Blair takes stand on animal tests - 19 comments
From the BBC:
Tony Blair has defended animal testing and accused anti-vivisection extremists of stooping to "appalling" depths.Quite right too.
Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, he said companies with links to animal testing may be allowed to keep details of their shareholders secret.
He also said he would sign the People's Petition in support of animal testing in the UK, saying he wanted people to "stand up against the tiny group of extremists threatening medical research and advances in this country".Snap.
But Alistair Currie, Campaign Director for the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, said the prime minister was "backing the wrong horse".Fine: use any lawful and ethical technique modern science puts at your disposal in order to test as thoroughly as current knowledge will allow, and use each one according to its proven applicability and effectiveness, with a view to minimising distress if it must be caused. Testing should not be driven by sentimentality, or by one's fear of being victimised by domestic terrorists who believe that an association with animal rights grants them popular legitimacy.
"The reality is that animal experimentation is old-fashioned science - it may have been useful 50 years ago but in the 21st century we have a lot of techniques that we can use instead," he said.
Bizarrely, some commenters see an equivalence between animal testing and foxhunting, while others take a view of animal rights that no doubt mirrors their view of geopolitics: because every human interaction with animals - and, indeed, "nature" as a whole - must be exploitative (as is every interaction of The West with The Rest), the only solution is for a kind of divorce. Wacky.
Update: minor edits.
![[Valid Atom]](http://www.bloggers4labour.org/images/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom feed")
19 comments so far...
The danger of this approach is that Tony isolates even further people in the mainstream of the animal welfare movement.
Before Labour came to power it promised a Royal Commission study into animal experiments, despite banning cosmetic testing (which was of course very welcome) the government should not alienate mainstream voters who care about animal welfare.
Recently we have seen the resumtption of live exports of calves, the failure of the government to ban imports of canadian seal products and an opt out on tail docking for dogs used by the shooting industry.
We risk the loss of many Labour people from the moderate animal welfare community if we go on like this.
Tony should quite rightly have came out strongly against the extremists, theya are a tiny minority of criminal idioits, but at the same time stressed the importance of animal welfare to the government and that they would continue to support reseacrh into alternatives.
What we will see more of is moderate people voting Green or not voting at all. The government must be more thoughtful about how it will not win the next election if it continues like this.
Some extremist groups manage to forge for themselves a position in which they are universally despised. Animal rights extremists are one such group. These people insist on privileging the lives of animals over those of humans. Their screaming fanaticism and teenage morals are deeply unpleasant. They are bullies and, of course, cowards. They choose to channel their energies into disruptive and destructive terrorist activities, rather than into positive campaigning. Their time would be better spent campaigning to end global poverty.
This is really more an issue of scientific freedom than one of animal rights. Given that nobody's actually prepared to enshrine the rights of animals as individuals into law, to say that animals cannot be used in scientific research under any circumstances whatsoever, is irrational and opportunistic. The use of animals in research is tightly controlled and must have a clear purpose. Other animal rights issues involve mere cruelty, neglect, and exploitation. People need to realise that there's a huge difference, and not merely take a sentimental approach to animals.
"mere cruelty, neglect, and exploitation"
I think the use of the word "mere" was unfortunate there!
The issue though is the failure of Labour to really grasp that it is losing the animal welfare vote.
By simply backing testing without also supporting moderate voices, by reintroducing live exports of calves and a whole host of other things, the govt is simply alienating a great many voters previously supportive of it.
I make the clear distinction between "rights" and "welfare" but the govt really needs to wake up to the fact that it is driving away mainstream voters on these issues.
The problem is that Blair's very odd decision to sign the petition just makes it all the more plausible that people will conflate in their minds the two very separate camps of animal rights campaigners; those who find the majority (but not necessary all) of animal testing to be morally suspect, and those who - to the disgust of almost everyone - take an extremist position and threaten or unfairly condemn those involved in, or willing to stick up for, testing.
