House OKs bill aimed at animal activists (Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act)

[flvegan]

WASHINGTON - Animal rights advocates who threaten scientists conducting animal research or companies funding or affiliated with it could be fined and imprisoned under a bill the House passed Monday and sent to President Bush.

Current federal law makes it illegal for activists to damage animal research organizations, farms, zoos, pet stores and other similar operations.

The legislation extends those prohibitions to interfering with third-party organizations such as insurance companies, law firms and investment houses that do business with so-called animal enterprises. Supporters said the bill is aimed at protecting people and companies from animal rights terrorists.

<snip>

"I am not for anyone abusing their ... rights by damaging another person's property or person," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio. "But I am for protecting the First Amendment and not creating a special class of violations for a specific type of protest."

more, from the AP at:
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/politics/16004312.htm

The bill was S. 3880, for info sake.

[shance]

1. No, lets be clear. Its not aimed at 'animal' activists. Its aimed at political activists.

n/t

[flvegan]

5. It's aimed at any dissent, I think.

It opens the gates to go after people protesting anyone from Halliburton to the local car dealer that ripped you off, as well as political stances (or animal, or abortion, or human rights, or...).

[shance]

21. The Washington Richie Richies are trying to silence and control everyone else.

While they essentially destroy everything good and engage in unprecedented cruelty.

[Greeby]

2. Kucinich was class

The way he put the smack down to Senselessbrenner :patriot:

[AZBlue]

3. Kucinich is spot on!

This is absurd!! What about all those anti-abortion fanatics? What about all the harm and damage they do??

[originalpckelly]

4. Where's the bill about freeper terrorism?

You know the kind where people actually die.

[flvegan]

6. Well, ya know, loss of money trumps loss of life every time.

As has been proven time and again.

[SOS]

22. They're not interested

in the 193 dead in Oklahoma City or the Olympics bomber or the anthrax mailers.

When will we see the Domestic Terrorism Act?
Never.

[maddogesq]

7. Not a legal eagle, but think this won't pass muster in court.

You have 1st Amend. and equal protection stuff that could be at issue. Might be tied up in senate and die at end of session. Just pollyanna me talking.

[flvegan]

8. Senate passed it already. The House was the last step

before Chimpy's desk.

[maddogesq]

9. Stand corrected, but still think it won' pass court challenge. NT

.

[bemildred]

10. I had no idea that animal rights terrorism was legal before this. nt

[Infinite Hope]

11. No one should be allowed to cause harm

to people or property to further their cause. For one, it does nothing to further there cause and instead diverts resources and time from better methods. But it is terrorism in my opinion. You could argue the fundamentalist Muslim people are just political activists, and you'd be right on that too. But it doesn't make their tactics justified. Certainly MLKJ, Gandhi and others proved there's a better way.

[LeftyMom]

12. Harm to people and property is already illegal.

What this bill does is make it illegal to cause intentional economic harm to any corporation engaged in animal exploitation including testing. Under this bill calling for a boycott of an animal exploiting industry or taking other normally legal steps to drive said company out of business is illegal. Meanwhile, boycotting and promoting the boycott of any other business continues to be perfectly legal.

Sure, it's blatantly unconstitutional, but somebody will be tried, convicted and likely jailed before that issue goes before a court. How many activists will be intimidated into shutting up in the meantime? That's what this bill is for, shutting down effective AR activism right now before the movement can capitalize on any current momentum.

[Nicole]

18. Are you sure about the boycotts?

I was involved in a discussion about this elsewhere.

Supposedly boycotts are not going to be illegal.

[VforVicarious]

37. Not quite

This bill takes aim at all the PETA idiots who think that tossing buckets of blood on people who wear fur helps their cause. Or where anybody would actually get hurt

On that note, I'm gonna fry up some bacon

[ronnie624]

70. As another poster has already pointed out,

threatening, assaulting, and otherwise harming people and property is already illegal.

This bill targets a specific type of political activism.

The legislation extends those prohibitions to interfering with third-party organizations such as insurance companies, law firms and investment houses that do business with so-called animal enterprises.

