think it's right or not. The burden is on you to convince enough voters that it is wrong, and get it changed.
15 - Mark Edward Manning
Clavos, I agree with you partly. Society should try to change things. But society can only go so far. You had about 70% of the population opposing the War in Iraq before the invasion even happened and it did not change the course of things. Public opposition and the state of things as they are/they happen/they come don't necessarily always go hand-in-hand.
The scientific community doesn't want to change because they fear losing government support if they dare to suggest alternatives, and the government doesn't want to change because they're only too happy to keep the support of the financially loaded biomedical community by defending the status quo. It's a real catch-22 situation. Vocal opposition, even rock-solid proof of viable alternatives to vivisection, will not necessarily change things. Though, I do think people need to see what goes in in these labs, then that just might be the catalyst needed to change hearts and minds.
Even so, even if you get more than 50% clamoring for an end to vivisection, I still wonder if the two parties involved -- the pharmaceuticals/biomedical companies and the government will listen.
16 - BCE
A large proportion of the public seems to be aware that technologies are available today that render biomedical research on animals obsolete, or at least, not as indispensable as we are often led to believe. The biggest poll on animal testing ever conducted was a Sky News survey in May 2006, in which 51% of almost one million voters said they were not in favour of animal testing. Another Sky News poll, in March, asked 'Do we need animal testing?' to which 78% of nearly 56,000 people voted no.
In the UK , EDM (Early Day Motion) 92 'Animal Testing of Drugs' has attracted 248 MPs (almost half of those eligible) to sign in support of a scientific evaluation of the use of animals as surrogate humans in drug safety testing and medical research. As a result, the RDS ( Research Defence Society) has asked MPs not to sign or to remove their signature! The Government freely admits that it has not commissioned or evaluated any formal research on the efficacy of animal experiments and has no plans to do so.
In the light of recent drug catastrophes, such an evaluation is surely the only responsible course of action. Attempting to sabotage such a vital evaluation begs the question of the motivation behind such sabotage.
Proponents of vivisection are apparently so desperate to conceal the rational, scientific case against animal testing that they are increasingly demonising scientists who dispute their dogma.
17 - Clavos
Mark,
Though I'm not an anti-vivisectionist (too ponderous that; we need better descriptions), I understand what you are saying.
My comment was in reply to BCE, who said the burden was on the Vs to convince the A-Vs of their position.
I disagreed with BCE simply on the grounds that the V is the law and what is going on; thus why would the Vs have to convince the A-Vs? We're not trying to CHANGE anything; the A-Vs are. Therefore, they have the burden of convincing us, since they are the advocates for change.
18 - LS
NL: "Animal models are not only absolutely necessary for drug and vaccine development, they are also indispensible to advances in surgical technique"
Some quick facts you should be aware of so you don't embarrass yourself with such ignorant comments again. 95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans.Procter & Gamble used an artificial musk despite it failing the animal tests, i.e., causing tumours in mice. They said the animal test results were 'of little relevance for humans'.Lemon juice is a deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are safe according to animal tests.Aspirin fails animal tests, as does digitalis (a heart drug), cancer treatments, insulin (causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would have been banned if vivisection were heeded.
NL: "Clearly, they haven't the moral courage to accept the full consequences of their sympathies, which would require them to accept a huge toll of human death and suffering for years or centuries into the future in order to spare the lives of lab rats ans rabbits"
You got this round the wrong way. There already HAS been centuries of human death and suffering BECAUSE of animal research. Blood transfusions were delayed 200 years by animal studies, corneal transplants were delayed 90 years.The lifesaving operation for ectopic pregnancies was delayed 40 years due to vivisection.The Director of Research Defence Society, (which exists to defend vivisection) was asked if medical progress could have been achieved without animal use. His written reply was 'I am sure it could be'.
19 - Ivy
Here is more examples of how primitive, obsolete and dangerous animal testing is.
"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling PhD (Two-time Nobel Prize winner).
Despite the billions of dollars spent on cancer research over many decades, and the constant promise of a cure which is forever "just around the corner", cancer continues to increase.
A large portion of money donated to cancer research by the public is spent on animal research which has, since its inception, been widely condemned as a WASTE OF TIME and RESOURCES.
For instance, consider the 1981 Congressional Testimony by Dr. Irwin Bross, former director of the Sloan-Kettering, the largest cancer research institute in the world, and then Director of Biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research, Bufallo, NY: The uselessness of most of the animal model studies is less well known.
