Students and staff rally on Saturday to promote vivisection in Oxford and the construction goes ahead.. .
Students protest against animal rights campaign
Donald MacLeod
Wednesday February 22 2006
The Guardian
Students and staff at Oxford University are to defy animal rights campaigners
and demonstrate in support of a controversial £163;20m research facility.
Organisers, PRO-Test, expect the rally on Saturday to attract between 200 and
500 people, including students from University College London and Imperial
College London.
The new biomedical facility has been targeted by animal rights protesters and
work was halted for 16 months when the contractors pulled out in the face of
threats. Building has now resumed, but the campaigners are widening their
activities to target firms or donors connected to the university.
Speak, an Oxford-based group which has called its own anti-university
demonstration for Saturday, insists on peaceful protest, but the Animal
Liberation Front (ALF) has threatened violence and damage to property belonging
to any bodies maintaining contacts to the university.
A website posting by the ALF claimed it had attacked Oxford Architects and
warned: "This is just the beginning of our campaign of devastation against
anyone linked in any way to Oxford University. Every individual and business
that works for the university as a whole is now a major target of the ALF. The
University have made a crass decision to take us on and we will never let them
win."
Saturday's pro-laboratory demonstration, starting in Broad Street, will hear
speakers including Dr Simon Festing, director of the Research Defence Society,
Professor Tipu Aziz, consultant neurosurgeon at Oxford, local Liberal Democrat
MP Dr Evan Harris, and Laurie Pycroft, founder of PRO-Test.
A poll of 210 students published by the student newspaper Cherwell, found that
85% of students believed the labs should be completed.
Scientists to speak out for animal tests
Oxford academics risk retaliation from extremists by going public
Sandra Laville and Robert Booth
Friday February 24 2006
The Guardian
Two leading academics at Oxford University have decided to face down threats of
violence from animal rights extremists and speak publicly in favour of the
building of a controversial £18m research laboratory in the city.
Although scientists are advised to remain silent for fear of attacks, Professor
Tipu Aziz, a consultant neurosurgeon, and Professor John Stein, a
neurophysiologist have told the Guardian they believe it is time to stand up to
the radicals who have attempted to stop the project.
"I think that it is important to speak out," said Prof Aziz, whose research into
Parkinson's disease involves the use of primates.
"The ALF [Animal Liberation Front] are actively now saying that anyone in Oxford
is a target. They have had it all their own way for a long time. What we are
seeing in Britain today is a minority dictating how the majority of this country
live and that is as undemocratic a process as can be imagined. Animal research
is absolutely essential to medical progress and a lot of research being done in
Oxford is critical."
He and Prof Stein will address a march on Saturday, the first demonstration
supporting the construction of the laboratory.
Extra police are being drafted into Oxford for the march because it clashes with
another being run by Speak, the protest group opposed to building the new animal
research facility.
Prof Stein, who runs the laboratory where research into Parkinson's and dyslexia
is carried out, said he knew there were dangers involved in speaking at the
march.
"You have to be really passionate about this to put your head above the parapet
and not many do," he said. "Some of these people are loonies and do the most
awful things. Let's be clear, we are all taking a risk, but I feel it is so
important I am prepared to take that risk.
"The anti-vivs have had it all their own way. They have intimidated people, but
the time has come to speak up and risk it. Who knows what that risk is?
"I feel passionately that animal experiments have benefited mankind enormously
and almost all of the medical advances of the last 100 years have happened
through animal experiments. People just don't seem to know this, it hasn't been
got across."
The movement in defence of animal research at Oxford is growing amid increasing
tension. In recent weeks members of the ALF have been encouraging and directing
a violent campaign against university funders, students and researchers through
postings on a website based in Florida. Set up by undergraduates in a rearguard
action to this increasingly voluble campaign, the pro-animal testing movement is
also using the internet to spread its message.
Work was restarted on the lab in November after a year's delay when the original
contractor, Montpelier, pulled out amid threats and intimidation from animal
activists.
Today the identity of the new contractor, which operates on South Parks Road
behind a five metre (15ft) barrier remains a secret. Builders wear balaclavas
and the vehicles involved are all unmarked.
Under the terms of an injunction obtained by Oxford, noisy demonstrations
against the lab are allowed to take place each Thursday, within a cordon
opposite the building site.
But behind the public face of the anti-lab protest anonymous extremists from the
ALF are encouraging the use of increasingly violent tactics. On a direct action
website, Bite Back, registered to an address in West Palm Beach, Florida, the
ALF posts notices announcing attacks on anyone linked to the university and
calling on supporters to "do whatever it takes" to "blow these fucking monsters
off the planet".
Extra security has been offered to many researchers and leading figures at the
university and students have been warned to be vigilant.
One of the tests for new electrical therapies carried out in Prof Stein's
laboratory involves electrodes being placed in the brains of monkeys which have
been given Parkinson's; something he says is painless because there are no pain
receptors in the brain. On the Speak website this experiment is highlighted and
he is accused of "inflicting the most horrific suffering on innocent creatures".
