Help Me! I'm suffering

Listen to Guy Luthan's speech at the end of EXTREME MEASURES and tell me why it does not apply to animals - they are innocent victims of immoral research...

If you could cure cancer by killing one person, wouldn't you?
Wouldn't that be brave?
One person and cancer's gone tomorrow?
When you thought you were paralyzed...
...what would you have done to be able to walk again?
"Anything."
You said it yourself. Anything.
You were like that...
...for hours.
Helen hasn't walked for years.
I can cure her.
And everyone like her.
The door's open.
You can go out there...
...and put a stop to everything and it'll be over.
Or we can go upstairs and change medicine forever.
It's your call.
Maybe you're right.
Those men upstairs, maybe...
...there isn't much point to their lives.
Maybe they're doing a great thing for the world.
Maybe they are heroes.
But they didn't choose to be.
You chose for them.
You didn't choose your wife...
...or your granddaughter.
You didn't ask for volunteers.
You chose for them.
And you can't do that.
Because you're a doctor.
And you took an oath.
And you're not God.
So I don't care if you can do what you say you can.
Or if you can cure every disease on this planet.
You tortured and murdered those men upstairs.
That makes you a disgrace to your profession.
I hope you go to jail for the rest of your life.

What you can do to end suffering

Would you want to live on a planet like this? Click me.

Read the information content on my pages to arm yourself with facts

Links to pages connected with the issues.
BBC Ethics

Find out what is going on and why you should be doing something.

Write to BUAV

www.buav.org

Show your support.

Write to ANIMAL AID

Show your support.

Write to PETA

www.peta.org.uk/

Show your support.

Write to MAPG

www.mapsoc.org

Show your support.

Write to NAVS

Show your support.

Write to SPEAK

www.speakcampaigns.org

Write to Mel Broughton and show your support.

Write to PRO-TEST

www.pro-test.org.uk

Explain to Laurie Pycroft why he is misguided about morality.

Write to Oxford University

www.ox.ac.uk

Complain to Oxford University about their new Vivisection lab where creatures will be tortured.

Write to the RSPCA

www.rspca.org.uk

Explain to the RSPCA why they should be on the side of the animals.

Write to the MRC

corporate@headoffice.mrc.ac.uk

Complain about Colin Blakemore's leadership and the work of Tipu Aziz.

Write to the PM

www.number-10.gov.uk

Write to Downing Street and state your opinion.

Pressure your local MP

findyourmp.parliament.co.uk

Write to your member of parliament and lobby them to change the law.

Send a letter to the European Commission

www.eceae.org

Click here for a preformed letter to send.

Lobby the funders

 Funders

Tell the people that fund animal research why they should stop

Sign Care2 petitions

Care2

Sign animal petitions
Sign Ricky Gervais's petition  www.animalsmatter.org Help Ricky
Help WSPA

WSPA

World Society for the Protection of Animals
Help Dolphins

 WDCS

Help Whales

Stopbloodywhaling.org

League against cruel sports

www.league.org.uk/

Harlan Beagles

savetheharlanbeagles.com/

Prosecute Bear Grylls

Petition

Prosecute Bear Grylls for the live TV slaughter of animals.

Norman has the sickest justification - selfishness.Would I do that Norman?
No I would not. It says a lot about you that you would.
It is irrelevant how well animals are cared for before they are exploited -
the fact is they are exploited and suffer.
So there are 'major differences between us and mice'. That is why testing on animals is pointless.
Humans are not mice.
If you need information about human biology you use humans.
That,Vanessa ,is why there is more outrage about use of animals - using embryos is far more relevant.
Animals do not have a choice and research is inflicted upon them. An embryo is not a fully grown organism and is highly relevant to human biology.
If you have misgivings about embryos then you should have far nore about the use of animals who are more likely to suffer and are far less relevant to human biology.
The thalidomide fiasco highlights what happens when you think you have proved something with animal testing.

