Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Animal Medical Testing Under Attack In The UK

By nobbystyles in News
Wed Apr 11, 2001 at 10:55:33 PM EST
Tags: Science (all tags)
Science

Beleagured Huntingdon Life Sciences, the UK's only remaining commercial animal testing laboratory, faces more financial pressure as broker Charles Schwab's UK branch withdraws from dealing in its shares according to this story in The Independent. A large protest at the brokers regional offices by SHAC , Stop Huntingdon's Animal Cruelty, was the main cause of this. More background on Huntingdon and SHAC can be found here.

My question is how much value does human life have over animal life and whether sentimentality over 'fluffy animals' is overcoming reason in the western world.


The UK's animal rights lobby is probably the most powerful and well funded in the world. Ranging from the moderate RSPCA (Royal Society For The Protection Of Animals) to the fanatical terrorists of the Animal Liberation Front who have in the past bombed and threatened people who they associate with animal cruely, they have scored a number of sucesses in the past decade. A ban on the export of veal calves and the probable ban on hunting with dogs (working its way through parliament). The ban on hunting is especially interesting as it was supported by the current Labour Goverment who received GBP 1 million election funding in 1997 from the animal rights lobby.

A campaign of protests and intimidation against Huntingdon Life Sciences, its employees and financial backers has been going on for the past couple of years. It is increasing looking like SHAC and their supporters will put the company out of business in the near future. Then who will be their next target? The drug companies, universities or anyone else involved in what they perceive as cruelty to animals. No mitigating circumstances such as medical research seem to matter to these people.

Sentimentality towards animals seems to be increasing as we live more and more disconnected from nature. However we seem to lack sympathy towards our fellow humnas as I don't see this level of protest in the UK going on against multinational and governmental actions in the third world.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Animals should
o Treated exactly the same as humans in terms of right to life and freedom from pain 17%
o Not treated cruelty but can be used for medical experiments 48%
o Can be treated whatever way is most convenient for humans 16%
o I pull off flies wings 17%

Votes: 74
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Huntingdon Life Sciences
o Charles Schwab's UK branch
o this story in The Independent
o SHAC
o here
o Also by nobbystyles


Display: Sort:
Animal Medical Testing Under Attack In The UK | 42 comments (33 topical, 9 editorial, 0 hidden)
Hit the nail on the head (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by cezarg on Wed Apr 11, 2001 at 08:14:22 AM EST

Why am I not surprised? I lived in the UK for a few years and spoke with several people who openly claimed to be animal rights activists. And I must admit that talking with some of them frightened me. Those people really believe that no animals can be hurt or injured even if the only reason for hurting them is to advance the state of medicine or veterinary(!) field. They'd rather see humans killed or injured or be denied their rights.

There were several protests held in the city where I lived. Some of them turned violent. Being compassionate towards animals is noble. But claiming that no animal can be sacrificed for the good of humankind is silly and hypocrithical. Would a lion starve to spare a zebra because it's another animal? We're animals too. Not only that we're also predators. In the world where humans murder one another every day and diseases destroy entire countries animal rights activists look like stupid suburbian morons who invent issues for their own entertainment.

The fact that the UK is one of the leading cancer research countries makes this article doubly disturbing.

vegetables is what food eats (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by eLuddite on Wed Apr 11, 2001 at 09:51:37 AM EST

They'd rather see humans killed or injured or be denied their rights.

That can be arranged. A little role reversal never hurt anyone, especially not a willing anyone.

[Scene: In the woods. A winsome PETArd and and blue blooded sportswoman are reviewing the rules of engagement.]

- Here, put on this bright, orange vest and when you hear the whistle, run like mad. There's a good sport.

- Charles?

- Mumsy?

- Release the attack corgis.

---
God hates human rights.
[ Parent ]

Thank you for brightening my day (none / 0) (#12)
by MisterX on Wed Apr 11, 2001 at 11:21:15 AM EST

'nuff said

[ Parent ]
vegans (3.00 / 2) (#16)
by wiredog on Wed Apr 11, 2001 at 12:18:16 PM EST

My ancestors didn't spending thousands of years fighting their way up the food chain for me to become a damned sheep.

