::: The Secret is Out. Spread the Word! :::
The Cove exposes the slaughter of more than 20,000 dolphins and porpoises in Taiji, Japan every year, and how their meat, containing toxic levels of mercury, is being sold as food in Japan and other parts of Asia, often labeled as whale meat. The majority of the world is not aware this is happening as the Taiji cove is blocked off from the public. The focus of the Social Action Campaign for The Cove is to create worldwide awareness of this annual practice as well as the dangers of eating seafood contaminated with mercury and to pressure those in power to put an end to the slaughter.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Arguments For & Against Animal Rights
Arguments For & Against Animal Rights
Listen to people's arguments for and against animal rights. Break down their arguments into simple statements and add them to these common outlooks to help argue your own case.
1. Drawing the Line
Claim: If we grant rights to animals then eventually even insects and plants will have rights. That would be ridiculous.
Claim: Animal rights encompass animals who are sentient (chiefly mammals and birds, but also advanced invertebrates like the octopus, Octopus vulgaris). It is Deep Ecology that makes the case for giving rights to all of nature.
2. Dependency on Animality
Claim: Giving rights to animals will severely disrupt society. We would have to undergo enormous changes if we give rights to animals. Every use of animals would have to stop and we would not be able to live normal lives.
Claim: Most people may want to give absolute animal rights where they can and relative animal rights where they cannot. We must do this with good intention and careful consideration.
3. Moral Sense
Claim: Animals have no sense of morality. So they do not need moral rights.
Claim: We support animal rights because we are moral. Whether or not animals have a sense of morality is not the issue.
4. Comprehension
Claim: Only creatures who comprehend rights can benefit from them. Only humans understand rights so only humans can have rights.
Claim: Children and severely mentally impaired people cannot understand rights, yet we do not deny them rights. Therefore we should not hold back from giving rights to animals because they cannot comprehend them.
5. Reciprocation
Claim: Conferment of rights implies reciprocation. If you have the right not to be killed then you must respect the right of others and not kill them. But animals cannot reciprocate so they should not have rights.
Claim: Animal rights are about how humans should treat animals, not about how animals should treat humans. In any case, we respect the rights of our future unborn generations and they cannot reciprocate.
6. Biology vs Rationality
Claim: Humans kill and eat animals because we evolved to survive by exploiting our environment. It is therefore pointless even to consider giving animals rights and we should continue to exploit them.
Claim: Unlike other animals we are not now constrained entirely by biological evolution. We can reflect on how we should act and can make choices on how to behave. Therefore we can behave morally and give animals rights.
7. Food & Territory
Claim: Animals eat each other, so we can eat them. We are all part of the food web.
Claim: Animals kill each other because they have to, for food or to protect their food supply, or they would die. We can decide not to eat animals. Vegetarians do not die for lack of meat.
8. Mental Capacity
Claim: People have grater mental capacities than animals and cannot be compared with them. Therefore we should reject animal rights.
Claim: We do not use or abuse people who are severely mentally retarded or in a permanent vegetative state. Many animals have mental abilities better then these people. So animals also need rights.
9. Species Differences
Claim: Animals and humans are obviously different, so we should treat animals differently from us.
Claim: There is no acceptable difference (whether intelligence, shape, posture or colour) that can distinguish animals from people morally. People are also different from each other, so where do you draw the line?
10. Pain & Suffering
Claim: Animals can experience pain and suffering but this does not mean we have to give them rights, only that we should not be cruel to them. We can treat animals well and give them adequate legal protection.
Claim: All children have rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by nearly 200 countries. Mentally handicapped people have rights as people. Now we must broaden our circle of compassion to animals.
11. Sentience
Claim: Animals are not sentient: they cannot speak, have no thoughts, feelings, desires, emotions or interests. Therefore we should reject animal rights.
Claim: We should not make our ignorance of animals a basis for insensitivity. But we know that some animals at least have ideas and a measure of speech, and that animals have feelings, like a need to care for their young, remain with their group and feel safe and well.
Listen to people's arguments for and against animal rights. Break down their arguments into simple statements and add them to these common outlooks to help argue your own case.
1. Drawing the Line
Claim: If we grant rights to animals then eventually even insects and plants will have rights. That would be ridiculous.
Claim: Animal rights encompass animals who are sentient (chiefly mammals and birds, but also advanced invertebrates like the octopus, Octopus vulgaris). It is Deep Ecology that makes the case for giving rights to all of nature.