My letter to the MRC

Dear MRC,

With the advent of the BBC's Vivisection programme highlighting Oxford's lab,please can you tell me how on Earth you justify Colin Blakemore's leadership of the MRC. I am pro-science and have followed many of his programmes and also listened to his unreasonable defences of animal experimentation. There is absolutely no reason to carry out such barbarism in this modern age and it is an absolute disgrace that a modern academic establishment is led by an advocate of processes out of the stone age - it is time the MRC and Mr B woke up to public opinion. You are currently in the same scientific position of the Church before Galileo showed the correct path - far from being pressured by emotions or being an extremist - I have thought about such issues in the same way as Peter Singer - and have concluded logically that Mr B's arguments are false and worse - they are the equivalent of what the Nazi's did to Jews. A civilised society cannot tolerate such misery caused in the name of science and as an advocate of science I am adding my active voice to bring down the tyranny of Tipu Aziz and Colin Blakemore so that science does not get tarnished with the sick and twisted ideas of men who are only interested in their own careers and not what is right.

The tragedy of Thalidomide has shown us that using animals as test-beds is not only warped it is bad science and leads to false results - it is also a moral contradiction - if animals are so like us - then that is exactly why they deserve the same rights - if they are not like us - then they are no use as test-beds - no matter what you say - you are wrong - and history will show that you are- you may as well stop vivisection now before you become like Frankenstein's monster - if pro-science advocates like myself who understand SOME of the reasons why science has to do what sometimes seems like the reverse of common sense can find you wanting - then more people will also do so - such people as myself are getting very tired of the pompous smugness of those in a position to exploit science for ill and I will be doing all I can to use my web publishing ability to bring weight to bear to bring down anyone who exploits animals - this will be a legal campaign and no one will be threatened - Colin and Tipu have made this an issue of democracy and say their rights to free speech and actionare under duress - I find it rather crass that they do not see that it is they that are denying animals exactly what they claim they should have from the rest of society - animals do not have a voice or the capacity to champion their own rights in our society - that is why others have to do it for them - and just like the black slaves under the Ku Klux Klan - they will be freed,because there are the animal rights equivalents of Martin Luther King in this world and Colin and Tipu are on the wrong side of the fence - if possible I would like some feedback as to the MRC's involvement and policy on this issue and where the MRC stands.

The standard for our morality is set by our attitudes to creatures - if we ever achieve AI or aliens ever land here,we will be faced with where they fit into our moral scale - and if we do not grant animals rights now,we will only have the same arguments all over again later. Progress CAN be made without torture and we have a moral duty to the creatures we share this planet with - Colin and Tipu are guilty of Speciesism just as Peter Singer and Richard Dawkins maintain - and if we have outlawed racism and sexism - speciesism is no different. It is such a shame that intelligent men appear so dumb with respect to the remarkable achievements of creatures - I have more respect for a termite mound explained to me by David Attenborough than I do for Colin and Tipu - if they are offending even MY sensibilities as an informed person,then they really are on a hiving to nothing - please realise that you are doing science no favours if you do not have the public sympathy,you will be found wanting - and I hate to think what would happen to science if the mob comes to get the monsters.

Realise what the word "Humanity" means - compassion,understanding,intelligence - not terror and torture, if you would not harm yourself or your own then there is no reason to harm an animal - it is time for a change of philosophy and recognise that behind the eyes of others not like us lies similar intelligence to our own and we are not at liberty to act like God and decide who suffers and who does not - if we have dominion over creatures then we are their chaperones and caretakers - not their torturers and exploiters -they are not ours to do as we will - they are ours to care and protect - and no justice is done to mankind by causing misery to others - no matter what their skin colour or fur colour.

LEE

The reply from MRC

Dear Mr Borrell

I am replying to your email below, in which you asked for “some feedback as to the MRC's involvement and policy on this issue and where the MRC stands”.

Experiments on animals carried out in this country are subject to the provisions of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and the Home Office has responsibility for issuing licences for such research.

Work supported by the MRC must avoid the use of animals wherever an alternative exists. The MRC is committed to refining techniques, reducing numbers, and replacing animals in research wherever possible (the ‘3Rs’). Many MRC research programmes already contribute to developing new knowledge or new methods that help replace or refine animal use.

However, there are still things that must be studied in an entire living organism and the MRC believes that some responsible animal research will be essential for the foreseeable future if medical researchers are to make progress in the fight against infectious disease, cancers, genetic, developmental, neurological, and psychiatric disease.

The MRC is the main funder of the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs). The Centre provides a UK focus for the promotion, development and implementation of the 3Rs in animal research and testing. The Centre brings together academia, industry, government and animal welfare organisations to facilitate the exchange of information and ideas, and the translation of research findings into practice that will benefit both animals and science. The Centre funds high-quality 3Rs research, organises workshops and symposia to disseminate and advance the 3Rs, and develops 3Rs information resources and guidelines.

