- 29,896
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
This week in the UK, the stakes were raised by animal rights extremist group, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), whose opposition to the construction of a new biomedical research facility at Oxford University has now been extended to encompass the student body, as well as 'anyone associated with Oxford University in any way'. Threats and intimidation from animal rights extremists are nothing new per se, but this is the first time that the student body has been directly mentioned and directly/indirectly(?) threatened.
The ALF has, thus far, been quite successful in it's campaign of intimidation against those who are involved in the construction of the new lab. In Nov 2004, construction was halted when the company responsible for the construction pulled out after receiving threats. But now that construction is underway once again, the battle has recommenced. What is at stake here? The halting of the expansion of one of the UK's most famous universities, or the future of (biomedical) research as we know it?
What do the ALF* claim, what do they seek to achieve, and how do they seek to acheive it?
*(note that other organisations other than the ALF are also implied here)
The ALF claim that all animal research and associated methods constitute 'fraudulent science' and that non-animal alternatives offer the same level (if not better) models for human function. They argue that animal research belongs in the past, and that it is neither morally justified or scientifically justifiable. They seek to stop the use of animals (in any way) for research purposes. Indeed, they seek to afford the same rights to animals as to human beings, thus they believe that animal testing is morally wrong.
Their methods have evolved from simple protests and demonstrations (usually at the site of the research) to the illegal destruction of labs and facilities (the ALF advocate illegal, non-violent activism) and intimidation of staff of such facilities or associated companies (such as those who finance the facilities).
The Opposition
Direct activism has thus far been targeted mainly at companies directly involved in animal research, research institutes (such as Huntingdon Life Sciences or the NIMR in the UK) and specific University departments (Life Sciences/Biology). Increasingly, banks and other associated companies such as sponsors) have been targeted to undermine the financial stability of such facilities. (the HLS being a prime example) Now, it seems that animal rights extremists wish to extend their remit to any individual who (in their opinion) is involved in animal testing - which presumably extends to anyone associated with any sort of biomedical research, including undergraduate students. Individual professors and research group leaders have long been used to receiving the occasional threat, but this (in my view) represents a new level of threat.
Why do animal research and is it necessary?
The main reasoning behind the use of animals in research is that living animals represent the closest model systems to that of a living human being - thus information that is of benefit to Mankind may be conferred from conducting research/experiments upon animals with a view to refining procedures (or drugs etc.) to be used on humans. (This of course is a major bone of contention with animal rights activists, and is the topic of much debate).
Whether certain types of animal experimentation are necessary is where the controversy really begins. Asked whether or not testing a drug (e.g. a potential HIV vaccine, or anti-cancer drug) is morally justified, most people would answer yes - even if that drug turns out to be toxic or have some horrible side effect that leads to the suffering and/or death of the animal it has been tested on. The process of testing drugs that leads to the production of a tangible and effective therapeutic end is perceived by the public to be acceptable. But asked whether or not testing 'cosmetic' products is justified, the answer is usually no. But there are plenty of other chemical substances that humans use everyday which lie between these two extremes - like paints, detergents etc. The fact that the end use of the product is the determinant of whether the research is acceptable or not is a strange fact. If a drug cures the flu, it may save thousands of lives every winter. But if that same drug also causes birth defects, then the drug company is sued. Similarly, if a household detergent caused cancer, it would be just as serious for the victim, regardless of how useful the detergent actually is. The same logic can be applied to cosmetic products - people don't need to use them (mostly), but people do - so what if the shower gel you use contains a non-tested chemical which later transpired to be carcinogenic?
Is animal research cruel?
We don't experiment on humans because some experiments/procedures could potentially cause a person to experience suffering and/or death. So instead, we decide to carry out these experiments on a system as close to ours as possible - another living creature - and attempt to limit the suffering endured by that animal. But the fact is, a mouse bred to contain cancerous tumours in order to evaluate the efficacy of a cancer drug is going to experience pain and then death. Indeed, depending on your point of view, it is a wretched and some may say even pitiful existance for any creature to endure, even a mouse. But the experiment is allowed because of the potential benefit to mankind.... maybe many thousands of mice will be used to test the efficacy of several drugs, and at the end, the drug with the combination of the highest efficacy and lowest side-effects will move on to the next stage - i.e. higher animals, until such a time it is approved for use on humans in clinical trials. So whether it is cruel or not is not simply a measure of whether an animal suffers or not. Admittedly, some animals will (and do) suffer. But the assessment of whether the experiment is justified must also take into account the (potential) benefit too. In my opinion, 'cruelty' implies a deliberate maliciousness - a pointless, malice-driven, sadistic enjoyment of causing pain to someone or something. It is for this reason that I don't believe that the use of animals in medical research can be described as cruel...
Where do you stand?
It is my opinion that animals can and should be used in experimentation - if the end is justified. But this justifiable end can be (and usually is) so far down the line that it is obscure to the general public. It is my view that fundamental biology (as well as chemistry and other disciplines) rely heavily upon methods and practices that in some way, however small it may be, involve the use of animals or some by-product thereof.