2. Dependency on Animality
Claim: Giving rights to animals will severely disrupt society. We would have to undergo enormous changes if we give rights to animals. Every use of animals would have to stop and we would not be able to live normal lives.
Claim: Most people may want to give absolute animal rights where they can and relative animal rights where they cannot. We must do this with good intention and careful consideration.
3. Moral Sense
Claim: Animals have no sense of morality. So they do not need moral rights.
Claim: We support animal rights because we are moral. Whether or not animals have a sense of morality is not the issue.
4. Comprehension
Claim: Only creatures who comprehend rights can benefit from them. Only humans understand rights so only humans can have rights.
Claim: Children and severely mentally impaired people cannot understand rights, yet we do not deny them rights. Therefore we should not hold back from giving rights to animals because they cannot comprehend them.
5. Reciprocation
Claim: Conferment of rights implies reciprocation. If you have the right not to be killed then you must respect the right of others and not kill them. But animals cannot reciprocate so they should not have rights.
Claim: Animal rights are about how humans should treat animals, not about how animals should treat humans. In any case, we respect the rights of our future unborn generations and they cannot reciprocate.
6. Biology vs Rationality
Claim: Humans kill and eat animals because we evolved to survive by exploiting our environment. It is therefore pointless even to consider giving animals rights and we should continue to exploit them.
Claim: Unlike other animals we are not now constrained entirely by biological evolution. We can reflect on how we should act and can make choices on how to behave. Therefore we can behave morally and give animals rights.
7. Food & Territory
Claim: Animals eat each other, so we can eat them. We are all part of the food web.
Claim: Animals kill each other because they have to, for food or to protect their food supply, or they would die. We can decide not to eat animals. Vegetarians do not die for lack of meat.
8. Mental Capacity
Claim: People have grater mental capacities than animals and cannot be compared with them. Therefore we should reject animal rights.
Claim: We do not use or abuse people who are severely mentally retarded or in a permanent vegetative state. Many animals have mental abilities better then these people. So animals also need rights.
9. Species Differences
Claim: Animals and humans are obviously different, so we should treat animals differently from us.
Claim: There is no acceptable difference (whether intelligence, shape, posture or colour) that can distinguish animals from people morally. People are also different from each other, so where do you draw the line?
10. Pain & Suffering
Claim: Animals can experience pain and suffering but this does not mean we have to give them rights, only that we should not be cruel to them. We can treat animals well and give them adequate legal protection.
Claim: All children have rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by nearly 200 countries. Mentally handicapped people have rights as people. Now we must broaden our circle of compassion to animals.
11. Sentience
Claim: Animals are not sentient: they cannot speak, have no thoughts, feelings, desires, emotions or interests. Therefore we should reject animal rights.
Claim: We should not make our ignorance of animals a basis for insensitivity. But we know that some animals at least have ideas and a measure of speech, and that animals have feelings, like a need to care for their young, remain with their group and feel safe and well.
Alternatives: Testing Without Torture
Alternatives: Testing Without Torture
Besides saving countless animal lives, alternatives to animal tests are efficient and reliable. Unlike crude, archaic animal tests, non-animal methods usually take less time to complete, cost only a fraction of what the animal experiments that they replace cost, and are not plagued with species differences that make extrapolation difficult or impossible. Effective, affordable, and humane research methods include studies of human populations, volunteers, and patients as well as sophisticated in vitro, genomic, and computer-modeling techniques.
