I think it's fair to say that if not for the extremist actions of animal rights supporters, Tony Blair would not have come out swinging in favor of vivisection in medical research. Blair is simply riding a wave of populist disgust at the actions of four grave-robbing animal activists in an attempt to nab approval ratings. Shareholders in a prominent pharmaceutical company were also threatened, prompting Blair to act.
He's gone so far as to sign the People's Petition.
I can only ask, do two wrongs make a right in this case? Do we really need to defend the torture of lab animals just to express our disgust with the animal rights extremists? I would have thought punishing them with lengthy jail sentences would have been enough. But instead, Blair and his government have seen fit to endorse the suffering of animals in what is clearly an anti-animal welfare statement.
For the majority of decent animal lovers and anti-vivisectionists who abide by the law and don't sponsor animal-related terrorism, this is a slap in the face. It's tarring us with the same brush. Where the War on Terror is concerned, we're constantly being told, don't judge all Muslims. Our sensitivities go on high alert whenever we hear of Camp X-Ray guards flushing Korans in the toilet.
But if you care about animal welfare and oppose vivisection, well, take that! If it offends you, remember all the human lives that could be saved. We'll just not mention the fact that so many drugs that showed positive results on animals have shown or at least demonstrated the potential for serious harm when tried on humans.
The pro-vivisection crowd tells us all mammals are related. Humans share certain traits with guinea pigs, rabbits, rats, and pigs. But if you slice open a rabbit's stomach, you are looking at rabbit guts. Rabbits munch on grass. Different digestive system, different immune system. Omnivorous humans have their own distinct genetic pattern and make-up. I am inclined to be wary of taking some drug simply because a rat was forced to take it and was found to be all right in the end.
Article comments
1 - mschannon
While I think you tend to underplay the importance of some animal testing, you've written an important analysis of both the animal right's extremists and the hypocracy of many of those who support animal testing. Good job.
2 - Mark Edward Manning
Thanks, Mark. Well, harmless psychological tests on rats and other animals can be of importance, but any testing that involves what can only be viewed as tortorous is something I cannot endorse. Again, what's the point of growing a human ear on a mouse? Other, of course, to say, "Look what we did! More money, please!"
That's why I respect Dr. Alexander Shulgin who created many hallucinogenic amphetamines like Ecstasy - and tried them all out on himself. If you really want to know how a drug works, that's the way to find out!
3 - Dave Nalle
Screw the vivesectionists, what are they doing about bringing back fox hunting?
Dave
4 - Mark Edward Manning
Dave, the government decided to keep the ban on fox hunting - they're going to employ all the toffs in the countryside to capture the foxes live and deliver them to medical research facilities instead - for which they will make a killing.
You know, just like the Canadian government pays Newfie rednecks to shoot and club seals? Never mind, we've already been there.
5 - mschannon
Dave, you want to hunt foxes? More people get killed than foxes--which probably isn't a bad thing given who gets killed. But that's so upper-crust of you--I never knew.
In Decaf Veritas
6 - Dave Nalle
Mark, I can hunt foxes all day long in my backyard, and considering how many of my chickens they've killed I relish it. But my version of fox hunting isn't exactly upper crust since it involvs no horses, dogs or fancy red outfits.
What bothers me is the death and dilution of tradition. To me the idea of overdressed buffoons riding around chasing foxes is a lot more appealing than protecting a species of what are basically verminous predators.
Dave
7 - mschannon
Whew, Dave, I'm relieved you're not wearing red at least. But you raise chickens? Isn't that what supermarkets are for? You trying to put Giant out of business?
I'm hard put to choose between the red-jacketed buffoons & the foxes. To paraphrase someone, God made the fox, but only a human can make a buffoon...whatever that means.
It's the difference, though, between hunting for "sport" and hunting to eat (or killing to protect). If you want to make it a sport, give the foxes guns. Otherwise, it's like a football game (American style) where one team is naked with their hands tied behind their backs.
In Decaf Veritas
8 - Dave Nalle
Whew, Dave, I'm relieved you're not wearing red at least. But you raise chickens? Isn't that what supermarkets are for? You trying to put Giant out of business?
Giant shut its last store around here 25 years ago. But I like fresh eggs, and you can't get them fresher than plucking them right from under the chicken. The chickens also keep the population of grasshoppers down.
I'm hard put to choose between the red-jacketed buffoons
That actually sounds like it could be a chicken breed.
It's the difference, though, between hunting for "sport" and hunting to eat (or killing to protect). If you want to make it a sport, give the foxes guns. Otherwise, it's like a football game (American style) where one team is naked with their hands tied behind their backs.