The idea of a global village is wrong, it's more like a gazillion pub bars.
Phage
[ Parent ]

re: vegans (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by tordia on Thu Apr 12, 2001 at 02:42:49 PM EST

That's too bad, because us damned sheep are able to eat a nutritious, tasty, varied, diet which is healthier, more economically sound, less cruel, generally lower in fat, has absolutely no cholesterol, lengthens our lifespan, and makes us less likely victims of heart disease, cancer, obesity and diabetes than carnivorous or omnivorous diets.

I could go on, but I don't think that's necessary. Oh, and if you would like a reference for the claims I have made, check out Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating, by Erik Marcus. That book is filled with references to other studies and papers.

Don't get me wrong, however, if you choose to eat meat, that's your decision, but there's no reason to be snippy toward others who don't agree with you.

As and aside, I have never understood why so many meat-eaters get upset over the topic of vegetarians/vegans. What do we do that irks them so?

[ Parent ]

Dunno - disturbing local story (none / 0) (#31)
by fluffy grue on Thu Apr 12, 2001 at 05:11:36 PM EST

Here in Las Cruces, NM, a couple of students started up a vegetarian club (with the purpose of trying to get some decent vegetarian cuisine down here). Like most clubs, they kept the names of the members public. Then the members started getting - I shit you not - death threats, from some people saying, "'your kind' is not appreciated here," and the like.

I mean, give me a fucking break. They're not hurting anyone, they're not trying to convert people over to vegetarianism or anything, they're just trying to build up a large enough roster of people who would like to see vegetarian foods be made available on-campus (which there aren't many of).

Then again, there's lots of rednecky types down here. Yay.
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

Las Cruces (none / 0) (#33)
by a humble lich on Thu Apr 12, 2001 at 06:02:28 PM EST

Thanks for reminding me again why I decided not to go to NMSU. Not that San Diego is a center of non-conventional thinking, but I have heard far to many stories about the high rednecky percentage in Cruces.

I had a good friend who went to school down there. Although she was not a full on vegetarian, she would complain that is was hard to find good non-meat food.

[ Parent ]

Yeah... (none / 0) (#36)
by fluffy grue on Thu Apr 12, 2001 at 11:25:17 PM EST

And purple leopard spots in your hair probably wouldn't work out either. The goths with electric-cyan are barely tolerated. (I have no idea why the goths have electric-cyan hair, but that's probably because even the goths around here don't grok their own subculture.)

The lack of decent non-meat food around here is why I stopped trying to be an herbivore a couple years ago. Even if you cook your own stuff, your only choice is salad, thanks to the crappy grocery stores, and the salad is horrible thanks to the crappy produce around here (though you CAN get awesome grapefruits around here).

Hm. Could someone remind me why I'm here, again?
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

vegetarian food (none / 0) (#42)
by p0ppe on Fri Apr 20, 2001 at 10:07:11 AM EST

that's what i love about europe, and specially Denmark. It's is possible to get decent vegetarian food, and all the stores have sections full of natually produced food.


"Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."
[ Parent ]
Humor transplant needed (none / 0) (#37)
by wiredog on Fri Apr 13, 2001 at 09:00:33 AM EST

Personally, I don't care what others eat or don't eat. But I have met some of the more radical ALF type vegans. Terrorism is a bad thing because a few idiots can get a whole group of people tarred with the same brush.

I've helped out at hog killings, good way to get a ham or side of bacon free, and other types of butchery. Chickens really do run around with their heads cut off.

I don't hunt because there are too many idiots out there with rifles. Spent three years in the Army and the only firefight I ever got into was while hunting. Idiot didn't see the bright orange vest I was wearing. Saw his though. Shot real near him. "Holy Shit!!! Them aint deer!!"

