Well I have now watched this prog, what a wasted opportunity,just the same old stories making out us in the animal rights movement to be thugs as usual.No mention of vested interests , of drug failures, of the huge profits from me too drugs.No mention of all of us quietly campaigning and educating the public , no mention of people like The Doctor Hadwen Trust . Dreadful,weak,a waste of time.
I have to agree. Although it was good to see rarely screened footage of animals suffering and dying in labs, anyone objecting to this would be utterly put off joining the animal rights movement. The three "talking heads" supposedly representing the movement were all extremists and no one watching the programme would know of the many responsible, law-abiding and peaceful organisations campaigning on this issue. Nor would they know that there is an increasing body of scientific opinion opposed to animal testing for practical rather than ethical reasons.
If you watched the programme and were disturbed by the animal suffering you saw, check out the websites of BUAV or Animal Aid to find out what's really going on.
Yes i agree too and i said this from the beginning i think this program was a betrayal of what the movement really represents they didn’t show the part where the activists goes out onto the streets handing out hundreds of leaflets and spreading the word peacefully and demoing, collecting signatures without committing any crimes.
I think the More4 Timeline must have been written/prompted by someone from the vested-interest pro-vivisection lobby it is so biased.
As regards that it mentions Huntingdon Life Sciences, unfortunately though it does not include that in 1997 govt revoked their licence for six months, not only re the animal cruelty but also, for example, re staff falsifying test data, and neither does it refer to the 'Diaries of Despair' exposé of 2000 which showed, just for example, that illegal experiments had been carried out on primates inside HLS.
Details of the 'Diaries' exposé, including leaked documents from HLS, Imutran and the Hoome Office, can be seen via this link http://www.xenodiaries.org/summary.htm
I fail to see how the timeline can be considered biased. The whole purpose of it is to include notable events from both a medical research and animal rights point of view. If it had been designed by someone completely pro-animal testing why would they have bothered to include the animal rights stuff at all? On top of that, the wording is quite specific. In most cases events are simply stated as fact, with no opinions given as to the rights and wrongs of them, yet they do mention beagles being "saved" and guinea pigs "liberated", which if anything comes across as if this is actually a good thing.
Oops, forgot to add in the last post. The ohter reason I think more four is far from pro-animal testing is the nature of their programmes, and the info on this sight. For example, Animals conveniently showed lab dogs (because they are more likely to invoke a sympathetic resonse than say a rat) despite the fact that less than 1% of animals used in research are dogs. Secondly, there is the Monkey Love issue. Harry Harlow (sp) for a start was working in America, where legislation protecting lab animals is less stringent than that in th UK even now. Secondly, his experiments were conducted decades ago, and many improvements have been made to legislation, minimum standards of care etc. since then. The phtos on this sight show baby mnokeys kept in horrendous conditions... barren wire cages. Monkeys these days, certainly not in the UK, are kept in very different conditions, but of course, no one wants to see group housed monkey living in large open plan rooms with sawdust on the floor, shelves, tyres, climbing frames and hammocks do they?
What people want to see is animals living in there natural environment and living there life out in peace, without scum bags ripping them away and putting them through a life time of misery.
I won't deny that animal testing causing suffering, either to a greater or lesser degree (as does farming etc) but to say all lab animals are ripped away from their natural environment and condemned to a life of misery is not entirely accurate. Anyway, animals suffer just as much in the wild (e.g. from starvation, predation, road traffic, pollution etc.) as they do in captivity.
What did everyone think of the Devils Advocate prog last night?
I was a bit worried by Malcolm McLaren's friendly attitude at first, but at the end I think he was being quite clever not to get Simon Festings's back up and make him dig his heels in!
And thank god for children!! Weren't they fantastic? They grasped the real issue and didn't let it go! Festing was dumbstruck
His angry comment on the way back in the lorry about a third of them being dead if it wasn't for vivisection really showed him up. Plus it was utter rubbish. Child mortality and morbidity rates fell dramatically well before specific therapies were available, due to public health improvements in housing, sanitation and diet.
