Kim Stallwood

How a group of very luck beagles are transformed — thanks to a bankrupt vivisection laboratory and Pets Alive — from animal research models identified by a number to beloved animal companions with names. It gives one hope. More here.

embedded by Embedded Video

YouTube Direkt

In a recent study of health care in seven countries (Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States) the Netherlands ranks first, followed closely by the UK and Australia. The US ranks last overall, as it had in earlier studies.

Philosopher Peter Singer makes sense in Religion’s regressive hold on animal rights issues. He begins by saying,

Last week, the chief minister of Malacca, Mohamad Ali Rustam, was quoted in the Guardian as saying that God created monkeys and rats for experiments to benefit humans. Activists had been protesting against his approval of an Indian company’s proposal to build an animal research laboratory in his state. They said that Malaysia has no regulations to protect animals in laboratories. His answer was the reference to God’s purpose in creating animals.

And concludes with,

If we are concerned about the exploitation of human workers in countries with low standards of worker protection, we should also be concerned about the treatment of even more defenceless non-human animals. At present, the only hope of reversing this trend seems to be pressure on companies not to test their products in countries without good animal welfare regulations, and pressure on research institutions not to have links with such countries. But to unravel the connections and make them clear to consumers is, unfortunately, going to be a difficult task.

But it seems that stupid comment of the day award needn’t necessarily go to chief minister Mohamad Ali Rustam who said God created monkeys and rats for experiments to benefit humans but to Wesley J. Smith, the latest in a line of apologists for animal exploiters and reds-under-the-dog-beds scare-mongers. He takes Singer to task for not using the opportunity of his op ed to state his opposition to violence. Because Singer didn’t, Smith concludes that, 

Singer has spoken against violence in the past, but not very robustly. This piece would have been a good time to bring that crucial point up with ringing clarity. Too bad he preferred instead to use most of his column as a jeremiad against religion. Indeed, I think it tells us clearly where is priorities lie. 

It seems that you can’t speak out often and loudly enough against violence for those who are blind to the violence they condone toward animals regardless of whether it is sanctioned by religion or anything else.

Understanding Animal Research publishes on its Web site an outline to the political parties and their stance on animal experimentation. It concludes

It is clear that within each of the main parties, animal research will continue to feature within their commitments to animal welfare, even if it is not currently in their manifesto. The research community also backs the reduction of the number of animals used in research projects wherever possible. But it remains important that this is done in a way that does not hinder research, or drive it out of the UK altogether. This is why we support the work of the NC3Rs, which seeks to integrate the 3Rs into good scientific practice.

The second in the series by The Guardian on the political parties and their science policies. The first was the LibDems.

The Guardian asks: Is animal testing necessary? Are the ethical concerns outweighed by the benefits? How would you like to see regulations on animal testing change under your government, if at all?

In an ideal world we would not need animal testing, but we could not stop it today without halting important scientific research. We want to work to reduce the use of animals in scientific procedures. Many British scientists and businesses are already working to refine, reduce and ultimately replace the use of animals. We would work with European and other international partners to encourage those “three Rs”.

The Guardian begins a series on the political parties and their science policies. First up is the Liberal Democrats. The other parties are to follow and I will post them here as soon as they are available. Animal research is one of several issues addressed. Here is the LibDem’s response in full on animal research from their science spokesperson, Evan Harris.

The Guardian asks: Is animal testing necessary? Are the ethical concerns outweighed by the benefits? How would you like to see regulations on animal testing change under your government, if at all?

It is not a case of ‘ethical concerns outweighing benefits’. It would be unethical not to do animal research, given the enormous potential and past benefits to medicine and public health that such research has brought. It has been vital in work on dialysis, diabetes, transplants, and the polio vaccine, to give just a few examples, and could be vital in the search for treatments for HIV/AIDS and malaria eradication. We would maintain the current strict welfare standards on animal research, and support the replacement, refinement, and minimisation of the use of animals in research as far as possible, so that only the research which is completely necessary is done. We therefore oppose the use of animals in testing cosmetics or household products.

The Guardian publishes a scare-mongering story yesterday, Animal rights activist using FOI laws to target universities, which I suspect was planted by the animal industrial complex. The subtext is that people who have been arrested should not be allowed to use the Freedom of Information Act (FOI).

The requests were sent by Luke Steele, an animal rights activist based in Yorkshire. He was last year convicted of conspiracy to interfere with a contractual relationship, so as to harm an animal research organization, after being arrested near an isolated Lincolnshire farm that supplies rabbits for research.

The report does not go on to explain the outcome from Steele’s arrest. Presumably, he served his sentence and that’s the end of the matter.

So, what’s the problem? Is it illegal for Steele, who is (presumably) a British citizen entitled to use a law passed by the UK Parliament? Is it because he will use the information in an illegal manner? If so, let the law enforcement authorities fulfill their responsibilities and deal with it providing it’s remembered that someone is innocent until proven guilty.

This principle would appear not to matter to an anonymous “university scientist.”

The most likely motivation here is that they want to catch somebody out. If they can find some bad wording in minutes from a meeting, then they can use that to claim we are up to no good.

Well, isn’t that democracy in action? Further, is it likely that Steele will discover something of earth-shattering importance? Maybe. Maybe not. Another anonymous source stated.

This [the FOI requests] has caused a great deal of concern among our staff who are worried about receiving threats or worse. Most scientists faced with FOI requests are happy to put stuff into the open and welcome the scrutiny, but in this case they are having to second guess the motives of people who might use this information.

But The Guardian concludes

Some of the information requested by Steele is already published, in summaries of Home Office licenses and academic papers. Other details, such as specific laboratory locations, can be refused under FOI exemptions.

So, again, what’s the problem? Someone exercising their democratic right?

Shame on The Guardian for publishing such transparent rubbish.