OXFORD UNIVERSITY ANIMAL LABORATORY DEBATE

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr Wedderburn,

I know this is not an exclusively Asian issue

but I am keenly interested since some of the best moments of my life

have been spent in Oxford. I myself have been involved in one protest on the

university campus(incidentally my British colleague debated the issue with

me in situ while the protest was going on) but I really cannot condone the

vicious intolerance that is apparently being spread by extremists now. I am

in total agreement with what the Registrar, David Holmes has written in the

Independent. Any bigotry or violence can only end up discrediting the animal

rights movement as is evident in the reaction of the students in Oxford

University(Please keep in mind that Oxford provided the impetus to Peter

Singer for his work on animal rights culminating in the publication of the

'ANIMAL LIBERATION' book). Oxford has published a handbook on animal rights

and many students actually are sympathetic towards the animal welfare/rights

movement. By the same token many Oxford students are vegetarians by choice.

If animal rights activists are targetting all students in Oxford now, it is

a very unfortunate occurrence. The battle is taking place in Oxford but has

pointers for every country. I am keen to know what you and AAPN members

think of the issue.

Trust you are well. Best wishes and kind regards,

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4739376.stm

Last Updated: Wednesday, 22 February 2006, 12:23 GMT

E-mail this to a friend

<http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/email/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4\

739376.stm>

Printable

version

<http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4\

739376.stm>

The pro-test protesters

By Brendan O'Neill

 

 

 

*Until now, animal rights protesters have made all the noise in a dispute

over a new research lab in Oxford. But this weekend the city's famed

academics are planning to hit back just as loudly, as pro-testing

campaigners hit the streets.*

 

According to one Oxford academic, a war is looming over " scientific freedom "

and the " future of progress " , no less. And this Saturday the battle for and

against testing will shift from the city's dreaming spires to its historic

streets.

 

Over the past two years there have been regular protests by anti-vivisection

groups against Oxford University's plans to build an £18m biomedical

research laboratory, at which there will be testing on animals.

 

The university says the laboratory is essential for scientific inquiry and

for pushing forward medical research and methods.

 

Animal rights groups claim it is unnecessary, that it will be a " prison " for

animals which will be treated extremely cruelly by men in white coats.

 

ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTION

[image: Protest]

Moderate groups such as BUAV urge members to:

Avoid products tested on animals

Run street stalls or put up displays in libraries, schools etc

Door to door leafleting

Write letters to newspapers and to MPs demanding abolition

Gather signatures for petitions

Boycott charities which fund vivisection

Anti-vivisection protesters have continually marched on the half-built lab,

while at the more extreme end, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) has issued

threats and carried out acts of violence to put pressure on Oxford

University to stop building the lab.

 

ALF has declared all staff and students at Oxford to be " legitimate targets "

and admitted it was behind an arson attack on Hertford College boathouse in

2004.

 

Last year there were eight attacks involving incendiary devices, linked to

protests against the laboratory.

 

These sometimes violent interventions seem to have had an impact. In 2004, a

contractor hired to build the lab pulled out following threats from animal

rights activists.

 

Some of the builders currently working on the project wear balaclavas, lest

they be photographed by extremists and possibly targeted for harassment or

assault.

 

And it was recently reported that sections of the lab are being built at a

secret location, to be transported to the increasingly volatile construction

site only when it becomes safe to do so.

 

Now, however, some Oxford students and academics are launching a fight back

in defence of animal research.

 

*Student majority*

 

Angered by the constant disruptions caused by the weekly demos and the

threats of violence - and by having been labelled " legitimate targets " -

they are taking direct action of their own to defend the building of the

South Parks lab.

 

[image: Protest against Huntingdon] It's not just Oxford targeted, so have

Huntingdon and Cambridge

" Medical research involving animals is essential to medical progress " , says

Iain Simpson, spokesman for the new student group Pro-Test.