You may find it useful to look at “Mice and Medicine”, our information booklet on responsible use of animals in research which is available on our website at http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm?d=MRC002431. It contains information about Home Office guidelines and also outlines the MRC’s principles and specific research which is helping the fight against disease. Together with the Wellcome Trust, we have also recently published a booklet on the use of primates in medical research (http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm?d=MRC002558).

The MRC recognises that others take a very different view about the use of animals, but several independent reports have concluded that, with appropriate safeguards, animal experimentation is ethical and remains justified. These reports include the House of Lords Select Committee (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldselect/ldanimal/150/150.pdf), and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/ourwork/animalresearch/introduction).

Best wishes

Tony Peatfield

Corporate Affairs Group

My letter to the MRC

Dear MRC

You have not got back to me concerning Mr Peatfield's response - I would also like to add that the Metro (Manchester) has issued an article concerning the "Justified for science" remark made by the Weatherall comittee which will be appearing on my page along with any other data - I will be writing to the Metro asking whether Sir David would say that it was justified if we used him and his committee for vivisection experiments in order to discern whether we could save the lives of chimpanzees and other primates seeing as how we are so similar - my betting is that his view would be that it would not be justified in that case - whereas his own logic discerns that it MUST be justified - for myself I would rather have it carried out on Sir David than on some unsuspecting primate - at least Sir David would know what was coming and be able to make a choice as to whether he wants it to go ahead - the primate is given no such choice - to me his decision is a slur on science and will only bring it disrepute in the public eye - and the less scientists we have of his calibre within the subject the better -as the report said - it is a "stage managed sham" and the MRC and the Weatherall committee should be ashamed to call itself a human committee - to me they are much less than what primates are - and if they accepted their own logic then they would accept that they themselves are viable victims of possible vivisection - and at least as humans - they would be more liable to produce results which bear relevance to the human race,rather than the tragedy of Thalidomide which was a result of testing on rabbits instead of doing proper science and not causing animals to suffer.

LEE

Susan's letter to Tony Blair

28 November 2006

FAO Tony Blair

10 Downing Street,
London,
SW1A 2AA

Dear Sir

I am writing to ask you to bring your influence to bear for a ban on animal experimentation, undertaken in the name of research, within the Oxford Research Laboratory which presently is endorsed by the Government.

Just like ours, the social and emotional needs of primates can never be met in sterile laboratory cages. Intelligent and complex, primates have unique personalities, follow social rules and, above all, share many capacities for both understanding and suffering with humans. What's more, they also share with us the ability to remember past events, to have desires, to anticipate and plan for future events, and to form concepts. This means that they can be harmed not only by the pain that scientific procedures frequently cause them, but also by the stress of being in a laboratory environment. It is utterly immoral to use them as expendable tools for research.

Animal experiments are deeply scientifically flawed as well. The fundamental problem is that for all the similarities, there are significant species differences between human and non-humans. Researchers are forced to crudely model diseases or conditions in monkeys that they simply don't suffer from, such as Parkinson's Disease or HIV, by injecting poison into their brain or even cutting holes in the brain itself. This is very different from studying a naturally occurring disease in a human patient. Furthermore, the stress caused to primates by confinement in laboratories and the procedures they are forced to undergo causes them extreme stress, which distorts results. For all these reasons, it is little surprise that the data obtained from primate tests simply cannot be reliably applied to humans. And tellingly, after decades of research on primates, scientists have failed to make significant breakthroughs in treating HIV or AIDS, Alzheimer's Disease, or stroke - all human conditions which have been thoroughly and pointlessly explored through primate research.

The take-up and further development of alternative methods requires progressive leadership and a clear commitment from individuals, politicians and scientists in this country. However, this is a positive opportunity: scientists are increasingly recognising that investment in non-animal methods is repaid with relevant, accurate and specific data. It's clear that a ban is desperately needed. Not only would it end the suffering of the tens of thousands of animals that suffer in laboratories such as the Oxford Research Laboratory, but it would send a clear signal of intent to an animal experimentation industry dogmatically wedded to the animal model, despite the profound suffering it causes and the clear evidence that it is failing, irrelevant and outmoded.

