Vivisection
Vivesection: Globally, scientific research uses millions of animals in experiments every year. These experiments can cause pain, suffering and inevitably death for the animals used in them, for results that are of dubious relevance to human health. Animal experiments are an inefficient approach to medical research in a modern world, and the development of non-animal replacements is imperative. Abandoning animal research in favour of more advanced non-animal methods could ultimately speed medical progress – to the benefit of both humans and animals. Sadly, much medical research into human health problems involves experiments on animals. Official estimates for animal experiments globally are around 100 million experiments each year. Cats, dogs, rabbits, mice and other animals, no different to those we have as pets, are used in experiments. Animals are force-fed harmful substances, infected with lethal viruses, subjected to brain damage, heart attacks, stokes, cancers and ultimately killed. As well as causing pain and suffering, animal experiments are unreliable because of differences between humans and animals. Diseases that are artificially induced in animals in a laboratory are never identical to those that occur naturally in human beings. And because animal species differ from one another in many biologically significant ways, it becomes even more unlikely that animal research will yield results that will be correctly interpreted and applied to the human condition in a meaningful way. The fact that the species most often used in laboratory experiments are chosen largely for nonscientific reasons, such as cost and ease of handling, casts further doubt on the validity of this research. In addition, the results of animal experiments are often so variable and easily manipulated that researchers have used them to “prove”––depending on the source of funding––that cigarettes do cause cancer and that they do not! A careful scientific review of 10 randomly chosen “animal models” of human disease found that they made little, if any, contribution toward the treatment of human patients. "Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are not like us.' Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction." -Professor Charles R. Magel Footage of vivisection is located in the Potentially Hazardous Materials thread...these videos do however contain some very graphic footage... forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=154" target="_blank">http://mscao.8.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=154

BBC Newsnight vivisection debate between Anti-Vivisection campaigners and Oxford University: http://www.animalliberationfront.com/MediaCenter/MediaNotes.htm Speakers: Mel Broughton - SPEAK Kathy Archibald - Europeans for Medical Progress André Menache - Animal Aid Dr Caroline Lucas - MEP -v- Professor Tipu Aziz – Oxford University Dr Evan Harris - MP Colin Blakemore - Research Defence Society Mike Robbins (who suffers from Parkinsons Disease) Oxford University is currently constructing what will be, if they succeed, Europe’s largest facility for experimentation on primates, our closest relatives. This controversial site has been campaigned against, countered and haltered on several occasions. SPEAK campaign was established with the express intention of exposing the true realities of vivisection and to stop the construction of this facility. SPEAK official website: For history, info, action.... http://www.speakcampaigns.org/index.php/

UK to try to overturn unlawfully licensing animal experiment Body: Next week the UK Government is set to try to overturn a 2007 High Court ruling it has been unlawfully licensing animal experiments http://www.newstatesman.com/200803060056 Whether animals should have rights and to what extent is open to debate, but few people believe they should be denied legal protection from abuse and unnecessary suffering. Those who defend animal experiments in the UK often quote our ‘strict regulations’, aware that the majority of British voters (over eighty per cent at the last count) are quite rightly against experiments on animals that cause pain, suffering and lasting harm. So they claim our tight regulations ensure animals are only used as a last resort and that those that are used don’t really suffer. The BUAV (British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection) has shown through the courts that when these claims are actually -*test*-('")ed they are proven to be at best misleading, and more often complete nonsense. Next week the UK Government is set to try to overturn a 2007 High Court ruling that it has been unlawfully licensing animal experiments. The judge presiding over the Judicial Review brought by the BUAV ruled that the government had been misleading the public by licensing experiments that would clearly cause ‘substantial’ suffering as ‘moderate’. The case was sparked by an undercover investigation undertaken by the BUAV in a Cambridge University neuroscience Lab in 2000/01. The resulting footage showing monkeys left without painkillers after having their brains exposed, and strokes induced during gruelling surgery, was featured by the BBC’s Newsnight and others and unsurprisingly caused widespread outrage and calls for an inquiry. The judgement should mean fewer licences causing ‘substantial’ suffering are granted, as correctly categorised ‘substantial’ procedures will not pass the key cost (to the animal): benefit (to research) -*test*-('"). It should also mean that the percentage of licences categorised as ‘substantial’ – a wholly unrealistic 2 per cent at present - will be considerably higher, and therefore offer the public a more accurate picture of the extent of animal suffering that goes on in UK Government licensed experiments. However, the government clearly believes it is a good use of tax payers’ money to continue to fight for its right to ignore public concern and continue to throw a smokescreen over the licensing process in order to pretend that animals don’t really suffer in UK laboratories. It is also using public money to fight for the right to withhold details of animal experiments it licenses so it can continue to make claims about minimum suffering and tight regulations without ever being held to public account. In a landmark ruling last month the Information Tribunal paved the way for much of the secrecy surrounding animal experiments in this country to be swept away. The Tribunal ruled that the government’s interpretation of what information should be withheld as confidential was too restrictive and legally wrong. Last month’s ruling was the la-*test*-('") victory in the BUAV’s long campaign to get the government to be more open about the animal experiments it licenses in the UK to allow proper and informed public debate. True to form the Home Office is appealing this ruling too. The appeal will be heard by the High Court in April. It is clearly unsupportable in a modern democracy for the state to defend a controversial practice without being required to provide evidence to support that defence. And an informed, reasoned debate is not possible unless the facts are available. But perhaps the last thing some animal researchers want is an informed debate? ******GRAPHIC FOOTAGE******** <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sgkgwfahfiw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sgkgwfahfiw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

World Laboratory Animal Week http://www.all-creatures.org/wlalw/index.html

"All beings tremble at violence. Life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should neither kill nor cause others to kill."