I wouldn't call it a sport - it's more of an entertainment. But I hate to see traditions die on the altar of political correctness.
Dave
9 - Mark Edward Manning
I defend marriage on the grounds of tradition. But fox hunting? Maybe you have a point, concerning the tradition argument, about forcing animal rights views down the throats of these countryside buffoons, but still ... foxes are simply trying to eat to survive. Having chickens on your property is a magnet and a beacon for them, Dave. I see foxes every night here in London - I work nights - and my heart leaps every time I do. They're beautiful animals and have a right to live free from terror by humans.
But, Dave, I wouldn't worry about fox-hunting legistlation. Fox hunting has not had its death knell. They still carry on with the hunts and the government can't be bothered to enforce it. I would pistol-whip Bryan Ferry and his lawbreaking son if I had the chance, but Blair's lame-duck government isn't as strong-willed as I am.
10 - Dave Nalle
Mark, to pistol whip them the government would have to let you have a gun...how likely is that in jolly old england?
Dave
11 - Mark Edward Manning
I have another great idea. Let's kill off any other species that is a nuisance to us all-important humans. Raccoons, oppossums, crows, magpies: Kill 'em all! The hell with biodiversity! Humans are the only species that have a right to live on this planet, damnit. Everything else is just a damned inconvenience. Let's have a jolly good bloodbath, what what!
12 - Dave Nalle
They're not an inconvenience, they're here for our use and entertainment. Surely you can see that. But biodiversity IS overrated. It's time to implement survival of the fittest based on the criteria of serving man the master.
Dave
13 - mschannon
Oy, Dave, you finally crossed the line into error. Shame. Unless there's a bit of irony in here--I can't tell, damn you.
They're not an inconvenience, they're here for our use and entertainment. Surely you can see that. But biodiversity IS overrated. It's time to implement survival of the fittest based on the criteria of serving man the master.
Biodiversity is critical to the survival of the planet--which I have to believe you understand. That's the big concern about biotech created crops which all have the same genetic code. One nasty virus, and, wham, no more corn for your chickens.
Plus, we've barely scratched the surface in understanding how the world works. I just read in Discovery (don't have link but can get it if you want) that 20% of all mammals are worms in the earth & we don't know squat about them.
The earth has been going through a relatively calm period geographically and environmentally for the past 100 thousand years or longer...but that will change, and it's biodiversity that will protect some form of life when the earth decides to burp or fart.
And you've got to be kidding about implementing survival of the fittest based on serving man the master...right? If not, go back and read your Darwin--or anything about evolution.
In Decaf Veritas
14 - Mark Edward Manning
No, I don't see it, Dave. I don't see it at all. "Man the Master" has completely f***ed up the entire planet and you appear to be cheering his dubious accomplishment.
I suspect you are pulling my leg here with a mischeivous grin on your face - perhaps? If not, then I am appalled by your Neanderthalic P.o.V. I see no dichotomy in being a conservative and a conservationalist or respecting all life. Too bad you do.
15 - Dave Nalle
I may perhaps have engaged in a tiny amount of hyperbole earlier.
However, while biodiversity is certainly desirable, you have to acknowledge that the balance of species can be wildly different from one part of the world to another. The loss of a single obscure species in one part of the world does not threaten the whole automatically. The system can and will adjust. Something will move in to fill its place in the ecosystem.
So while we should try as hard as we reasonably can to protect all species, even vermin, our efforts need to be reasonable and remain humanocentric. If the choice is between human welfare and the welfare of another species we have to come down on the side of the humans, because we ARE humans. Plus we are the only species which, if we create a problem, might be able to fix it later - by cloning or reintroduction of species as we have done in a number of cases.
Dave
16 - Mark Edward Manning
Dave, thanks for clearing things up and I understand your position a bit better - though I still don't endorse it.
However, I'd appreciate it if next time we don't see eye-to-eye on something, you'd be more direct and not poke fun. Smart-ass behavior tends to rub people the wrong way - including me.
17 - Mark Edward Manning
Mark Schannon: "it's biodiversity that will protect some form of life when the earth decides to burp or fart."
Mark, I thought the Earth burped every time a volcano erupted? Or would you consider that a fart?
18 - mschannon
Well, I've never smelled a volcano, so I'm not sure. It's worth some research, though. Let me know what you find out, LOL.
In Decaf Veritas
19 - -E
Congrats, this article was picked for one of this week's Ed Picks. Keep up the good work.