I therefore implore you to consider the above and do all that is in your power to bring about an end to misery, suffering and death to animals in the name of medical research thereby relying upon the sufficiency of the data which our own technology in this 21st century is well able to provide.

I await your response.

Yours faithfully

Susan Stewart (S.R.N.)

 Reply from Downing Street [Right Click to Download] Home Office Reply 1 [Right Click to Download] Home Office Reply 2 [Right Click to Download]

The Issues

Here we will examine why it is correct to end animal exploitation and abuse in laboratories,in the process I will make use of the some of the other pages I have scattered around the web.

Let's look at why those in favour of using animals say it should continue:

  • Because it helps human beings
  • Because scientists have a right to free speech and action and need to progress science
  • Because there is no other way to test medicine safely without using animals first
  • Because animals are 'lesser' than we are and can be used for whatever we like
  • We are apex predators and eat animals so it is irrelevant what we do to them

Let's look at why those against using animals say it should end :

  • It doesn't help human beings because it is misguided and immoral
  • Scientists have a right to free speech and action,but so do animals,and scientists are breaching the harm principle
  • There are ways to test medicines without using animals,and most substances have already been tested on animals anyway
  • Animals are not inferior to human beings
  • We are apex predators and we do eat animals,but this is not reason to maltreat or exploit them,indeed it would make more sense if we did not eat them
  • There are different outcomes as a result of treatment across species so the goal of the scientific experimentation is then flawed.
  • There is obvious suffering because they have a central nervous system. Suffering is detrimental to any living thing...human or animal.
  • Funding could be diverted to more scientific research with ACCURATE results.
  • It removes choice from an animal and restricts their living conditions to the dictatiorials of human beings.

Voltaire famously said: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Similarly, if we believe in the right to protest when we support a cause, we ought to defend the rights of others to protest in similar ways even if we disagree with their cause. But ANIMALS CAN'T TALK! We have to use our reasoning capacities to deduce the effects of experimentation on animals!
British law requires that any new drug must be tested on at least two different species of live mammal. One must be a large non-rodent such as a cat or dog. As we have seen, the experiments on these animals is unnecessary and cruel and should stop now.

Let's look at each point in turn:


Vivisection helps human beings?

Vivisectionists maintain that using animals as testbeds or experimental organisms helps humanity,because we learn about biology and ourselves and this needs to be done to save people who are suffering.
In the first place,they make a contradiction,animals are sufficiently like us to be used in this way - but in admitting this - they admit they are sufficiently like us to warrant having the same rights. If they will not grant them the same rights, then they are admitting that they are not sufficiently like us to do tests on.

In the second place,they are mistaken.The drug Thalidomide was tested on rabbits and found to be safe,it was subsequently used on pregnant women and caused birth defects,this was because scientists did not know about Chiral molecules,something which they did not learn from testing on animals and something which proved costly for the offspring of the pregnant women,far from stopping suffering,it actually caused it.

The complex chemistry of DNA is still not totally understood and whilst animals maybe like us to some degree,even as individuals we are remarkably different,some of us take reactions to milk,others to bees and nuts,each body is unique,and if humans are THAT different,how similar can another species be? Latest developments suggest we are more dissimilar from animals than previously thought.

Something tested on an animal cannot be safe for us,it would be much better to use human beings that have already harmed society - criminals - who have already shown a disregard for other people's rights. Animals have done no such thing and do not warrant maltreatment.

Scientists need free speech and action?
In principle this is true,and they should be free from intimidation.But animals,for the same reason should be free from intimidation.Scientists are taking away the exact rights of the creatures they exploit,that they would demand for themselves. To me,if they are capable of doing such a thing to a creature,then they should not have a problem with anyone doing such things to them. If they whine about intimidation,then they should think how the animal feels subject to their experiments. Scientists are not free to do as they please,anymore than the rest of us are- we must abide by the law. The law is not always correct,and in not granting animals rights - it is incorrect and needs to be changed. In the future we maybe faced with Artificial Intelligences or even Alien beings,in which case we will be faced with the same moral dilemma - we may as well sort it out now. Animals are a good case for what an artificial intelligence maybe like - some creatures - like cephalopods - are so unlike us they may as well be called "aliens". In other countries,some people are not treated with respect,Human Rights organisations exist to end their suffering,Animal Rights organisations are doing exactly the same thing for animals. It is a straw-man argument that scientists have set up to say their freedom as individuals is under threat - when Hitler was using Jews as subjects for his experiments - no doubt he would have made the same complaint if when someone tried to stop him.
Those that tried to continue hunting made exactly the same plea and found themselves outside of the law - this is another episode of the same argument.Scientists are breaching John Stewart Mill's harm principle by exploiting animals.