Although of course I sympathise with those targeted by animal rights extremists, Blair's signing this petition is hardly the kind of action likely to make me consider returning to the Labour fold anytime soon! I know that's not the point, but still...
Animal rights extremists are no more a fringe to the general movements of veganism, vegetarianism and anti vivisection supporters. Animal Rights supportres include many pet owners doctors and scientists. To drive politics by identifying animal rights proposers with the extreme is like saying all people who are in preference of an indendent republic of Ireland are IRA terrorists, or all Muslims are Al Quaida supporters and potential suicide bombers. But Blair is saying exactly that. There is little proof that he is right. He claims a represent the silent majority and anyone with reason, however that is a utilitarian argument (with potential dangers of overiding impoirtant moral and in fact scientific reasons not to consuct animal testing) until such day that they will allow for that independent commission. Such comission in my eye is in any case a delaying tactic. Much has been written by both by oppenents and supporters (mostly industry driven) of Animal testing. It should be not too hard to find real evidence behind the politricks! See my posting of 14 May on danielscounter for more on my reaction to this.
Whatâs missing here is a debate on ethics. Scientific freedom should not be without boundaries. Itâs easy to rationalise experiments on humans; whatâs one personâs life it saves many more? But I guess youâd draw the line before anybody got that far.
What I donât know is where you draw the boundaries of scientific freedom or on what basis.
In the absence of any argument of substance, I think your assertions that opposition to vivisection is âirrationalâ and âsentimentalâ should be ignored. They are no more than name calling. You also assert that your opponents are âopportunistic,â but who among the animal rights lobby is taking advantage of the situation and to what end?
Itâs up to you to set the level of debate and sad that you seem unable to rise above simply insulting your opponents in the way that Daniel describes.
(Blatant plug: hereâs where I think Blairâs coming from:
http://www.stephennewton.com/2006/05/blair-pro-test-ethics-of-creationism.html)
My earlier comment was written in haste and could be misunderstood. To make it clear I meant to state:
Animal rights extremists are no more a fringe to the general movements of veganism, vegetarianism and anti vivisection supporters
"THAN ETA IS TO BASQUES OR THE BNP TO ENGLAND SUPPORTERS."
Thank you
I should clarify that the opposition should more properly be known as "anti-vivisection protesters", not "animal rights protesters", given that I'm certainly not opposed to at least some form of animal rights.
(a) Who's saying all, or even most, animal rights/anti-vivisection protesters are extremists? Nobody I can see.
(b) Who's saying researchers should (or, in fact, do) reach for the scalpel before using the technology at their disposal?
What most people here seem to be saying is that under no circumstances should animal research be carried out, even if that would bring research to a halt, and we're not just talking about cosmetics here.
In the absence of any argument of substance
I thought I set out pretty succinctly how I felt a researcher ought to behave. Seems like a perfectly valid contribution.
You also assert that your opponents are 'opportunistic,'
I said it more than asserted it but actually, reading it back, I'm not sure quite what I meant by it, so please mentally remove that charge.
It's up to you to set the level of debate and sad that you seem unable to rise above simply insulting your opponents in the way that Daniel describes.
I think it was fair comment - see point (a) - and I don't see any cause for offence up there.
Of course it's about ethics, and, yes, utilitarianism lends itself to "slippery slope" criticisms. However, as I suggested above, the rights you wish to formally ascribe to animals are not recognised in law. I may very well support you in getting some recognition of sentience, but until then, it makes sense that science not be held back by what, in the most part - I feel - is suspicion and sentimentality.
On your point a. The entire focus of the pro-vivisection lobby is on the activity of an extreme minority in the most opportunistic way.
Take Blair's article, which is introduced as his taking a stand against extremism. He details a couple of incidents and talks of his proposed changes to the law. While he outlines some benefits of research, he makes no reference to any wider ethical debate.
But Daniel does not accuse Blair of saying most animal rights protestors are extremists. He speaks of, 'driv[ing] politics by identifying animal rights proposes with the extreme'. That's spot-on. Blair is taking the opportunity afforded by a few extremist actions to avoid the ethical debate altogether.