Forward-thinking companies are exploring modern alternatives. For example, Pharmagene Laboratories, based in Royston, England, is the first company to use only human tissues and sophisticated computer technology in the process of drug development and testing. With tools from molecular biology, biochemistry, and analytical pharmacology, Pharmagene conducts extensive studies of human genes and how drugs affect those genes or the proteins they make. While some companies have used animal tissues for this purpose, Pharmagene scientists believe that the discovery process is much more efficient with human tissues. “If you have information on human genes, what’s the point of going back to animals?” says Pharmagene cofounder Gordon Baxter.(1)
Alternatives to Animals in Research
Comparative studies of human populations allow doctors and scientists to discover the root causes of human diseases and disorders so that preventive action can be taken. Epidemiological studies led to the discoveries of the relationship between smoking and cancer and to the identification of heart disease risk factors.(2) Conversely, tobacco company executives relied on misleading animal-based studies to deny the link between smoking and cancer as recently as 1994.(3)
Population studies demonstrated the mechanism of the transmission of AIDS and other infectious diseases and also showed how these diseases can be prevented, whereas animal studies have produced no real results in terms of preventing or treating AIDS.(4) The National Institutes of Health have reported that more than 80 HIV/AIDS vaccines that have passed animal testing have failed in human clinical trials.(5) As the associate editor of the British Medical Journal stated, “When it comes to testing HIV vaccines, only humans will do.”(6)
In the course of treating patients, much has been learned about the causes of diseases and disorders. Studies of human patients using sophisticated scanning technology (e.g., MRI, fMRI, PET, and CT) have isolated abnormalities in the brains of patients with schizophrenia and other disorders.(7)
Cell and tissue culture (in vitro) studies are used to screen for anti-cancer, anti-AIDS, and other types of drugs, and they are also a means of producing and testing a number of other pharmaceutical products, including vaccines, antibiotics, and therapeutic proteins. The U.S. National Disease Research Interchange provides human tissue to scientists investigating diabetes, cancer, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, glaucoma, and other human diseases. In vitro genetic research has isolated specific markers, genes, and proteins associated with Alzheimer’s disease, muscular dystrophy, schizophrenia, and other inherited diseases. A 3-dimensional model of breast cancer has recently been developed that will allow investigators to study the earliest stages of breast cancer and test potential treatments. Rather than studying cancer in rodents, this model, which uses both healthy and cancerous human tissue, effectively allows the study of cancer as it develops in humans.(8)
Those who experiment on animals artificially induce disease; clinical investigators study people who are already ill with naturally occurring diseases or who have died. Animal experimenters want a disposable “research subject” who can be manipulated as desired and killed when convenient; clinicians must do no harm to their patients or study participants. Animal experimenters face the unavoidable fact that their artificially created “animal model” can never fully replicate the human condition, whereas clinical investigators know that the results of their work are directly relevant to people.
Alternatives to Animals in Testing
Alternatives to the use of animals in toxicity testing include replacing animal tests with non-animal methods, as well as modifying animal-based tests to reduce the number of animals used and to minimize pain and distress. Non-animal tests are generally faster and less expensive than the animal tests they replace and improve upon.
To date, several non-animal test methods have been formally validated and accepted by some countries as replacements for an existing animal test. Examples include the following:
• An embryonic stem cell test, using mouse-derived cells to assess potential toxicity to developing embryos, has been validated as a partial replacement for birth-defect testing in rats and rabbits.(9)
• The 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake Phototoxicity Test uses cells grown in culture to assess the potential for sunlight-induced (“photo”) irritation to the skin.
• Human skin model tests are now in use, including the validated EpiDerm™ test, which has been accepted almost universally as a total replacement for skin corrosion studies in rabbits.(10)
• The use of human skin leftover from surgical procedures or donated cadavers can be used to measure the rate at which a chemical is able to penetrate the skin.
• Microdosing can provide information on the safety of an experimental drug and how it is metabolized in the body by administering an extremely small one-time dose that is well below the threshold necessary for any potential pharmacologic effect to take place.(11)
While effective non-animal test methods become more and more numerous, animal-based toxicology remains, as researcher Thomas Hartung wrote, “frozen in time, using and accepting the same old animal models again and again, often without stringent examination of their validity.”(12)
For more detailed information about non-animal test methods that are available or under development, visit ECVAM.jrc.it and StopAnimalTests.com.
Alternatives to Animals in Education
The majority of medical schools in the U.S., including Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, have replaced their use of live animals in physiology, pharmacology, and/or surgical-training exercises with humane and effective non-animal teaching methods, including observation of actual human cardiac bypass surgery, patient simulators, cadavers, sophisticated computer programs, and more. An increasing number of veterinary schools have been able to employ similar humane educational alternatives, thereby saving the lives of countless animals who in the past would have been killed for the purposes of dissection or suffered through unnecessary surgeries.
In addition to being more humane, non-animal teaching tools such as computer simulations, multimedia CD-ROMs, and models are also more economical than traditional animal-based teaching exercises.(13) Whereas the “traditional” approach involves the acquisition and disposal of animals on an ongoing basis, purchasing a set of CD-ROMs represents a one-time expenditure for a product that can be used repeatedly for many years. Schools can save tens of thousands of dollars each year by implementing reusable replacements for animal “specimens.”
