"Why don't you make your blog about something interesting, like vegetarian recipes? That way, people might read it."
"Shut up, Mum."
Two good things happened last month. I mean, good in my opinion: Wales decided to scrap its proposed badger cull, and it was revealed that all relevant ferry companies and 64 airlines are refusing to import lab-animals to Britain. This has happened as a result of what the BUAV refer to as 'reasoned argument allied to letter writing by our hundreds of thousands of supporters.' On the other hand, ex-Labour Minister Lord Drayson said that medical research was being 'choked off' by 'extremists' who target 'weak links' in the chain of the animal-transporting industry. The violence of Drayson's language suggests a campaign of intimidation of which no evidence is provided, but it is clear that the pro-vivisection movement feels threatened.
Writing on the 14th of March, respectively for the Times and the Guardian, Drayson and the BUAV's Michelle Thew both claimed (in Drayson's words) to be 'speaking out for science and democracy.' Both plausibly claimed to have public opinion behind them: given this country's conflicted attitude to animal welfare, it isn't difficult to believe that the majority of people are 'against causing suffering to lab animals' but in favour of animal research.
The benefits of animal testing are also debatable. Some scientists argue that it is the only way to ascertain the effect of medication on an entire body, not just specific cells; others consider it to be increasingly outmoded and ineffective in the treatment of human bodies. What I take from Drayson's article, in which he claims that the loss of just 1% of Britain's lab animals will directly and definitely cause 'more people to suffer and die', is the sort of sensationalism and emotional blackmail that is stereotypically the domain of animal rights activists.
Here is a selection of responses to Thew's article from the Guardian online comments section.
"This fluffy bunny flim flam attitude doesn't help anyone."
"Perhaps if you spent a little more time paying attention in Science lessons, and a little less going "Awwww, look at the little fuzzy-wuzzy... he's so cuuuuute" you'd realise..."
"You are regarded as nutters by the large majority of the population."
"Is it only the fluffy ones you want to protect?"
"I once asked one of these anti-testing loonies who she'd save from a burning house first: a child or a mouse."
"God, I lived with one of these anti-vivisection loonies at university. They are so unpleasant...muchelle, we need to experiment on animals to save lives. I hope that you refuse any treat for any illnes or disease you have in the future. If not, you are a hypocrite like PETA's vice-president because she uses insulin, a medication derived from animal testing."
Well, I've got hurt feelings.
I've chosen the most extreme and least fair responses to show that the tactics of hysteria and intimidation can be found on both sides of the vivisection argument. I also feel these remarks demonstrate the problems that rational animal rights campaigners have in being taken seriously. The trolls quoted above rely on dismissing both the value of animal lives and the intelligence of anybody who cares about them.
Why do they get so angry? Well, if they believe in the medical efficacy of animal testing, fair enough. No one likes cancer, heart disease or Alzheimers, no one wants to pass up any chances of finding cures. But the aggression shown towards people who are really only encouraging progress - focusing on the development of humane and accurate research, moving on from the brutal techniques of the past - seems to me like a sign of cowardice. These commentators, whose general attitude is basically considered normal and not 'unpleasant', refuse debate, and, by belittling the motivations of anti-vivisectionists, close their eyes to the full moral difficulty of the animal rights question.
Some people are frightened of widening the boundaries of ethical responsibility. Making decisions is much easier if we focus solely on human needs, to the exclusion of animal welfare. It is as natural to do that as it is to prioritise people's immediate comfort over the protection of the environment, or people close to us over people we don't know. Campaigns like the BUAV's threaten the progress of medical research, in its current models. They demand change and development in social, scientific and humanitarian practices. It is a daunting prospect.
No comments:
Post a Comment