Other researchers will remain silent on Saturday, privately believing Prof Aziz
and Prof Stein are taking a huge risk. One, who would not be named, said it was
not even sensible to discuss animal testing anywhere publicly in Oxford for fear
of being overheard by anti-vivisectionists.
Officers from Nectu, the specialist unit monitoring animal rights extremists,
will watch events on Saturday along with Thames Valley police. "The track record
of animal rights extremists shows there is a high level of criminality
associated with it. All threats are being taken seriously," said a police
source. But the police appear powerless to act against the Florida website.
The FBI says it is "aware" of the man behind it, Nicolas Atwood, a Florida-based
activist but they cannot close it down because that would breach the First
Amendment, protecting freedom of speech. Mr Atwood told the Guardian he was a
volunteer editor for the site. "The ALF is made up of compassionate individuals
who act on their conscience, not on the orders of some mysterious leader," he
said.
"Bite Back's mission is to support animal rights prisoners of conscience and
report on current events in the struggle. Its editors, designers and
contributors, although maybe sympathetic are not responsible for any unlawful
act taken in pursuit of such benevolent goals."
Donald MacLeod
Wednesday February 22 2006
The Guardian
Students and staff at Oxford University are to defy animal rights campaigners
and demonstrate in support of a controversial £163;20m research facility.
Organisers, PRO-Test, expect the rally on Saturday to attract between 200 and
500 people, including students from University College London and Imperial
College London.
The new biomedical facility has been targeted by animal rights protesters and
work was halted for 16 months when the contractors pulled out in the face of
threats. Building has now resumed, but the campaigners are widening their
activities to target firms or donors connected to the university.
Speak, an Oxford-based group which has called its own anti-university
demonstration for Saturday, insists on peaceful protest, but the Animal
Liberation Front (ALF) has threatened violence and damage to property belonging
to any bodies maintaining contacts to the university.
A website posting by the ALF claimed it had attacked Oxford Architects and
warned: "This is just the beginning of our campaign of devastation against
anyone linked in any way to Oxford University. Every individual and business
that works for the university as a whole is now a major target of the ALF. The
University have made a crass decision to take us on and we will never let them
win."
Saturday's pro-laboratory demonstration, starting in Broad Street, will hear
speakers including Dr Simon Festing, director of the Research Defence Society,
Professor Tipu Aziz, consultant neurosurgeon at Oxford, local Liberal Democrat
MP Dr Evan Harris, and Laurie Pycroft, founder of PRO-Test.
A poll of 210 students published by the student newspaper Cherwell, found that
85% of students believed the labs should be completed.
Scientists to speak out for animal tests
Oxford academics risk retaliation from extremists by going public
Sandra Laville and Robert Booth
Friday February 24 2006
The Guardian
Two leading academics at Oxford University have decided to face down threats of
violence from animal rights extremists and speak publicly in favour of the
building of a controversial £18m research laboratory in the city.
Although scientists are advised to remain silent for fear of attacks, Professor
Tipu Aziz, a consultant neurosurgeon, and Professor John Stein, a
neurophysiologist have told the Guardian they believe it is time to stand up to
the radicals who have attempted to stop the project.
"I think that it is important to speak out," said Prof Aziz, whose research into
Parkinson's disease involves the use of primates.
"The ALF [Animal Liberation Front] are actively now saying that anyone in Oxford
is a target. They have had it all their own way for a long time. What we are
seeing in Britain today is a minority dictating how the majority of this country
live and that is as undemocratic a process as can be imagined. Animal research
is absolutely essential to medical progress and a lot of research being done in
Oxford is critical."
He and Prof Stein will address a march on Saturday, the first demonstration
supporting the construction of the laboratory.
Extra police are being drafted into Oxford for the march because it clashes with
another being run by Speak, the protest group opposed to building the new animal
research facility.
Prof Stein, who runs the laboratory where research into Parkinson's and dyslexia
is carried out, said he knew there were dangers involved in speaking at the
march.
"You have to be really passionate about this to put your head above the parapet
and not many do," he said. "Some of these people are loonies and do the most
awful things. Let's be clear, we are all taking a risk, but I feel it is so
important I am prepared to take that risk.
"The anti-vivs have had it all their own way. They have intimidated people, but
the time has come to speak up and risk it. Who knows what that risk is?
"I feel passionately that animal experiments have benefited mankind enormously
and almost all of the medical advances of the last 100 years have happened
through animal experiments. People just don't seem to know this, it hasn't been
got across."
The movement in defence of animal research at Oxford is growing amid increasing
tension. In recent weeks members of the ALF have been encouraging and directing
a violent campaign against university funders, students and researchers through
postings on a website based in Florida. Set up by undergraduates in a rearguard
action to this increasingly voluble campaign, the pro-animal testing movement is
also using the internet to spread its message.
