Blair takes stand on animal tests

Dragon · 14th May 2006, 02:36 AM

From the BBC -

Quote:

Tony Blair has defended animal testing and accused anti-vivisection extremists of stooping to "appalling" depths.

Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, he said companies with links to animal testing may be allowed to keep details of their shareholders secret.

Mr Blair said he would also sign a pro-animal testing petition in a stand against a "tiny group of extremists".

and here's a link to the Sunday Telegraph piece
This is very significant (I can't recall any Prime Minister signing a petion before this) and seems to be part of a wider movement against the animal rights terrorists.

brodski · 14th May 2006, 02:44 AM

Originally Posted by Dragon

From the BBC -

and here's a link to the Sunday Telegraph piece
This is very significant (I can't recall any Prime Minister signing a petion before this) and seems to be part of a wider movement against the animal rights terrorists.

It seems a bit bizarre, him signing a petition. Why not just introduce legislation? Or at the very least make an "early day motion". Petitions are the things put together by people with very little power, in order to try and influence those with power, what's the point of the first amongst
equals signing one?
I'm glad he has finally taken a stand on this though, it shows just how unpopular the anti animal testing lobby has become, that even Blair is prepared to condemn them.

geni · 14th May 2006, 02:45 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

It seems a bit bizarre, him signing a petition. Why not just introduce legislation?

Already been done. There isn't much point in introduceing legislation against something that already breaks quite a selection of laws.

brodski · 14th May 2006, 02:52 AM

Originally Posted by geni

Already been done. There isn't much point in introduceing legislation against something that already breaks quite a selection of laws.

I meant legislation allowing certain companies to keep details of their shareholders secret (or at least less public). OK so that legislation would have to go through No. 11, but till, I do find it a little embarrassing that the PM has to resort to signing petitions, what's next, wearing a T-shirts with political slogans on to PMQs? Carrying a placard down Whitehall?

geni · 14th May 2006, 02:59 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

I meant legislation allowing certain companies to keep details of their shareholders secret (or at least less public).

He is suggesting doing that. The pertition is seperate.

brodski · 14th May 2006, 03:25 AM

Originally Posted by geni

He is suggesting doing that. The pertition is seperate.

but the petition is an irrelevant policy wise, and embarrassment politically. I mean, who is he petitioning?
He also said that some companies "should" be able to keep certain details secret, not that they will. It will be every interesting to see if these amendments get any parliamentary time.

Mojo · 14th May 2006, 03:33 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

I meant legislation allowing certain companies to keep details of their shareholders secret (or at least less public). OK so that legislation would have to go through No. 11, but till, I do find it a little embarrassing that the PM has to resort to signing petitions, what's next, wearing a T-shirts with political slogans on to PMQs? Carrying a placard down Whitehall?

Perhaps he's not on speaking terms with his next-door neighbour.

brodski · 14th May 2006, 03:40 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

Perhaps he's not on speaking terms with his next-door neighbour.

and all over a half cup of sugar Gordon borrowed on the 2nd of May 1997. It's always the same story, it'll end in ASBOs, you mark my words...

Rolfe · 14th May 2006, 05:30 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

but the petition is an irrelevant policy wise, and embarrassment politically. I mean, who is he petitioning?

That is a very good point. The purpose of a petition is to get an impressive number of signatures to a request or demand to someone in authority to take certain action. It has to be delivered to someone.

Who is he petitioning?

Rolfe.

Yuri Nalyssus · 14th May 2006, 06:15 AM

Originally Posted by brodski

...who is he petitioning?

Well, himself presumably. When you consider it in those terms it doesn't make a lot of sense but when you consider it as a public statement from the master of gesture politics it's incredible.

I heard an antivivisectionist on the radio claiming that Blair was "backing the wrong horse", as if direct action, violence and intimidation were the only way to debate the issue.

Yuri

geni · 14th May 2006, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

That is a very good point. The purpose of a petition is to get an impressive number of signatures to a request or demand to someone in authority to take certain action. It has to be delivered to someone.

Who is he petitioning?

Rolfe.

The animal rights groups. He is trying to show solidarity with those being threatened and the like.

Lord Muck oGentry · 14th May 2006, 07:17 AM

Here is what people are being asked to sign:

http://www.thepeoplespetition.org.uk/signup/

The signatory is agreeing with three statements beginning " I believe" and one beginning " I understand".

