Guest guest Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 On 28 Nov 2006, at 15:35, Lesley Dove wrote: > > You are probably not getting many answers because it's a silly > hypothetical > cliché that we are all a bit sick of hearing from the anti-animal > rights > people! > Unfortunately it's not hypothetical. One example is transgenic organs, e.g. pig hearts. If you or one of your children, say, had the choice between dying and receiving a transplanted heart from a pig, which would you choose ? There are very few AR people who would refuse the pig heart, I'm sure. This rather makes a mockery of the whole " speciesist " argument. The AR movement needs to be honest enough to admit that we're all speciesist to varying degrees. Paul P.S. Please snip your posts when replying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 On 28 Nov 2006, at 20:44, peter VV wrote: > I have been biting my tongue and trying to avoid this one, so I > will just ask everyone if they are aware of the Dr Hadwen Trust? > As well as the Dr Hadwen Trust, which most people seem to have heard of, I'd also like to mention the Humane Research Trust, which finances non-animal-based medical research, but who are not so well known: <http://www.humaneresearch.org.uk/>. Paul P.S. People - let's all try to snip our replies please - it makes life difficult for people who read the group in digest mode if every message comes with hundreds of lines of irrelevant quoted text and footers etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 Hi, Yep. It must be the shock of the list server having to deal with more than one or two emails from us a week! John - " Lesley Dove " <Lesley Tuesday, November 28, 2006 6:18 PM RE: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing > Is anyone else having the problem that their messages are not arriving on > this list in the right order? Some of mine have not shown up, while other > later ones have! > > > > Lesley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 I bug bust the kids, and kill headlice, usually just comb them out and flush them down the loo, but can't think of anything else I deliberately kill. They seem to love my kids' heads (and mine), and it's a problem we have been battling with on and off for years. They are endemic in the schools and we never seem to be able to get rid of them totally, I nearly always find just one or two of them. Hubby has not got enough hair to suffer with this. What little bit he has he keeps short so does not attract them. I'm pretty strict as a vegan otherwise. I feel terrible if I accidentally step on a snail but do not allow myself to feel any guilt over headlice because they are parasites that can only live on humans. So yes I am a speciesist too. I don't think anyone would appreciate it if I decided we could peacefully co-exist with the headlice! Lesley _____ On Behalf Of James H 28 November 2006 23:40 Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing One will have dairy only when she's abroad. Another one thinks it's ok to kill slugs (albeit by introducing frogs to the environment). Another drinks Guinness saying alcohol drinks don't count, etc. Others drink non-vegan beers out of ignorance (my guess is because they'd rather hope it's vegan than find out it isn't). All odd behaviour I know, but I suppose there's no such thing as a perfect vegan... peter VV wrote: > > How can these people you know do dairy and claim to be vegan? surely > they are vegetarian/lacto vegetarians? > > The Valley Vegan............. > > James H <james (AT) telestial (DOT) <james%40telestial.org> org <james%40telestial.org>> wrote: > Lesley, I am a vegan primarily because I don't believe in unecessary > suffering to animals. > > I'm not a wishy washy vegan either. I *never* consumer dairy (contrary > to a lot of other vegans I know) or drink beers or whatever else that > I'm not sure about. So don't worry about my reasons for being vegan. > > I've been vegan for 10 years, and I was always against animal research > because I thought it was cruel and was led to believe it didn't yield > worthwhile results. But having listened to the pro-vivisection > arguments, I find them hard to disagree with. > > 5 years ago, I would have been amazed that I now have these views, but > they're not due to a shortcoming on my part. It isn't a bad thing and > it's not easy to take a step back and challenge your beliefs. > > Lesley Dove wrote: > > > > > > I am very much in agreement with you, I also went vegan for animal > rights > > reasons, and I am absolutely for the abolition of animal slavery and > > exploitation. I was also proud and positive to tell some animal eaters > > this > > the other day, I did not meander on about factory farming or the > worst of > > cruelties as I have done in the past, that is reformist talk! I just > > pointed > > out I was an abolitionist, against the use of animals for food and other > > human uses. I'm sure the anti-slavery ppl like Abraham Lincoln were > > not coy > > about saying they were abolitionists, so nor am I in relation to > animals. > > They are not ours to eat wear or experiment on. > > > > However unlike you, I am no longer shocked to hear views like James' > on a > > vegan list, since some vegans are vegans for reasons other than animal > > rights reasons, personal health or the environment, for instance. > Not all > > vegans are anti-speciesist, and some are more or less speciesist than > > others, even some who are vegan to reduce animal suffering. I know I > > need to > > read Joan Dunayer, have you read any of her books? I believe she > > provides an > > analysis of the different ways of thinking and explains about what she > > terms > > new-speciesists and old-speciesists. > > > > I