The primate research lab at Cambridge is not goin to be built

[geni]

Plans to build a controversial centre for experiments on monkeys have been shelved by Cambridge University.
It has decided the costs, including measures needed to protect the facility from animal rights militants, would make the laboratory uneconomic.

Full story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3432531.stm)

Looks like the extream animal righs people have won this time.

[LuxFerum]

nope, they are just a scape goat for someone.

[richardm]

Originally posted by LuxFerum
nope, they are just a scape goat for someone.

Say what?

[geni]

You want to see something really depressing. Here is the bbc's have your say bit on the isue:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3433175.stm

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by richardm


Say what?
From the same place (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3432531.stm)

Pro vice-chancellor at Cambridge University, Professor Tony Minson, said the project would have been financially unviable even without the protesters, because of numerous delays and rising costs

[geni]

He has to say that though. and guss what caused the delays.

[richardm]

Originally posted by geni
You want to see something really depressing. Here is the bbc's have your say bit on the isue:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3433175.stm

Oh, I don't know. Seems to be a fair balance of views there. In fact, there's one that I hadn't thought of myself:

I am glad that they are shelving the research centre at Cambridge, but have one concern - that this doesn't mean UK companies paying overseas agencies to carry out research for them. Controls and animal welfare are often MUCH worse abroad than in the UK.

What a good point, Claire from Hampshire! Pity that wasn't considered before all the protesting...

Winner of the Non-Sequiter award:
The recent bird flu outbreak which is hitting the news clearly shows it's about time we started treating our animals with more respect.

[richardm]

Originally posted by geni
He has to say that though. and guss what caused the delays.

Yeah, exactly. Nobody involved in this is giving the protesters any credit for the delay, even though it's clearly what has happened. Most of the rising costs were due to the hugely increased security deemed necessary after the animal lib people started setting fire to cars and beating people up with baseball bats.

[Martin]

Originally posted by geni
You want to see something really depressing. Here is the bbc's have your say bit on the isue:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3433175.stm It's not that bad.

It is disgusting that a research centre critical for medical research has been axed due to a minority of people. I would love to see these animal rights people sitting down in front of brain disease sufferers and their families explaining why valuable research that could save them will not be possible. How many of them refuse to use drugs when they are ill? Drugs that were tested on animals!
Louise, Sheffield

Working for a major pharmaceutical organisation which is regularly targeted by animal rights groups, I am party to information that clearly shows the majority of aimal rights activists are hypocrites who generally use the products that they demonstrate against. This doesn't mean I support such activity, but I believe animal testing should be governed by the government, not by small hypocritical militant groups. Valuable research might be lost because of the loss of this facility.
Anon, UK

Potentially valuable research will be lost. Whether you believe in the morality of the research or not, a small number of extremists should not be allowed to hold research to ransom in this way.
Mark, Cambridge

Primate testing wouldn't be needed if enough human volunteers were prepared to take their place. How about it animal rights campaigners?
Kelly Mouser, UK

This is a major blow to British medical research. It also illustrates the weakness of current legislation regarding the criminal activities of the violent elements within some animal rights organisations. Hopefully, this important research can (and will) be carried out at Porton Down.
Dr Norman Day, Birmingham, UK

I am an insulin dependent diabetic, living a normal life thanks to insulin injections. Insulin and its effects were discovered by Banting and Best in the 1920s by experimenting on dogs. Prior to that all diabetics died of the condition.
Am I in favour of animal experimentation - you bet I am. It goes without saying that there should be strict regulation and that any scientist should have to present their theories, the items that they seek to prove, and sound scientific reasons why that proof cannot be achieved by other means.
Let's use just science as the basis for this - not emotion.
Peter, UK

The elimination of human suffering is worth any number of dead animals. If it's a choice between a sick child's life and an animal's life who in their right mind would save the animal?
Lorraine, St Albans, UK

[geni]

Thoes were the half that kept me from loseing all faith in humanity.

These ones were not helping:

I'm so pleased that this disgraceful centre has been cancelled. Animal rights should not be relegated to the fringe. I am however shocked and appalled that both Tony Blair and John Prescott have been supporting this dreadful thing, another reason for me not to vote for Labour again until they are removed.
Adrian de Montfort, Leeds UK

When will man realise that the other animals on this earth are not merely here for our own use and convenience?
Lee B, Eastbourne, UK

Humans have no right to "use" other helpless creatures for their own benefit especially no primates that are so close to humans.
Ingrid Corker, Buntingford Hertfordshire

[richardm]

One of the arguments I heard on the radio about this was from an Animal Rights activist.

