Quite often I receive in my newsfeed, articles published by an organisation called “Speaking of Research”. It was founded in 2008 by Tom Holder. Holder graduated from Oxford University in 2007, with a degree in Politics, Philosophy and Economics (ie not science). Speaking of Research stems from another group – Pro-Test (since wound up)."Pro-Test was formed in January 2006 by Laurie Pycroft, a 16-year-old frustrated with the way that those opposed to vivisection (testing on animals for the purpose of scientific progress) were dominating the public debate on animal research.”[1]
I debated Pycroft back in 2011. I did not find his arguments particularly persuasive and were, instead, the standard rhetoric we often hear from those defending animal experiments.
“In February 2010, five years after it formed, Pro-Testwound up its UK operations. Pro-Test has successfully met its goals of defending the construction of the Oxford Lab, increasing awareness of the importance of animal research, and bringing the public on-side in support of life-saving medical research.” “Pro-Test's sister organisation, Speaking of Research, was created by Pro-Test press officer Tom Holder in 2008 and continues to be active in both the UK and US”[2]
Personally, I am all for free speech and I welcome open debate about animal use in research, however what concerns me about this group is that (from my perception) their motive seems to be more defending their “right” to use animals rather than deliberate the effectiveness and relevance of animal use. I really don’t understand this perspective at all. If they had a solid case about animals being useful models for human medicine then perhaps they might offer a welcome opportunity for open debate, but arguing their right to use animals, to me, seems rather sadistic.
Anyway, despite my confusion the most recent article I read from “Speaking of Research” discussed their new initiative – the Rapid Response Network.
“The Speaking of Research Rapid Response Network is a new initiative that aims to bring together scientists, veterinarians, animal care staff, and other animal research advocates to support the principles of science, openness and the continuation of biomedical research.”
I’m in absolute agreement with their aims of supporting the principles of science and especially the openness – HRA also calls for greater transparency – and continuation of medical research. Where we disagree of course, is the inclusion of animals in that research.
What I found particularly interesting however, was their reasons for this initiative:
“There is an urgent need for a response network. Already, in recent months, we have seen:
- Intense lobbying efforts by an animal rights group that aims to defund federal research leading 53 congressional members to call for an end to all dog-based studies in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
- Research involving monkeys halted by the FDA in response to activist efforts. Without any prior warning or explanation, the researchers were told to end the study before proper evaluation had even taken place.”
They also say: “It is no secret that support for animal research is declining.”
This reads to me that the general population are beginning to question the efficacy of animal experiments and vivisectors are concerned about their “right” to continue using animals.
It’s certainly an interesting turn of events, and is certainly timely. In the UK, the science based campaign For Life on Earth (via EDM66) is calling for a properly moderated, public scientific debate about the efficacy of animal experiments.
So, if Speaking of Research is indeed genuine in their call for openness and transparency, let’s see if they come to the party and have this issue dealt with once and for all!
For further information about animal experiments: Please visit www.HumaneResearch.org.au
Like us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/HumaneResearchAustralia/
Like us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/HumaneResearchAustralia/
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HRAust
No comments:
Post a Comment