Guest guest Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 The following is the transcript of a debate organised by the Telegraph newspaper of Kolkata on animal experimentation a few months ago: http://www.telegraphindia.com/archives/archive.html Monday, March 20, 2006, THE TELEGRAPH KNOWHOW New-age terrorism SHIBANI CHATTOPADHYAY CONDEMNS ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS Animal rights activists have spelt doom for medical research Chris Patten , Oxford University's chancellor, stealthily tiptoed his way past a recent march in support of animal research. He refused to take to the podium and stay long. Why all this caution? The university's press office says, " There is no mechanism for deciding whether the university should do so (support animal research) " . Unofficially, however, university officials admit that keeping a low profile is the best option to beat fanatical animal rights activists. This behaviour is predictable after what befell Prof. Colin Blakemore, a neurobiologist at Oxford. Animal rights activists sent him letter bombs packed with tiny HIV-infected needles because he chose to debunk many of their claims. This is plain terrorism. Animal rights activists, however, demur. True, the two aren't comparable in terms of the scale of destruction and loss of life, but both are united by a common purpose: to terrorise people into changing their viewpoints. Animal rights activists have spelt doom for biological research from ancient times. The most blatant example of this is Susruta, who introduced the concept of surgery in India. His followers, however, couldn't contend with Buddhism, which as the historical avatar of modern day animal rights activism made sure that further advancements in this field were discouraged. And the result was that knowledge advancement made no progress in India. Animal research has played a vital role in most of the medical achievements of the last century. From dialysis to organ transplantation, from the development of protease inhibitors to dopamine replacement — everything is based on knowledge attained through animal research. Therefore, we will be grossly wrong if we think that the mutually exclusive goals of animal rights and medical research can be attained simultaneously. The fear of animal activists about too many animals being killed remains unfounded. There are laws in place to check the gross abuse of animals and the laws are getting stricter. In her article supporting a moratorium on animal research in the British Medical Journal, Pandora Pound identified 277 systematic reviews (review of all published papers to reach a balanced judgement) of animal research. Out of this, they offered six reviews to criticise animal research. However, Blakemore and Prof. Tony Peatfield, another supporter of animal research, debunked most of these arguments as misinterpretations. In a letter to the journal, they argued that five of the reviews showed that full analysis of the animal results predicted the ineffectiveness of the treatment being tested. Seeing the bigotry and fanaticism of animal rights activists, how can they profess love for animals and at the same time harbour ire for their fellow humans? SHIBANI CHATTOPADHYAY 27 March, 2006, THE TELEGRAPH KNOWHOW Medically futile SHUBHOBROTO GHOSH QUESTIONS SPECIOUS SCIENCE Some of the experiments on animals are specious Pro-animal-research activists may say what they wish to (New-age Terrorism, March 20) but there is little to substantiate their claim that research on animals helps human beings. The argument that we owe most or all of our advances in medicine to animal research misses out on a basic point — animal models and humans have different physiologies. Therefore, the conclusions drawn from animal research " when applied to human diseases are likely to harm a patient, " Moneim Fadali, a fellow of the American College of Surgeons, asserts in his book Animal Experimentation: A Harvest Of Shame. The fallacy of using animals for medical research is illustrated by the fact that hundreds of drugs that would have been safe in humans are deemed hazardous since they fail animal tests. For example, aspirin and penicillin have all caused illness in animal models, but have been highly effective when used on humans. On the other hand, almost 70 per cent of drugs known to cause birth defects in humans have no effect on pregnant monkeys. Such discrepancies impede medical research since retrials are costly and time consuming. Can animal experiments be replaced? Jane Goodall, a leading primatologist, says that it's inconceivable that the human race, which has developed technology to go to the moon, cannot develop something to replace animal research with more humane alternatives. And we certainly have such alternatives in the form of advancement in medical technology. These technologies