For example, the discovery of chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of human cancer is widely-heralded as a triumph due to use of animal model systems.
However, here again, these EXAGGERATED claims are coming from or are endorsed by the same people who get the federal dollars for animal research.
There is little, if any, factual evidence that would support these claims.
Indeed, while conflicting animal results have often DELAYED and HAMPERED advances in the war on cancer, they have NEVER produced a single substantial advance either in the prevention or treatment of human cancer.
For instance, practically all of the chemotherapeutic agents which are of value in the treatment of human cancer were found in a CLINICAL CONTEXT rather than in animal studies."
In fact, many substances which cause cancer in humans are marketed as "safe" on the basis of animal tests.
Constant consumption of cancer-causing products of the pharmaceutical industry is legalised on the basis of misleading animal experiments which seduce the consumer into a false sense of security.
So let us start using our own reason and stop blindly following pharmaceutical propaganda.
20 - BCE
Clavos,
In 1984 the New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society took a petition to Parliament seeking abolition of the notorious LD50 toxicity test, presenting evidence that the procedure is not only illogical and unsound, but that it is carried out solely as an alibi for legal and commercial purposes ( as are animal experiments in general). In 1989, a further petition was presented, signed by 100,640 New Zealanders demanding the abolition of all experiments on animals after obtaining affidavits from doctors all over the world who claim vivisection is medically and scientifically invalid (see also '1000 Doctors and many more Against Vivisection' by Hans Ruesch).
The NZAVS fourteen years' continuous struggle for justice through the legal system revealed every legitimate channel systematically closed against them.
Similarly in the UK, the 1980s saw thousands marching in the streets against vivisection, yet today, it is on the increase. Uncaged Campaigns recently uncovered documents revealing cruelty and falsifying of data ( see Diaries of Despair website ) which the UK government and Imutran tried to supress and which case is still ongoing.Is it any wonder such injustice is being challenged through civil disobedience?
The reasons vivisection prevails are many- 'tradition', the flexibility of animal experiments, whereby anything can be proved or disproved, the peer review system- animal experimenters make their own laws and regulate their own activities, sluggish regulatory systems which still require drugs to be tested on animals, and the colossal profits and academic advantages being made from the industry.
Despite these massive barriers and obstacles to change, inroads are being made. The public is wising up and researchers are having to come out of their secret chambers of horror and explain themselves, especially in the light of the many drug disasters, such as Vioxx and TGN1412.An increasing number of medical professionals are also speaking out against vivisection, which is why the provivisection lobby is making such a concerted effort to vilify AVs rather than engage in rational debate and support a scientific evaluation.You'd suppose that anyone engaged in medical research would welcome this - unless they fear the outcome.
21 - BCE
JOM,
Science already has a wealth of superior (not 'alternative'!) human-based methods at its disposal. They are responsible for the medical care we enjoy today and are the only way to prevent, cure and treat human illness - yet many are starved of funds while animal experimentation is highly funded ( the UK government invests just a few thousand pounds into devleoping 'alternatives'). The animal experiment lobby maintains that animal experimentation is an expensive business - it is. But it is not just costing society enormous sums of money, it is costing us far more in terms of human health.
As animal tests are currently our chief safety screen before new drugs are tested on people, it is only reasonable to compare them against a battery of new technologies that are now available, including microdosing, microfluidics,and human DNA chips. A new technology called the 'Smart Petri Dish' can detect subtle changes in the size & shape of human cells which help to predict responses to drugs, particulary human liver responses without patient exposure. (The enzymes that metabolise drugs are very different in animals and humans- one of the reasons many drugs clear animal testing but end up toxic in patients.)
Asterand plc is a leading supplier of high quality human tissue and tissue-based services. Dr Robert Coleman of Asterand explains," An enthusiasm for established, available animal models in the face of evidence of their unsuitability for purpose is commonplace." According to Asterand's founder, with the mapping of the human genome, everyone needs different kinds of tissue to develop the therapies that will cure the 4,000 genetic diseases that afflict mankind.
Society need not fear that abandoning animal experimentation would mean giving up medical progress. On the contrary, it would ensure greater safety for patients and volunteers in clinical trials and a higher probability of finding cures for human illness. (See What Will We Do If We Don’t Experiment on Animals? Medical Research for the 21st Century (Greek & Greek).