know what is on my list for buying at the Xmas Without Cruelty now, > > one of > > her books. > > > > Also completely agree with you about death row prisoners. > > > > Lesley > > > > > > @ <%40> .com <%40> > <%40> > > [@ <%40> .com <%40> > <%40>] On > > Behalf Of > > Hrvoje Nezic > > 28 November 2006 13:37 > > @ <%40> .com <%40> > <%40> > > Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing > > > > - > > " James H " <james (AT) telestial (DOT) <james%40telestial.org> org <james%40telestial.org> > <james%40telestial.org>> > > <@ <%40> .com <%40> > <%40>> > > Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:48 PM > > Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing > > > > >I agree with you that testing on unwilling humans is not correct. That > > > is, unless they are on death row (but that's another matter!...). > > > > Death row is not another matter. To torture sentient beings is wrong, > > quite > > regardless if they are on death row or not. > > > > > > > > But when it comes to animals if, say, the only way to save my > son's life > > > was to perform vivisection on an animal then of course I'd agree > to it. > > > > If my son's life would be saved by torturing your son, why I wouldn't > > agree to it, according to your logic? > > > > > So, for me, the same applies to any person and any animal. > > > > > > The change in consistency is because I believe humans are worth more > > > than animals. I would rather an animal suffer or die than a human > suffer > > > or die. > > > > You are obviously a speciesist (chauvenist at species level). I cannot > > believe that I read such statements on a vegan list. I thought that this > > list > > was for people who don't support abuse and torturing of non-human > > animals, but sadly this is not the case. > > > > I have a question for you: are humans animals? Are humans primates? > > Are humans mammals? And if humans are animals, how can we speak > > about humans *and* animals? Complete nonsense. > > > > Regarding the question: " Are humans animals? " , of course this is true. > > Everyone who attended elementary course in biology should know this. > > > > ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, > > there may be another side to the story you have not heard. > > ------------------------- > > Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline> > > Un: send a blank message to > > - <-%40> @ > <-%40> > > <-%40> > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 Lesley, In that link, I don't think BUAV answer the question satisfactorily because they try to take the argument back to 'vivisection doesn't work' - which is just evading the question. In the second part, they still don't address the question directly, saying just because we love people more than animals, it doesn't mean we should conduct research on animals. But if they were to concede that some animal research can yield results, then their statement becomes far less valid as BUAV themselves seem to say (or don't dispute) that " people are more important than animals " . The question BUAV is answering is: " If you had to choose between saving the life of your child or saving a rat, which one would you choose? " And that's the same as asking, " If animals had to die in experiments to save children lives, would you agree to it? " And the way BUAV response does nothing to make me want to go back to being anti-vivisectionist. Lesley Dove wrote: > > > You are probably not getting many answers because it's a silly > hypothetical > cliché that we are all a bit sick of hearing from the anti-animal rights > people! > > Yes, I'm sure I would choose my child over an animal if I had to save > one or > the other but this does not equate to the reality of vivisection, > > http://www.buav.org/faqs.html#faq11 <http://www.buav.org/faqs.html#faq11> > > Lesley > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 Yes, and there are many more medical research groups not using animals, eg, Quest (cancer research), Humane Research Trust, Lord Dowding Trust. You can get a list from BUAV, and many of the other anti-vivisection organisations, listing the medical charities that do not fund vivisection. Lesley _____ On Behalf Of peter VV 28 November 2006 20:45 RE: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing I have been biting my tongue and trying to avoid this one, so I will just ask everyone if they are aware of the Dr Hadwen Trust? The Valley Vegan............. Lesley Dove <Lesley (AT) vegan4life (DOT) <Lesley%40vegan4life.org.uk> org.uk> wrote: I am very much in agreement with you, I also went vegan for animal rights reasons, and I am absolutely for the abolition of animal slavery and exploitation. I was also proud and positive to tell some animal eaters this the other day, I did not meander on about factory farming or the worst of cruelties as I have done in the past, that is reformist talk! I just pointed out I was an abolitionist, against the use of animals for food and other human uses. I'm sure the anti-slavery ppl like Abraham Lincoln were not coy about saying they were abolitionists, so nor am I in relation to animals. They are not ours to eat wear or experiment on. However unlike you, I am no longer shocked to hear views like James' on a vegan list, since some vegans are vegans for reasons other than animal rights reasons, personal health or the environment, for instance. Not all vegans are anti-speciesist, and some are more or less speciesist than others, even some who are vegan to reduce animal suffering. I know I need to read Joan Dunayer, have you read any of her books? I believe she provides an analysis of the different ways of thinking and explains about what she terms new-speciesists and old-speciesists. I