Studies, including the following examples, have shown that non-animal teaching methods are as effective as animal methods are:
• A study of first-year biology undergraduates found that examination results of those students who used model rats were equivalent to those of students who had performed rat dissections.(14)
• A similar study examined a class of first-year biology students, half of whom used traditional “hands on” laboratories while the remainder used computer software. The knowledge of biology among the computer-taught students increased significantly more than did that of the traditional “hands on” group.(15)
• A study of students who learned anatomy by doing something as simple as building clay sculptures of each body system found that they scored significantly higher on both low- and high-difficulty questions than their classmates who performed animal dissections.(16)
Several Web sites provide descriptions, prices, and ordering information for thousands of alternative learning materials. The following are two excellent databases that focus specifically on alternatives in education:
• Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association
• InterNICHE
• Norwegian Inventory of Audiovisuals (NORINA)
The following animal protection organizations have established “alternatives loan” programs for students who need to borrow a non-animal software program or other teaching tool in order to satisfy a course requirement so that they will not have to bear the financial burden of purchasing the product:
• Ethical Science Education Coalition
617-367-9143
• Humane Society of the United States
301-258-3041
• National Anti-Vivisection Society
1-800-888-NAVS
Some veterinary schools have also established willed body donation programs. These programs allow clients of veterinary clinics to donate the bodies of their companion animals after they have died a natural death. The cadaver can then be used to train students. Animal cadavers obtained in this way are considered “ethically sourced.”(17)
What You Can Do
Nearly all federally funded research is paid for with your tax dollars. Two of the main funders of animal-based research in North America, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, need to hear that you don’t want your tax dollars used to underwrite animal experiments, whatever their purpose.
Write to the heads of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Toxicology Program, and Health Canada and urge them to stop requiring cruel and obsolete animal tests for pharmaceuticals and to allow companies to substitute in vitro tests.
Whether you are a student, a parent, or a concerned taxpayer, you can act to end the use of animals in your city’s educational system. If you are expected to perform or observe a dissection, talk to your teacher as early as possible about alternative projects. Call the Dissection Hotline at 1-800-922-FROG (3764) for tips on what to say and how to proceed. If there is an animal rights group at your school or in your community, ask for help. Parents can urge their local Parent-Teacher Association to ask the area superintendent of schools or school board to consider a proposal to ban animal-based teaching exercises in public schools or at least give all students the option of doing a non-animal project. It may help to collect signatures on a petition and to present the school board with information on the cruelty of animal-based teaching exercises and on readily available alternatives.
If you are applying to medical or veterinary school, be sure to inquire about the teaching methods at any school that you are considering.
If you own stock in a company that conducts animal tests, introduce a shareholder resolution opposing the use of animals.
Visit www.StopAnimalTests.com to view current action alerts and learn more about how you can help put an end to the harmful use of animals in education.
References
1) Andy Coghlan, “Pioneers Cut Out Animal Experiments,” New Scientist 31 Aug. 1996.
2) Christopher Anderegg et al., “A Critical Look at Animal Experimentation,” Medical Research Modernization Committee, 2002.
3) Stanton Glantz, “A Selection of OSHA Comments on Lung Cancer,” Tobacco.org, last accessed 14 May 2009.
4) Samuel Baron, M.D., et al., Medical Microbiology, 4th ed., University of Texas: Churchill Livingstone Inc., 1996.
5) National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, “Clinical Trials of HIV Vaccines,” National Institutes of Health, 19 Sept. 2008.
6) Alison Tonks, “Quest for the AIDS Vaccine,” British Medical Journal 334 (2007): 1346-8.
7) Kelvin O. Lim et al., “In Vivo Structural Brain Assessment,” The American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 2000.
8) Michael Balls, “The Use of Scientifically-Validated In Vitro Tests for Embryotoxicity,” European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, 3 June 2002.
9) Deborah L. Holliday et al., “Novel Multicellular Organotypic Models of Normal and Malignant Breast: Tools for Dissecting the Role of the Microenvironment in Breast Cancer Progression,” Breast Cancer Research,” 11 (2009): R3.
10) Michael Balls, “Statement on the Application of the Epiderm™ Human Skin Model for Skin Corrosivity Testing,” European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, 21 Mar. 2000.
11) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Guidance for Industry, Investigators, and Reviewers: Exploratory IND Studies, Rockville, Md.: CDER, 2006.
12) Marcel Leist et al., “The Dawning of a New Age of Toxicology,” ALTEX 25 (2008): 102.
13) Jonathan Balcombe, Ph.D., The Use of Animals in Higher Education: Problems, Alternatives, and Recommendations, Washington, D.C.: Humane Society Press, 2000.
14) Balcombe.
15) Balcombe.