Unless I'm missing something, the document isn't addressed to anyone, so it isn't a petition.

Dragon · 14th May 2006, 01:08 PM

Well, gesture it may be, but a valuable one, I think. There does seem to be something of a backlash underway -

Quote:

There was a show of defiance from the City yesterday, with seven leading institutions pledging in a letter to the Financial Times to keep their shareholdings in companies engaged in research.

(also from the Telegraph)

tkingdoll · 14th May 2006, 03:00 PM

I am pretty happy with Blair's actions, if only because he said that he wanted to ensure that Britian is not seen as "anti-science".

That's an excellent statement to make.

Yuri Nalyssus · 15th May 2006, 08:47 AM

Now Tony Blair has been criticised by animal rights groups for signing the petition - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4767875.stm - they are incapable of realising that's it is possible to be critical of extremist action without being some caricature loony who likes torturing animals for the fun of it. What ever happened to open discussion?

Yuri

Vorticity · 15th May 2006, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by Yuri Nalyssus

Now Tony Blair has been criticised by animal rights groups for signing the petition - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4767875.stm - they are incapable of realising that's it is possible to be critical of extremist action without being some caricature loony who likes torturing animals for the fun of it. What ever happened to open discussion?

It got thrown out in the opening post:

Originally Posted by Dragon

This is very significant (I can't recall any Prime Minister signing a petion before this) and seems to be part of a wider movement against the animal rights terrorists.

I just popped in to point out that it is possible to be an animal rights activist without being an animal rights terrrorist. To be sure, the latter certainly exist, but the two things are not synonymous. Careless tossing around of the term "terrorist" is a sure conversation stopper.

By the way, the PM himself has this to say in the article:

Originally Posted by Tony Blair

"A growing number of stages of vital research and testing can now be done, thankfully, without the use of animals. We all hope that the time will come when no animal testing is needed at all."

He clearly seems to be concerned to some degree about animal testing. Would you say he is a terrorist?

Jaggy Bunnet · 15th May 2006, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by Vorticity

It got thrown out in the opening post:

I just popped in to point out that it is possible to be an animal rights activist without being an animal rights terrrorist. To be sure, the latter certainly exist, but the two things are not synonymous. Careless tossing around of the term "terrorist" is a sure conversation stopper.

By the way, the PM himself has this to say in the article:

He clearly seems to be concerned to some degree about animal testing. Would you say he is a terrorist?

But there does appear to be a wider movement against, specifically, animal rights terrorists, such as the proposed changes in the company law reform bill to allow non-disclosure of directors home addresses and details of shareholders, the sentences handed down to the bodysnatchers and the recent injunction granted in relation to Glaxo shareholders. These are not aimed at animal rights activists, but specifically at those extremists who use terrorist tactics.

Blair is not making the gesture because of peaceful protests, he is doing it to show solidarity with the victims of the terror campaigns.

The fact remains that there ARE terrorists in the animal rights movement. Why should referring to these people by a conversation stopper?

Yuri Nalyssus · 15th May 2006, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by Vorticity

He clearly seems to be concerned to some degree about animal testing. Would you say he is a terrorist?

I feel very strongly that we should be doing as much as possible to reduce the amount of animal testing and I believe that a lot is being done in that direction. What really gets me is the fact that TB is being condemned for speaking out against terrorism...

Quote:

"The prime minister... condemned the "appalling" actions of animal rights extremists"

...and labelled as one who approves of vivisection for its own sake. The NAVS has condemned him as being "hugely irresponsible" - when that sort of remark is made about someone who doesn't like people being intimidated and threatened in the course of their legitimate occupation it's no wonder that all anti-vivisectionists get tarred with the same brush. Where's the statement from NAVS praising TB for his stand against the violent minority who are bringing animal rights campaigners into disrepute?

How would you define animal rights activist?

Yuri

Mojo · 15th May 2006, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

...the sentences handed down to the bodysnatchers...

Did anyone hear the Today programme this morning? The mother of one of the bodysnatchers put forward the worst argument against animal testing I've ever heard: animal testing is wrong because drugs have side effects.

She also claimed it was unfair of the police to charge her son with conspiracy to blackmail. He pleaded guilty.

Mojo · 15th May 2006, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Vorticity

By the way, the PM himself has this to say in the article:

Quote:

"A growing number of stages of vital research and testing can now be done, thankfully, without the use of animals. We all hope that the time will come when no animal testing is needed at all."