Work was restarted on the lab in November after a year's delay when the original
contractor, Montpelier, pulled out amid threats and intimidation from animal
activists.
Today the identity of the new contractor, which operates on South Parks Road
behind a five metre (15ft) barrier remains a secret. Builders wear balaclavas
and the vehicles involved are all unmarked.
Under the terms of an injunction obtained by Oxford, noisy demonstrations
against the lab are allowed to take place each Thursday, within a cordon
opposite the building site.
But behind the public face of the anti-lab protest anonymous extremists from the
ALF are encouraging the use of increasingly violent tactics. On a direct action
website, Bite Back, registered to an address in West Palm Beach, Florida, the
ALF posts notices announcing attacks on anyone linked to the university and
calling on supporters to "do whatever it takes" to "blow these fucking monsters
off the planet".
Extra security has been offered to many researchers and leading figures at the
university and students have been warned to be vigilant.
One of the tests for new electrical therapies carried out in Prof Stein's
laboratory involves electrodes being placed in the brains of monkeys which have
been given Parkinson's; something he says is painless because there are no pain
receptors in the brain. On the Speak website this experiment is highlighted and
he is accused of "inflicting the most horrific suffering on innocent creatures".
Other researchers will remain silent on Saturday, privately believing Prof Aziz
and Prof Stein are taking a huge risk. One, who would not be named, said it was
not even sensible to discuss animal testing anywhere publicly in Oxford for fear
of being overheard by anti-vivisectionists.
Officers from Nectu, the specialist unit monitoring animal rights extremists,
will watch events on Saturday along with Thames Valley police. "The track record
of animal rights extremists shows there is a high level of criminality
associated with it. All threats are being taken seriously," said a police
source. But the police appear powerless to act against the Florida website.
The FBI says it is "aware" of the man behind it, Nicolas Atwood, a Florida-based
activist but they cannot close it down because that would breach the First
Amendment, protecting freedom of speech. Mr Atwood told the Guardian he was a
volunteer editor for the site. "The ALF is made up of compassionate individuals
who act on their conscience, not on the orders of some mysterious leader," he
said.
"Bite Back's mission is to support animal rights prisoners of conscience and
report on current events in the struggle. Its editors, designers and
contributors, although maybe sympathetic are not responsible for any unlawful
act taken in pursuit of such benevolent goals."
Comments
Hide the following 35 comments
Corporate repost
24.02.2006 13:20
Indymedia isn't a blog.
Fuck the corporate media
An animal experimenter,presented as an unbaised voice?
24.02.2006 18:15
An american "researcher" recieved 800 thousand dollors for his,"life-saving research" which included such niceties, as smashing in the heads of individual primates(and of coarse killing them-not to do so,would be anti human) and filming it along with his fellow "life-saving researchers" for sentimental memories.
p.s- Aspartame a chemical compound in drinks,yogurts and most beverages-is knows from clinical observation and personal accounts of human individuals-to destroy localised regions of the brain thus causing, in the long term brain disorders(parkinsons, etc)-Aspartame was passed as "safe" through animal experimentation by "researchers", of Mr Aziz's ilk.
A Sucker is born every minuate BY MR AZIZ(creating disease markets,research rackets and money brakets)
Tom
Pro-Test = Living Marxism front group.
24.02.2006 18:24
Honest journalism - mmmh perhaps not, the heirs of the Revolutionary (should have been Reactionary) Communist Party have no shame.
Pro-Test is a farcial front group getting far too much attention for what it actually is.
Ed Rolls
e-mail:
edmund.rolls@psyexp.ox.ac.uk
Excerpts
24.02.2006 22:11
"At a time when millions are starving in the world,and our economy is in great trouble,Congress is allocating billions of dollars annually in grants for 'basic' no-goal research on living animals.Careers in torture are as financially rewarding as they are morally bankrupt.Reports in the medical journals recorded by the experimenters themselves are indisputable indictments of their gross inhumanity".(Barbara Schultz,a member of the Attorney General Louis Lefkowitz's advisory committee on the treatment of animals New York State,Newsday,July 12,1974)
"No animal tumor is closely related to a cancer in human beings".(Lancet,Apr.15,1972)
"We know from drug toxicity studies that animal tests are very imperfect indicators of human toxicity;only clinical experience and careful control of the introduction of new drugs can tell us about the real dangers".(Lancet,Apr.22,1972)
"Let us not deceive ourselves.The guinea-pigs reputation is spurious"(The Medical Press,Jan.19,1955)
"My own conviction is that the study of human physiology by way of experiments on animals is the most grotesque and fantastic error ever committed in the whole range of human intellectual activity".(Dr.G.F.Walker,Medical World,Dec.8,1933)
"I am decidedly hostile to it.It is a useless torture,and a sterile cruelty".(Dr.Edgard Hirtz,of Necker Hospital)
"Chloroform is so toxic to dogs,especially the young,that had that anesthetic been first tried on them it would have been witheld for many years from the service of man.Flourens,in consequence of the fatal effects he observed in animals,discarded chloroform altogether as an anaesthetic,and Sir Lauder Brunton's experiments on dogs led to results which were ridiculed by all leading english anaesthetists."(Dr. Benjamin Ward Richardson,Biological Experimentation,1896)
"During my medical studies i was charged with preparing the physiological experiments in the hospitals.They are useless cruelties,which have taught me nothing".(Dr.C.Mathieu)
Mick
Shame on the Swindon Advertiser
25.02.2006 21:10
Adver front page 25th Feb
Why I'm prepared to be a target for terror
By Stephanie Tye
TEENAGER Laurie Pycroft is taking a stand against animal rights activists.