I suppose we'll have to wait and see how the courts define "interfering".

[silvermachine]

79. Carve some...

...off your ass, piggy.

[tblue37]

61. I am reminded of the Texas law that Oprah had to fight

when she was accused of "slandering" beef after a program about human variant Creuzfeld-Jacob (Mad Cow) disease. (BTW, that is the trial that led to Dr. Phil's take-over of American therapy TV.)

Some other state, I forget which, has or had a law against "slandering" produce.

[Toots]

68. If they are labeled a terrorist they don't even have to be tried or convicted

They can just be swept away to some distant prison never to be heard from again... for organizing a boycott on Coca Cola for instance .

[Raine]

14. This is nothing but a way to give

corporations and businesses that exploit animals free rein to do whatever they please and if you dare speak against the cruelty you are labeled a TERRORIST. :mad:

EDIT: changed word for clarity

[michaelwb]

23. Ah, but such a mixed message we send

Destroying property in a political protest is terrorism.

But all our history textbooks and pundit talk about the Boston Tea Party (destruction of property in a political protest) as noble and patriotic...

[LeftishBrit]

26. I fully agree!

[Toots]

67. This goes further than that though

It says you can not promote a boycott of goods from business' that support the research companies that do animal research. So if you wanted to organize a boycott on say Coca Cola you could be arrested as a terrorist. You like that law?

[Bridget Burke]

75. There are already laws against harming people or property...

But shouting "terrorism" means the government can "streamline" the prosecution process.

[bbgrunt]

13. this is a travesty--and worse: Tammy Balwin (D-WI) is a

co-sponsor. I wrote to her, but got back a pat answer. I can't believe she co-sponsored this.

[rodeodance]

16. it is difficult (maybe i do not want to) that she would support this bill.

[rodeodance]

15. this is the spead of activities assigned to 'terrorism"--Very Dangerous.

[rodeodance]

17. The bill passed the House on a voice vote. The Senate passed it in September.

[and-justice-for-all]

19. ANIMAL TESTING IS WRONG AND IMMORAL!!! nt

[michreject]

20. I agree

Especially for beauty products.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. Stopping animal testing is wrong and immoral.

[DrunkenMaster]

upon which ethical system do you base your "analysis"?

http://www.shac.net/SCIENCE/facts.html

If you think animal experiments are necessary consider the following:

Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never are.

At least 50 drugs on the market cause cancer in lab animals. They are allowed because it is admitted that animal tests are not relevant.

When asked if they agreed that animal experimentation can be misleading because of anatomical and physiological differences between animals and humans, 88% of doctors agreed.

Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer in humans. Flipping a coin would be more accurate.

According to animal tests lemon juice is deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are safe.

Thousands of drugs passed safe in animals have been withdrawn or banned due to their effect on human health.

Aspirin fails animal tests, as do digitalis (heart drug), cancer treatments, insulin (causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would be banned if results from animal experimentation were accurate.

When the producers of thalidomide were taken to court, they were aquitted after numerous experts agreed animal tests could not be relied on for human medicine.

At least 450 methods exist with which we can replace animal experiments.
Morphine puts humans asleep but excites cats.

95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately disgarded as useless or dangerous to humans.

One is six patients in hospital are there because the drug they have taken had been passed safe for us on humans after animal tests.

Worldwide, at least 22 animals die every second in labs. In the UK one animal dies every five seconds.

Researchers refused to believe that benzene could cause cancer in humans because it failed to in animal tests.

Dogs failed to predict heart problems caused by the cardiovascular drugs encainide and flecainide, which led to an estimated 3,000 deaths in the USA.

Heart by pass surgery was put on hold for years because it didn’t work on dogs.

If we had relied on animal tests we would still believe that humans don’t need vitamin C, that smoking doesn’t cause cause cancer and alcohol doesn’t cause liver damage.

It was denied for decades that asbestos caused disease in humans because it didn’t in animals.

Polio researchers were mislead for years about how we catch the disease because they had experimented on monkeys.

As one researcher points out, “the ultimate dilemma with any animal model of human disease is that it can never reflect the human situation with complete accuracy."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. These are the same sort of arguments...

put forth by opponents of stem cell research.