There are no ways to test other than on animals?
Animals are not the best models to test for new drugs - computer models which take account of the actual molecules in the human body are better strategies for giving actual results that bear relevance to the human body. It is also possible to test many substances on tissue samples and in chemical processes without them actually being in an organism,and so what is the point in testing chemicals in an organism that is unlike a human being and which produces results that does not bear relevance to the subject?
If scientists say that animals are "sufficiently similar" for them to be used to carry out tests upon then they are sufficiently similar to warrant being given the same rights - they cannot have it both ways.

Whilst money is being spent on animal husbandry and feeding and use - it could be better spent on finding cheaper and better alternatives - it does not make financial sense to use animals,nor is it good science - those who still advocate vivisection are has-beens who will be consigned to the scientific dustbin of history - let's move on and show how good humans beings are by inventing without cruelty.

Animals are our lessers?
Suppose we are the superiors of creatures as vivisectionists maintain - then it is incumbent upon us to take the moral highground and give them rights and not exploit them - if they are not our inferiors,then they should be granted the same rights as us. We would not grant children no rights at all to a voice, or for someone to speak on their behalf - if animals are our lessers then they are as our children, and should be protected from those who would abuse them - either way around - animals should have rights. We need innovation not stagnation. Vivisection is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut - it's time to move forward and use better techniques.

The fact is - we have know way of knowing what a superior intelligence is - because animals are not like us - bats and dolphins have sonar - clearly parrots and dolphins can understand grammar and may well be smarter than us (certainly than certain individuals) in some contexts - we are trying to compare apples with oranges and saying one is better - this is not the argument - and vivisectionists try to confuse people by over-simplifying the argument.

We are omnivores and so who cares what happens to our prey?
Whilst it is true that our teeth indicate that we are omnivores and given to eating meat - this is nothing to do with our moral choice - and since those who exploit animals do so because they maintain we are superior, then our supposed superiority ought to be able to make a higher moral choice than merely following the whims of Darwinian determinism and show that we are better by making a better moral choice - ie not exploiting animals. A vegetarian diet is better for the body and better for the planet - and ends so much suffering. 


Research on monkeys 'justified for science'

BY MIKE TAIT

Vital? A lab monkeyThe use of monkeys in medical experiments is morally and scientifically justified, some of Britain's most eminent scientists insisted yesterday. A 'strong scientific case' existed for allowing research on primates in situations where it answered important biological questions, the Weatherall committee said. Monkey research was vital for testing vaccines to tackle HIV; malaria and tuberculosis, and to develop new treatments for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, they added.
Each year, about 3,300 mostly macaque monekys are involved in scientific or medical research -about 0.1 per cent of all animals used in testing. Three quarters of these are used for trialling new medicines. Only about 450 are used for academic research. The Weatherall committee, chaired by Oxford geneticist Prof Sir David Weatherall, was set up by the Royal Society Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust and the Academy of Medical Sciences to investigate the ethics of primate research. The report made 16 recommendations, including setting up four specialist research centres, each housing about 100 macaques. But it accepted that new techniques which do not involve animals, particularly brain imaging and computer modelling, were reducing the need for tests on primates. Last night,animal welfare groups condemned the 18month inquiry as 'a white-wash'. Michelle Thew, of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, said: 'We don't reeed new primate research centres. We need cutting-edge centres looking for ways that don't cause animals to suffer.' Europeans for Medical progress added: 'The report is a stage managed sham.' [Metro Dec13,2006] 

My letter to the Metro

Dear Ed,
With regard to your story about primates being justified in scientific research by the Weatherall committee (Metro, Mon). Seeing as the MRC and Sir David think animals are sufficiently similar to use to use in experimentation,this logically means that the committee is a viable replacement for such experiments,perhaps if we ask Sir David if he would undergo vivisection for the sake of the Wellcome Trust to save the life of a primate,he would not be so quick to say that it was justified. At least though,he would have a choice,the lab monkey's do not.
LEE

