Letters to the Editor
-
Animal Testing is Not Useless
Another Anonymous says:
Basically, it's just fine tuning. The whole idea that scientists are inventing new chemical compounds have have literally no idea -- no clue! -- if it will instantly kill someone or not is beyond ridiculous.
Well, I might have thought that too if I had never studied any biology.
Unfortunately, chemicals have a multitude of nonspecific effects on different systems of the body. They affect different genders, different individuals, and different species somewhat differently. In combinations with other chemicals, they can have unpredictable effects -- two apparently innocuous chemicals, combined, can even lead to cancer.
If you think about this for a second, you'll realize that we only know a tiny fraction of all there is to know about toxicology. What we do know is primarily thanks to animal research.
Look up endocrine disruptors if you want to (a) be frightened, and (b) learn more about the little we know about existing "well-understood" chemicals.
Have you heard of Vioxx? That was supposed to be a more specific drug with fewer side effects in a very safe class of drugs (aspirin, ibuprofen). It "caused between 88,000 and 139,000 heart attacks, 30 to 40 percent of which were probably fatal, in the five years the drug was on the market." (FDA)
-
True targets for terror
I firmly believe that violent means are generally not effective, no matter how noble the cause, because they only serve to mobilise and justify one's opposition. They mostly serve only to perpetuate hatred.
However, terrorists targetting specific individuals to achieve a specific, measureable agenda is in my mind much better than than horrific, non-specific and purposeless slaughters like 9/11. Instead of attacking nonspecific and nebulous targets like the "West", and causing much useless slaughter, it would be much better in my mind if the extremists of the world would take this approach and only target the cultural, political and business leaders that have caused specific offenses.
Perhaps this is why the Bush administration most fears groups like this, but dilly dallies around on catching true menaces like Osama Bin Laden. Even though attacking individuals was originally promoted by right wing groups such as the Right-To-Life crowd, they weren't targetting the corporate folks.
While dehumanising anyone is a short term tactic that never results in much good long term, it would be better in some sense than having wars and killing many innocent people for no reason.
-
True targets for terror
I firmly believe that violent means are generally not effective, no matter how noble the cause, because they only serve to mobilise and justify one's opposition. They mostly serve only to perpetuate hatred.
However, terrorists targetting specific individuals to achieve a specific, measureable agenda is in my mind much better than than horrific, non-specific and purposeless slaughters like 9/11. Instead of attacking targets like the "West" it would be much better in my mind if the extremists of the world would take this approach and only target the cultural, political and business leaders that have caused specific offenses.
Perhaps this is why the Bush administration most fears groups like this, but dilly dallies around on catching true menaces like Osama Bin Laden. Even though attacking individuals was originally promoted by right wing groups such as the Right-To-Life crowd, they weren't targetting the corporate folks.
While dehumanising anyone is a short term tactic that never results in much good long term, it would be much than having wars and killing many innocent people for no reason.
-
Pain and terror
I am shocked and saddened to read the letters responding to this article. More than half sound like they come from the hard right. Who decided that animals are deserving of less respect than humans? That it is acceptable to torment and mutilate them so that a human can have relief of disease symptoms or live a little longer? Why is that okay? We're bigger? Badder?
Many years ago, my spouse and I invited a young doctor of recent acquaintance to dinner. She didn't show up, and when she contacted us a night later, she said she'd been called into surgery. She confided that it had been her first surgery on a human. We were surprised that a person with a medical degree had performed her first surgery after receiving her degree. She said she'd only done "dog surgery" in medical school. That was the first time that I heard about the use of dogs in medical training. She told us that the first surgery on the dogs was to remove their vocal chords. Then they were subjected to three subsequent surgeries by students, after which they were euthanized.
That was wrong then. It is wrong now. We have no right to justify intentional infliction of harm on sensate creatures for our benefit - and, no, I don't visit doctors and I don't take medications or use processed foods, and I am very careful in my choices of consumer products.
The group that has targeted Huntington has achieved an important result. Only very hard pressure will change such horrific practices, and by focusing so hard on one target, they have made progress. It will have a broader effect. I don't agree with personal physical violence towards humans or animals, but every step short of that, I do support.
The idea that "we" need to continue to use inhumane treatment of animals till something better cmes along is absolutely abhorent. It suggests that we can just dismiss suffering on a human convenience basis so long as it suits us. We aren't so special, folks - each of us will die. Making another creature's existence horrible to put off that inevitability is an absolutely grotesque ethic.
-
propoganda
>>In every prescription medication is a folded insert with lots and lots of writing that everyone throws away. Read it. It will say that none of the animal tests referred to, are conclusive as to how a Human will react.>>
That's not true. EVery drug approved for use by the FDA IS tested on humans.
BTW, I'll extreme left politically, but I prefer to benefit from all the medical accomplishments we've had over the years and accept that animal testing is a small part of that.