The 16-year-old, from Swindon, said that he isn't afraid to become a target for terrorists who prevent scientists from making medical advances.
Today Laurie, founder of PRO-TEST, a group in favour of building a new animal research facility at Oxford University took to the streets of Oxford with supporters of the cause in peaceful protest.
The teenager, who wants to become a doctor, got involved in arguments surrounding the use of animals in medical testing after seeing a demonstration by a group which opposes the building of the controversial £18m facility, on South Parks, Oxford.
"They were shouting stop the Oxford animal lab' so I went out and started marching behind them shouting build the Oxford animal lab", he said.
He became the target of verbal abuse and decided someone needed to speak out in support of the building.
The building attracted the attention of animal rights activists after it was revealed that the centre would be used for primate-based research into Parkinson's disease.
But by speaking in favour of the animal testing facility Laurie has is risking both his own and his family's safety.
Thames Valley Police have offered the teenager and his family safety advice.
But he said he refuses to be intimidated by the activists.
"I believe extremely strongly in this issue and also in free speech."
Simon
Who's a terrorist target?
26.02.2006 13:53
Yes we are, as that's what the ALF has said. In fact, forget about *speaking* in favour of vivisection - anyone who's meerly asociated with Oxford University is "a major target of the ALF":
Dave
The truth about PRO Test
26.02.2006 13:53
And the high profile 'respected' 'scientists' of the pro-vivisection lobby 'applaud' his efforts and are quite happy for this sad little social inadequate put himself and his family into the 'frontline' as cannon fodder whilst they hide away like the bullying cowards that they are.
Mice face
ALF don't speak for me
26.02.2006 15:20
Do you see Animal Aid coming out with that kind of language?
Or SPEAK?
This whole pro-test thing is an attempt by the pro- lobby to smear the anti- lobby by making a link in people's minds between the words "animal rights" and "terrorist". And my (normally pretty good) local paper is shamefully playing along with this.
For what it's worth, I'm quite happily running Oxford Uni's climateprediction.net distributed computing thingy on my PC. It's not the entire university and anyone associated with it that I have a problem with - it's the ones who want to perpetuate and expand and profit from the cruelty and bad science of vivisection that I take issue with. I don't think trying to intimidate people into changing their minds is the way to go about it.
Simon
The ALF speak out
26.02.2006 17:01
No, and I didn't say that. It's the voice of those extremists that use violent methods under the banner of animal rights - it doesn't *need* to represent everyone opposed to vivisection. Previous acts of the (presumably) small number of extremists demonstrate that there *is* an actual threat.
Weighing up the actual size of the threat, as compared to the rhetoric found on websites and in the media, is up to each individual. I know of a botched arson attempt on an Oxford Uni building that to me demonstrated:
1) There are people out there serious about using violent methods.
2) They're pretty incompetent, so not worth loosing any sleep over.
Dave
To Ed Rolls
26.02.2006 18:51
"Among the top people involved in Pro-Test are Kristina Cook of Christ Church College in Oxford, a member of the Living Marxism cult. Also associated with here and Pro-Test is politics lecture James Panton, also of Living Marxism and a director of another LM front the Institute of Ideas. Today in the Times we have fellow IoI and Living Marxism founding editor Mick Hume pushing Pro-Test."
This is interesting - I've been on this cult's case since the early 90s and thought I knew about all their fronts. Did you figure this out yourself, or were you tipped off by info elsewhere? Do you have any more info on Pro-Test? Do email me - I tried your address but got a domain lookup failure for psyexp.ox.ac.uk
I recently posted something about them on the BBC Moral Maze message
board (Claire Fox is a regular panellist on the show) which has some
links which, if you don't know about them already, you might find
interesting - see
Gerry Gerbil
e-mail:
gerry.gerbil@gmail.com
More on the RCP
26.02.2006 19:01
This is written in RCP-speak, and almost certainly represents the cult's line on this topic.
Gerry Gerbil
e-mail:
gerry.gerbil@gmail.com
Hate death threats,but never death
26.02.2006 19:07
Mick
Well, Mick
26.02.2006 20:39
Learn English, Mick - that doesn't even make sense!