He clearly seems to be concerned to some degree about animal testing. Would you say he is a terrorist?

I think you'll find that scientists involved in animal testing would in general rather not have to do it. Quite apart from the issues involved in extrapolating from animal to human, scientists are actually quite normal people and don't like hurting animals any more than the rest of the population does, and then, in the UK at least, there's the paperwork involved in getting the necessary licences.

Dragon · 15th May 2006, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by Vorticity

It got thrown out in the opening post:

I just popped in to point out that it is possible to be an animal rights activist without being an animal rights terrrorist. To be sure, the latter certainly exist, but the two things are not synonymous. Careless tossing around of the term "terrorist" is a sure conversation stopper.

By the way, the PM himself has this to say in the article:

He clearly seems to be concerned to some degree about animal testing. Would you say he is a terrorist?

I was not being careless - as you say, animal rights terrrorists certainly exist.
What in my OP made you think I was equating "activist" with "terrorist" ?

Here is the wording of the petition from Lord Muck oGentry's link -

Quote:

I believe that medical research is essential for developing new medical and veterinary treatments. I understand that finding safe and effective treatments and medicines requires some studies using animals.
I believe that medical research using animals, carried out to the highest standards of care and welfare, and where there is no alternative available, should continue in the UK.
I believe that people involved in medical research using animals have a right to work and live without fear of intimidation or attack.

- anything there you don't agree with Vorticity?

Cynric · 16th May 2006, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by Yuri Nalyssus

Now Tony Blair has been criticised by animal rights groups for signing the petition - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4767875.stm - they are incapable of realising that's it is possible to be critical of extremist action without being some caricature loony who likes torturing animals for the fun of it. What ever happened to open discussion?

Yuri

It seems that the animal rights groups have taken note of the creationists "wedge" strategy - invent dissent.

From the report:

Quote:

This petition is being run by an extremist group of vested interests representing a very narrow area of medical research.

"They want to see the UK continue with an outdated method of research as opposed to taking up more advanced, non-animal scientific methods."

Outmoded science? More advanced non-animal methods?

I'm sure most scientists would love to hear about alternatives to animal experiments, as no-one likes having to do them. Perhaps they just can't be bothered to learn new things

This does seem to be the new tack: animal experiments are bad science.
I suppose it has a certain venal cunning.

14th May 2006, 02:36 AM	#1
Dragon Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,341	Blair takes stand on animal tests From the BBC - Quote: Tony Blair has defended animal testing and accused anti-vivisection extremists of stooping to "appalling" depths. Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, he said companies with links to animal testing may be allowed to keep details of their shareholders secret. Mr Blair said he would also sign a pro-animal testing petition in a stand against a "tiny group of extremists". and here's a link to the Sunday Telegraph piece This is very significant (I can't recall any Prime Minister signing a petion before this) and seems to be part of a wider movement against the animal rights terrorists.
	__________________ "We must favour verifiable evidence over private feeling. Otherwise we leave ourselves vulnerable to those who would obscure the truth." Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason

14th May 2006, 02:44 AM	#2
brodski faceless bureaucrat Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: the three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham Posts: 11,636	Originally Posted by Dragon From the BBC - and here's a link to the Sunday Telegraph piece This is very significant (I can't recall any Prime Minister signing a petion before this) and seems to be part of a wider movement against the animal rights terrorists. It seems a bit bizarre, him signing a petition. Why not just introduce legislation? Or at the very least make an "early day motion". Petitions are the things put together by people with very little power, in order to try and influence those with power, what's the point of the first amongst equals signing one? I'm glad he has finally taken a stand on this though, it shows just how unpopular the anti animal testing lobby has become, that even Blair is prepared to condemn them.
	__________________ ...and the story does suggest a part 2 to the Turing Test: 1. can machines behave like humans? 2. can we?

14th May 2006, 02:52 AM	#4
brodski faceless bureaucrat Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: the three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham Posts: 11,636	Originally Posted by geni Already been done. There isn't much point in introduceing legislation against something that already breaks quite a selection of laws. I meant legislation allowing certain companies to keep details of their shareholders secret (or at least less public). OK so that legislation would have to go through No. 11, but till, I do find it a little embarrassing that the PM has to resort to signing petitions, what's next, wearing a T-shirts with political slogans on to PMQs? Carrying a placard down Whitehall?
	__________________ ...and the story does suggest a part 2 to the Turing Test: 1. can machines behave like humans? 2. can we?