On your point b. You say 'use any lawful and ethical technique'. We could both sign up to that, but as we don't agree on what makes for an 'ethical technique' we would be no further forward. Your argument is circular and, therefore, without substance.
While I think it's commendable that, on being challenged, you'd like to withdraw the charge of opportunism, it can't be done as -- along with references to 'mere cruelty, neglect and exploitation' -- it illustrates your frame of mind and the lack of thought that has gone into your comments.
You feel that others' views are based on suspicion and sentimentality, but on what basis? Yet again you resort to mere name calling.
Sorry!
Not really happy with the direction this thread is going. Anyway, let's restate the case:
1) There are extremists, and if they're not being condemned, they should be.
2) Their actions rightly exhort us to protect those who are working within the law.
3) Science does require protection (boundaries, if you will) from those who espouse irrational attitudes, or who pooh-pooh it.
4) Support for the PP commits us to "high standards" of treatment of animal subjects that can be construed as "ethical" within the law, and within some societies' ethical frameworks, but not all frameworks.
5) Medical testing has always involved a utilitarian decision based upon man's desperate need to survive the rigours of nature - perhaps this won't be considered in future, and perhaps animals will have a radically different role in law than they do at present - the sentient ones at least. I may go some way in supporting such recommendations, and would always welcome the philosophical work being commissioned, but no recommendations are even in the pipeline.
6) I insist that much of the opposition to research using animals is based upon sentiment, and the suspicion that scientists are none too fussy in their treatment of animal subjects, and not by either a need to alter the realm/scope of medical research, or to change the legal status of animals. Which is why the term "animal rights" is misleading.
7) My view - as expressed in the PP - is that animals ought only used where there is no alternative. OK, that is vague, but...
8) I didn't endorse TB's article - I haven't even read it - only his decision to stick up for science rather than prevaricate, and his signing of a perfectly decent-looking petition. Why should his restatement of the existing policy alienate those whose who seek to prevent abuses of animals elsewhere?
9) I don't see any need for politics to be "driven", e.g. new legislation to be passed. If the Home Office does, that would just be par for the course for them. Count me out of that.
Maybe people could take on those points individually. There may, of course, be others I've missed out, but then I'm not perfect and my time is limited.
In restating the case you merely invite others to do the same. Anyway, I'll take the bate:
1. Okay.
2. Okay
3. You're confused. Ethical boundaries are designed to restrict science e.g. experimenting on humans is wrong. You need to define 'irrational attitudes,' or open yourself up to charges of merely chucking insults around.
4. You confuse the relationship of the law to ethics. The law is informed by ethics, not the other way around e.g. English law is generally informed by Christian values.
5. There is plenty of scientific (rather than philosphical) research that has produced evidence of sentience in other animals. I don't know what recommendations you refer to or who has failed to make those recommendations.
6. Mere insistence is not enough to substantiate an argument.
7. Okay, but I'm more interested in how you came to this view.
8. You said, 'Quite right too.' I'm sorry I mis-read that as an endorsement.
9. Daniel was obviously referring to Blair's driving of the political debate. He's talking about the way Blair has pushed the issue up the agenda by acting the way he has. How he's taking the opportunity afforded by a few extremist actions to avoid the ethical debate altogether.
I'm sorry you don't like the way this debate has gone. But any ethical debate is about discovering a truth that will withstand robust scrutiny. You should welcome the testing of your ideas, if they don't break they must be true.
I actually dont think Tony Blair likes animals and has a particular and rather typical catholic attitude to them and the subject.
If we are to get into arguments over rationality and "sentiment" then perhaps the pro people could say if they think it is right that monkeys who share a huge amount of the same DNA and us and who experience fear and pain, should be subjected to dubious tests for little or no benefit.
Tony has rightly come out against extremists but by blindly saying experimentation is right PERIOD he will simply drive more people to a hard line extreme stance.