Amused
Oh I'M SORRY,NOT IN THE ANTHPROCENTRIC DICTIONARY
26.02.2006 21:03
Maybe if i call individual gendered(means-gender) animals,"it" and "things" and "that" and use words like "save the mice" which could refer to multiple individual mice, which implies "there all the same" and an individual mice is a generic species representative,this will be in your anthprocentric dictionary.
Mick
But Mick...
27.02.2006 00:19
Amused
To Amused
27.02.2006 02:25
Have i verbally touched an empathetic nerve?
I said in the previous "mumbo jumbo",individual gendered animals because each individual animal has a gender(male/female),internal organs,pulsating heartbeat,central nervous system and brain, thus individual animals, physically and mentally, experience individually from those individual bodilly internalities.So to say "animals" would imply that they all experience as one and are all the same without any difference of circumstance or ability.
But i can see why you are linguisticly uncomfortable with the sentenced words "individual gendered animals",it is more difficult to be a financial partner in the slaughterhouse,vivisection labs(through taxes),zoo's,animal circuses,factory "farms" if you see the individual pig or cow or mouse or primate as a "gendered individual".
Mick
Pseudo talk
27.02.2006 11:33
You seem to be making lots of assumptions about some people commenting on this story. I concur with Amused that your style of writing - in particular it's assumptions and aggressive tone - does nothing to encourage sympathy with the anti-animal testing cause.
I'm afraid I had to copy and edit your original post in order to make sense of it, and "gendered" is at best redundant, and at worst means something different to what you believe it means:
Gendered: n
To beget; to engender.
Engender: n
1) To produce by the union of the sexes; to beget.
2) To cause to exist; to bring forth; to produce.
Regards,
Dave
Dave(HE'S SENSITIVE)
27.02.2006 12:46
I did'nt know i signed in at your class register to be my school teacher.
Gender means male/female-ed-is added at the end to describe the gender across the species board-wordfully and quickly-if you don't understand it and its not in your pocket oxford dictionary, then i'm typingly sorry of not verbally conforming to your refrence book.
P.S-I'm not searching for opinioned approval.
REFUTE MY STATEMENTS OR LINGUISTICLY PISS OFF!!
Mick
Types of animals
27.02.2006 13:54
No, that's simply wrong. Certain species and species types of animal have all those characteristics, particularly mammals and, to a lesser degree, vertebrates as a whole. Many animals have no gender, and some animals, such as some fish (and, I think, some reptiles such as crocodiles, but I'm not sure of this), change gender in their lifecycles. Only vertebrates have central nervous systems and brains - many arthropods, such as lobsters, have nerve clusters.
Perhaps when you refer to animals you mean to refer to 'sentient animals' that are capable of feeling physical and emotional suffering, the definition used by Peter Singer in his animal liberation books. If so, just say so. Abstruse right-on language may impress your mates but it's pretty incomprehensible to the rest of us slobs.
Gerry Gerbil
e-mail:
gerry.gerbil@gmail.com
Random assumptions
27.02.2006 15:03
You've asserted that I'm pro-vivisectionist, whilst my all my comments here have been mainly confined to reflection upon the media coverage and the security aspects relating to some animal rights protestors. I did take a detour towards communication, as I feel that you could get your point across more convincingly than you are at the moment. (Of course, you can do whatever you like with my observations.)
"REFUTE MY STATEMENTS"
As far as I can tell, you've not made any statements inviting refutation. What was it you were thinking of, specifically?
Regards,
Dave
..pathetic..
27.02.2006 16:19
white rabbit
Animals?
27.02.2006 17:15
Who gives two monkeys grooming each other if somone calls a mouse an animals, so what??
sarah
Ad-Hominem
27.02.2006 19:50
1) The bull-shit "33" facts
2) The argument that all animals are equal to humans.
even those of you who believe the 2nd point will find yourselves to be massive hypocrites.
Just out of interest, who here geniunely believes medicines can be developed without animal testing? Those who don't use medicines because they simply oppose the tests, fair enough, but if you honestly think we can have medicines without animal research, you are an idiot.
Rob
Semantics and the truth
28.02.2006 03:58
Vivisection is scientific fraud. Thalidomide was tested on animals for ten years before being marketed to an unsuspecting public, with the terrible results of birth deformities, infanticide and some mothers becoming insane (10,000 children were born in the West with limbs missing). Again, this drug was comprehensively tested on animals before being marketed. Chemie Gruenthal, the pharmaceutical company who manufactured this filth were acquitted in a WEst German court (1970) after a long line of medical researchers ironically testified that animal testing could not safely predict any drug's reactions on humans. In substance, a long array of research authorities confirmed in court, explicitly or by implication, what Dr. Raymond Green had written earlier in the Lancet (September 1st 1962), namely:
"We must face the fact that the most careful tests of a new drug's effects on animals may tell us little of its efects on humans... animal experiments cannot obviate the risks and may even prevent the use of excellent substances".
