VIVISECTION

The time of the old out-dated broken record of vivisection is over. It is an 'LP' of 'ludicrous policy'. The government's current strategy of 'reduction, refinement and replacement' is not enough. It is poorly funded and is just there to act as a smokescreen to cover up the continuing monstrosity of the status quo. What is needed is a total ban on all animal testing, with no exceptions. Let's bring in the mp3 player of 'medical progress' without cruelty. People often justify animal torture in research by saying that since we are more intelligent then we are superior and can treat animals like machines as long as it helps us. But by their logic we should start torturing three-year-old kids since they are less intelligent than pigs. So also are some mentally retarded people. Should we use them as well? You may think that such a suggestion is ludicrous but in fact that could well be a scenario in the future. We are already producing many animals with genetic mutations specifically for research and it is possible that scientists will next want to produce genetically "inferior" people specifically for research or for spare parts organs; perhaps people with an I.Q. of around 10 who would therefore be deemed to be less sensitive. Non-human primates share 84 - 99% of their DNA with us and we torture just under 3,000 of those a year in the U.K. Is it such a huge leap then to imagine using genetically modified human primates who might have for example 0.25% DNA which differs from 'normal' humans. And if you think you would know if this was to happen, think again. Most of what scientists get up to now is cloaked in secrecy. If laboratories had glass walls they would no longer exist because people would simply not accept what they saw. Our information comes from those brave people who are willing to work undercover in such ghastly environments.

We oppose vivisection on moral grounds but it is also easy to oppose on scientific grounds since results do not match the enormous investment pumped into this abhorrent industry and it is easy to see why. This is because different species react differently to different substances. Even two different breeds of dog react in individual ways. This also applies to people who will react in various ways according to race. The Japanese will react differently to a drug than some Americans. How much more removed then will be a Japanese person's reaction be from a dog or a mouse! And yet billions and billions of pounds have been pumped into cancer research in mice and rats and it is no wonder we still have not found a cure for cancer. If we had used that money to fund modern methods of research, like in-vitro (test tube) cell cultures, computer models, stem cells, epidemiological surveys, we may well have found some answers. Many of the miracle treatments hailed today by scientists as being a result of animal testing were in fact discovered through human autopsy. Diabetes is a case in point. Human autopsy was in fact responsible for showing the pancreas to be the vital organ in diabetes and in-vitro research actually isolated insulin - not animal experiments. But the confidence for continuing abuse of animals is afforded to scientists by the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act. This was supposed to stop unnecessary suffering of animals when the outcome would not warrant the pain involved but in fact it did little more to protect animals than the proceeding act of 1876. Colin Blakemore, a well-known vivisectionist said of the 1986 Act himself that: "...it rules out nothing in advance and requires everything to be judged on its merits.." (The Slaughter of the Innocent - Hans Reusch)

In other words he means the scientists decide the so-called 'merits' of torture in advance but how can we be sure of future merits. To illustrate this think about when you have an exam approaching. You might swat all day every day for weeks but can you ever be absolutely confident that you will pass? You may have all the knowledge but what if you are ill on the day or you get a bad attack of nerves? You might find you do not get awarded all the merits you need and in the same way, scientists can never be sure of results in advance. The only thing they can be sure of is that they will be lining their pockets with the enormous grants they get for their 'research' projects.

So why does vivisection continue? The reason capitalist society looks upon animals as objects has its roots in the 17th century with Descartes, the pioneer of modernism. He established a radical difference between mankind and animals, the latter for him being simply objects or things. Animals according to Descartes are machines, automatic things, incapable of thinking or feeling. The practical consequences of this were that it was considered acceptable to nail down a living dog and without anaesthetic, to open it up and study the nervous system. 350 years have passed by and many scientists do not seem to have noticed the fact that what they do is based on an out-of-date, disproved philosophy. However they have noticed that they get legal protection in court when people die because of their bad science i.e. all they have to do is produce evidence that they have tested their products on guinea pigs and hey, think of the money they save in compensation they would otherwise have to pay out for their blunders. The way to stop all this is to change the law but since the government are not interested in doing this, the only way forward is direct action.