include silicon chips containing thousands of liver cells meant to mimic animal metabolism. There is also vision research with scanners, which can replace brain experiments on animals. Moreover, computer programmes, molecular research, demographic analyses and test-tube culture are slowly but surely making animal research less important. In his book, Vivisection or Science, Dr Pietro Croce, a spokesperson for the group, Doctors and Lawyers for Responsible Medicine, says that he had conducted experiments on animals for years. Croce, however, now feels that " traditional reliance on animal experiments is scientifically misplaced " . While it cannot be said that no good has ever come from animal research, what can be said with certainty is that if the same amount of money and brainpower had been used in other ways, much more benefit would have accrued. Moreover, some of these experiments on helpless animals, which wear the garb of medical research, are misleadingly attractive. Last month, 300 neurologists and neurosurgeons signed a petition for a moratorium on a cruel Ohio State University research. It asked students to paralyse mice by dropping heavy weights on their spinal cords. Aysha Akhtar, a member of Physicians Committed for Responsible Medicine, rightfully says that the experiment is not only cruel, but also " medically futile " . SHUBHOBROTO GHOSH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2006 Report Share Posted November 30, 2006 > Animal rights activists have spelt doom for medical research Serves them right. This is exactly what the profile of an animal rights activist are should be: To spell DOOM for anything that terrorises the animal kingdom. " TERRORISM " : The use of this smart word is a passion for HUMAN beings these days. It is perhaps the most widely used word in today`s date. Let me also throw some light on it, since I am also a HUMAN. I wish someday soon Science and Technology develops itself to such an extent that these human reporters can get to exclusively interview the primates and asks these questions: WHO DO YOU THINK IS THE REAL TERRORIST ? THE MAN WHO OPPOSES YOUR TESTING FOR MEDICINES AND RESEARCH, OR THE MAN WHO REPETEDLY CARRIES OUT TESTS ON EVERY NERVE, EVERY ORGAN, EVERY LIMB OF YOUR BODY, AND THEN LEAVES YOU TO DIE MANY DEATHS TILL FINALLY YOU SUCCUMB TO THE INJURIES ? ? I would love to live till the day, Science and the reporters of Science could get me the above answers ( as they say from the horse`s mouth) !! Azam Siddiqui aapn , " " wrote: > > The following is the transcript of a debate organised by the Telegraph > newspaper of Kolkata on animal experimentation a few months ago: > > > http://www.telegraphindia.com/archives/archive.html > > Monday, March 20, 2006, THE TELEGRAPH KNOWHOW > New-age terrorism > > SHIBANI CHATTOPADHYAY CONDEMNS ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS > > Animal rights activists have spelt doom for medical research > Chris Patten , Oxford University's chancellor, stealthily tiptoed his > way past a recent march in support of animal research. He refused to > take to the podium and stay long. Why all this caution? The > university's press office says, " There is no mechanism for deciding > whether the university should do so (support animal research) " . > Unofficially, however, university officials admit that keeping a low > profile is the best option to beat fanatical animal rights activists. > > This behaviour is predictable after what befell Prof. Colin Blakemore, > a neurobiologist at Oxford. Animal rights activists sent him letter > bombs packed with tiny HIV-infected needles because he chose to debunk > many of their claims. > > This is plain terrorism. Animal rights activists, however, demur. > True, the two aren't comparable in terms of the scale of destruction > and loss of life, but both are united by a common purpose: to > terrorise people into changing their viewpoints. Animal rights > activists have spelt doom for biological research from ancient times. > The most blatant example of this is Susruta, who introduced the > concept of surgery in India. His followers, however, couldn't contend > with Buddhism, which as the historical avatar of modern day animal > rights activism made sure that further advancements in this field were > discouraged. And the result was that knowledge advancement made no > progress in India. > > Animal research has played a vital role in most of the medical > achievements of the last century. From dialysis to organ > transplantation, from the development of protease inhibitors to > dopamine replacement — everything is based on knowledge attained > through animal research. Therefore, we will be grossly wrong if we > think that the mutually exclusive goals of animal rights and medical > research can be attained simultaneously. > > The fear of animal activists about