 

" And while diseases such as cancer and AIDS continue to kill millions, we

are not just justified in continuing with animal research, we have a moral

responsibility to do so. "

 

Pro-Test was set up by a 16-year-old school pupil at the start of this year,

and has since won the support of Oxford students tired of the constant

anti-animal testing demos. Its aim is to defend " science, reasoned debate

and, above all, the welfare of mankind " .

 

It already seems to be making inroads with the student body. A poll of

Oxford students found that 85% supported animal testing and 65% thought the

launch of Pro-Test a good idea.

 

Pro-Test's first big protest, its maiden demo, takes place on Saturday, and

will coincide with a rally organised by an animal rights group. Observers

are worried that sparks could fly.

 

Mr Simpson says animal research is too important to go undefended, and

argues that students should back it loudly and passionately.

 

*What's at stake here is not only medical research, but our belief in

scientific progress itself*

Lecturer James Panton

" The benefits to mankind from research on animals are vast " , he says,

pointing out that vaccines for chicken pox, cholera, influenza, measles,

mumps, polio, Whooping Cough and various other diseases that once stalked

mankind were developed through testing on animals.

 

Other medications, including insulin, penicillin, painkillers and

chemotherapy, as well as medical devices such as pacemakers, artificial

hearts and valves and artificial hips and knees, were also made possible by

medical research involving animals.

 

" Animal testing is absolutely necessary " , says Mr Simpson. " And yet there is

a popular misconception that these research facilities exist solely to put

shampoo in rabbits' eyes. "

 

Pro-Test is part of a wider effort to defend medical research involving

animals. The Research Defence Society, which has long defended animal

experimentation, is upping the ante, while a group previously known as

Seriously Ill for Medical Research has re-branded.

 

Made up of patients who support the use of animals in research, it has been

relaunched as Patients' Voice for Medical Advance.

 

*Establishment silence*

 

Various Oxford academics and political figures have come out in support of

Pro-Test. Its upcoming demo will be addressed by John Stein, Professor of

Physiology at Oxford, and by Evan Harris, MP for Oxford West and Abingdon.

 

[image: Well-dressed monkey protester] Animal rights protesters take their

case to Downing St

James Panton, a lecturer in politics at Lady Margaret Hall college, Oxford,

will also be taking part.

 

" Animal experimentation is not something we should be ashamed or embarrassed

about " , he argues. " The use of animals in research to develop medicines that

save human lives is a moral good. "

 

Mr Panton believes one reason why exasperated students have had to take

matters into their own hands is because figures of authority have been

unwilling publicly and robustly to defend animal research.

 

" The government has been far too half-hearted in its support for the

laboratory. So too have some at Oxford University.

 

" Rather than developing a positive public policy on why the lab is

important, members of the university have avoided speaking out. As a result,

a minority of animal rights activists have been able to dominate the debate.

Now we must turn the tide. "

 

Mr Panton thinks there is more at stake here than animal research itself.

 

" Some people's discomfort with supporting animal research signifies a

broader discomfort with the goal of pursuing human knowledge and

understanding " , he says.

 

" What's at stake here is not only medical research, but our belief in

scientific progress itself and our belief that we can - and should - improve

humanity's lot. "

 

------------------------------

*Add your comments on this story, using the form below. *

 

I think testing on animals for medical research is a necessity. I can't say

it's a good a thing, but if a dog dies so a member of my family can be cured

of a disease, then I think it's worth it. I'm a vegetarian and I hate the

fur trade, but I love my family.

*Emma, Lichfield*

 

The animal rights lobby's moral code is based on flawed philosophy which, in

my opinion, is a thin disguise for a rather nasty brand of misanthropy. As

is the case with any lunatic fringe, it is afforded disproportionate media

coverage because it is vocal and at times violent. Well done Pro-test for

standing up to it and presenting a much more moderate and defensible

position!

