A bit controversial for a monday night
This is probably not the ideal topic for a monday night, but something
today brought it to my mind. A small disclaimer here, my views are my
own and I do not apologise for them, just as I do not expect others to
apologise for their own views.
While at work today I noticed an increased number of security and even
police on premises (and yes I did refrain from shouting "Oh my god,
they've found me!" then running away giggling, one must be a
professional at work after all). Initially I wondered what it was all
about (Alfie; bad joke sorry), then around lunchtime I heard a few
colleagues discussing animal rights activists nearby, and then it all
clicked into place. Another colleague discussed the topic with me,
even down to pointing out the procedure for suspicious phonecalls. It
worried me a little that just because I now work for a pharmaceutical
company (even in an area where I see no animals whatsoever nevermind
test on them) I could be considered a target.
This is nothing new in the grand scheme of things; ALF, an extremist
animal rights group has caught the attention of the media over recent
months by protesting the building of a laboratory at Oxford
University. If it stopped at simple peaceful protesting I doubt many
would object to their cause, however they use blatent bullying tactics
to try to get their way. This has so far ranged from taking and
publishing photographs of the builders working on the site (with the
result that the builders have to wear balaclavas to protect their
identity) to declaring that anyone associated with Oxford University
is a viable target. This includes students of the University; students
who may not even be studying science subjects or may in fact be
against animal testing themselves. These tactics amount to nothing
more than terrorism in my eyes.
Any guesses on my stance on animal testing? Well as you probably
realise, I strongly believe in the animal testing in medical and
pharmaceutical research. However I do not support animal testing for
other reasons such as cosmetics. My reasoning is that medicines are
essential to life, lipstick is not (although I have no doubt that some
women out there believe it is). How many people have been saved due to
drugs or procedures that initially had to be tested on animals?
Animal rights protesters proclaim that animal research is uneccessary,
I disagree. Speaking from a pharmaceutical perspective animal testing
is vital. Drugs need to go through various levels of testing before
they can be administered to humans. These tests aim to reduce the
level of risk a human volunteer is exposed to when taking the drug. If
animal testing was not done, volunteering for drug trials would be
tantamount to suicide.
Many protesters claim that there are alternatives to animal testing,
well unfortunately there isn't. There are no methods available to
recreate an entire living organism, and this is what drugs testing
requires to begin to weed out any possible adverse effects. Again it
is a case of reducing the risk to humans who take the drug. Also the
law in Britain requires that, where an alternative exists to a
procedure using animals, it must be used. This law alone should show
that we are still some way off from finidng that alternative.
Finally, scientists are not sadists, many will gladly use alternatives
when they become available. Right now however, to keep pushing for
cures for disease animals must be used. To those who disagree I will
ask a question;
If you or someone you cared about was seriously ill would you refuse a
drug that would cure you/them because it had been tested on animals?
I know a lot of people wouldn't, the greater good is needed for the
greater number, and millions of people will and have benefitted as a
result of animal research.
If anyone wants more information on the positive aspects of animal
testing, here's a couple of links for your viewing pleasure;
Animal Rights Myths - some common misconceptions about animal testing
No comments:
Post a Comment