16) Waters et al., “Cat Dissection vs. Sculpting Human Structures in Clay: An Analysis of Two Approaches to Undergraduate Human Anatomy Laboratory Education,” Advances in Physiology Education 29 (2005): 27-34.
17) Nick Jukes. “Toward a Humane Veterinary Education,” Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 32.4 (2005): 454-60.
Besides saving countless animal lives, alternatives to animal tests are efficient and reliable. Unlike crude, archaic animal tests, non-animal methods usually take less time to complete, cost only a fraction of what the animal experiments that they replace cost, and are not plagued with species differences that make extrapolation difficult or impossible. Effective, affordable, and humane research methods include studies of human populations, volunteers, and patients as well as sophisticated in vitro, genomic, and computer-modeling techniques.
Forward-thinking companies are exploring modern alternatives. For example, Pharmagene Laboratories, based in Royston, England, is the first company to use only human tissues and sophisticated computer technology in the process of drug development and testing. With tools from molecular biology, biochemistry, and analytical pharmacology, Pharmagene conducts extensive studies of human genes and how drugs affect those genes or the proteins they make. While some companies have used animal tissues for this purpose, Pharmagene scientists believe that the discovery process is much more efficient with human tissues. “If you have information on human genes, what’s the point of going back to animals?” says Pharmagene cofounder Gordon Baxter.(1)
Alternatives to Animals in Research
Comparative studies of human populations allow doctors and scientists to discover the root causes of human diseases and disorders so that preventive action can be taken. Epidemiological studies led to the discoveries of the relationship between smoking and cancer and to the identification of heart disease risk factors.(2) Conversely, tobacco company executives relied on misleading animal-based studies to deny the link between smoking and cancer as recently as 1994.(3)
Population studies demonstrated the mechanism of the transmission of AIDS and other infectious diseases and also showed how these diseases can be prevented, whereas animal studies have produced no real results in terms of preventing or treating AIDS.(4) The National Institutes of Health have reported that more than 80 HIV/AIDS vaccines that have passed animal testing have failed in human clinical trials.(5) As the associate editor of the British Medical Journal stated, “When it comes to testing HIV vaccines, only humans will do.”(6)
In the course of treating patients, much has been learned about the causes of diseases and disorders. Studies of human patients using sophisticated scanning technology (e.g., MRI, fMRI, PET, and CT) have isolated abnormalities in the brains of patients with schizophrenia and other disorders.(7)
Cell and tissue culture (in vitro) studies are used to screen for anti-cancer, anti-AIDS, and other types of drugs, and they are also a means of producing and testing a number of other pharmaceutical products, including vaccines, antibiotics, and therapeutic proteins. The U.S. National Disease Research Interchange provides human tissue to scientists investigating diabetes, cancer, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, glaucoma, and other human diseases. In vitro genetic research has isolated specific markers, genes, and proteins associated with Alzheimer’s disease, muscular dystrophy, schizophrenia, and other inherited diseases. A 3-dimensional model of breast cancer has recently been developed that will allow investigators to study the earliest stages of breast cancer and test potential treatments. Rather than studying cancer in rodents, this model, which uses both healthy and cancerous human tissue, effectively allows the study of cancer as it develops in humans.(8)
Those who experiment on animals artificially induce disease; clinical investigators study people who are already ill with naturally occurring diseases or who have died. Animal experimenters want a disposable “research subject” who can be manipulated as desired and killed when convenient; clinicians must do no harm to their patients or study participants. Animal experimenters face the unavoidable fact that their artificially created “animal model” can never fully replicate the human condition, whereas clinical investigators know that the results of their work are directly relevant to people.
Alternatives to Animals in Testing
Alternatives to the use of animals in toxicity testing include replacing animal tests with non-animal methods, as well as modifying animal-based tests to reduce the number of animals used and to minimize pain and distress. Non-animal tests are generally faster and less expensive than the animal tests they replace and improve upon.
To date, several non-animal test methods have been formally validated and accepted by some countries as replacements for an existing animal test. Examples include the following:
• An embryonic stem cell test, using mouse-derived cells to assess potential toxicity to developing embryos, has been validated as a partial replacement for birth-defect testing in rats and rabbits.(9)
• The 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake Phototoxicity Test uses cells grown in culture to assess the potential for sunlight-induced (“photo”) irritation to the skin.
• Human skin model tests are now in use, including the validated EpiDerm™ test, which has been accepted almost universally as a total replacement for skin corrosion studies in rabbits.(10)
• The use of human skin leftover from surgical procedures or donated cadavers can be used to measure the rate at which a chemical is able to penetrate the skin.