Originally posted by welfarist: I fail to see how the timeline can be considered biased. The whole purpose of it is to include notable events from both a medical research and animal rights point of view.
The reason I feel it is biased is that the 'medical' side is presented from a pro-vivisection viewpoint but the animal rights side isn't presented from an animal rights viewpoint. I don't have time to go through every point but for example -
The overall impression, without clicking on any of the headings and I wonder if most people would click on them all if at all, infers a totally false 100% success rate for animal experiments, in neither the 'medical' nor the 'animal rights' columns are listed harms/deaths that occurred when treatments/drugs were first tested on humans, eg after 'perfecting' radial keratotomy (surgery performed to improve sight without glasses) on rabbits the first human patients were blinded (rabbit and human corneas are different the former can regenerate on both sides, the latter only on one side).
Also when the headings are clicked it infers a causal link between medical discoveries and animal experiments that is unsupported by evidence and is disputed by anti-vivisection scientists/medical professionals.
There is a heading re the polio vaccine on the 'medical' column but no heading in the 'animal rights' column re Albert Sabin saying in 1984 (in a Statement before a House of Representatives committee) that “Work on prevention [the vaccine] was long delayed by the erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease, based on misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys.”, nor any other such notable quotes. http://www.curedisease.com/aids.html
It mentions only one exposé of Huntingdon Life Sciences although there have been five, and the one it does mention fails to include that HLS's licence was temporarily revoked by government and not only because of cruelty to the animals but also eg staff falsifying data.
Particularly it spectacularly fails to list the 'Diaries of Despair' exposé of 2000 which revealed illegal experiments on primates inside HLS, hundreds of breaches of Good Laboratory Practice, government collusion, etc etc, nor that this is still ongoing with the Parliamentary Ombudsman http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,940033,00.html
It fails to mention the various other undercover investigations, for example the BUAV's investigationS re Cambridge University, Covance, Harlan etc http://www.buav.org/undercover/index.html
Also, it says Tony Blair gave his strongest pro-science speech but it does not include re the BUAV has twice had to take legal action against government re failure to uphold 'strict and rigorous' laws.
One heading is that animal rights groups gave £1million to New Labour but there is no heading that Lord Sainsbury, Science Minister, who has interests in the bio-tech industry and has been a voice for the pro-vivisection lobby, has donated over £11 million to New Labour.
It does not mention that in August 2003 SHAC handed in to the Home Office a petition signed by over a million people calling for the closure of HLS.
It mentions 'attacks' on vivisection establishements/vivisectors but fails to mention any of the numerious attacks on ARAs eg on Save the Newchurch Guinea Pigs campaigners, on hunt sabs.
It says the French government opposed the cosmetics-testing ban re incompatible WTO but fails to mention that the UK government blocked EU proposals to ban the sale of such products tested on animals outside Europe on the same grounds.
In the 'medical' column is the heading 'Declaration on animals in medical research' but there is no corresponding heading in the 'animal rights' column re the publishing of Hans Reusch's book '1000 doctors against vivisection', nor of the book which is known as the 'anti-vivisection bible' 'Vivisection or Science?' by Professor Pietro Croce.
quote:
If it had been designed by someone completely pro-animal testing why would they have bothered to include the animal rights stuff at all?
Then it couldn't be presented as being balanced. The reason it is on there at all is because there is opposition to animal testing - there is opposition on both moral and scientific grounds, it comes from animal rights campaigners and medical professionals against on scientific grounds. The powerful vested-interest pro-vivisection lobby wants the issue presented to the public as being only between 'scientists' and 'animal rights activists/extremists' for obvious reasons.
[QUOTE'On top of that, the wording is quite specific. In most cases events are simply stated as fact, with no opinions given as to the rights and wrongs of them, yet they do mention beagles being "saved" and guinea pigs "liberated", which if anything comes across as if this is actually a good thing.[/QUOTE] As above, it states things as facts that are not necessarily facts/are disputed though. It does say 'saved' the beagles and guinea pigs 'liberated' but it also says re Regal Rabbits the 'ordeal' of the owner of the farm but nothing re the ordeal of the rabbits he bred, nor the details what is inflicted on animals in labs, and under Shamrock it says the animals were sold 'to medical labs' rather than 'to be subjected to pain and suffering and killed' or 'for vivisection'.