too many animals being killed > remains unfounded. There are laws in place to check the gross abuse of > animals and the laws are getting stricter. > > In her article supporting a moratorium on animal research in the > British Medical Journal, Pandora Pound identified 277 systematic > reviews (review of all published papers to reach a balanced judgement) > of animal research. Out of this, they offered six reviews to criticise > animal research. However, Blakemore and Prof. Tony Peatfield, another > supporter of animal research, debunked most of these arguments as > misinterpretations. In a letter to the journal, they argued that five > of the reviews showed that full analysis of the animal results > predicted the ineffectiveness of the treatment being tested. > > Seeing the bigotry and fanaticism of animal rights activists, how can > they profess love for animals and at the same time harbour ire for > their fellow humans? > > SHIBANI CHATTOPADHYAY > > > > 27 March, 2006, THE TELEGRAPH KNOWHOW > > Medically futile > > SHUBHOBROTO GHOSH QUESTIONS SPECIOUS SCIENCE > > Some of the experiments on animals are specious > > Pro-animal-research activists may say what they wish to (New-age > Terrorism, March 20) but there is little to substantiate their claim > that research on animals helps human beings. The argument that we owe > most or all of our advances in medicine to animal research misses out > on a basic point — animal models and humans have different > physiologies. Therefore, the conclusions drawn from animal research > " when applied to human diseases are likely to harm a patient, " Moneim > Fadali, a fellow of the American College of Surgeons, asserts in his > book Animal Experimentation: A Harvest Of Shame. > > The fallacy of using animals for medical research is illustrated by > the fact that hundreds of drugs that would have been safe in humans > are deemed hazardous since they fail animal tests. For example, > aspirin and penicillin have all caused illness in animal models, but > have been highly effective when used on humans. On the other hand, > almost 70 per cent of drugs known to cause birth defects in humans > have no effect on pregnant monkeys. Such discrepancies impede medical > research since retrials are costly and time consuming. > > Can animal experiments be replaced? Jane Goodall, a leading > primatologist, says that it's inconceivable that the human race, which > has developed technology to go to the moon, cannot develop something > to replace animal research with more humane alternatives. > > And we certainly have such alternatives in the form of advancement in > medical technology. These technologies include silicon chips > containing thousands of liver cells meant to mimic animal metabolism. > There is also vision research with scanners, which can replace brain > experiments on animals. Moreover, computer programmes, molecular > research, demographic analyses and test-tube culture are slowly but > surely making animal research less important. In his book, Vivisection > or Science, Dr Pietro Croce, a spokesperson for the group, Doctors and > Lawyers for Responsible Medicine, says that he had conducted > experiments on animals for years. Croce, however, now feels that > " traditional reliance on animal experiments is scientifically > misplaced " . > > While it cannot be said that no good has ever come from animal > research, what can be said with certainty is that if the same amount > of money and brainpower had been used in other ways, much more benefit > would have accrued. > > Moreover, some of these experiments on helpless animals, which wear > the garb of medical research, are misleadingly attractive. Last month, > 300 neurologists and neurosurgeons signed a petition for a moratorium > on a cruel Ohio State University research. It asked students to > paralyse mice by dropping heavy weights on their spinal cords. Aysha > Akhtar, a member of Physicians Committed for Responsible Medicine, > rightfully says that the experiment is not only cruel, but also > " medically futile " . > > > SHUBHOBROTO GHOSH > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2006 Report Share Posted November 30, 2006 Dear Azam, I think you have raised an important issue. Please check the following link for some more information: http://www.buav.org/resources/political/tackling_extremism_together_transcript.p\ df It is a transcript of a discussion entitled 'Tackling Extremism Together', Fringe event at Labour Party conference, held on 26th September, 2006, and features Alistair Currie, Campaigns Director, British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, Dr Dilder Choudhury, Muslim Council of Britain, and David Modell, documentary film maker. The meeting was chaired by Shahid Malik, MP. I am sorry that not all the speakers are animal related people but I got it from the BUAV