Despite the tragedy of thalidomide (Chemie Gruenthal paid the victims no compensation whatsoever), vivisection is still employed today in drug testing, with more terrible effects. Opfren the anti arthritis drug was tested on animals and marketed as safe before being withdrawn due to serious photosensitivity in patients. Valium and the benzodiazepine group of sedatives are now being withdrawn because of serious side effects to mental and physical health, yet these were tested on animals and marketed as safe. the anti diarrhoea drug Clioquinol led to thousands of deaths and 30,000 cases of blindness and paralysis in Japan alone, in 1979 a Tokyo court ruled that the drug had no therapeutic benefits whatsoever, yet this was tested on animals. DES, a synthetic oestrogen was tested on animals before being marketed to the public, but DES caused cancer in offspring ("I had no way of knowing what those pills do. Thousands of women took them, because their doctor prescribed them" Mrs. Grace Molloy, who lost her daughter to DES induced cancer, Newsweek, Jan 26th 1976).
I have no doubt whatosever that I shall be attacked for perhaps, a few spelling mistakes in what I have written. But facts are facts, and the use of vivisection in medical research can be compared to trying to cure a headache with a shotgun, maybe 1 in a 1000 times there is success. But this debate ought to be put out in the public domain where both sides are given equal consideration, rather than the overly biased media articles we see today. It really is disgraceful to read the rubbish in the press written about anti vivisection, portraying all people involved in this as terrorists. This is quite frankly a hysterical remark because as far as I know, no one has been killed as yet. I would like to point out that I certainly do not condone violence at all, no matter what the cause, I prefer the passive resistance approach that Gandhi advocated, but what is not written in the press is the extent of the violence committed against animal activists, this goes unpublished, and the fact that many of these people have died (such as Jill Phipps and Mike Hill). But what is urgently needed is an honest, open debate about this instead of the appalling bias and double standards that are prevalent in the media today in favour of vivisection and big business.
Jefferson
Debate and (searching for) facts
28.02.2006 23:31
My apologies if you have found my comments petty, but I am interested in real debate, and attempting to understand the facts behind each side's biases - which I think is entirely appropriate for a journalism site.
This site, and many others discussing the topic, *is* in the public domain - here we are discussing it. Sadly, getting genuine reasoned debate in the mainstream is another thing altogether - for any topic.
One of the frequent arguments brought up against animal testing is that it has been ineffective in predicting the effects of the drugs being tested, resulting in tragedy for many individuals - such as with Thalidomide. Clearly, these examples show that animal testing is flawed.
Logically however, it does not prove that animal testing is useless. Given the moral aspect to the issue, it seems that the pro- side should provide solid evidence of successful and useful animal testing research, where the subject drug/device/whatever could not have been developed without the use of animal testing.
The Pro-test site's (rather sparse) facts page lists many drugs that apparently involved effective animal testing in their development, although it lacks much in the way of documentary evidence to support the claim. I have emailed the site, asking if they can provide an example. It's probably not the most authoratitive source, but asking there seems appropriate, considering the media spotlight shining on it.
Thanks for the examples of Mike Hill and Jill Phipps - I had never heard of them before, and agree that stories such as these do not recieve the exposure they deserve.
Mike Hill's death was a tragic and perhaps preventable, but there is an implication in "violence committed against animal activists" that his death was malicious, whereas "accidental death" seems more likely to me. Mike put himself at risk, and the driver might have thought that the shouts of the sabs were merely a ruse to get him to stop. Obviously I wasn't there, so cannot say with any certainty.
(my ref:
That Jill Phipps' death didn't result in prosectution is scandalous. It seems the police should have been brought up for failing in their duty of care to all at the demo. Is there any more info available about why the CPS didn't prosecute, or why no civil case was brought?
(my ref:
One more linguistic clarification (nit-pick, if you prefer): Terrorism is coercion through intimidation/violence - no murder is required for the label to be accurate.
Regards,
Dave
e-mail:
electric666@gmail.com
This will sound callous
01.03.2006 13:01
Rob
Carl Jung
01.03.2006 17:59
It's what they call double standards Rob. Another name for it is hypocrisy.
Take a look at this Rob, straight from the pages of Hansard, of how foxhunters have terrorised people in the countryside, the House of Lords was inundated with letters from people terrorised by foxhunters, yet the law is not protecting them or locking up these countryside terrorists:
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldhansrd/vo041012/text/41012-32.htm
Carl Jung
Yawn!
02.03.2006 00:17
Leave the nonces and pervs to croon about how they support animal torture ..
I'm off to bed, there's a battle to be fought tomorrow and ever after unril it's done.
Night all.