The idea of a global village is wrong, it's more like a gazillion pub bars.
Phage
[ Parent ]

Hang on ... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by BoredByPolitics on Wed Apr 11, 2001 at 09:59:10 AM EST

The fact that the UK is one of the leading cancer research countries makes this article doubly disturbing.
No, what's really disturbing is the number of businesses which appear to have capitulated when threatened by a violent aspect of the Animal Rights movement.

This is just one of many in recent months - I recently heard a news report that HLS wasn't being traded on the Stock Exchange due to a particular broker refusing to continue handling their shares - the only other broker for them also pulled out due to their policy of never being the only broker in any particular company's shares.

Why these companies don't seem to trust the Police to protect their right to go about their (lawful) business is anyone's guess - perhaps the Police have turned around and said they can't ensure employees safety?

Just for the record, I don't consider every Animal Rights activist a terrorist. My own take on Fox Hunting is that it should be banned (for the same reasons that I don't condone bull fighting, or dropping donkeys from bell towers - unnecessary cruelty to animals) - yet I fully support the essential work that medical research companies like HLS do.

--
"Every contract has a sanity clause", "Sanity clause! Sanity clause! You can't fool me, there's no such thing as Sanity Claus"
[ Parent ]

Animal discrimination (4.50 / 2) (#26)
by N8w8 on Thu Apr 12, 2001 at 12:26:05 PM EST

Those people really believe that no animals can be hurt or injured even if the only reason for hurting them is to advance the state of medicine or veterinary(!) field.
If they said they really believe that no humans can be hurt or injured even if the only reason for hurting them is to advance the state of medicine or veterinery field, would you then be shocked/surprised as well?
Judging from the tone of your post, probably not.

There are some pretty good reasons for them (well, at least, for me there are) to think that way. What makes animals so different, in this case inferior, to humans? No matter what differences you mention, they can all be applied to different human groups. A few examples:

  • Level of intelligence - Although you can assume animals are less intelligent than humans, also some humans (such as mentally disabled people) are less intelligent than the average human.
  • Amount of emotions - It can't possibly be proven animals have less emotions than humans. They might have more emotions, who knows. The same can be said for some humans (autistic people for example).
  • Shape of the body - Sure, everyone can see a laboratory mouse has a different body than an average human. However, some humans are born with odd-shaped bodies.
  • Race - Yes, the human race is different than the mouse race. However, the human race can be divided in several races as well (based on skin color, for example).
Then, why should animals be treated so differently than humans?

I've often asked this question before, but never ever got a satisfying answer (the answers weren't logically valid). Can anyone help me out?

But claiming that no animal can be sacrificed for the good of humankind is silly and hypocrithical.
Sure, but why then don't we sacrifice some of our own species? During a protest of mine, I've once offered myself to science (I was volunteering, unlike laboratory rats), under the condition that one mouse would be set free. They thought the idea was ridiculous, and waived it away. The only reason for this I can think of, is the discrimination of animals by the law (it's forbidden to kill humans etc.etc.).

Would a lion starve to spare a zebra because it's another animal? We're animals too. Not only that we're also predators.
The difference between humans and lions is, that lions can't live without meat, and humans can. In fact, the average vegetarian human is healthier than the average meat eating human (that's a fact).

In the world where ..... diseases destroy entire countries animal rights activists look like stupid suburbian morons who invent issues for their own entertainment.
Countries which don't suffer from such disasters, are in general more animal-abusive than those who do. That's why animal rights activists don't focus on such countries.
In what way does it even matter what people think about people who are active in a totally different country than their own?

[ Parent ]
does it under stand a concept of "I" ? (none / 0) (#32)
by coffee17 on Thu Apr 12, 2001 at 05:34:09 PM EST

Level of intelligence - Although you can assume animals are less intelligent than humans, also some humans (such as mentally disabled people) are less intelligent than the average human.

I've always wondered why we don't put severly retarded people to good use.