Originally posted by floozie66: [Dr Simon Festing's] angry comment on the way back in the lorry about a third of them being dead if it wasn't for vivisection really showed him up.
Also similar re Dr Simon Festing, as you probably know but for those who missd it, on 21/04/05 a public debate was held in Oxford re the scientific validity of animal experiments.
Professor Tipu Aziz, Neurosurgeon Oxford University, and Dr Simon Festing, Executive Director RDS, spoke for vivisection and brought along Mike Robins a Parkinson's patient treated with DBS. Dr Jarrod Bailey, Science Director Europeans for Medical Progress, and Professor Claude Reiss, Science Consultant EMP, spoke against. This was filmed by Europeans for Medical Progress.
Around three weeks later the following appeared in the Observer -
The Observer quoted Mike Robins as saying "I was bayed at...'Several hundred people were shouting. Some called out "Nazi!", "*******!" and "Why don't you roll over and die!" I tried to speak, but was shouted down. It was utterly terrifying."
Dr Festingwas quoted as saying "I have seen many unpleasant things at these debates, but to scream at a middle-aged man with Parkinson's disease and then tell him he deserved to die is the worst I have observed"
Oxford University's Tipu Aziz is quoted as saying "I am now very sorry I put [Mike Robins] through that horrible ordeal. To these people, Mike's existence is a refutation of their core beliefs. They say animal experiments do no good. Then Mike stands up, switches his tremors on and off, and their arguments are blown away. That's why they shouted him down."
In this the Observer admitted it had not been present at the meeting but had subsequently interviewed Mr Robins. The reporter contacted Mr Robins, who told him that while there may not have been hundreds in the room (there were 150) his perception was that hundreds were shouting at him."
The Observer also admitted that although they'd reported that Mr Robins demonstration had been blocked because the meeting had been packed by anti-vivisectionists, the video taken by EMP "plainly shows him turning off his tremors with the device, and being heard in silence.".
Given the quotes from Dr Festing and Professor Tipu Aziz but what the video showed actually happened the only reasonable explanation would seem to be that the story was deliberately planted in an attempt to vilify animal rights campaigners and manipulate public opinion against them.
quote:
Plus it was utter rubbish. Child mortality and morbidity rates fell dramatically well before specific therapies were available, due to public health improvements in housing, sanitation and diet.
Originally posted by welfarist: Oops, forgot to add in the last post. The ohter reason I think more four is far from pro-animal testing is the nature of their programmes, and the info on this sight. For example, Animals conveniently showed lab dogs (because they are more likely to invoke a sympathetic resonse than say a rat) despite the fact that less than 1% of animals used in research are dogs.
I did not see 'Animals' because I don't have More4, but I noticed that others here who did say the animal rights side was re 'extremists/ism' rather than reflecting the 99.9% of animal rights campaigning that goes on day in day out.
quote:
Secondly, there is the Monkey Love issue. Harry Harlow (sp) for a start was working in America, where legislation protecting lab animals is less stringent than that in th UK even now. Secondly, his experiments were conducted decades ago...
I did see this at a friend's house, I thought it was very sympathetic to him and I wondered why More4 was showing this given, as you say, his research was decades ago, rather than reflecting the actually relevant current situation in the UK.
Also, unfortunately the UK's 'strict and rigourous' laws are not actually enforced, see the 'Diaries of Despair' exposé for details including leaked Home Office documents http://www.xenodiaries.org/guilty.htm
quote:
The phtos on this sight show baby mnokeys kept in horrendous conditions... barren wire cages. Monkeys these days, certainly not in the UK, are kept in very different conditions, but of course, no one wants to see group housed monkey living in large open plan rooms with sawdust on the floor, shelves, tyres, climbing frames and hammocks do they?