14th May 2006, 02:59 AM	#5
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 19,861	Originally Posted by brodski I meant legislation allowing certain companies to keep details of their shareholders secret (or at least less public). He is suggesting doing that. The pertition is seperate.
	Last edited by geni; 14th May 2006 at 03:14 AM.

14th May 2006, 03:25 AM	#6
brodski faceless bureaucrat Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: the three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham Posts: 11,636	Originally Posted by geni He is suggesting doing that. The pertition is seperate. but the petition is an irrelevant policy wise, and embarrassment politically. I mean, who is he petitioning? He also said that some companies "should" be able to keep certain details secret, not that they will. It will be every interesting to see if these amendments get any parliamentary time.
	__________________ ...and the story does suggest a part 2 to the Turing Test: 1. can machines behave like humans? 2. can we?

14th May 2006, 02:45 AM	#3
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 19,861	Originally Posted by brodski It seems a bit bizarre, him signing a petition. Why not just introduce legislation? Already been done. There isn't much point in introduceing legislation against something that already breaks quite a selection of laws.

14th May 2006, 03:33 AM	#7
Mojo Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 14,504	Originally Posted by brodski I meant legislation allowing certain companies to keep details of their shareholders secret (or at least less public). OK so that legislation would have to go through No. 11, but till, I do find it a little embarrassing that the PM has to resort to signing petitions, what's next, wearing a T-shirts with political slogans on to PMQs? Carrying a placard down Whitehall? Perhaps he's not on speaking terms with his next-door neighbour.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield Ridicule is not an inappropriate response to the ridiculous.

14th May 2006, 03:40 AM	#8
brodski faceless bureaucrat Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: the three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham Posts: 11,636	Originally Posted by Mojo Perhaps he's not on speaking terms with his next-door neighbour. and all over a half cup of sugar Gordon borrowed on the 2nd of May 1997. It's always the same story, it'll end in ASBOs, you mark my words...
	__________________ ...and the story does suggest a part 2 to the Turing Test: 1. can machines behave like humans? 2. can we?

14th May 2006, 05:30 AM	#9
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 18,448	Originally Posted by brodski but the petition is an irrelevant policy wise, and embarrassment politically. I mean, who is he petitioning? That is a very good point. The purpose of a petition is to get an impressive number of signatures to a request or demand to someone in authority to take certain action. It has to be delivered to someone. Who is he petitioning? Rolfe.
	__________________ "The thing about medicine is, that it all comes down to the numbers." - Dr. Stephen Franklin, Interludes and Examinations. "To give Rolfe his due, I think this is a good example to everyone of what can happen if we fail to get a proper diagnosis and begin treating on symptoms alone--a big mistake, as shown here." - "Snoopy" on H'pathy Forums, apparently abjuring the very fundamentals of homoeopathy after she'd just allowed a young mother with Addison's disease to die.

14th May 2006, 06:15 AM	#10
Yuri Nalyssus Muse Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: The Ancient Isle of Avignuon Posts: 572	Originally Posted by brodski ...who is he petitioning? Well, himself presumably. When you consider it in those terms it doesn't make a lot of sense but when you consider it as a public statement from the master of gesture politics it's incredible. I heard an antivivisectionist on the radio claiming that Blair was "backing the wrong horse", as if direct action, violence and intimidation were the only way to debate the issue. Yuri
	__________________ "The test of democracy is freedom of criticism." -David Ben-Gurion Peasant: Now we see the violence inherent in the system. King: Shut up! Peasant: Come and see the violence inherent in the system, help, help! I’m being repressed! King: Bloody peasant! Peasant: Ooh, what a giveaway, did you hear that... that’s what I’m on about, d’you see him repressing me? You saw it didn’t you... - Monty Python and The Holy Grail

14th May 2006, 06:18 AM	#11
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 19,861	Originally Posted by Rolfe That is a very good point. The purpose of a petition is to get an impressive number of signatures to a request or demand to someone in authority to take certain action. It has to be delivered to someone. Who is he petitioning? Rolfe. The animal rights groups. He is trying to show solidarity with those being threatened and the like.