In my opinion, it comes down to concept of self. most human's have a demonstrable concept of self (show them a mirror, and they appear to figure out that this is them). some (many) primates, some birds, dolphins, and probably a few other animals also appear to have a concept of self. For those animals, I think testing should be off limits, as in my mind, they are truely feeling pain. With other animals, I think it can be too easily argued that a concept of pain to them is foreign (it's just simuli which elicts a reaction...).

That said, I have kept pets (rats and cats) which don't seem to have a concept of self, but did all I could to make their lives pleasant. However, my personal opinion is that an animal without a concept of self are morally allowable to make use of. But I also admit I could be wrong, and thus do not spend my time torturing small animals because I fully believe they cannot feel pain. But, I don't have enough doubt that I'll be picketting a place doing medical research which can only be done on animals. However, I'd likely be willing to fights against a specific instituition which was blatantly cruel, or doing tasks which don't need to be done on animals.

-coffee


[ Parent ]

You can't be sure about that (none / 0) (#38)
by N8w8 on Fri Apr 13, 2001 at 11:59:19 AM EST

most human's have a demonstrable concept of self (show them a mirror, and they appear to figure out that this is them).
True, but if an animal can't demonstrate it has a concept of self, does that mean they don't have one at all?
A mouse might have a concept of self, but expresses it differently, or doesn't see the need for expressing it.
If it doesn't have the intelligence to understand what a mirror actually does, it might think the mouse in the mirror is some other mouse. Pretty understandable, since mice (like other animals and humans) can't see their own face directly, and therefore can't tell the mouse in the mirror is visually similar to itself.

Therefore, an animal's lack of concept of self can't be proven. That's why I think it's wrong to kill animals which might have no concept of self at all.

[ Parent ]

Animals are less important than humans (none / 0) (#34)
by cezarg on Thu Apr 12, 2001 at 06:16:26 PM EST

to me anyways. I believe animals do have a lower scope of emotions as some emotions will require a high level of intelligence because they simply are a result of a complicated thought process. Take pride for instance or patriotism. Animals can not be patriotic because their brains are not complex enough to comprehend complex social structures such as a notion of a country (try convincing my dog that he's Polish :P). The fact that we've never managed to have a conversation with any other spiecies other than another human (all trials with dolphins failed) concludes that animals are not bright enough to think in terms as abstract as we humans do. In that I conclude that they have a less rich life experience than we humans do.

Because our higher level feelings are a result of our complex thought process I conclude that animals cannot have emotions similar to mine. One of the most powerful emotions we encounter is love. Animals cannot love, I know that mammal females look after and cuddle their children but that's simply an instinct driven behaviour. Very few animals are monogamous and no animals grieve death of their partners (although elephants have something that resembles a burial).

Animals have fewer rights than us because they can handle less responsibility. If a monkey kills one of its peers (not a rare occurence) are you going to judge them and throw them in jail? Or are you going to let it get away with a "murder" because it didn't understand what it was doing? Are you going to give it voting rights which you would have to give in order to be able to say that in your country animals have the same rights as humans. How are you going to handle the fact that you (animal rights activists) propose giving animals rights that they surely cannot be held responsible for violating. Animals will eat one another and humans will eat animals. Forever. Deal with it.

You say that a lion has to eat meat but I don't? Nonsense. Humans are carnivors. We descend from apes (you believe in evolution right?) and apes are carnivors. Hell some spiecies are even cannibals. Don't idealise the animal world. It's much more 'dehumanized' (pun intended) than our world.

As for vegeterians being healthier, that's not true. I have a friend who's a nutritionists and the consensus is that most people consume too much meat but eating no meat at all is just as bad or even worse. Because of the miniscule amount of protein in vegetables, vegetarians have to make up for it by consuming huge amounts of beans. Iron is scarce in vegetables too so if you're not careful it's quite a risk. A well balanced diet is much more preferred from the medical standpoint over strict vegetarianism. Ask your local nutritionist. Besides I really wish that vegetarians practiced what they preach, you know. Most of them seem to think that vegetable samosas and piles of chocolate is what it takes to have a balanced diet. And then they become obese just like us carnivores.