know what is on my list for buying at the Xmas Without Cruelty now, one of her books. Also completely agree with you about death row prisoners. Lesley @ <%40> .com [@ <%40> .com] On Behalf Of Hrvoje Nezic 28 November 2006 13:37 @ <%40> .com Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing - " James H " <james (AT) telestial (DOT) <james%40telestial.org> org> <@ <%40> .com> Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:48 PM Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing >I agree with you that testing on unwilling humans is not correct. That > is, unless they are on death row (but that's another matter!...). Death row is not another matter. To torture sentient beings is wrong, quite regardless if they are on death row or not. > > But when it comes to animals if, say, the only way to save my son's life > was to perform vivisection on an animal then of course I'd agree to it. If my son's life would be saved by torturing your son, why I wouldn't agree to it, according to your logic? > So, for me, the same applies to any person and any animal. > > The change in consistency is because I believe humans are worth more > than animals. I would rather an animal suffer or die than a human suffer > or die. You are obviously a speciesist (chauvenist at species level). I cannot believe that I read such statements on a vegan list. I thought that this list was for people who don't support abuse and torturing of non-human animals, but sadly this is not the case. I have a question for you: are humans animals? Are humans primates? Are humans mammals? And if humans are animals, how can we speak about humans *and* animals? Complete nonsense. Regarding the question: " Are humans animals? " , of course this is true. Everyone who attended elementary course in biology should know this. ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, there may be another side to the story you have not heard. ------------------------- Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline> Un: send a blank message to - <-%40> @ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 But equally, if someone who was dying was offered the chance to live by being given a heart transplant from another human who was killed just to provide organs, it's quite likely they would accept. When it comes to our own life, survival instinct kicks in and people tend to do pretty much anything to stay alive - that's not speciesist, that's selfish (as in, thinking of yourself). After all, in such a circumstance the responsibility of the murder of the organ donor has been taken on by the scientists/doctors, and thus the patient wouldn't feel directly responsible for the death. Just like patients taking animal-tested drugs don't feel responsible because they personally didn't test on the animal (and meat eaters don't feel responsible etc). So if hospitals started offering organ transplants from humans who had been murdered for them (say, from babies cloned or genetically engineered, or even orphans who had been adopted by the hospital), it's likely the majority of people would accept these organs to save their own lives. This has nothing to do with speciesism, it's just people's desire to stay alive. Healthy people would have the luxury of debating the ethics of 'breeding' humans purely for their organs, but then the same rules could apply: if you killed one human and got a healthy heart, set of lungs, kidneys etc then that one life has the potential to save several lives, in which case it would be justified. And yet, I very much doubt that many pro-vivisectionists would support killing one unwilling human to save many others. Sometimes ethics are more important than numbers. And sometimes the choice between " your child or a rat " is more to do with what *you* selfishly want, not what's ethically justifiable. (I apologise if I wasn't very eloquent and rambled on - I just got back from work so my brain's pretty tired!) , Paul Russell <prussell wrote: > > On 28 Nov 2006, at 15:35, Lesley Dove wrote: > > Unfortunately it's not hypothetical. One example is transgenic > organs, e.g. pig hearts. If you or one of your children, say, had the > choice between dying and receiving a transplanted heart from a pig, > which would you choose ? There are very few AR people who would > refuse the pig heart, I'm sure. This rather makes a mockery of the > whole " speciesist " argument. The AR movement needs to be honest > enough to admit that we're all speciesist to varying degrees. > > Paul > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 That's a fair point, but one important difference is that transgenic organs from pigs are a reality, whereas the human option is (hopefully) just hypothetical. Here's a better hypothetical example though: suppose you need a new heart or you will die. You're given the choice of a human heart from, say, a Chinese prisoner who can be executed to provide it, or the heart of a pig which can be slaughtered to provide a transgenic heart. My guess is that most people, even AR people, would go for the pig's heart rather than the human heart (apart from maybe a few people on the most misanthropic fringe of the AR movement) ? Paul On 29 Nov 2006, at 19:44, gothcatz wrote: > But equally, if someone who was dying was offered the chance to live > by being given a heart transplant from another human who was killed > just to provide organs, it's quite likely they would accept. When it > comes to our own life, survival instinct kicks in and people tend to > do pretty much anything to stay alive - that's not speciesist, that's > selfish (as in, thinking of yourself). After all, in such a > circumstance the responsibility of the murder of the organ donor has > been taken on by