They're not anymore credible.

"Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never are."

That's why you create animal models. You give the animal the disease that you look for the cure.

"At least 50 drugs on the market cause cancer in lab animals. They are allowed because it is admitted that animal tests are not relevant."

That's because they tested animals first. Figured out the mechanism that gives cancer to the animals, and since that mechanism is not relevant in humans, it's safe for human testing.

"When asked if they agreed that animal experimentation can be misleading because of anatomical and physiological differences between animals and humans, 88% of doctors agreed."

Of course there are physiological differences. Rats don't get heart attacks. Salmon don't get breast cancer. This is not an argument against animal research.

"Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer in humans. Flipping a coin would be more accurate."

And this is why they use the Ames test.

"According to animal tests lemon juice is deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are safe."

Either the lab tests were misdone, or the results are being intentionally misinterpreted. Since you've simply cut and pasted this list, I doubt you can find the original reference.

"Thousands of drugs passed safe in animals have been withdrawn or banned due to their effect on human health."

Yes. That's because after animal testing, drugs are tested on healthy human volunteers.

"Aspirin fails animal tests, as do digitalis (heart drug), cancer treatments, insulin (causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would be banned if results from animal experimentation were accurate."

This contradicts an argument already made.

"When the producers of thalidomide were taken to court, they were aquitted after numerous experts agreed animal tests could not be relied on for human medicine."

They were acquitted because their obsolete regulatory agency did not adequately test on human volunteers. This is why thalidomide was not approved in the US.

"At least 450 methods exist with which we can replace animal experiments."

Maybe. However, animal experimentation is still very necessary.

"Morphine puts humans asleep but excites cats."

Bullshit. Morphine will knock cats out. It's not used by vets because it has other side effects.

"95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately disgarded as useless or dangerous to humans."

And consider how many fail.

"One is six patients in hospital are there because the drug they have taken had been passed safe for us on humans after animal tests."

No one goes to a hospital because of a drug that has not been passed safe after human testing.

"Worldwide, at least 22 animals die every second in labs. In the UK one animal dies every five seconds."

Everyday, thousands, millions of human beings are saved, thanks to animal testing.

"Researchers refused to believe that benzene could cause cancer in humans because it failed to in animal tests."

Researchers didn't believe benzene caused cancer because they worked with huge volumes of the stuff on a regular basis. They practically washed their hands with the stuff. Today it's only a suspect carcinogen.

"Dogs failed to predict heart problems caused by the cardiovascular drugs encainide and flecainide, which led to an estimated 3,000 deaths in the USA."

Both encainide and flecainide are still approved for human consumption.

"Heart by pass surgery was put on hold for years because it didn’t work on dogs."

Yes, until they got heart by-pass surgery to work in dogs. And then they got it to work in humans too. This is an argument for animal testing.

"If we had relied on animal tests we would still believe that humans don’t need vitamin C, that smoking doesn’t cause cause cancer and alcohol doesn’t cause liver damage."

We've known we need Vitamin C since, what, the 15th century? Animals don't need a dietary source, since they produce it biosynthetically. Something we wouldn't have known if we hadn't tested on animals. This smoking and alcohol stuff is also nonsense.

"It was denied for decades that asbestos caused disease in humans because it didn’t in animals."

Since asbestos was not a drug, it didn't go through the rigorous animal testing process. Maybe if it had, a lot of humans could have been saved.

"Polio researchers were mislead for years about how we catch the disease because they had experimented on monkeys."

Because of research on animals, scientists developed a polio vaccine, saving millions of human lives.

"As one researcher points out, 'the ultimate dilemma with any animal model of human disease is that it can never reflect the human situation with complete accuracy.'"

And I'm willing to bet, this researcher is fully supportive of animal research.

[DrunkenMaster]

30. cite a source, please

Do you have ANY citable material you can quote?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. Do you?

See edited response.

[DrunkenMaster]

33. crappy strawman response

if you can't cite sources or facts, leave the fallacies in your own head, please.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. What makes it a strawman?

How is this different from opposing stem cells?

