|
Michelle Thew recently wrote a piece for The Huffington Post on the use of stray or feral animals inmedical research labs. Unfortunately, the article was missing vitalinformation that may change the way that readers understand theissue. Ms Thew was referring to a Home Office consultation response document relating to EU Directive 2010/63/EU, which is set to raise animalwelfare standards across Europe. Ms Thew's thesis was this - the Directive would also mean thatstray animals such as lost pets could be caught, with no attempt toreturn them to their owners, before being poisoned, electrocuted orforced to swim in laboratories. Whilst it is true that stray animals could be used in research, inthe field or in the lab, this is not the whole truth. The documentactually reads: "Article 11 prohibits the use of stray and feral animals ofdomestic species except in essential studies relating to the healthand welfare of the animals, or serious threats to the environmentor to human or animal health. There must also be a scientificjustification that the purpose of the procedure can be achievedonly by the use of a stray or a feral animal." Page 17, Consultation on options for transposition of EuropeanDirective 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used forscientific Purposes. Summary report and Government response, May2012. The use of stray or feral cats would, then, be either to treatdiseases in that species, or the very highly unlikely situation ofa 'serious' threat to humans, animals or the environment that couldonly possibly be studied in stray animals. It would otherwise beillegal. It is not possible to know what the nature of the threat could be,so the government has not ruled anything out. However, animals likehumans are vulnerable to outbreaks of diseases such as rabies, orenvironmental changes that have a profound effect on their chancesof survival. In the case of a disease, the 'use' could be thetesting of a vaccine, perhaps by pill or injection rather than thegratuitous electrocution of a beloved family pet. It might equallybe the study of feline HIV in feral cat populations, which isunlikely to involve taking them for a swim. Researchers proposing a vaccine or treatment would have to provethat testing the vaccine on a stray or feral cat, rather than viaanother technique or animal (including laboratory-bred cats), wasliterally the only way to proceed, in order to get a licence fromthe Home Office that allowed them to do the work. They cannotsimply grab animals off the street. In doing this research, theywould be attempting to protect Europe's cat population from thespread of a deadly disease. Animal welfare groups such as the BUAV often do good work,rightfully exposing breaches of the law and helping to refinepolicy around, for instance, conflicts of interest. Unfortunately,some of them have also convinced themselves there are alternativesto animal research, when this viewpoint is both scientificallybogus and a self-defeating argument: It is already illegal to useanimals if there is a proven alternative. Although work continuesapace to find alternatives and reduce the numbers of animals used,we are not there yet. If there are genuinely alternatives,available now, all protesters have to do is produce them and agrateful scientific community will be legally compelled to usethem. The article also exposes other examples of rhetorical tricks thatanti-vivisection groups can use to make their case. These includeneglecting to mention the key safeguards of the legislation,exaggerating the probability of stray animals ever being used,examining only the costs of animal research rather than the netbenefits to animal welfare, building a 'straw man' argument usingthe definition of 'severe procedures', concealing governmentsafeguards outside of the legislation, listing experimentaltechniques that are highly unlikely to be used, divorcing researchtechniques from the purpose of the procedure and making a falseclaim to moral authority when animal research is key to both humanand animal welfare. There is also a tendency for anti-vivisection lobbyists to resortto emotive language when describing research, which can be easy todo when describing any medical procedure. Even a visit to thedentist can be made to sound pretty hair-raising if you use enoughcolourful allusions and ghoulish imagery. If you then omit thereason you were there in the first place it begins to sound like anoutrageous assault, rather than an entirely necessary procedure. It is absurd to claim that the researchers who create the drugsfound at the vet's clinic are opposed to animal welfare. They mayinstead be making a decision to sacrifice one animal's welfare forthat of many, but this, surely, saves more animals from sufferingand premature death. In contrast, anti-vivisection lobbyists champion not animal welfarebut "an" animal's welfare, advocating the rights and welfare ofindividual animals, but not the majority of animals or animals as awhole. To call it "Animal Libertarianism" is taking it a bit far,but it is a type of 19th century individualism which has founditself advocating individual welfare over the welfare of thecommunity or wider species. As with every set of rights, there is aconflict at some point between the rights of the individual and thewelfare of others. By wholly backing the individual, they findthemselves ignoring the greater needs of a larger population. Animal research is a tough topic to discuss, a task made harder bybreathless but groundless anti-vivisection narratives that misleadthe public over various aspects of the issue. Whilst not doubtingthat anti-vivisection organisations are well-intentioned, it istime for them to consider how, if their beliefs regardingalternatives happen to be misconceived, this affects their moralposition. In an echo of Mark Henderson's Geek Manifesto , we too call for the public, and particularly scientists, to writeto their MPs, asking them to stand up for human and animal welfareby supporting the scientific community and animal research, and atvery least reassess some of the claims and concerns of lobbyistslike Michelle Thew in the light of their tendency to mislead. Click here to write to your MP today. Follow Chris Magee on Twitter: /animalevidence. I am an expert from led-floodlighting.com, while we provides the quality product, such as LED Street Lighting Fixtures Manufacturer , China Outdoor LED Flood Lamps, Solar LED Street Lighting,and more.
Related Articles -
LED Street Lighting Fixtures Manufacturer, China Outdoor LED Flood Lamps,
|