Metro Dec10,2007

Dear Ed,
Chris Baxter reckons animal testing is "vital" - he is hopelessly wrong. He is a victim of the brainwashing of the chemical industry who by law HAVE to test on animals - not because it is "vital". Although chimps share 99% + of our DNA - they had their own strain of HIV which only affected them. Cigarettes are tested on dogs which do not catch our cold virus. Anyone who thinks we MUST test on animals is deluded - it is to cover the backs of the chemical industry when mistakes like Down's Syndrome happen - ironically Thalidomide was tested on rabbits but did not render it safe as we are not rabbits - get your facts straight Mr Baxter.

Hybrid embryos 'vital' to research

BY SARAH GETTY

Controversial:
Embryo research [Picture: Alamy]

PLANS to halt the creation of part human-part animal embryos will jeopardise research into cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, experts warned today.

A decision whether to allow such procedures will be made by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority next week. But the experts said they have been informally told licences are unlikely to be granted.

Also, a Government White Paper proposes outlawing the creation of such embryos - at least initially.

The process involves injecting an empty animal cell such as from a cow or rabbit with human DNA.

After a burst of electricity, the egg is tricked into dividing regularly, becoming an embryo from which stem cells can be extracted. These can then studied for their potential to treat human degenerative diseases. There are too few human eggs available to work on the, scientists say. The 'hybrid' embryo will be more than 99 per cent human. Prof Ian Wilmut, whose team created Dolly the sheep, said if the ban went ahead scientists would be at a disadvantage. Dr Stephen Minger, of King's College, London, said public consultation on hybrid embryo use had led to a 'knee-jerk reaction' against it.[Metro Jan5,2007]

The hybrid embryos pose moral questions as to the use of animals in research - the 'knee jerk reaction' against their use supposes that people do not like the idea of human embryos being used in research and yet they are willing to allow the use of animals in research - the idea of mingling human DNA with that of animals confuses people, because their gut instinct - that there is something wrong with using humans in research runs into the already accepted area of animal research which is allowed primarily because animals are consumed for food - the scenario comes to mind that Douglas Adams put forward in Hitchikers Guide - that of a cow that speaks and allows itself to be eaten - such satire indicates the paradoxes set up by the hybrid cells - if people would not have human cells used and do not want human DNA mingled with that of creatures,it is because of the latent speciesism in society - if animals had the same rights as humans - as they should - because there is no latent difference between their structure and ours - then the paradox would not exist - it is because of the two-tier value structure that there is a problem and a reaction to the use of the embryos -had these been purely of animal origin there would not have been a knee-jerk reaction to their use. People do not wish to be faced with the moral quagmire of facing things that are part-human and part-animal and having to figure out for instance whether the result has a divine soul or whether killing it for food is murder -finally science is highlighting the double standards at large in society and forcing people to face the issues that they should have faced long ago.

Artist eats dog in royal hunt protest

BY OLIVER STALLWOOD

Tasteless: The corgi breed is a favourite of the QueenA PERFORMANCE artist ate a corgi live on radio last night in protest at a hunt lead by Prince Philip. Mark McGowan said the meal was to highlight the alleged mistreatment of a fox which was shot on the Queen's Sandringham estate in January. The corgi, which is a breed favoured by the Queen, died at a breeding farm and was specially prepared for the 37-year- old on the London-based arts station 104.4 Resonance FM. McGowan, whose earlier work includes rolling 64km (40miles) head over heels from London to Hertfordshire, said: 'I know some people will find this offensive and tasteless but I am doing this to raise awareness ahout the RSPCA's inability to prosecute Prince Philip and his friends for shooting a fox.' The RSPCA said: 'An independent post-mortem examination found the fox died from gunshot wounds and there was no evidence of other injury.' Poorva Joshipura, director of Peta's European arm, said: 'It is high time the royals joined the rest of us who are opposed to cruelty to animals.'

Page Links

RTF Document [Right click to download]

- "Animal Rights"

RTF Document [Right click to download]'Recently 110 leading British scientists wrote an open letter to the science minister to say that bureaucracy is hindering the use of animals in medical experiments and is driving research abroad to countries with lower animal welfare standards.Quentin Cooper chairs a discussion on the regulation of animal experiments worldwide.'