[DrunkenMaster]

45. how is it different from stem cells?????

Interesting question, considering animal testing and stem cell research are TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS. They have nothing to do with one another: sustituting one for the other allows you to muddle the issue by hijacking the ethos of stem cell research. It's pretty simple (and obvious).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. You didn't answer the question.

Conservatives argue that we shouldn't use stem cells in research, because they're living things, and it'd be immoral to destroy them for research. They also make a lot of phony arguments about how stem cell research isn't effective or necessary.

And this is the exact same argument used by those opposing animal research.

So, again, where's the difference?

[DrunkenMaster]

50. my god, you need a basic logic course

I'm not going to argue stem cells with you because that is not the topic here. The topic is animal research and any reductions to absurdity or false analogies and comparisons on your part are quite literally not the point.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. You're dodging the question.

It's not a false analogy. It's a good comparison.

And I think you're dodging the question because you haven't got a good argument.

[DrunkenMaster]

54. Argue animal testing, not stem cells!

Animal testing is NOT stem cell rearch for chrissakes....are you f**king joking or do you actually not f**king comprehend that each must be considered and debated separately?

Ahh,nevermind. You're wasting both our times with this nonsese. Either cite sources proving the validity and importance of ANIMAL TESTING AND VIVESECTION or drop it. We can debate stem cells in a thread dedicated to stem cells.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

56. I've already argued...

on the importance of animal testing, and the ideological similarities between stem cell opponents and animal research opponents.

If you've got an argument against it, I'd sure like to hear it.

[DrunkenMaster]

58. it's still a dodge

take a logic class and get back to me. You also might want to read below about the differences between Einstein and the TWO Eisensteins.

What a waste of time.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

59. Oh, Lordy loo.

:eyes:

[Bridget Burke]

76. I don't see any "cites" at your link.

But only unsourced statements.

[DrunkenMaster]

38. WRONG: Polio Vaccine & Animals

In fact, two separate bodies of work were done on polio: the in vitro work, which was awarded the Nobel Prize and did not involve animals, and the animal tests, in which a staggering number of animals were killed. Nobel Laureate Arthur Kornberg noted that for 40 years, experiments on monkeys who had been infected with polio generated “limited progress” toward a cure. The breakthrough came when scientists learned how to grow the virus from human and monkey cells.

Certainly, some medical developments were the result of cruel animal tests, but that does not mean that the developments would not have been possible without animal testing or that the primitive techniques used in the 1800s are still valid today. It’s impossible to say where we would be if we had declined to experiment on animals because throughout medical history, very few resources have been devoted to non-animal research methods. In fact, because animal experiments frequently give misleading results with regard to human health, we’d probably be better off if we hadn’t relied on animal testing for so long.


Dr. Albert Sabin, who developed the oral polio vaccine, cited in testimony at a congressional hearing this example of the dangers of animal-based research: "

aralytic polio could be dealt with only by preventing the irreversible destruction of the large number of motor nerve cells, and the work on prevention was delayed by an erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys."

[Zhade]

63. Cite?

NT!

[DrunkenMaster]

28. The SHAC FAQ

from Stop Huntington Animal Cruely

Q: Didn't penicillin come from animal experimentation?

A:The fact is that animal tests sidetracked development of this important drug. In 1929, Alexander Fleming observed penicillin killing bacteria in a Petri dish. Intrigued, he administered the compound to bacteria-infected rabbits, hoping that it would do the same thing. Unfortunately, penicillin was ineffective against the rabbit's infections. (We now know that because rabbits rapidly excrete penicillin in their urine, the drug is not able to work prior to being eliminated.) Disappointed, Fleming set the drug aside for a decade, as the rabbits had "proved" the drug was useless as a systemic medication. Years later, he thought of the drug when he had a patient near death, for whom all other treatments had proved ineffectual. In desperation, he reached for the penicillin and performed a miracle. The rest is history. Fleming attributed his discovery to serendipity.
Fleming might have thrown penicillin away had he done his initial tests on guinea pigs or hamsters, since it kills those species. Fleming later told his students:
How fortunate we didn't have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably never been granted a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized.