NoMeatNoDairy
hmm
05.03.2006 20:40
lol
I recommend a little research before you make absurd claims next time
22.03.2006 15:48
My name is Kristina Cook and I’m writing in response to the above posts made about me. Apparently, animal research isn’t your main focus, as what was posted about me was not related to animal research and my views on it but about a political front that you feel PRO-Test or myself may be representing. So I decided to write, just to clarify why I personally am involved. Let’s make animal research the issue here, not irrelevant politics.
I am a proud member of PRO-Test. I joined this recently formed group, because of the values it represents. That is, I support animal research, conducted in an ethical manner through the laws and regulations currently in place here in the United Kingdom.
I hold this point of view because as a chemistry/biochemistry D.Phil student at Oxford, researching biomedical science, specifically in cancer, I have seen and know why animal research is important to medicine. If you disagree, that’s fine, but please if you choose to make a smear campaign against me, at least use something that I’m actually involved with. The idea of me being involved with this Marxist Lenin group is rather ridiculous, I don’t even know who these groups are.
That being said, let me also let you know I am an American, who just moved to Oxford in October. I have no interest in ever becoming a politician or promoting political agendas, either in the UK or America, and really could care less about any of the political parties here in the UK, but when my true passion, research, is threatened, I will stand up and fight for what I do and why it is done.
I find it strange and simply misinformed that you say I am a part of a political group that I really know very little about, and have no interest in becoming involved with. I guess you think this because I have an article published on spiked-online.com? To lay it flat out on the table, I am happy to write anywhere where I think I can explain why animal research is important, and why I believe in it. And if you read the article, I think what I am promoting and trying to say is quite clear.
Whenever I have a chance to educate people about animal research and the benefits it provides us with, I am more than happy to engage. Whether it is through spiked-online.com, BBC radio interviews, religious faith-based radio shows, newspaper articles and quotes in The Guardian, The Times, The Independent, the scientific journal Nature, or through blogs where I can participate in educated debates, I will take the opportunity to make my views of animal research known.
Like I said, my only real involvement is to promote my views about animal research and medical science. And that is what PRO-Test is set up to do and what the members within are striving to spread. Whether other people within the group are part of other political parties I feel, is rather irrelevant and unimportant because it doesn’t take away from PRO-Test’s legitimacy as promoting animal research. In any aspect of life, you will find a wide spectrum of political views, and I believe the same to be true in an activist group. If PRO-Test ever begins promoting these other ideas you claim people in PRO-Test are involved with, then perhaps then it will become a relevant topic for your discussion boards about PRO-Test.
What is important though, is that PRO-Test is about animal research and its importance to medical science.
I am passionate about science and the biomedical research I study for my education. This is why I plan to spend my life as a research scientist, working to improve the lives of others through the knowledge and experience I have gained, and not as a politician. And this is why I am involved in PRO-Test.
I hope that you can read this letter and hear it for what I am truly saying without judging or discarding it before thinking about it. If you would like to discuss more with me or engage in a coherent, logical debate, please feel free to contact me at
Kristina Cook
D.Phil. Student of Chemistry/Biochemistry
Active Member of PRO-Test
Kristina Cook
e-mail:
kristinacook1@gmail.com
No legal right to reply.
12.04.2006 17:03
And Spiked on line is a front for the LM group and several the leading members of the Pro-test group mentioned above are members of the LM or one of their splinter group, IOI. These people have a right wing agenda including demonising any groups from the environmental movement. If people like them had their way Indymedia would be closed down, or only people with a right wing stance would be allowed to post. They are all over the media, so if you are not a member of these groups beware, LM are using the Pro-test group to peddle their biased anti animal rights agenda.
Neil James
www.arcnews.org.uk
neil lea
e-mail:
james@arcnews.org.uk
Homepage:
http://www.arcnews.org.uk
as has been said - get your facts right
13.04.2006 13:28
Your intention in publishing individuals' names on your website (as occurred for months in breach of the law) was not to promote open debate, but in the hope that intimidation and slanderous accusations of political leanings may pressure them into standing down. Luckily we have brave scientists who are willing to stand up to such intimidation.
As for LM - even if it were, and it is not, who cares if Spiked is a 'front' for it? The fact remains that Spiked provided a platform for the publication an independent, well authored document outlining the rationale for animal testing. The political leanings of individuals who established the website is irrelevent. I gather that LM stands for Leninist-Marxist. Neal, you claim that this group has a right wing agenda. Save your political speak for another forum, because last time I checked, Lenin was as far from right wing as history would ever allow.
This debate is far bigger than groups and subgroups of people peddling an agenda. Stick to animal testing, stick to the facts and put forward a reasoned argument for once rather than wasting your time attempting to promote conspiracy theories.
doc
Questioning Your Motivation
18.04.2006 09:15
Check out the link here:
I don’t know the exact rules of the injunction, but I do know what you’re referring to.
Unfortunately, the only reason that this injunction had to be created was because “Animal Rights” sympathizers had begun posting the names (and often addresses and phone numbers) of those involved in animal research or Pro-Test, on their websites, inciting people to target and harass these people. So the injunction was created to protect those who had been receiving letter bombs, needles and razor blades in the mail, as well as threatening phone calls etc.