the scientists/doctors, and thus the patient wouldn't > feel directly responsible for the death. Just like patients taking > animal-tested drugs don't feel responsible because they personally > didn't test on the animal (and meat eaters don't feel responsible > etc). > > So if hospitals started offering organ transplants from humans who had > been murdered for them (say, from babies cloned or genetically > engineered, or even orphans who had been adopted by the hospital), > it's likely the majority of people would accept these organs to save > their own lives. This has nothing to do with speciesism, it's just > people's desire to stay alive. Healthy people would have the luxury of > debating the ethics of 'breeding' humans purely for their organs, but > then the same rules could apply: if you killed one human and got a > healthy heart, set of lungs, kidneys etc then that one life has the > potential to save several lives, in which case it would be justified. > And yet, I very much doubt that many pro-vivisectionists would support > killing one unwilling human to save many others. > > Sometimes ethics are more important than numbers. And sometimes the > choice between " your child or a rat " is more to do with what *you* > selfishly want, not what's ethically justifiable. > > (I apologise if I wasn't very eloquent and rambled on - I just got > back from work so my brain's pretty tired!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2006 Report Share Posted November 30, 2006 Hi, I think for me, the answer would depend on what crime the prisoner had commited. Granted, the crime may not, in itself, be deserving of the death penalty, but it would certainly weigh in the balancing of his life's worth compared to the pig, who is (presumably?!) entirely innocent. And, of course, I should also have to weigh up their lives against mine - would I have any kind of right to exchange their life for mine, even if I felt mine was a more worthy life than, say, that of a criminal? Chances are no, I think. John - " Paul Russell " <prussell Wednesday, November 29, 2006 9:04 PM Re: Re: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing > That's a fair point, but one important difference is that transgenic > organs from pigs are a reality, whereas the human option is > (hopefully) just hypothetical. > > Here's a better hypothetical example though: suppose you need a new > heart or you will die. You're given the choice of a human heart from, > say, a Chinese prisoner who can be executed to provide it, or the > heart of a pig which can be slaughtered to provide a transgenic > heart. My guess is that most people, even AR people, would go for the > pig's heart rather than the human heart (apart from maybe a few > people on the most misanthropic fringe of the AR movement) ? > > Paul > > On 29 Nov 2006, at 19:44, gothcatz wrote: > >> But equally, if someone who was dying was offered the chance to live >> by being given a heart transplant from another human who was killed >> just to provide organs, it's quite likely they would accept. When it >> comes to our own life, survival instinct kicks in and people tend to >> do pretty much anything to stay alive - that's not speciesist, that's >> selfish (as in, thinking of yourself). After all, in such a >> circumstance the responsibility of the murder of the organ donor has >> been taken on by the scientists/doctors, and thus the patient wouldn't >> feel directly responsible for the death. Just like patients taking >> animal-tested drugs don't feel responsible because they personally >> didn't test on the animal (and meat eaters don't feel responsible >> etc). >> >> So if hospitals started offering organ transplants from humans who had >> been murdered for them (say, from babies cloned or genetically >> engineered, or even orphans who had been adopted by the hospital), >> it's likely the majority of people would accept these organs to save >> their own lives. This has nothing to do with speciesism, it's just >> people's desire to stay alive. Healthy people would have the luxury of >> debating the ethics of 'breeding' humans purely for their organs, but >> then the same rules could apply: if you killed one human and got a >> healthy heart, set of lungs, kidneys etc then that one life has the >> potential to save several lives, in which case it would be justified. >> And yet, I very much doubt that many pro-vivisectionists would support >> killing one unwilling human to save many others. >> >> Sometimes ethics are more important than numbers. And sometimes the >> choice between " your child or a rat " is more to do with what *you* >> selfishly want, not what's ethically justifiable. >> >> (I apologise if I wasn't very eloquent and rambled on - I just got >> back from work so my brain's pretty tired!) > > > > ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, > there may be another side to the story you have not heard. > --------------------------- > Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline> > Un: send a blank message to - > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2006 Report Share Posted December 1, 2006 Hi, > Arkangel have it spot on about Singer, I'm not sure they do. Singer didn't say that he would support vivisection in the case discussed, he said 'if what Aziz said was true' he would in that case support vivisection. The two are entirely different. Also, whilst I do not always agree with Singer's ethics, they have not substantially altered over the years. They are utilitarian, pure and (not so) simple. So it seems hugely unfair to first hold him up as father of the AR movement, then criticise him when later he no longer reflects its views. He has remained consistent, and if AR philosophy has