• Microdosing can provide information on the safety of an experimental drug and how it is metabolized in the body by administering an extremely small one-time dose that is well below the threshold necessary for any potential pharmacologic effect to take place.(11)
While effective non-animal test methods become more and more numerous, animal-based toxicology remains, as researcher Thomas Hartung wrote, “frozen in time, using and accepting the same old animal models again and again, often without stringent examination of their validity.”(12)
For more detailed information about non-animal test methods that are available or under development, visit ECVAM.jrc.it and StopAnimalTests.com.
Alternatives to Animals in Education
The majority of medical schools in the U.S., including Harvard, Stanford, and Yale, have replaced their use of live animals in physiology, pharmacology, and/or surgical-training exercises with humane and effective non-animal teaching methods, including observation of actual human cardiac bypass surgery, patient simulators, cadavers, sophisticated computer programs, and more. An increasing number of veterinary schools have been able to employ similar humane educational alternatives, thereby saving the lives of countless animals who in the past would have been killed for the purposes of dissection or suffered through unnecessary surgeries.
In addition to being more humane, non-animal teaching tools such as computer simulations, multimedia CD-ROMs, and models are also more economical than traditional animal-based teaching exercises.(13) Whereas the “traditional” approach involves the acquisition and disposal of animals on an ongoing basis, purchasing a set of CD-ROMs represents a one-time expenditure for a product that can be used repeatedly for many years. Schools can save tens of thousands of dollars each year by implementing reusable replacements for animal “specimens.”
Studies, including the following examples, have shown that non-animal teaching methods are as effective as animal methods are:
• A study of first-year biology undergraduates found that examination results of those students who used model rats were equivalent to those of students who had performed rat dissections.(14)
• A similar study examined a class of first-year biology students, half of whom used traditional “hands on” laboratories while the remainder used computer software. The knowledge of biology among the computer-taught students increased significantly more than did that of the traditional “hands on” group.(15)
• A study of students who learned anatomy by doing something as simple as building clay sculptures of each body system found that they scored significantly higher on both low- and high-difficulty questions than their classmates who performed animal dissections.(16)
Several Web sites provide descriptions, prices, and ordering information for thousands of alternative learning materials. The following are two excellent databases that focus specifically on alternatives in education:
• Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association
• InterNICHE
• Norwegian Inventory of Audiovisuals (NORINA)
The following animal protection organizations have established “alternatives loan” programs for students who need to borrow a non-animal software program or other teaching tool in order to satisfy a course requirement so that they will not have to bear the financial burden of purchasing the product:
• Ethical Science Education Coalition
617-367-9143
• Humane Society of the United States
301-258-3041
• National Anti-Vivisection Society
1-800-888-NAVS
Some veterinary schools have also established willed body donation programs. These programs allow clients of veterinary clinics to donate the bodies of their companion animals after they have died a natural death. The cadaver can then be used to train students. Animal cadavers obtained in this way are considered “ethically sourced.”(17)
What You Can Do
Nearly all federally funded research is paid for with your tax dollars. Two of the main funders of animal-based research in North America, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, need to hear that you don’t want your tax dollars used to underwrite animal experiments, whatever their purpose.
Write to the heads of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Toxicology Program, and Health Canada and urge them to stop requiring cruel and obsolete animal tests for pharmaceuticals and to allow companies to substitute in vitro tests.
Whether you are a student, a parent, or a concerned taxpayer, you can act to end the use of animals in your city’s educational system. If you are expected to perform or observe a dissection, talk to your teacher as early as possible about alternative projects. Call the Dissection Hotline at 1-800-922-FROG (3764) for tips on what to say and how to proceed. If there is an animal rights group at your school or in your community, ask for help. Parents can urge their local Parent-Teacher Association to ask the area superintendent of schools or school board to consider a proposal to ban animal-based teaching exercises in public schools or at least give all students the option of doing a non-animal project. It may help to collect signatures on a petition and to present the school board with information on the cruelty of animal-based teaching exercises and on readily available alternatives.
If you are applying to medical or veterinary school, be sure to inquire about the teaching methods at any school that you are considering.
If you own stock in a company that conducts animal tests, introduce a shareholder resolution opposing the use of animals.
Visit www.StopAnimalTests.com to view current action alerts and learn more about how you can help put an end to the harmful use of animals in education.