Countries which don't suffer from such disasters, are in general more animal-abusive than those who do. That's why animal rights activists don't focus on such countries.
You either didn't get my point or you chose to misinterpret it. I was talkign about prioritisation. I'd much rather if my charity money goes to helping the victims of the second Chechen war [are you even aware that there is a war still going on in Chechnya? - Ed.] than having my money wasted on freeing some laboratory mice so that some middle aged suburban "anima right activist" can feel better about themselves. You wanna be the good guy? Pack your stuff and go to Chechnya with the Red Cross and help the victims of war (and yes, I did just that). There you will see suffering that will surely give a whole different outlook on what the world's priorities should be. But I'm sure you'll just elect to stay at your cozy college campus and fight for the rights of laboratory mice. Nice talking to ya but don't be surprised I won't be getting you a beer if we ever have a chance to meet.

[ Parent ]
A vegetarian diet IS healthier (none / 0) (#41)
by N8w8 on Mon Apr 16, 2001 at 02:12:15 PM EST

I was wrong to think I could convince you animals should have the same rights as humans, so I'll stop that.
The only thing I just have to comment on, is this:
You say that a lion has to eat meat but I don't? Nonsense. Humans are carnivors. We descend from apes (you believe in evolution right?) and apes are carnivors.
Apes were originally vegetarians, however they started eating meat occasionally later (can't find any online evidence/timelines for that). They still do eat meat occasinally.
And yes, humans can live without meat. A decent vegetarian diet is in fact healthier than a decent non-vegetarian diet. A few articles:
I'm not saying meat is unhealthy. All I'm saying is that the vegetarian alternative is healthier.

[ Parent ]
So many levels (3.66 / 3) (#6)
by loaf on Wed Apr 11, 2001 at 08:37:35 AM EST

I'm a carnivore. I believe that animal testing is something that should occur. (Although there are things which push the envelope a little too far - cosmetics, for example.)

So you know where I stand on that.

The HLS case is so much more worrying that just being a bunch of nutters on a mission. We're used to that - guns, roads, traffic - whatever the current cause celebre for the chattering classes to get heated about.

This is different. They've gone beyond the direct approach to threaten those behind the scenes. The bankers, the brokers, the suppliers, the energy companies, the caterers - everyone who is even remotely related to the company has been opened up to abuse and threats.

This is not democracy, this is mob rule.

Oh, and to the UK basher further down this thread, let's not go down that route? This is no different to the militia and christian fundamentalists on your own doorstep.

me??? (none / 0) (#8)
by cezarg on Wed Apr 11, 2001 at 09:21:14 AM EST

I'm the only one below you (at least according to my default settings). Can you show me where I'm bashing the UK? I lived there for eight years and loved every minute of it! What/who are you talking about?

[ Parent ]
I just hope (5.00 / 4) (#7)
by onyxruby on Wed Apr 11, 2001 at 09:09:47 AM EST

I just hope that these people have never had to use the wonders of modern medicine. Because if they have, they are hypocrits. Diabetic? This alone means that you may well owe your life to such research. The number of diseases that have been solved with such research is staggering.

About a year or two ago around my parts some of the PETA people broke into a U of M research lab and freed all the poor animals into "good care". In this case "good care" turned out to be a field nearby. The irony of the situation was that most of the animals were rats bred for alzheimers research. They starved to death within a day or so with large piles of food they couldn't remember gathering nearby.

The moon is covered with the results of astronomical odds.

Another example... (4.50 / 2) (#19)
by iGrrrl on Wed Apr 11, 2001 at 04:26:25 PM EST

...of stupid animal liberation is the case of the mice infected with cryptosporidia. Cryptosporidia is a common chronic infection with AIDS patients which causes diarrhea, and the mice were being used to test therapies. This cannot be done in a culture dish, because in the dish you can just add the drug. Orally administered pharmaceuticals are often processed slightly by the body which can either increase or increase their effectiveness. At any rate, they released mice (which were accustomed to constant lab chow and not to foraging) infected with this parasite. Nice.