*Henry Lobb, London, UK*

 

Yet again, the BBC has ignored a key aspect to this debate: the question of

the scientific validity of animal research. Thousands of medical and

scientific professionals worldwide, such as those represented by Europeans

for Medical Progress, believe that animal experiments impede medical

advancement due to insurmountable differences between species, and that

research should concentrate on more reliable human-specific methods that

already exist.

*Dr Jarrod Bailey, Newcastle upon Tyne*

 

My daughter would not be alive today if it wasn't for animal testing. When

she was born she was diagnosed as having a very rare malformation of the

heart. The medication she was given had been developed by testing on animals

and the surgeons who treated and corrected her heart learnt their skills by

operating on animals.

*Charles Heal, Luxembourg*

 

Mr Simpson clearly does not know what he is talking about. To pick one

example, penicillin is a medical breakthrough that we nearly did not have

*because* of animal testing. Penicillin was initially tested on rabbits upon

which it has no effect and so was deemed to be ineffective for some time.

Penicillin kills other animals so if it had been tested on guinea pigs for

example, it would have been deemed to be highly toxic and probably would

never have been used on humans.

*Anon *

 

The opinions of the 'Pro Test' group are absolutely disgusting. The torture

and murder of innocent animals to save humans, is totally wrong. Who gave us

the right to live above animals??! If we want to develop human vaccines etc,

then they should be tested on humans. The prisons are full of evil people,

we should be testing on them.

*Anne Clark, London*

 

Regardless of the arguments about the ethics of animal testing, the purpose

of this kind of research facility is not to save the human race, it is to

make profits for drug companies. If the tests on animals give the required

result, they are evidence that the drug is worth spending millions of pounds

of tax payers' money on. If the wrong result is obtained, this is explained

by the fact that animals are different to human beings so the result can be

ignored.

*R Taylor, Bristol, England*

 

I'm a doctorate student at Oxford and support the pro-testing protest but

being shouted at twice a week when I cycle past the protestors (I work in

the building directly behind the building site) has made me too fearful of

being targeted to show my face at a protest. It is really sad that such a

tiny minority of extremists have allowed only one side of the argument to be

put forward. I've always thought that I was in support of freedom of speech

and the right to peaceful protest but after being shouted at through

loudspeakers for several hours a day twice a week by a handful of people

(unless the cameras are there of course) I wonder where the line of

reasonable protest versus freedom from harassment should lie.

*A Student, Oxford*

 

Mr Panton's comments about discomfort with the goal of pursuing human

knowledge and understanding is ludicrous. The debate isn't about learning;

most activists would not condemn research that does not involve animals,

indeed they would probably approve of it. The debate involves respect for

life. Many animals will die in discomfort and pain in experiments that have

been conducted before and elsewhere. How many mice equal a human life? How

many monkeys? We need a clear and open public debate about the extent and

usage of animal testing in the UK and by UK companies.

*E Korper, London*

 

About time too. We live in a country where the minority always have their

say. Where groups can use fear tactics to bully law abiding citizens into

not carrying out their lives as they wish. How dare animal rights activists

use terrorist tactics to enforce their views on others. They are no better

than Al Quaeda or any other terrorist organisations. I wish Pro Test all the

best with their March, it is a very brave but long awaited fight back by the

law abiding majority.

*Andrew, Tonbridge, Kent*

 

Issues which affect the well being of humans or animals need to be

considered with care. However many of the animal rights protesters who

threaten violence and are infact threatening murder are obviously misguided,

un-educated and narrow minded imbeciles and thugs. Violence towards 'the men

in white coats' is tantamount to the kind of un-thinking violence we see in

the Middle East, where a lack of understanding and the ability to discuss

complex ideas (a skill which most humans possess) seems absent.

*Chris, leeds*

 

Reading this I really want to go and show my support too. It's not that I'm

especially in fvour of animal testing, simply that I detest the threats of

violence and other extremist measures used by the ALF, 'Speak', and the rest

of these nutbags that have no place in a civilised society.

*Carino Risagallo, Uxbridge UK*