Baboons used in the experiments at Huntingdon Life Sciences exposed in the 'Diaries of Despair' report were captured from the wild in Kenya and transported to labs in the UK, some died in transit as the cages did not even meet guidelines.
The leaked documents show that 'The animals were housed individually in cages...prior to transplant the animals were housed in one of two different cage types, commonly known as 'metal' and 'printboard' cages. Metal cages were contructed of aluminium and electro-polished stainless stell and incorporate a squeeze-back system, perch, food hopper, bottle holders and a 2.5 x 2.5 cm grid floor. The cages were entirely wall mounted in two tiers..." http://www.xenodiaries.org/studies.pdf
The BUAV 2002 report re its undercover investigations of Cambridge University revealed "hundreds of marmoset monkeys imprisoned inside small, barren cages for their entire lives". http://www.buav.org/undercover/cambridge.html
The BUAV's video of its undercover investigation of Covance in Germany in 2003 revealed "macaque monkeys being routinely kept in isolation in small, single, barren, metal cages in which they lacked social interaction, environmental enrichment, space to exercise or access to natural light." http://www.buav.org/undercover/covance.html
Perhaps a group of unbiased people, or a combination of pro and anti vivs to build a website showing both sides of the story. One that gives evidence of animal research that has been successfull AND tests that have failed miserably. Photos of animals in poor conditions and in extreme procedures AND animals kept in good conditions and subjected to only mild procedures e.g. injections. One that gives information on the law and its enforcement.
It may be true that some labs keep animals in some standard conditions, I've seen the photos. All I am saying is that many do not. I know of one where the monkeys are gang housed in compatible groups (not in isolation). They do have metal cages where they can be shut away when necessary (e.g. when recovering from anaesthetic) but these are left open within a large open room. There is sawdust on the floor and wooden shelving and perches along the wall. They have a number of toys including climbing frames, and toys suspended from the ceiling to swing on. They have a swingin tyre that their lab food is put in to keep it clean but they also receive a variety of other foods. The enrichment programme is fantastic and constantly improving. Food is scattered to encourage foraging behaviour, put in cardboard boxes or dog toy e.g. kongs so the animals have to use their brains, Treats may be froxen into flavoured ice blocks.I could go on. All the staff treat the animals with respect and consideration. The monkeys are not shouted at, hit, kicked or mistreated in any way. Of course, groups such as BUAV will not tell the public about monkeys like these.
Sorry it's so long but my point is that this issue is so controversial and emotive that no one wants to present an unbiased, one-sided view.
Should have re-read post before posting it! Doh! I meant have seen sub-standard conditions, and that and an unbiased NOT one sideed view should be presented.
Originally posted by welfarist: Oops, forgot to add in the last post. The ohter reason I think more four is far from pro-animal testing is the nature of their programmes, and the info on this sight. For example, Animals conveniently showed lab dogs (because they are more likely to invoke a sympathetic resonse than say a rat) despite the fact that less than 1% of animals used in research are dogs. Secondly, there is the Monkey Love issue. Harry Harlow (sp) for a start was working in America, where legislation protecting lab animals is less stringent than that in th UK even now. Secondly, his experiments were conducted decades ago, and many improvements have been made to legislation, minimum standards of care etc. since then. The phtos on this sight show baby mnokeys kept in horrendous conditions... barren wire cages. Monkeys these days, certainly not in the UK, are kept in very different conditions, but of course, no one wants to see group housed monkey living in large open plan rooms with sawdust on the floor, shelves, tyres, climbing frames and hammocks do they?
No you are right. We don't want to see monkeys - or any other animal - held in vivisection labs. No matter what colour their cage bars are painted or how much sawdust they have on their floor - they are still going to suffer painful experiments and finally death so that we can have yet another brand of aspirin or oven cleaner.
Originally posted by Rob321: Love the kids they are the future for the animals
Thank you for answering that - I thought they were blimmin marvelous! It gives me hope
Sadly there appeared to be priviledged children in a private school and not the thugs that use hedgehogs as footballs and tie firewaorks to kittens and puppies. Don't be too happy about the children of the future who are obsessed with eating at McDonald's.