22 - BCE
NL: ...***vivesectionists (sic), far from being a despicable crew of depraved sadists, are among the most humane and valuable members of our culture...***
Vivisectors are supported generously and the details and results published in scientific journals. The following are just a few examples of many included in 'Slaughter of the Innocent' by Hans Ruesch in the chapter 'The Evidence':
One researcher found that dogs shut up in a box in complete isolation for the first 8 months of life do not react to pain as dogs raised normally. When such abnormally raised dogs are fianlly releasedinto a normal environment they fear almost everything. When they are given a painful electric shock they sometimes 'freeze' on the grid and make no effort to escape.The pseudoscientist tested this reaction time after time by holding flaming matches near them, jabbing them with dissecting needles and pursuing the terror stricken animals with an electrically charged toy car, which delivered a shock of 1500 volts. This was not a mentally retarded person (?) playing a cruel game but done officially in the name of 'science' at McGill University.
In 1969, the British Journal of Opthalmology reported experiments by H. Zauberman, which measured the actual grams of force needed to strip the retina from cats' eyes. This 'researcher' didn't even remotely try to explain to anybody how this, or similar or subsequent experiments, could possibly aid in the treatment of detached retinas in humans.
8 monkeys were asphyxiated at birth for 7-10 minutes, then tested for visual responses at 8-10 months 0f age. Experimenters concluded that monkeys asphyxiated at birth are more sensitive to visual stimualtion than unasphyxiated ones. (MA thesis- study paid for by the National Institute of Child Health & Human development)
Dr Colin Blakemore sewed up the eyes of kittens, allegedly to find a way to cure squints. The kittens were 'humanely' destroyed after 16 weeks. " I would have liked to keep them alive for further study, as they do in America," Dr Blakemore added ruefully, " but they had to be destroyed under a Home Office ruling."
Peter A. Anton is a primate vivisector at UCLA who forces toxins up the rectums and into the colons of primates for a living. He claims it's to find microcides to be used by future AIDS patients - but of course everyone knows that sticking toxins up the rectums of terrified primates who are stuck in a device and unable to move isn't only morally and ethically unacceptable, but doing this will never cure AIDS or any AIDS-related rectal disorder. But Anton gets paid to satisfy his fetish to sodomize unconsenting, panic-stricken monkeys.
A quick search of 'human experimentation' results in many examples of 'researchers'- not content with being able to torture the non human animal species ( maybe because they know the results hold no relevance for the human species) -refining their skills and furthering their scientific knowledge on the weak, the poor, the uneducated and the already afflicted.
When it is eventually proven that animal research has resulted in pain , misery, and death to both animals and humans and that the researchers knew along that it was a fraudulent methodology, even spent billions promoting its supposed benefits,ARAs and AVs will be vindicated.
23 - Mark Edward Manning
Clavos: "I disagreed with BCE simply on the grounds that the V is the law and what is going on; thus why would the Vs have to convince the A-Vs? We're not trying to CHANGE anything; the A-Vs are. Therefore, they have the burden of convincing us, since they are the advocates for change."
Ah. Sounds legit to me. Understood.
24 - JustOneMan
What these animal right nuts fail to admit is that 99.9% of all testing is on genetically engineered mice!
So Mark if you had to choose between curing you mothers cancer and killing a genetically engineered mouse you would choose the mouse. Real nice guy!
JOM
25 - BCE
How ironic are the comments of NL who refers to Mark's article as 'snarky'.
'The Snark' was written by Lewis Caroll (of 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland' fame )in the nineteeth century. Caroll (real name Charles Dodgson), was a staunch anti-vivisectionist and wrote many pamphlets on the subject.
The snark was a chimerical animal - intimations of Wells' 'Island of Dr Moreau'? whose inhabitants are the macabre result of experimental vivisections, the work of the 'visionary' Dr Moreau. In the interests of scientific advancement, the doctor has transformed various beasts into strange looking chimeras.Prohibitions have been "woven into the texture of the beast's minds beyond any possibility of disobedience or dispute." These creatures have deemed these prohibitions as "the Law," which are repeated ad nauseam...(reminiscent of provivisectors who proclaim we are all doomed without animal experiments!).
When the novel was written in the late 19th century, England's scientific community was engulfed by debates on animal vivisection. Interest groups were even formed to tackle the issue: the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection was formed two years after the publication of the novel.
Science fiction then, but rapidly in danger of becoming scientific fact.