I also think that animal rights activists have a right to demonstrate and to highlight cases of malpractice or unnecessary cruelty - but in my view, these instances are rare. Scientists, and particularly students, should be allowed to carry out fundamental research without the fear or recrimination or intimidation from those who have an alternative opinion.
The ALF has, thus far, been quite successful in it's campaign of intimidation against those who are involved in the construction of the new lab. In Nov 2004, construction was halted when the company responsible for the construction pulled out after receiving threats. But now that construction is underway once again, the battle has recommenced. What is at stake here? The halting of the expansion of one of the UK's most famous universities, or the future of (biomedical) research as we know it?
What do the ALF* claim, what do they seek to achieve, and how do they seek to acheive it?
*(note that other organisations other than the ALF are also implied here)
The ALF claim that all animal research and associated methods constitute 'fraudulent science' and that non-animal alternatives offer the same level (if not better) models for human function. They argue that animal research belongs in the past, and that it is neither morally justified or scientifically justifiable. They seek to stop the use of animals (in any way) for research purposes. Indeed, they seek to afford the same rights to animals as to human beings, thus they believe that animal testing is morally wrong.
Their methods have evolved from simple protests and demonstrations (usually at the site of the research) to the illegal destruction of labs and facilities (the ALF advocate illegal, non-violent activism) and intimidation of staff of such facilities or associated companies (such as those who finance the facilities).
The Opposition
Direct activism has thus far been targeted mainly at companies directly involved in animal research, research institutes (such as Huntingdon Life Sciences or the NIMR in the UK) and specific University departments (Life Sciences/Biology). Increasingly, banks and other associated companies such as sponsors) have been targeted to undermine the financial stability of such facilities. (the HLS being a prime example) Now, it seems that animal rights extremists wish to extend their remit to any individual who (in their opinion) is involved in animal testing - which presumably extends to anyone associated with any sort of biomedical research, including undergraduate students. Individual professors and research group leaders have long been used to receiving the occasional threat, but this (in my view) represents a new level of threat.
Why do animal research and is it necessary?
The main reasoning behind the use of animals in research is that living animals represent the closest model systems to that of a living human being - thus information that is of benefit to Mankind may be conferred from conducting research/experiments upon animals with a view to refining procedures (or drugs etc.) to be used on humans. (This of course is a major bone of contention with animal rights activists, and is the topic of much debate).
Whether certain types of animal experimentation are necessary is where the controversy really begins. Asked whether or not testing a drug (e.g. a potential HIV vaccine, or anti-cancer drug) is morally justified, most people would answer yes - even if that drug turns out to be toxic or have some horrible side effect that leads to the suffering and/or death of the animal it has been tested on. The process of testing drugs that leads to the production of a tangible and effective therapeutic end is perceived by the public to be acceptable. But asked whether or not testing 'cosmetic' products is justified, the answer is usually no. But there are plenty of other chemical substances that humans use everyday which lie between these two extremes - like paints, detergents etc. The fact that the end use of the product is the determinant of whether the research is acceptable or not is a strange fact. If a drug cures the flu, it may save thousands of lives every winter. But if that same drug also causes birth defects, then the drug company is sued. Similarly, if a household detergent caused cancer, it would be just as serious for the victim, regardless of how useful the detergent actually is. The same logic can be applied to cosmetic products - people don't need to use them (mostly), but people do - so what if the shower gel you use contains a non-tested chemical which later transpired to be carcinogenic?
Is animal research cruel?
We don't experiment on humans because some experiments/procedures could potentially cause a person to experience suffering and/or death. So instead, we decide to carry out these experiments on a system as close to ours as possible - another living creature - and attempt to limit the suffering endured by that animal. But the fact is, a mouse bred to contain cancerous tumours in order to evaluate the efficacy of a cancer drug is going to experience pain and then death. Indeed, depending on your point of view, it is a wretched and some may say even pitiful existance for any creature to endure, even a mouse. But the experiment is allowed because of the potential benefit to mankind.... maybe many thousands of mice will be used to test the efficacy of several drugs, and at the end, the drug with the combination of the highest efficacy and lowest side-effects will move on to the next stage - i.e. higher animals, until such a time it is approved for use on humans in clinical trials. So whether it is cruel or not is not simply a measure of whether an animal suffers or not. Admittedly, some animals will (and do) suffer. But the assessment of whether the experiment is justified must also take into account the (potential) benefit too. In my opinion, 'cruelty' implies a deliberate maliciousness - a pointless, malice-driven, sadistic enjoyment of causing pain to someone or something. It is for this reason that I don't believe that the use of animals in medical research can be described as cruel...
Where do you stand?
It is my opinion that animals can and should be used in experimentation - if the end is justified. But this justifiable end can be (and usually is) so far down the line that it is obscure to the general public. It is my view that fundamental biology (as well as chemistry and other disciplines) rely heavily upon methods and practices that in some way, however small it may be, involve the use of animals or some by-product thereof.
I also think that animal rights activists have a right to demonstrate and to highlight cases of malpractice or unnecessary cruelty - but in my view, these instances are rare. Scientists, and particularly students, should be allowed to carry out fundamental research without the fear or recrimination or intimidation from those who have an alternative opinion.
👍