I'm a little extremist in my views. I think anyone with a solid ethic of "no animal research" should wear one of those Medic Alert bracelets. These are used to alert doctors to penicillin allergies, etc. The bracelets should ask the medical team not to use to procedures or drugs which were tested in animals.

--
You cannot have a reasonable conversation with someone who regards other people as toys to be played with. localroger
remove apostrophe for email.
[ Parent ]

Some thoughts... (5.00 / 4) (#9)
by jd on Wed Apr 11, 2001 at 09:47:06 AM EST

It is arguable that animal testing =has= been useful in the past. This does NOT mean that it is of any value today. For this, the case must be re-examined, fully and without prejudice.

I believe that alternatives to animal testing are reaching the point where they are viable alternatives in SOME areas. Where this is the case, you need to examine if these alternatives are as good (or possibly better) than existing animal testing methods.

IMHO, if you have two alternatives that are of EQUAL quality (as far as the results are concerned), then you can EITHER go for the more ethical OR the cheaper of the two, depending on your priorities. You don't =have= to keep doing the same thing, merely because it IS doing the same thing.

Now, there may be some rare cases where alternatives exist which are vastly superior to animal testing. These would probably include any medical research where there are simply no animals close enough to humans to produce reliable results, although there may well be other cases, too.

Now, again, IMHO, it would be stupidity in the extreme to insist on continuing animal research in these cases. Nobody has to prove a point, or "beat the other side". Research is about results, not egos. And =IF= some research is better done through computer simulation, through mnufacturing cells of various types, or whatever, then that is the way to go.

Pink, fluffy bunnies have nothing to do with this issue, in reality, except insofar as they'd probably not object to someone finding alternatives to any research they're used for.

IMHO, ultra-conservative "traditionalists" are as much a curse on medical research as any animal liberation group. Necessary animal research is one thing. Knowingly UNnecessary animal research, out of traditionalism or willful pride is quite another.

For those who will argue the ethics side, I'm deliberately leaving that out of this post. I want a clear distinction between research which cannot be done by other means to the standards necessary and research which has no function or purpose which cannot be achieved equally well or better by other means. That way, the two cases can be argued seperately, rather than get mixed together in some convoluted mish-mash.

Ethics vary between people, so IMHO it's best to not argue that case, where it's not necessary.

To round this off, I had better give some examples of where animal research CAN or HAS been supplanted:

  • Contamination of pharmacuticals can be detected much more accurately using small amounts of blood from horseshoe crabs, than by testing small quantities on a statistically-meaningful number of animals. It's not harmful to the crab, and definitely better for the animals, and has a much higher rate of detection.
  • Laser treatments for eye problems (such as cateracts) can be done by computer simulation, for the most part. Eyes are not complex organs, and it isn't as though you're watching for effects in other parts of the body. For this reason, even those experiments that can't be done on computer ONLY require an eye.


Huntingdon Life Sciences (4.40 / 5) (#14)
by Simon Kinahan on Wed Apr 11, 2001 at 12:06:26 PM EST

While I am as concerned as you are at the irrationalism and fanaticism of some in the animal rights movement, some clarification is needed about Huntingdon Life Sciences.

There has been a campaign on intimidation and occasional assaults on staff, along with essentially fraudulent and misleading propaganda about what goes on at HLS, conducted by thugs with whom the mainstream animal rights movement has (to their discredit) chosen to make common cause. However, HLS main problem is that a Channel 4 (British public service broadcaster) documentary caught their staff not only being needlessly cruel to animals, but also obviously badly supervised, and worst of all, doing things that would distort the results of the experiments they were conducting for their clients.

Fortunately, it has been this, and not the thuggery and fanaticism of the protestors, which did for them. Many of their major pharmaceaticals clients pulled out, their share price plunged, and they are now left with the more controversial, and less profitable, cosmetics and cleaning products end of their business.