He said "Testing on animals is not necessary. Drugs companies only do it out of habit". (Expensive bloody habit, but there you are).

If I recall correctly he then drove a coach and horses through what remained of his credibility by alluding to a plot by Big Business to make money out of torturing Small, defenceless creatures.

[richardm]

Originally posted by geni

Adrian de Montfort, Leeds UK



I'm sure I've seen that name before on these BBC reply things. I'd advise you to pay no attention to him - he's just a serial w*nker.

[Jas]

I think that animal testing for pharmaceuticals has it's place, and it's really hard to accuse the drug companies of being irresponsible in doing it. Especially after the entire Thalidomide fiasco, they realize that there are limits to animal testing, and operate (for the most part) within those limits. I volunteer for the humane society, and even I think that most of the people (ie. ALF, PETA) are nutcases. I study anthropology in school, and we learnt a lot about animal activists trying to halt LANGUAGE programs, never mind drug testing.

That was sort of ramblative. Sorry.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Jas
I study anthropology in school, and we learnt a lot about animal activists trying to halt LANGUAGE programs, never mind drug testing.


At the risk of derailing this thread, what was that about?

[Martin]

Originally posted by Jas
Especially after the entire Thalidomide fiasco, they realize that there are limits to animal testing, and operate (for the most part) within those limitsThe thalidomide fiasco was a result of too little animal testing, not too much. It was never tested on pregnant animals.

[geni]

Originally posted by Martin
The thalidomide fiasco was a result of too little animal testing, not too much. It was never tested on pregnant animals.

It was tested on pregnat animals but only in one species.

[Jas]

It was tested on rats, I believe, and the big problem there is that rat's have litters. The point I was making is that the limits of animal testing are better understood now, than they were 30 years ago.

[Jas]

Originally posted by richardm


At the risk of derailing this thread, what was that about?

Essentially,they're so opposed to any sort of 'testing on animals', that they've interfered with non-harmful forms of testing (ie. apes are wild creatures, and it's unethical to do research on them by attempting to teach them ASL or what have you).

Remember that entire 'Free Willy' campaign? When released, that whale (Keiko, I think was the name), hung around near the shore, and was trying to intereact with humans. They had an incredibly difficult time trying to get him to hunt for fish, and to stay away from human settlements. Another example would be Washoe (sp?) a chimp who was realeased from a research program due to lack of funding (and I realize that this wasn't by aa's, but jsut as an example ofthis sort of thing), and let loose on an island chimpanzee reserve. When humans came to the island, she would run up to them signing "Help Washoe! Dirty Bugs everywhere!" ('dirty bugs' was her word for other chimpanzees who couldn't 'talk').

Essentially, oftentimes the animal activists are so eager to 'right the wrong' originally served on these animals, that they do them an even greater disservice by 'setting them free'. In my opinion they're just shooting themselves in the foot most of the time, by halting legitimate research.

[Cecil]

Originally posted by richardm
Winner of the Non-Sequiter award:
I like these ones too: To all the pro-vivisectionists, the next time you are ill, feel a bump somewhere on your body, or suspect something is wrong, I suggest you go to see your vet. Surely, if animal testing works so well he will be able to cure you better than your doctor. :big:I remember reading in the Bible "Thou shalt not kill" it did not say anything about making exceptions for medical research! But s/he apparently didn't even read the first page of the Bible. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Genesis 1:26

[El Greco]

And all these while bazillions of helpless, innocent bacteria and virii become daily the victim of sadistic scientists who test on them almost every substance you can think of.

[DanishDynamite]

A comment.

Does anyone feel there is a limit to how we test things using animals? Is there an ethical limit to how many animals are used in a particular test, in regard to how important said test is or the extent (if any) of suffering said lab animals went through?

Suppose a test required the use of 1000 rats, 300 of which suffered a slow death, to test the level at which a compound could be added to socks to make them more white. This is a made-up example off the top of my head. Is this OK? Is there a limit to how many or how tough? Or does anything go?