The govt does rather seem to have lost the plot at the moment, who the fuck is advising these people???
All he had to say is that criminality and extremits will not be tolerated but that the government supported finding alternatives for animal experimentation.
Come the next election the govt is in for a right kicking the way it is going and it will be all its own fault.
Stephen,
3. You're confused. Ethical boundaries are designed to restrict science e.g. experimenting on humans is wrong. You need to define 'irrational attitudes,' or open yourself up to charges of merely chucking insults around.
I'm far from confused, and I myself acknowledged that point in my original post. Nonetheless this does not refute my point (3) - both are true to some degree. Here's a popular, irrational attitude that harms science: "scientists experiment on animals willy-nilly". Another: "scientists are in the pockets of drug companies". Another: "scientists tell us one thing one day, and another thing the next day." Who benefits from this kind of Luddism?
4. You confuse the relationship of the law to ethics. The law is informed by ethics, not the other way around e.g. English law is generally informed by Christian values.
No, the law *should* be informed by ethics, and has been informed by ethics in its incremental advances. Not only may the law be behind the times, but you cannot just say that your particular ethical framework defines the only law that counts.
6. Mere insistence is not enough to substantiate an argument.
I am not going to hunt out evidence for you, it's my view of the state of public opinion - confirmed by common themes in comments above - and, this being the comment box of a blog, I feel perfectly entitled to state it.
> 7) My view - as expressed in the PP - is that animals ought only used where there is no alternative. OK, that is vague, but... <
7. Okay, but I'm more interested in how you came to this view.
I'm satisfied, given what I've heard who support science and work in the field, that it is not possible to 100% rule out the use of animals in research (which does NOT constitute vivisection), but that technology is improving and may take that percentage ever closer. I think that's a safe and reasonable view to come to.
8. You said, 'Quite right too.' I'm sorry I mis-read that as an endorsement.
That's just snidey - why? I said that it was "quite right" that: "Tony Blair has defended animal testing and accused anti-vivisection extremists of stooping to "appalling" depths." and that "companies with links to animal testing may be allowed to keep details of their shareholders secret."
I'm assuming the rest of the article was complementary, though it may contain passages I would disagree with, so I'm keeping things simple.
9. Daniel was obviously referring to Blair's driving of the political debate. He's talking about the way Blair has pushed the issue up the agenda by acting the way he has. How he's taking the opportunity afforded by a few extremist actions to avoid the ethical debate altogether.
You're suggesting that there was an active ethical debate going on in public and that TB has taken advantage of the graverobbing incident - an incident that ought to shock all and be news in its own right - to somehow sidetrack a debate that - for some reason - he wants to avoid. That's not my reading of it at all. And if it were so, I wouldn't go along with it.
You should welcome the testing of your ideas,
I do - it's the "chucking insults around" and "lack of thought" bits that don't appeal to me.
======
Anonymous,
I actually dont think Tony Blair likes animals and has a particular and rather typical catholic attitude to them and the subject.
I'm glad that Blair took - in fact - the side of science and wasn't merely informed by (Catholic!) religion. He really is damned both ways.
If we are to get into arguments over rationality and "sentiment" then perhaps the pro people could say if they think it is right that monkeys who share a huge amount of the same DNA and us....
The law as it stands says monkeys have no legal rights. If you want to back that fight, good luck - a long battle is ahead, and the philosophical case certainly isn't done and dusted. I might even support you.
and who experience fear and pain, should be subjected to dubious tests for little or no benefit.
The petition says that animal studies would be a last resort. You might not trust that, but then we're on a different topic altogether.
Tony has rightly come out against extremists but by blindly saying experimentation is right PERIOD
He has not done so, and nor have I. Blindly?
he will simply drive more people to a hard line extreme stance.
Do what is right and deal with the terrorists later.
The govt does rather seem to have lost the plot at the moment, who the fuck is advising these people???
I suspect this is a very important issue for him - don't see the hand of advisers here at all.
All he had to say is that criminality and extremits will not be tolerated but that the government supported finding alternatives for animal experimentation.