Q:If we don't use animals, what will we use?

A:Note that this view assumes that animal experiments have been responsible for medical advances in the past. If this were true, the concern would be valid. But it is not. Benchmarks in medical history have relied on the following nonanimal-based methodologies, as will future developments:
In vitro research or test tube research on living tissue has been instrumental for many of the great discoveries. Though human tissue has not always been employed; it could have been, because it has always been in ample supply. Blood, tissue and organ cultures are ideal test-beds for the efficacy and toxicity of medications.
Epidemiology is the study of populations of humans to determine factors that could account for the prevalence of the disease among them, or for their disease immunity. Combined with genetic research and other non-animal methods enumerated here, it provides very accurate information about whole systems.
Bacteria, viruses, and fungi reveal basic cell properties.
Autopsy and cadavers are used for clarifying disease and teaching operating techniques such as fracture fixation, spine stabilization, ligament reconstruction, and other procedures.
Physical models can be made for studying the wear on joints and other physiology.
Genetic research has elucidated many genes that are responsible for specific diseases. Since physicians can now ascertain their patients' predisposition to certain diseases, they can monitor them more carefully as well as suggest optimal nutrition, lifestyle and medications.
Clinical research on patients shows how humans respond to different treatments and determine whether or not one treatment is superior to another. We can attribute our fundamental knowledge of disease and hospital care to clinical research.
Post-marketing drug surveillance (PMDS) is the reporting process whereby every effect and side effect of a new medication are reported to a monitoring agency, eg., the FDA. (Despite its obvious benefits, post-marketing drug surveillance is presently practiced erratically as reporting methods are neither easy nor required.)
Mathematical and computer modeling is a complex research method that employs mathematics to simulate living systems and chemical reactions.
Technology is largely responsible for the high standard of care we receive today. MRI scanners, CAT scanners, PET scanners, X-rays, ultrasound, blood gas analysis machines, blood chemistry analysis machines, pulmonary artery catheters, arterial catheters, microscopes, monitoring devices, lasers, anesthesia machines and monitors, operating room equipment, computer based equipment, sutures, the heart-lung machine, pacemakers, electrocardiograms, electroencephalograms, bone and joint replacements, staplers, laparoscopic surgery, the artificial kidney machine and many more are examples of technological breakthroughs.
Specialization also saves countless lives. For example, the field of pathology allowed better understanding of diseases. Specialization of medical care into disciplines such as cardiology, oncology, orthopedic surgery, pediatrics, infectious diseases etc. allows physicians to increase and share their understanding of one field. Specialized areas of care in the hospital, like the neonatal intensive care unit (ICU), cardiac ICU, and surgical ICU, improve patient care. Nurses, specially trained for the operating room or the ICU better administer to patients.

Return to the top of page.

Q:What about the claim that animal experimentation is necessary because there are no other whole system models for metabolic processes other than animals?

A:This assertion suggests that in vitro research methodologies, though valuable, cannot predict what will happen in a whole living system, which is true. But history has proven that results in lab animals are even more inadequate. Though predicting what happens in particular animal tested, animal experiments do not predict what will happen in humans.
Given that metabolic processes differ greatly between species, information garnered in animal experiments is entirely unreliable. Since it has no predictive value, except for the species tested, it is wholly unscientific when applied to humans. It does not provide the results it professes to provide. Very often substances that have proven effective in animals do not demonstrate curative value in humans and may even harm them. Just as often, animal testing often works at cross-purposes to discovery when poor results bar medications that could alleviate pain and save lives from the market.
As this is the case, all drugs must eventually be tested on humans, and those humans are every bit the lab creatures that animals are. These "clinical phases" of drug testing, as they are called, submit human volunteers to what are at first very small dosages, monitor their reactions, and slowly increase dosage.
Clinical testing and subsequent non-animal methods provide what lab animals cannot - totally accurate readings of human metabolic processes. These include epidemiology, and post-marketing drug surveillance.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. Good thing Fleming tested it on mice too.

[DrunkenMaster]

31. what about the university of Colorado Dog Labs?