Simon

If you disagree, post, don't moderate
cosmetics testing in the uk/eu (none / 0) (#40)
by dcorriga on Sun Apr 15, 2001 at 10:00:29 AM EST

I was under the impression that cosmetics testing on animals had been banned in the uk/eu.

Are you sure this is not the case ?

doug

[ Parent ]

Hunting with dogs? (4.00 / 1) (#18)
by Anonymous 6522 on Wed Apr 11, 2001 at 02:31:09 PM EST

What's cruel about hunting with dogs? There are all kinds of wild dogs that kill stuff every day, and they do it with little regard to the prey's comfort or well being. Why should hunting dogs be any different?

The same can be said of hunting humans (none / 0) (#27)
by N8w8 on Thu Apr 12, 2001 at 01:20:06 PM EST

Humans kill lots of animals. Most of the killings are indirect (animal testing, destroying natural habitats of animals), some are more direct (eating meat), but to me the directness of a murder makes little difference.

If I follow your logic, hunting humans should be allowed too. IMO it's a great injustice that killing humans for the reasons you and I mentioned is strictly forbidden in most countries, while killing an animal under the same conditions is often allowed (depending on the situation).

[ Parent ]
I didn't mean killing dogs for sport. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Anonymous 6522 on Thu Apr 12, 2001 at 08:04:39 PM EST

I ment using dogs to hunt other animals. I've been hearing alot of people saying that fox hunting (which I assume they were talking about in the story) is cruel, but it is more or less like a pack of wolves tracking down and killing whatever they plan to eat.

I probably should have said "using hunting dogs," or "hunting with dogs," in the last sentance.

Killing people, for any reason, is a bad thing. I just want to make that clear. I don't mind killing animals, just as long it is for food, or it is for some other reason than you want to kill stuff. I do take exception to animal testing in the cosmetics industry, and I do think that chimps and other apes are sufficently human not to be tested on.

[ Parent ]

Irrationality unleashed (4.00 / 1) (#21)
by weirdling on Wed Apr 11, 2001 at 06:13:06 PM EST

This is a society that has demonstrated itself willing to sacrifice anything to the cause of liberalism, but that aside, from what I understand of the behavior of this particular lab, they needed to be shut down. However, it should have been a government regulatory commission that shut them down, and not mob rule.
The majority of animal rights activists out there are irrational and sentimental, not reasoned. Here in the States, they are often linked to the anti-hunting crowd, so ally themselves with the irrational and sentimental anti-gun crowd. However, when hunting is stopped, as has been done here in the States, various types of animals, ranging up to deer, roam the streets of the city at will, necessitating hiring expensive exterminators to come in and remove them.
Hunting actually helps the herd. It keeps them small enough to not starve. It keeps them from stripping the environment.
My point? I guess it's that most of the people who are for 'animal rights' have a deplorable understanding of the situation.

I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
animal roaming... (none / 0) (#28)
by tordia on Thu Apr 12, 2001 at 02:08:08 PM EST

You can't train wild animals not to roam. If we don't want animals to share our space, then we should be responsible for keeping them out, not killing them when they do get in. Put up huge fences (maybe with some tunnels or bridges every so often, so the animals wouldn't be completely confined within) to keep the animals off the streets. Sure that would be expensive, but I think we have to stop thinking of only ourselves.

Also, I really don't agree that hunting has been stopped in the States. I grew up in Wisconsin, and every year around Thanksgiving, most of the classrooms were empty, after school activities were cancelled, and many businesses closed or had workers take off so everyone could go hunting. Granted, there are only certain times in the year when you can hunt, but hunting has definitely not stopped.