I don't know if that's the government's job, but of course alternatives should be found. The sole criterion must be: are they at least as effective?
Come the next election the govt is in for a right kicking the way it is going and it will be all its own fault.
That would be a shame - let's hope the opposition are as principled.
I'm sorry to this to you, but I'll respond to your last point first and make this my last comment:
The only person who has sunk to the level of chucking insults around is you. For example, by asserting that your opponents are opportunistic (which you've withdrawn, thanks), by suggesting they are merely sentimentalists (which you've refused to substantiate), by placing silly words in their mouths and calling them Luddites.
On 3. Your original point 3 talks only of protecting science from irrational viewpoints, while the real debate is about defining boundaries within which science can operate. I certainly don't agree with your examples of irrational statements and am offended by the implication that I subscribe to that nonsense and am a Luddite.
On 4 Okay. This is why the debate needs to focus on agreeing an ethical framework within which scientific research can operate.
On 5. You fail to respond here.
On 6. The state of public opinion is not in itself evidence of right or wrong. Public opinion changes with time and is often contradictory (e.g. taxes should be lower; we should spend more on public services). Visionary leadership requires an ability to reshape public opinion from time to time.
On 7. Okay, but I'm more interested in how you came to this view.
On 8. This illustrates the dangers of endorsing articles you (still?) haven't read. You have supported Blair blind.
On 9. You're quite right to say that there is an absence of substantial debate on this matter. Tony Blair hasn't created that situation, but he has certainly taken advantage of it.
In your response to anonymous, you do the scientific community a great disservice. By saying Blair has taken the side of science, you imply that scientists object to the imposition of ethical limits on their work. This is not the case (e.g. human cloning, experiments on people). Further, Blair's position is perfectly consistent with his Christianity (Roman Catholicism, against the science, does not believe other animals to be sentient).
Legal rights are offered only after the ethical debate has occurred. Monkeys are protected against what you'd call 'mere cruelty' by the law because society says cruelty is wrong. Not the other way around. A good example of a current ethical debate is assisted dying; parliament debates the ethics and then legislates (or not) accordingly. To say something is ethical because it's legal is to reverse the relationship.
Do keep up your otherwise good work.
Don't take it personally - I do try to keep things friendly, especially when people have made the effort, as you have.
I really think the core disagreement is a very narrow one, and not one that would be addressed if I just responded to your points in turn, willing as I am to do that. Is this a fair summary:
I feel that there are still situations in which research using animals is justified; others feel that such research cannot be justified in any situation whatsoever.
Or would that obscure the wider issue of the boundaries of justifiable scientific research?
I did say that was my last comment, but it would be rude to ignore a question:
I understand what your point of view is and accept that it appears to be perfectly reasonable. However, and these criticisms are of the argument rather than you, I think this view is both simplistic and common sense (I mean that in a bad way). I don't think the perspective you offer is particularly well informed as it shows little awareness of the science. Philosophically, it is crudely utilitarian.
For example, you question sentience, that is whether other animals are conscious or aware. Yet the study of animal behaviour is an established, well respected and rigorous science. Indeed, to assume that sentience only appears in humans is to deny Darwin. That is to say that scientific theory, supported by evidence, shows our intelligence to be the product of a long evolutionary process. Less evolved animals will have less evolved intelligence, rather than none at all. Furthermore, the weight of evidence increasingly suggests that we have previously underestimated the intelligence of other species by quite some way.
The alternative perspective, which you label pro-science, is actually creationist in that it implies we sentient beings gained that aspect of ourselves through something other than a long evolutionary process.
How did you get the idea that I believe that only humans are sentient?? That's a pretty fundamental misunderstanding.
What's more, I didn't claim that sentience was/ought to be the basis for deciding whether or not a human or non-human animal could be involved in research, I merely speculated that future laws that enshrined animal rights might - for convenience - be drawn up with that distinction.
Misreading, rather.
Post a Comment
<< Home