They kept using dogs long after almost every other University in the nation had switched to VR...it only stopped because of public pressure from animal rights groups. The facts are simple: the majority of animal testing is cruel and totally useless. According to national statistics, nearly two-thirds of all animal research has little or nothing to do with curing human diseases or advancing human medicine.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

40. VR?

What the hell is VR?

Drunkenmaster, nearly every University in the nation that does medical research tests on animals. Dogs are certainly less common that rats and mice, but their still around.

"the majority of animal testing is cruel and totally useless."

Patently false. With every test performed on an animal there has to be a specific use and minimization of any harm to the animal, this has to be approved by an independant review board, and labs are subject to random inspection for complaince.

[DrunkenMaster]

42. VR = virtual reality/computer simulation

Stanford, Harvard, Yale, and Columbia, have dropped dog labs in favor of more humane and more relevant training methods, such as observing bypass surgery on human cardiac patients in hospitals. Dog labs have been illegal in the U.K. for many years.


• Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Jersey: “... the faculty has determined that the advent of highly sophisticated computer technology has made it possible to train students effectively without the use of live animals.”


• North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System: “We are not using dogs in our advanced trauma life support courses ... We are using cadavers.”

• Ohio University College of Osteopathic Medicine: “We do not use animals in the teaching curriculum ... and have not done so since December 1998."

“The only thing a student can do in a dog lab that we don’t cover in the operating room is kill the dog.”
—Dr. Michael D’Ambera, cardiac anesthesiologist

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. How the fuck are you going to use virtual reality..."

to replace animal testing?

What is this? 1991?

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. I was being facetitious, Eisenstein.

I can see how computer models can be of some service in training surgeons. And cadaver research would be better training for surgeons than animals. Of course, there are probably the same sort of characters all up in arms over cadaver research.

This does not, however, replace animal testing. You can't use a Playstation 3 to figure out if a new drug will cause cancer.

[DrunkenMaster]

52. Which Eisenstein?

There were two, ya know.

Playstation 3, very funny. That must be why Yale and Stanford use 'em -- they LOVE "video games".

All right, I'm done here.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. The one that invented relativity.

If you come up with an argument, I'll be waiting.

[DrunkenMaster]

55. That was EINSTEIN, not EISENSTEIN

Sergei Mikhailovich Eisenstein (Russian: Сергей Михайлович Эйзенштейн, Latvian: Sergejs Eizenšteins) (January 23, 1898 – February 11, 1948) was a revolutionary Soviet film director and film theorist noted in particular for his silent films Strike, Battleship Potemkin and Oktober. His work vastly influenced early film makers owing to his innovative use of and writings about montage.


Ferdinand Gotthold Max Eisenstein (April 16, 1823 - October 11, 1852) was a German mathematician.

Like Galois and Abel, Eisenstein died before the age of 30, and like Abel, his death was due to tuberculosis. He was born and died in Berlin, Germany. He studied at the Berlin University, where Peter Gustav Dirichlet was his teacher.

Gauss is said to have claimed, "There have been only three epoch-making mathematicians: Archimedes, Newton, and Eisenstein". Gauss's choice of Eisenstein, who specialized in number theory and analysis, may seem puzzling to many, but it is justified by the fact that Eisenstein easily proved several results that were unattainable even for Gauss, like the theorem on biquadratic reciprocity.

On Edit: This is ueselss...I'm done.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. No sher, Shitlock.

He didn't invent relativity either.

[DrunkenMaster]

48. is that really the best response you can give?

Pretty lame.

[DrunkenMaster]

43. more on CU dog labs

Doctors Announce Victory as CU Finally Stops Killing Dogs for Medical Training
“Dog Labs” Have Been Replaced by High-Tech Teaching Methods


Washington, D.C.—A doctors’ organization that has been campaigning to end animal laboratory exercises at the University of Colorado School of Medicine congratulated the University today for abandoning such exercises, at least for the present academic year. In a letter to University Chancellor James Shore, M.D., the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) expressed its hope and expectation that this change will become permanent. With this decision, CU joins nearly 70 percent of U.S. medical schools, including Harvard, Stanford, Yale, and most other prestigious schools, which have done away with animal labs in favor of humane, high-tech, and cost-effective alternatives.