14th May 2006, 07:17 AM	#12
Lord Muck oGentry Muse Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 796	Here is what people are being asked to sign: http://www.thepeoplespetition.org.uk/signup/ The signatory is agreeing with three statements beginning " I believe" and one beginning " I understand". Unless I'm missing something, the document isn't addressed to anyone, so it isn't a petition.
Lord Muck oGentry Muse Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 796

14th May 2006, 01:08 PM	#13
Dragon Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,341	Well, gesture it may be, but a valuable one, I think. There does seem to be something of a backlash underway - Quote: There was a show of defiance from the City yesterday, with seven leading institutions pledging in a letter to the Financial Times to keep their shareholdings in companies engaged in research. (also from the Telegraph)
	__________________ "We must favour verifiable evidence over private feeling. Otherwise we leave ourselves vulnerable to those who would obscure the truth." Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason

14th May 2006, 03:00 PM	#14
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,450	I am pretty happy with Blair's actions, if only because he said that he wanted to ensure that Britian is not seen as "anti-science". That's an excellent statement to make.
	__________________ TAM London Oct 3rd and 4th 2009 www.tamlondon.org www.spoonscience.com The World Record Spoon Bend from TAM6 - for all benders, pushers and dealers

15th May 2006, 08:47 AM	#15
Yuri Nalyssus Muse Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: The Ancient Isle of Avignuon Posts: 572	Now Tony Blair has been criticised by animal rights groups for signing the petition - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4767875.stm - they are incapable of realising that's it is possible to be critical of extremist action without being some caricature loony who likes torturing animals for the fun of it. What ever happened to open discussion? Yuri
	__________________ "The test of democracy is freedom of criticism." -David Ben-Gurion Peasant: Now we see the violence inherent in the system. King: Shut up! Peasant: Come and see the violence inherent in the system, help, help! I’m being repressed! King: Bloody peasant! Peasant: Ooh, what a giveaway, did you hear that... that’s what I’m on about, d’you see him repressing me? You saw it didn’t you... - Monty Python and The Holy Grail

15th May 2006, 09:41 AM	#16
Vorticity Fluid Mechanic Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Los Alamos, NM Posts: 1,532	Originally Posted by Yuri Nalyssus Now Tony Blair has been criticised by animal rights groups for signing the petition - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4767875.stm - they are incapable of realising that's it is possible to be critical of extremist action without being some caricature loony who likes torturing animals for the fun of it. What ever happened to open discussion? It got thrown out in the opening post: Originally Posted by Dragon This is very significant (I can't recall any Prime Minister signing a petion before this) and seems to be part of a wider movement against the animal rights terrorists. I just popped in to point out that it is possible to be an animal rights activist without being an animal rights terrrorist. To be sure, the latter certainly exist, but the two things are not synonymous. Careless tossing around of the term "terrorist" is a sure conversation stopper. By the way, the PM himself has this to say in the article: Originally Posted by Tony Blair "A growing number of stages of vital research and testing can now be done, thankfully, without the use of animals. We all hope that the time will come when no animal testing is needed at all." He clearly seems to be concerned to some degree about animal testing. Would you say he is a terrorist?

15th May 2006, 10:15 AM	#17
Jaggy Bunnet Philosopher Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sunny Leith Posts: 5,014	Originally Posted by Vorticity It got thrown out in the opening post: I just popped in to point out that it is possible to be an animal rights activist without being an animal rights terrrorist. To be sure, the latter certainly exist, but the two things are not synonymous. Careless tossing around of the term "terrorist" is a sure conversation stopper. By the way, the PM himself has this to say in the article: He clearly seems to be concerned to some degree about animal testing. Would you say he is a terrorist? But there does appear to be a wider movement against, specifically, animal rights terrorists, such as the proposed changes in the company law reform bill to allow non-disclosure of directors home addresses and details of shareholders, the sentences handed down to the bodysnatchers and the recent injunction granted in relation to Glaxo shareholders. These are not aimed at animal rights activists, but specifically at those extremists who use terrorist tactics. Blair is not making the gesture because of peaceful protests, he is doing it to show solidarity with the victims of the terror campaigns. The fact remains that there ARE terrorists in the animal rights movement. Why should referring to these people by a conversation stopper?