[Rolfe]

To all the pro-vivisectionists, the next time you are ill, feel a bump somewhere on your body, or suspect something is wrong, I suggest you go to see your vet. Surely, if animal testing works so well he will be able to cure you better than your doctor.And you have a problem with this suggestion because....?

:D

Rolfe, MRCVS.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
A comment.

Does anyone feel there is a limit to how we test things using animals? Is there an ethical limit to how many animals are used in a particular test, in regard to how important said test is or the extent (if any) of suffering said lab animals went through?

Suppose a test required the use of 1000 rats, 300 of which suffered a slow death, to test the level at which a compound could be added to socks to make them more white. This is a made-up example off the top of my head. Is this OK? Is there a limit to how many or how tough? Or does anything go?

I don't know at all the ethics behind decisions on the necessity and the number of lab animals, and I suspect that both depend on the particular university and the experiment supervisor. But yes, I agree that there should be limits, otherwise experiments will not be different from animal cruelty.

[geni]

In the UK you can't test cosmetics on animals

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Is there a limit to how many or how tough? Or does anything go? This isn't quite my field, but I was at a lecture/discussion about the present (1986) legislation, last September.

Legislation in this country is extremely tough. I don't have my notes home with me, but there are committees and approvals and justifications and rigorous questions about why you can't use an in vitro method, and named veterinary surgeons (nothing to do with the experiment, often a local vet with special training) whose primary responsibility is the welfare of the animals and who have the absolute right to call a halt if they think there is unacceptable suffering.

There was a school of thought at the meeting which suggested that the rigour of the law was inhibiting scientific work in this country, and indeed there are instances of scientists going abroad so they could avoid jumping through the hoops (not necessarily that their proposals were unacceptable, but just because the system has so much bureaucracy attached to it).

You can be absolutely assured that an experiment involving animals which is permitted in this country has both scientific/medical benefit sufficient to justify the use of the animals, and absolutely no way to get the same benefit with in vitro work. And that the welfare of the animals is closely monitored and safeguarded during the work.

This doesn't mean that no animal ever suffers. But it does strike a balance so that the suffering is kept to a minimum and is believed to be "worth it" in terms of genuine benefit.

Rolfe.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by geni
Thoes were the half that kept me from loseing all faith in humanity.

These ones were not helping:



If you'd like to, feel free to add me to your list of people who are not helping.

[richardm]

Originally posted by LucyR


If you'd like to, feel free to add me to your list of people who are not helping.

Do you think animal testing is never justified, then, Lucy?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by richardm
Do you think animal testing is never justified, then, Lucy?
That depends, can animal testing be done in a way that doesnt harm the animal or cause it to suffer?

[The Don]

Originally posted by Yahweh

That depends, can animal testing be done in a way that doesnt harm the animal or cause it to suffer?

Depends on the test doen't it. If the requierment is to test a drug in animals to determine whether it is able to prevent a disease which is fatal to both the animal and humans and if you have to cause the disease in the animl in order to execute the test then no - you must harm the animal.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Yahweh

That depends, can animal testing be done in a way that doesnt harm the animal or cause it to suffer?

In truth, I'd say that a large majority of animal testing that is really worth doing will harm the animal and/or cause it to suffer.

The question is whether you'd rather see humans being harmed or suffering, which is the logical conclusion of stopping medical research in this way.

Even when we have really good alternatives for some animal testing, I'd still think we'd want to test on a real animal before trying things on people.

That's "Worth Doing" as opposed to making sure that your new shampoo won't sting your eyes.

[Wudang]

It never ceases to amaze me how many people oppose using animals for disease research who are not vegans. The dairy industry produces a lot of calves each year so the cows produce milk - guess what happens to them? And for meat eaters - what, it's wrong to harm an animal in the earnest hope of saving lives but it's okay to kill it for a tastier sausage? Hmm, maybe it would be better if we ate the animals after we finished the tests?
I do pity the poor cow that ended up as the bit of beef in my sandwich today, even mustard didn't help much.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Wudang

I do pity the poor cow that ended up as the bit of beef in my sandwich today, even mustard didn't help much.

If it's any comfort, it probably died of natural causes after a long and productive life :)

[richardm]

Originally posted by The Don


If it's any comfort, it probably died of natural causes after a long and productive life :)

I think that's bullocks.