AR-News: Times on Girton--as Cambridge denied new primate research labs...

[=?windows-1255?B?8e7j+A==?=]

Debate

February 06, 2004

Testing the waters
As Cambridge is denied new primate research labs, what do you make of animal 
testing?



THE decision to axe Cambridge University’s Primate Research Centre must be 
properly discussed by scientists from both sides of the argument. It is not 
a matter of animal welfare activists stopping medical progress; this 
argument is geared to bias the public so that the Government will face less 
opposition when it chooses to rehouse such a centre somewhere more secure, 
like Porton Down, its military research centre.
Why are we not being told the truth surrounding the centre? Ray Greek, 
medical director of Europeans for Medical Advancement, was the key witness 
in the Cambridge trial last year (for details see 
www.curedisease.com/Cambridge/contents.html). It was because of his 
scientific evidence that the decision to go ahead with the centre was 
originally postponed. If Dr Greek has proof that monkey experiments are 
seriously misleading and dangerous for human health, why aren’t we hearing 
about it? The public will always believe scientists when they speak against 
laymen, or worse, when they are unopposed.



The real debate should be between government scientists and independent 
scientists who are opposed to animal experiments on human health grounds.

Shelly Willetts,
Vivisection spokesperson,
Green Party

Fight for the right


ANTHONY O’HEAR glosses over the crucial point in his column denouncing 
Cambridge University for abandoning its plan to build a laboratory where 
experiments will be conducted on monkeys (Thunderer, January 28). This is 
that the decision that such experiments are intrinsically “right” is taken 
by various committees largely composed of scientists (who are by definition 
not impartial in the matter), rather than by ordinary, compassionate people 
who might have very different views.

It is therefore not surprising that many people who are well-informed about 
vivisection feel that they have no alternative but to engage in direct 
action. They are frustrated that the public is largely kept in ignorance 
about what takes place in animal research laboratories. There is no major 
political party for which they can vote. No referendum is held on the issue.

I know — and so does Professor O’Hear — what the result of such a referendum 
would probably be if the general public knew the full truth. In other words, 
it is another case of them and us. He and his kind (scientists, 
philosophers) have made the decision that millions of animals should suffer 
hideously because it is good for us. Nobody has asked me for my opinion, nor 
that of the vast number of other people who feel a deep sense of shame about 
what we do to our fellow-creatures.

Jo Nortcliff,
Bristol

Fund research


AS SOMEONE who watched my grandfather deteriorate as Alzheimer’s took him 
slowly away from us, I am thrilled that the Cambridge laboratory has been 
shelved. Precious funds should be put into innovative research techniques. 
Animal experimentation is a waste of time, money and millions of animal 
lives. The public deserves better than the false hope that these cruel 
experiments provide.

Dawn Carr,
London SE1

Necessary evil


IT IS proven that animals are required in order to make some meaningful and 
necessary advancements in medical science. As an animal lover, I am 
extremely torn by the prospect of animals suffering so that I and others may 
live. That said, when driven to make the choice, I make it in favour of 
medical science. I believe that the animals are required for research if the 
human race is to survive, and that they should be used in situations where 
there is no alternative.

Those who have succeeded in stopping the research being effected in 
Cambridge, where animals would have been treated as humanely as possible, 
should now be prepared to face the consequences of this research moving 
abroad — possibly to countries where cats and dogs are eaten as human food 
and where their mode of death is too horrific to think about.

Furthermore, it would be interesting to record how these people react when 
either they or somebody close to them is stricken by a disease for which 
there is no known cure, thanks to their lack of sense and foresight.

B. F. Orme,
address supplied

Not so fast


CAN someone explain to me why animal welfare supporters are so happy at the 
news that Cambridge University cannot afford to go ahead with its new 
laboratory?

As far as I am aware, no research projects will stop, they just won’t have a 
new building to move into. This means that neither the monkeys nor the 
researchers — including the technicians and vets who look after the animals 
— will be able to benefit from state-of-the-art facilities. So no advantage 
for the animals, no advantage for the researchers and certainly no advantage 
for Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s sufferers.

People in Britain understand the need for animal research and the benefits 
it brings. Many support it. The conditions they want are to be found here; 
our controls are the strictest in the world. If research is forced abroad, 
there will be fewer safeguards on the welfare of the animals. So why the 
jubilation?

Philip Connolly,
Coalition for Medical Progress,
London WC1

Compassionate care


IT CAN never be right to gain at the expense of another. Human progress does 
not lie in finding a cure for cancer by killing 10,000 animals; it lies in 
realising that the cure for cancer is not worth the life of a single animal. 
It is our capacity to be compassionate that sets us apart from other 
species. Even if medical progress were made, these methods would be 
appalling and base.

Animal experimentation is also unscientific and unreliable. It would be far 
better for everyone if money that is wasted on cruel and pointless animal 
experiments were spent on scientific epidemiological research whenever a new 
drug is produced. Non-violence is the goal of evolution, and we are still 
savages until we stop harming other sentient beings.

Kate FitzGibbon,
Findhorn by Forres,
Morayshire



Animal experiments have:
a 63% failure rate when detecting human carcinogens
a 75-95% failure rate for detecting drug side effects
a 70% failure rate for detecting drugs which cause birth defects
Success rates lower than those achieved by uneducated guesswork.

This is not science!!



Recommended website: The Absurdity of vivisection
http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/

Information on animal research available free by EMail from 
vivisectionkills at hotmail.com

_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! 
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger


the wild, cruel beast is not behind the bars of the cage. he is in front of it - axel munthe

"Never doubt that a small group of dedicated citizens can change the world. 
Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."      Margaret Mead
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/ar-news/attachments/20040209/0323998d/attachment.html