References
1) Andy Coghlan, “Pioneers Cut Out Animal Experiments,” New Scientist 31 Aug. 1996.
2) Christopher Anderegg et al., “A Critical Look at Animal Experimentation,” Medical Research Modernization Committee, 2002.
3) Stanton Glantz, “A Selection of OSHA Comments on Lung Cancer,” Tobacco.org, last accessed 14 May 2009.
4) Samuel Baron, M.D., et al., Medical Microbiology, 4th ed., University of Texas: Churchill Livingstone Inc., 1996.
5) National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, “Clinical Trials of HIV Vaccines,” National Institutes of Health, 19 Sept. 2008.
6) Alison Tonks, “Quest for the AIDS Vaccine,” British Medical Journal 334 (2007): 1346-8.
7) Kelvin O. Lim et al., “In Vivo Structural Brain Assessment,” The American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 2000.
8) Michael Balls, “The Use of Scientifically-Validated In Vitro Tests for Embryotoxicity,” European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, 3 June 2002.
9) Deborah L. Holliday et al., “Novel Multicellular Organotypic Models of Normal and Malignant Breast: Tools for Dissecting the Role of the Microenvironment in Breast Cancer Progression,” Breast Cancer Research,” 11 (2009): R3.
10) Michael Balls, “Statement on the Application of the Epiderm™ Human Skin Model for Skin Corrosivity Testing,” European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, 21 Mar. 2000.
11) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Guidance for Industry, Investigators, and Reviewers: Exploratory IND Studies, Rockville, Md.: CDER, 2006.
12) Marcel Leist et al., “The Dawning of a New Age of Toxicology,” ALTEX 25 (2008): 102.
13) Jonathan Balcombe, Ph.D., The Use of Animals in Higher Education: Problems, Alternatives, and Recommendations, Washington, D.C.: Humane Society Press, 2000.
14) Balcombe.
15) Balcombe.
16) Waters et al., “Cat Dissection vs. Sculpting Human Structures in Clay: An Analysis of Two Approaches to Undergraduate Human Anatomy Laboratory Education,” Advances in Physiology Education 29 (2005): 27-34.
17) Nick Jukes. “Toward a Humane Veterinary Education,” Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 32.4 (2005): 454-60.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
I EXPECT GREAT THINGS FROM YOU
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
I would love to know why people thought this speech was "bad" for their children to hear.
Friday, August 21, 2009
It is not just Michael Vick
This article is not my own. I would love to share it with you though. This article is written by Arlington Vegan Examiner
Barbara DeGrande
Barbara DeGrandeI don't know if I could've written this better myself.
"Sports figures and other celebrities provide a target for many of the fears, angers and concerns that society develops. Some people are angry at Mr. Vick for the horrendous abuse and torment he put his dogs through, an activity he admits to having enjoyed. Most people find his behavior callous and repulsive; Mr. Vick admittedly caused animals to suffer for his own enjoyment. He tells of police pulling over and noting it was just dogs fighting, getting back in the patrol car and driving away. He thought that gave him permission. He thought it was cool. He thought it was fun. He thought it was exciting. He drowned dogs, he beat dogs, he electrocuted dogs. His behavior was indicative of sociopathy and a total lack of feeling for other beings. But before we vilify Mr. Vick, we may need to look long and hard in the mirror. Maybe we are all, to some extent, Michael Vick.We protest: I would never enjoy hurting a dog! I would not want to see animals fight! I would never make an animal suffer for my own enjoyment! Oh, really? Do you use makeup or hand lotion? If so, chances are some poor animals were made to suffer in order to test those chemicals for your pleasure. There are other options, but it takes effort to find them. Have any leather shoes, belts, wallets, purses? Chances are, many animals had their lives cut short and were subjected to every imaginable horror to give you the stash of leather goods. While you may squirm a bit if you had to watch their deaths, you are still willing to encourage their suffering by buying the goods. No, you do not do the killing yourself, not directly; you may even find the thought of it very disturbing. But if you buy the product, you are encouraging someone else to do the killing and you are rewarding them for it. Just like Michael Vick.Then there is your plate. How many animals have short, painful, terrifying lives because you want the unhealthy pleasure of consuming their flesh, their secretions, their stomach lining, their body parts? Do you think living, healthy animals turn into products in a painless way? They do not. Animals are castrated, cut and tormented. Some have water sprayed up their nose to get them to walk into slaughter when they are too sick to walk up the ramp. Many slaughterhouse workers have admitted to pulling the animals apart while they are still conscious. One man had such horrible nightmares after working in a chicken processing plant that he could barely function. Chickens do not by law have to be unconscious before being rendered. How about the eggs you enjoy? Did you know that chickens have their beaks cut or burned off without anesthetic? That newborn male chicks are tossed down a chute to their death because they are not profitable to raise? Do you think if we