I don’t know how the law is spelt out, but as I state in the above post, I am more than willing to have an educated and civilized debate, with those who disagree with my point of view. And I don’t believe that the law will prevent me from engaging in debate. I have given my name to newspapers, as well as discussed issues with known anti-vivisectionists, and all used my name. So clearly there are times when my name is allowed to be used, as well as quoting my views. However, I don’t appreciate it being used simply for a means of slander or as a target for the animal extremists. Which is why I question the choice to not only publish my name on your website, but also my Oxford college, and then to make up an absurd lie about potential political affiliations, which as I have previously stated, are untrue.
Posting my college, makes me think that this is the very targeting that the injunction is supposed to protect. Hopefully, this was not your intention, but it makes me think you are trying to either incite violence on the college, where I may potentially live, or at least slander it.
Despite disagreeing with your reasoning for using my name, I haven’t chosen to get your website shut down, as I could, but instead replied to this web posting (since your website doesn’t allow comments), describing why I am involved in Pro-Test and that you had simply been misinformed about who I am.
Which also begs the question, given your obvious, somewhat justifiable anger at the injunction not allowing you to use my name, why aren’t comments and letters allowed on your website? You appear to be afraid of debate more than anything else.
Like I said previously, I am willing to engage in debate, but I won’t participate in a shouting match, where neither person listens to the other side. I don’t expect to change your views on animal research, but I believe, that by listening to the other side and their reasoning, we may be able to understand each other better, and work towards improving this ‘fight’ for both sides. Animal welfare, as well as utilizing alternatives when possible, are an important component of the research conducted. If the inflammatory environment surrounding animal research could be ended, we could stop wasting tax payer’s money on security, and instead dedicate it to the research and animals.
There just seems to be better solutions to this debate than name calling, injunctions and terror.
Kristina Cook
e-mail:
kristinacook1@gmail.com
Homepage:
http://www.standupforscience.blogspot.org
Veering into the ridiculous
15.05.2006 10:14
Fortunately we now live in a country where experiments for cosmetic purposes are no longer, but we do continue for medical purposes..and I am glad that we do. As someone who has lost friends and relatives to diseases such as cancer, I could never want to outlaw these necessary tests. i believe I represent the sensible silent majority, who maybe had sympathy for an anti-cosmetic testing stance, but cannot understand the increasing militism with which protestors refute the necessity of testing to prevent human suffering. You are losing support and quite rightly. No-one respects bully boy tactics or violence...indeed you come across as quite pathetic and a little bit uneducated.
The creation of PRO-test is admirable and I have the following closing comments:
The continuing Marxist comments and insults are ridiculous and seem to be atactic to prevent meaningful and educated debate
To the poster of the comment about the injunction preventing them using KCs name - prehaps if you and your fellow anti-vivisectionists used mature and reasoned tactics, people wouldn't have to protect themselves and gag you.
I would love to know if all the 'militant' anti-vivisectionists refrained from using any medical services and medicine if they are that opposed - and would they withold treatment for their children if it was required?
I dont agree with animal cruelty and un-necessary suffering but i also dont agree with the human race being subjected to cruelty and un-necessary suffering in the name of non-advancement of medical treatment.
Natalie
your bravery is so touching (not)
02.09.2007 16:47
your parents must be so proud of you.
when you have become a bit more educated and lived in the real world a little longer,then perhaps you will be taken seriously.
how sad that the older generation in regards to the university cannot speak for themselves.
i speak in defence of all the animals that are tortured day in day out.
i do not have to rely on some silly little girl to make a stand for my opinions.
i would suggest that you go away and try and grow up a little more.
before opening your mouth and jumping on the bandwagon,call a huge demo.
let us see if you can get the response that we have.
one other thing little girl, it is people like myself and many others whose taxes contribute,to the torture that you see fit to defend.
let us see and hear you shout your opinions if you did not have the backing of the police or other areas.
you would then be like the rest of them walking around with a balaclava on your face to hide your identity.
just the same as the builders for the new lab.
in a word GUTLESS.
to all the contractors your wives, girlfriends and families must be so proud of you all.
how will you overcome a situation if one of your children turned to you and said that they did not agree with animal testing,and went to demos.
would you look them in the eye and tell them that you helped construct the new lab.
no you would not you can continue to deny, as your identity is hidden.
shame that rule does not apply to other causes that need the help more than yourselves.
call yourself men.
what man goes to work with his face hidden every day.
a benefit thief,a man trying to outwit the c.s.a./
no a small minded man (and i use the term man very loosely) waking along the roof making monkey noises.
you really need to grow up i haver never seen or heard such pathetic remarks of toddlers let alone so called grown up men.
so if you are so brave then go to work without your balaclavas.
to sum you up spineless,let us see and hear you when you have nobody backing you up.
h hart