- "Animal Intelligence"

RTF Document [Right click to download]

- "Animal Experimentation"

RTF Document [Right click to download]'Recently 110 leading British scientists wrote an open letter to the science minister to say that bureaucracy is hindering the use of animals in medical experiments and is driving research abroad to countries with lower animal welfare standards.Quentin Cooper chairs a discussion on the regulation of animal experiments worldwide.'

- "A Question of Science"

We have committees and technologies
And Governments resources;
We have legislation for ecology
We have educative courses.

We want a society that's Progressive -
You know, one which is fair and just.
But animal experimentation is obsessive
To reconsider our stance we must.

Perhaps the reason why we don't
Is re-examination;
Of how we live and the choices we make
Would bring us condemnation,

It's the dawn of the technological age!
But barbarianism survives -
Animals are sourced for food in cages
In order to keep US alive.

But we have soya, vegetables, fruit and grain!
So much variety from which to choose,
All at our fingertips without any pain,
But it seems it's the innocent who really lose.

Man is still the greatest Predator
But his 'intent' is pure;
He is this rich earth's greatest Debtor,
And his comfort is the lure.

The tests have all been carried out!
The results all gathered in,
We don't need new experiments to wipe out doubt,
But an end to misery so justice can win.

Right or wrong? The verdict's still out,
While little bodies squirm & die.
But we won't let it ruin our appetites
We can always turn a blind eye!

Two wrongs don't make a right
While we inflict such pain,
Can we not see the cause of their plight -
Human beings - are we totally sane?

We covet their coats; we long for their taste,
We bleed them and chase them for profit and fun.
Their lives it would seem we squander and waste
Yet, we are the rational ones, when all's said and done?

If animals were people; if they could talk and say,
Would we listen or turn a deaf ear -
To the agony and misery they go through each day
Each minute, each month and each year?

People and Governments live up to your calling,
Don't pander to masses but do what is right.
The suffering of animals is truly appalling
For the rights of the vulnerable, please lend all your might.

It's time to call a halt
To all this grief and pain,
Its time to admit the fault
That way, we all can gain.

This world needs stewards who care,
Who feel and share and think,
We wouldn't treat humans in a way so unfair,
It stains us and marks us like ink.

O people wake up and take heed,
To the suffering and dying around,
We all have the power for change - can't you see?
Will we do so or not make a sound?

I DUNNO THEREFORE I AM

Murph sits in front of a computer screen playing a game that consists of classifying images. He finds out how he's doing after several rounds, with happy whoops for right and buzzers for wrong. Natura plays a similar game with sounds. Neither of them likes being wrong. And when the going gets tough, they'd rather pass and admit they don't know rather than guess. People do this all the time, so what's the big deal? Murph is a monkey and Natura is a dolphin. Their game-playing has got some researchers very excited because it suggests that these animals know their own minds - an important first step on the ladder of full, reflective consciousness...more

Whale curry is hard to swallow

I was utterly appalled when I read the article about the Japanese 'getting used to' eating whale meat again (Metro, Fri). Isn't eating chicken, beef, pork (all animals bred for human consumption) and fish enough? It's disgusting that these mammals are to be hunted more or less to the point of extinction so that the Japanese can try something 'rare' in a curry. With all the spices and flavourings, how can they even tell if it's whale meat or chicken? What is the point? There will come a day when Japanese children will ask their grandparents: 'What was a humpback whale like?' and the response will be: 'Well, they were large sea mammals that swam in our oceans. I can't quite recall what they looked like but I do remember they didn't half taste good.'
Jeannie Chadburn, Lancashire

The quoted comment: 'I understand foreign people don't like this; the same way that many Japanese don't like Koreans eating dog meat. But I have no prejudice against whale meat' by a Japanese man obscures the issue. The point here is the atrocity of slaughtering whales for a takeaway curry, not cultural sensitivity. The leading governments should demand the Japanese government bans the slaughter of these endangered mammals.
Kim Young, London SW19

What is freedom?

MORE

Join
Random- Previous- Next- List- Join


MAIN INDEX

REFERENCE GUIDE

TRANSCRIPTS

GLOSSARY

Maths Physics Biology Chemistry Computing Science Electronics Belief Art Philosophy

www.000webhost.com