altered, or is now developed suficiently to understand where it diverges from his own, that is not his fault. So disagree with him (I do), but don't, as Arkangel seem to have done, first not listen carefully enough to what he says, then insult him because you disagree. If nothing else, his is an entirely consistent and rational philosophy. And, of course, certainly don't forget the incalculable effect for the better his books have had. There is a reason Animal Rights is considered a seminal book! John - " Lesley Dove " <Lesley Tuesday, November 28, 2006 11:05 AM RE: Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing Arkangel have it spot on about Singer, http://www.arkangelweb.org/international/uk/20061127singer.php This article is good because it tells you who really did the pioneering research, not using animals. Aziz is a liar and a fraud. Lesley On Behalf Of James H 28 November 2006 10:08 Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing But surely some animal experiments do yield valid results. Isn't it just wishful thinking to try and believe otherwise? Towards the end of the programme they questioned a guy - I think he was the author of the 'Animal Liberation' book - who (to everyone's surprise) agreed that some particular research on animals was worthwhile. Unless I got that wrong, surely that counts for a lot. Cheers, James nejmai wrote: > > Did anyone see this? My partner and I were quite disappointed. Not > once, but twice did the scientists make the statement that " all > medical advances " (or all " significant " advances, said one) were the > results of animal experiments. What crap. They also said that testing > of animals on cosmetics is no longer done..patently not true. Despite > his testament otherwise, the filmmaker seemed to have his mind made up > from the get-go. > > <%40>, > peter VV <swpgh01 wrote: > > > > > > Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing Mon 27 Nov, 9:00 pm - 10:20 > pm 80mins > > Can killing animals to save humans ever be justified? That's the > question at the heart of the biggest battle in the history of animal > rights - the campaign to stop Oxford University building an £18m new > animal lab. > > > > As the demonstrations turn violent, film maker Adam Wishart has a > ringside seat at the conflict. Out on the marches and talking to the > scientists, Adam asks if vivisection actually works, and, if it does, > can it be justified? > > > > Given unique access to the animal labs, this film shows you what > actually happens to the rats and monkeys as researchers explore the > workings of their brains. And we follow the story of Sean Gardiner, > one young boy whose life could be transformed by animal research. > Strong language and upsetting scenes. > > > > > > > > > > Peter H > > > > > > > > > > Try the all-new Mail . " The New Version is radically easier > to use " - The Wall Street Journal > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2006 Report Share Posted December 1, 2006 Hm. I think the film (and more likely the marketing folks at BBC) made it out to be that Singer had undergone this radical 180 degree turn, which is simply not the case. He's never said that animal testing is compeletely wrong. , " Lesley Dove " <Lesley wrote: > > > Arkangel have it spot on about Singer, > > http://www.arkangelweb.org/international/uk/20061127singer.php > > This article is good because it tells you who really did the pioneering > research, not using animals. Aziz is a liar and a fraud. > > Lesley > > > > On Behalf Of > James H > 28 November 2006 10:08 > > Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing > > But surely some animal experiments do yield valid results. Isn't it just > wishful thinking to try and believe otherwise? > > Towards the end of the programme they questioned a guy - I think he was > the author of the 'Animal Liberation' book - who (to everyone's > surprise) agreed that some particular research on animals was > worthwhile. Unless I got that wrong, surely that counts for a lot. > > Cheers, > James > > nejmai wrote: > > > > Did anyone see this? My partner and I were quite disappointed. Not > > once, but twice did the scientists make the statement that " all > > medical advances " (or all " significant " advances, said one) were the > > results of animal experiments. What crap. They also said that testing > > of animals on cosmetics is no longer done..patently not true. Despite > > his testament otherwise, the filmmaker seemed to have his mind made up > > from the get-go. > > > > <%40>, > > peter VV <swpgh01@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing Mon 27 Nov, 9:00 pm - 10:20 > > pm 80mins > > > Can killing animals to save humans ever be justified? That's the > > question at the heart of the biggest battle in the history of animal > > rights - the campaign to stop Oxford University building an £18m new > > animal lab. > > > > > > As the demonstrations turn violent, film maker Adam Wishart has a > > ringside seat at the conflict. Out on the marches and talking to the > > scientists, Adam asks if vivisection actually works, and, if it does, > > can it be justified? > > > > > > Given unique access to the animal labs, this film shows you what > > actually happens to the rats and monkeys as researchers explore the > > workings of their brains. And we follow the story of Sean Gardiner, > > one young boy whose life could be transformed by animal research. > > Strong language and upsetting scenes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Peter H > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Try the all-new Mail . " The New Version is radically easier > > to use " – The Wall Street Journal > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.