website so I think it should be OK! Please also check out another link: http://iacmusic.com/station.aspx?StationID=2883 PRESS RELEASE You think you know the truth and then something dramatic changes your view in a moment. In this case it'll take around an hour! You think you have heard the questions and know all the answers but you are about to be challenged to do some serious thinking. Your instinct is that the truth is better left unsaid because it's always been that way but you suddenly find yourself keen to know more. Far from being a rude awakening this will be enlightening. These are some of the reactions from people who have seen the new film Behind The Mask which is due to be screened publicly in London for the first time on September 18. The heart thumping 72-minute documentary mixes unseen footage and music with interviews with the men and women who risk everything to save animals. It is a fascinating story that challenges the stereotype and raises some serious questions about our treatment of other animals and the popular view of those who risk everything to rescue them. If you think these people are the " evil monsters " talked about in the media, if you think they are freedom fighters or if you haven't formed a view either way or simply want to be entertained then this will be a memorable night out for you. Presented in person by Shannon Keith, US lawyer and Mask maker and Keith Mann, well known ALF activist who has served prison time for breaking animals out of laboratories, there will be a chance to ask questions and challenge their view that the end justifies the means when seeking to save the lives of others and raise serious issues. As I mentioned these issues need more discussion. Regards, On 11/30/06, azam24x7 <azamsiddiqui wrote: > > > Animal rights activists have spelt doom for medical research > > Serves them right. > > This is exactly what the profile of an animal rights activist are > should be: To spell DOOM for anything that terrorises the animal > kingdom. > " TERRORISM " : The use of this smart word is a passion for HUMAN > beings these days. It is perhaps the most widely used word in > today`s date. Let me also throw some light on it, since I am also a > HUMAN. > > I wish someday soon Science and Technology develops itself to such > an extent that these human reporters can get to exclusively > interview the primates and asks these questions: > > WHO DO YOU THINK IS THE REAL TERRORIST ? > THE MAN WHO OPPOSES YOUR TESTING FOR MEDICINES AND RESEARCH, OR THE > MAN WHO REPETEDLY CARRIES OUT TESTS ON EVERY NERVE, EVERY ORGAN, > EVERY LIMB OF YOUR BODY, AND THEN LEAVES YOU TO DIE MANY DEATHS TILL > FINALLY YOU SUCCUMB TO THE INJURIES ? ? > > I would love to live till the day, Science and the reporters of > Science could get me the above answers ( as they say from the > horse`s mouth) !! > > Azam Siddiqui > > aapn <aapn%40>, " " > wrote: > > > > The following is the transcript of a debate organised by the > Telegraph > > newspaper of Kolkata on animal experimentation a few months ago: > > > > > > http://www.telegraphindia.com/archives/archive.html > > > > Monday, March 20, 2006, THE TELEGRAPH KNOWHOW > > New-age terrorism > > > > SHIBANI CHATTOPADHYAY CONDEMNS ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS > > > > Animal rights activists have spelt doom for medical research > > Chris Patten , Oxford University's chancellor, stealthily tiptoed > his > > way past a recent march in support of animal research. He refused > to > > take to the podium and stay long. Why all this caution? The > > university's press office says, " There is no mechanism for deciding > > whether the university should do so (support animal research) " . > > Unofficially, however, university officials admit that keeping a > low > > profile is the best option to beat fanatical animal rights > activists. > > > > This behaviour is predictable after what befell Prof. Colin > Blakemore, > > a neurobiologist at Oxford. Animal rights activists sent him letter > > bombs packed with tiny HIV-infected needles because he chose to > debunk > > many of their claims. > > > > This is plain terrorism. Animal rights activists, however, demur. > > True, the two aren't comparable in terms of the scale of > destruction > > and loss of life, but both are united by a common purpose: to > > terrorise people into changing their viewpoints. Animal rights > > activists have spelt doom for biological research from ancient > times. > > The most blatant example of this is Susruta, who introduced the > > concept of surgery in India. His followers, however, couldn't > contend > > with Buddhism, which as the historical avatar of modern day animal > > rights activism made sure that further advancements in this field > were > > discouraged. And the result was that knowledge advancement made no > > progress in India. > > > > Animal