Sorry for the rambling nonsense, but I'm at work, so it's hard to think clearly. :)

[ Parent ]

Two things (none / 0) (#30)
by weirdling on Thu Apr 12, 2001 at 02:43:12 PM EST

First, I didn't mean to say hunting had been stopped everywhere in the States; it has only been stopped in some parts of the States. In most cases, it has been reinstated after a short hiatus.
Second, a fence would be largely impractical. Hunting is cheap (hunters *pay* to do it), hunting allows people to do what they want, and, when properly managed, it stops herds from building up to the point where they are pressured to come into town.

I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
[ Parent ]
ETHICAL (1.16 / 6) (#22)
by ASTRIDMOON on Thu Apr 12, 2001 at 12:24:33 AM EST

BEING AGAINST ANIMAL TESTING AND OTHER CRUELTIES FORCED ON ANIMALS I DONT TAKE TO BE SENTIMENTAL- ITS MERELY BEING ETHICAL- NOW IM NOT SAYING THAT NOTHING GOOD HAS COME FROM ANIMAL TESTING BUT WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT FORCING THESE ANIMALS TO TEST OUR THOUSANDS OF NEW CHEMICAL PRODUCTS EACH DAY IS VERY WRONG- AS FOR MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS WE ARE TO THE POINT THAT WE HAVE TECHNOLOGY THAT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER SUITED THAN A DEFENSELESS CREATURE- MANY PRODUCTS THAT WERE TESTED ON ANIMALS HAVE HAD A TOTALLY OPPOSITE EFFECT ON HUMANS- AND MANY OF THESE TESTS HAVE BEEN PERFORMED OVER AND OVER AGAIN BECAUSE OUT OF ALL THE TESTS THAT ARE DONE VERY FEW ARE EVER ACTUALLY PUBLISHED- THEREFORE NOONE EVEN KNOWS THAT THE SAME TEST THEY ARE PERFORMING HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT DOZENS OF TIMES BEFORE *PEACE*

Uhh... (none / 0) (#23)
by ti dave on Thu Apr 12, 2001 at 03:16:46 AM EST

You're kinda cute, but you really need to turn off your Caps-Lock.

ti_dave
"If you dial," Iran said, eyes open and watching, "for greater venom, then I'll dial the same."

[ Parent ]
Warning (4.00 / 4) (#25)
by veryscared on Thu Apr 12, 2001 at 10:30:46 AM EST

I'm posting this near anonymously [using a throwaway account generated from a throwaway email address] for fear of retribution from the UK animal rights lobby. I advise anyone else who posts in favour of animal testing or critically of the lobby to do so also.

The animal rights lobby in the UK has an extreme edge to it,

Cambridgeshite Police Authority [responsible for Huntingdon Life Sciences] has requested an extra 1million per year to finance policing the protestors.

Workers at HLS have been attacked and threatened, as have their banks, their shareholders, their brokers and their clients.

Last summer I attended two events, one of them was a rock concert in Wembley Stadium [London UK]. Coming out their was a light police presence including a number of mounted police to forestall any crowd trouble with the 80000 people queueing for the train.

I also witnessed a HLS protest in Cambridge city centre, about two hundred protestors were present, as were approximately forty police officers and 12 mounted police, with riot armoured horses.

Now who's most likely to hit the horses? 200 animal rights protestors or 80000 drunk rock fans?


Two [maybe three] years ago, at a previous protest in Cambridge town centre, the animal rights protesters vandalised a number university buildings in the city centre, breaking windows etc. The attacks were aimed around the physiology labs. During that protest the protestors discovered that one of them was an undercover police officer and proceded to beat him up. Fortunatly he was not killed but was badly hurt before he was rescued.

Our animal rights lobby has an edge to it similar to the anti-abortion protestors in the US.


Poll is screwy (none / 0) (#39)
by Robert Hutchinson on Fri Apr 13, 2001 at 04:37:26 PM EST

I don't believe people should treat animals cruelly, but I believe they have a right to (implied by 'can' in the third option). I respect the rights of the KKK, while still finding them to be wastes of chemicals.

Robert Hutchinson
No bomb-throwing required.

Animal Medical Testing Under Attack In The UK | 42 comments (33 topical, 9 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!