make their killing more humane, it would be justifiable? Animals try to escape because they are frightened and suffering. They want to live as much as you do. There is no way to put a pretty face on that, no matter how many ads we see of cows grazing and chatting with one another over the fence. There is no such thing as Happy Meat.Then there are our "pets." They should be protected, right? We do not want anything like what Michael Vick did to those poor pit bulls to happen to our dogs and cats, do we? Yet we allow animals to suffer and die in the millions in this country each year. A local humane society warns that they sometimes receive up to 100 animals per day and they have no funding but donations, which are dwindling during this recession. This means, they say, that they must euthanize (kill) these animals. Why is this acceptable to us? While a handful of animals do find pleasant homes, many more are used as guard animals and suffer abuse when their owners are in a bad mood, are left in horrible heat and freezing cold, and are not given any love, are left to starve or be killed by car at the side of the road, abandoned to a world they have no way of understanding. Many must eat commercial dog food which may include the body parts of euthanized animals, plastic styrofoam trays from grocery store refuse, road kill, all rendered in the processing plants for your beloved pets. Troubled youths torture and kill cats, puppies are buried alive, rabbits die in the heat in tiny cages. In pet stores, those cute healthy fish and small animals are only today's survivors. Check the back room for the ones that get injured or sick. Did you think veterinarians are visiting the shops? And then there are the breeders that make money off the poor puppies at the mill; the exotic pet industry that allows thousands of animals to die; the research labs that torment animals so sensitive that they develop neurotic symptoms just as any human would do in the same circumstance; the elephants that pace endlessly and develop arthritis because they have no room to move properly, all so you and your family can enjoy a leisurely stroll through the zoo, the ones used in sideshows and the circus, whom you can watch being beaten, the horses driving carriages in the middle of smog and traffic in our major cities. See the articles listed below to see what our domination of animals is doing to them - and these are just a few current examples. When we commodify living things, it is no wonder they suffer. We have denied their personhood, their feelings, their suffering, all because we want to enjoy or profit from their death and suffering. Just like Michael Vick.I would like to suggest that if what Michael Vick did sickens you, and I hope that it does, you will look at how your own behavior and lifestyle are quietly complicit in animal suffering. I am not suggesting you are an active participant like Mr. Vick, but the result to the animals is the same. If someone barbecues the Yorkie (Man barbecues pet dog, see below), drowns bunnies in the back of a pet shop (Hurry up and die) or if a famous person like Michael Vick is seen in a very disgusting and unheroic light, we are all ready to throw the first stone. Mr. Vick reports that he has remorse, although neither in his apology nor during his 60 Minutes interview (not done by a CBS correspondent) did he ever mention sorrow for the suffering of the dogs; his remorse seems to be limited to his parents and the children he disappointed, a rather self-serving kind of remorse that relates more to his tarnished image. It is hard to imagine anyone being so callous to the feelings of dogs that they would repeatedly hang them, electrocute them, shoot them, drown them, force them to fight family pets and laugh at their torment and suffering. Most of us are not so unfeeling; I doubt that Mr. Vick has the capacity to really care about other people, other animals, or much besides his own spoiled and self-indulgent existence. I doubt that eighteen months incarcerated would be adequate sentencing for the suffering Michael Vick caused if we were people who truly cared for the lives of animals. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has disassociated themselves from Mr. Vick because he lied to them and said he took no direct part in the torment of the dogs. His team approached HSUS, seemingly to rehabilitate Mr. Vick's public persona rather than for any reason of conscience. But if his remorse is genuine, his new affiliation with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) may help stop the horror of dog fighting, which has been estimated to be in the range of 100,000 fighting groups across the country. If the HSUS would rescue the dogs and help them find loving homes rather than killing them, and if Mr. Vick does follow through and works with young men to stop dogfighting, to give information that would shut down thousands of these operations, then I would admit that something positive has come out of all this horror; but time will tell and I am not holding my breath. Maybe we who claim to love animals can really shift our attitudes towards thinking about their right to life rather than treating them like commodities. Maybe Mr. Vick's exposure has given us all an opportunity to look at the real culprit in this story. It is not just Michael Vick. It is all of us."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
: Share :