15th May 2006, 10:18 AM	#18
Yuri Nalyssus Muse Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: The Ancient Isle of Avignuon Posts: 572	Originally Posted by Vorticity He clearly seems to be concerned to some degree about animal testing. Would you say he is a terrorist? I feel very strongly that we should be doing as much as possible to reduce the amount of animal testing and I believe that a lot is being done in that direction. What really gets me is the fact that TB is being condemned for speaking out against terrorism... Quote: "The prime minister... condemned the "appalling" actions of animal rights extremists" ...and labelled as one who approves of vivisection for its own sake. The NAVS has condemned him as being "hugely irresponsible" - when that sort of remark is made about someone who doesn't like people being intimidated and threatened in the course of their legitimate occupation it's no wonder that all anti-vivisectionists get tarred with the same brush. Where's the statement from NAVS praising TB for his stand against the violent minority who are bringing animal rights campaigners into disrepute? How would you define animal rights activist? Yuri
	__________________ "The test of democracy is freedom of criticism." -David Ben-Gurion Peasant: Now we see the violence inherent in the system. King: Shut up! Peasant: Come and see the violence inherent in the system, help, help! I’m being repressed! King: Bloody peasant! Peasant: Ooh, what a giveaway, did you hear that... that’s what I’m on about, d’you see him repressing me? You saw it didn’t you... - Monty Python and The Holy Grail

15th May 2006, 10:22 AM	#19
Mojo Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 14,504	Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet ...the sentences handed down to the bodysnatchers... Did anyone hear the Today programme this morning? The mother of one of the bodysnatchers put forward the worst argument against animal testing I've ever heard: animal testing is wrong because drugs have side effects. She also claimed it was unfair of the police to charge her son with conspiracy to blackmail. He pleaded guilty.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield Ridicule is not an inappropriate response to the ridiculous.

15th May 2006, 10:36 AM	#20
Mojo Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 14,504	Originally Posted by Vorticity By the way, the PM himself has this to say in the article: Quote: "A growing number of stages of vital research and testing can now be done, thankfully, without the use of animals. We all hope that the time will come when no animal testing is needed at all." He clearly seems to be concerned to some degree about animal testing. Would you say he is a terrorist? I think you'll find that scientists involved in animal testing would in general rather not have to do it. Quite apart from the issues involved in extrapolating from animal to human, scientists are actually quite normal people and don't like hurting animals any more than the rest of the population does, and then, in the UK at least, there's the paperwork involved in getting the necessary licences.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield Ridicule is not an inappropriate response to the ridiculous.

15th May 2006, 10:52 AM	#21
Dragon Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,341	Originally Posted by Vorticity It got thrown out in the opening post: I just popped in to point out that it is possible to be an animal rights activist without being an animal rights terrrorist. To be sure, the latter certainly exist, but the two things are not synonymous. Careless tossing around of the term "terrorist" is a sure conversation stopper. By the way, the PM himself has this to say in the article: He clearly seems to be concerned to some degree about animal testing. Would you say he is a terrorist? I was not being careless - as you say, animal rights terrrorists certainly exist. What in my OP made you think I was equating "activist" with "terrorist" ? Here is the wording of the petition from Lord Muck oGentry's link - Quote: I believe that medical research is essential for developing new medical and veterinary treatments. I understand that finding safe and effective treatments and medicines requires some studies using animals. I believe that medical research using animals, carried out to the highest standards of care and welfare, and where there is no alternative available, should continue in the UK. I believe that people involved in medical research using animals have a right to work and live without fear of intimidation or attack. - anything there you don't agree with Vorticity?
	__________________ "We must favour verifiable evidence over private feeling. Otherwise we leave ourselves vulnerable to those who would obscure the truth." Richard Dawkins - The Enemies of Reason

16th May 2006, 01:20 PM	#22
Cynric Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 253	Originally Posted by Yuri Nalyssus Now Tony Blair has been criticised by animal rights groups for signing the petition - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4767875.stm - they are incapable of realising that's it is possible to be critical of extremist action without being some caricature loony who likes torturing animals for the fun of it. What ever happened to open discussion? Yuri It seems that the animal rights groups have taken note of the creationists "wedge" strategy - invent dissent. From the report: Quote: This petition is being run by an extremist group of vested interests representing a very narrow area of medical research. "They want to see the UK continue with an outdated method of research as opposed to taking up more advanced, non-animal scientific methods." Outmoded science? More advanced non-animal methods? I'm sure most scientists would love to hear about alternatives to animal experiments, as no-one likes having to do them. Perhaps they just can't be bothered to learn new things This does seem to be the new tack: animal experiments are bad science. I suppose it has a certain venal cunning.
Cynric Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 253