research has played a vital role in most of the medical > > achievements of the last century. From dialysis to organ > > transplantation, from the development of protease inhibitors to > > dopamine replacement — everything is based on knowledge attained > > through animal research. Therefore, we will be grossly wrong if we > > think that the mutually exclusive goals of animal rights and > medical > > research can be attained simultaneously. > > > > The fear of animal activists about too many animals being killed > > remains unfounded. There are laws in place to check the gross > abuse of > > animals and the laws are getting stricter. > > > > In her article supporting a moratorium on animal research in the > > British Medical Journal, Pandora Pound identified 277 systematic > > reviews (review of all published papers to reach a balanced > judgement) > > of animal research. Out of this, they offered six reviews to > criticise > > animal research. However, Blakemore and Prof. Tony Peatfield, > another > > supporter of animal research, debunked most of these arguments as > > misinterpretations. In a letter to the journal, they argued that > five > > of the reviews showed that full analysis of the animal results > > predicted the ineffectiveness of the treatment being tested. > > > > Seeing the bigotry and fanaticism of animal rights activists, how > can > > they profess love for animals and at the same time harbour ire for > > their fellow humans? > > > > SHIBANI CHATTOPADHYAY > > > > > > > > 27 March, 2006, THE TELEGRAPH KNOWHOW > > > > Medically futile > > > > SHUBHOBROTO GHOSH QUESTIONS SPECIOUS SCIENCE > > > > Some of the experiments on animals are specious > > > > Pro-animal-research activists may say what they wish to (New-age > > Terrorism, March 20) but there is little to substantiate their > claim > > that research on animals helps human beings. The argument that we > owe > > most or all of our advances in medicine to animal research misses > out > > on a basic point — animal models and humans have different > > physiologies. Therefore, the conclusions drawn from animal research > > " when applied to human diseases are likely to harm a patient, " > Moneim > > Fadali, a fellow of the American College of Surgeons, asserts in > his > > book Animal Experimentation: A Harvest Of Shame. > > > > The fallacy of using animals for medical research is illustrated by > > the fact that hundreds of drugs that would have been safe in humans > > are deemed hazardous since they fail animal tests. For example, > > aspirin and penicillin have all caused illness in animal models, > but > > have been highly effective when used on humans. On the other hand, > > almost 70 per cent of drugs known to cause birth defects in humans > > have no effect on pregnant monkeys. Such discrepancies impede > medical > > research since retrials are costly and time consuming. > > > > Can animal experiments be replaced? Jane Goodall, a leading > > primatologist, says that it's inconceivable that the human race, > which > > has developed technology to go to the moon, cannot develop > something > > to replace animal research with more humane alternatives. > > > > And we certainly have such alternatives in the form of advancement > in > > medical technology. These technologies include silicon chips > > containing thousands of liver cells meant to mimic animal > metabolism. > > There is also vision research with scanners, which can replace > brain > > experiments on animals. Moreover, computer programmes, molecular > > research, demographic analyses and test-tube culture are slowly but > > surely making animal research less important. In his book, > Vivisection > > or Science, Dr Pietro Croce, a spokesperson for the group, Doctors > and > > Lawyers for Responsible Medicine, says that he had conducted > > experiments on animals for years. Croce, however, now feels that > > " traditional reliance on animal experiments is scientifically > > misplaced " . > > > > While it cannot be said that no good has ever come from animal > > research, what can be said with certainty is that if the same > amount > > of money and brainpower had been used in other ways, much more > benefit > > would have accrued. > > > > Moreover, some of these experiments on helpless animals, which wear > > the garb of medical research, are misleadingly attractive. Last > month, > > 300 neurologists and neurosurgeons signed a petition for a > moratorium > > on a cruel Ohio State University research. It asked students to > > paralyse mice by dropping heavy weights on their spinal cords. > Aysha > > Akhtar, a member of Physicians Committed for Responsible Medicine, > > rightfully says that the experiment is not only cruel, but also > > " medically futile " . > > > > > > SHUBHOBROTO GHOSH > > > > > > 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.