After years of protests, a successful lawsuit, and legislative campaigns by PCRM and others, the University of Colorado announced that first-year students will use computer simulations and analysis of prerecorded responses in the cardiovascular physiology laboratory instead of conducting fatal experiments on beagles.

The curriculum change follows a series of adjustments in CU’s dog laboratories since last year. Last spring, CU stopped buying dogs from “Class B” dealers, sometimes accused of engaging in unethical practices, and began purchasing dogs from “Class A” dealers instead. Earlier this month, the School of Medicine announced that it would use computer simulations to replace dogs in a respiratory lab and later decided to use nonanimal methods entirely.

“We congratulate CU on this appropriate and excellent decision,” says PCRM president Neal D. Barnard, M.D. “Now CU joins the very cream of the crop of medical schools, training new physicians without the use of animals.”

[flvegan]

32. You should be more specific.

1. Experiments in regards to medicine;
2. Experiments in regards to health/beauty products;
3. Both.

[DrunkenMaster]

34. here's one of MY favorite "tests"

it's SO moral...

"Every year, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) doles out hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in support of some of the most bizarre and sadistic animal experiments ever conceived. One animal experimenter at New York University (NYU) received $250,000 dollars from NIH to construct a crack pipe through which monkeys, sealed inside old refrigerators, were forced to smoke crack cocaine."

Now THAT'S science, baby!

[Zhade]

64. Source?

Reprehensible - if true.

[noonwitch]

77. It depends on what you're testing....

I don't support unnecessary cruelty to animals, although I am a carnivore and I like to eat meat.

It's unnecessary to test cosmetics on animals-by this point in time, the manufacturers should know what will cause problems and what won't.

The nasty monkey experiments that WMU's psych program did when I was a student there were totally unnecessary (I didn't participate, but I had to watch a movie of it-it was horrendous). They would open up the monkey's skull and attach electrical wires to it. Then they would see how much pain the poor animal could take before it died.

But as far as testing new medicines on animals-we can't do it to people first, we have to start with the first tests on animals. We can't use prisoners for this, that would be exploitation. But pharmacuetical companies can't just start testing on people without testing on animals first, that's just the way it is.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. If these people cared so much about scientific research...

they wouldn't be blocking stem cells.

Charge them with something.

[denverbill]

27. Hey, animal rights terrorists killed 3000 people on 9-11.

Actually, AFAIK, animal rights 'terrorists' haven't killed anyone, ever.

Unlike anti-abortion terrorists.

[terry4kerry]

66. it is their way of silencing any dissent!

Once again they managed to squeeze a bill through that won't allow protesting. I called my representative last week and urged him not to vote for the bill, but as usual the term terrorist is being used to take away our first amendment rights. It is really a shame that politicians are using the word to manipulate and scare the public into silence.
Although I am an animal lover, I was more concerned of the pattern that continues to take place. First it is torture to the "terrorists", with the motto "torture first, ask questions later..." Second, our phone calls are monitored, third, our rights are abolished, and next we will have a coalition of an American style gestapo.
I think this is an important one for us to fight!!

[Megahurtz]

35. These Fascists are going to push through

all kinds of Nazi Crap before January 1st aren't they? :mad:

[dmallind]

60. We do animal testing right here where I work

Not only that but the givernment tells us we HAVE to do animal testing.

See, we make animal vaccines, and with the best science in the world the only way to be really sure a highly varaible natural process of antigen production has resulted in a vaccine that will help animals avoid disease rather than either a)kill them or b)cause some disease or condition to occur, either the one the vaccine is intended to innoculate against or another, is to test them on....well animals.

The test results have to be sent to the USDA before we can even sell the product.

We do this to save hundreds of thousands of other animals from death and disease.

Not all animal testing is spraying perfume in rabbits eyes to see if it would irritate human skin.

NOTE - Personal and general opinion only - not making any statements on behalf of any company or organization.

[CountAllVotes]

62. kick kick kick kick kick

for all of our animal friends that are being abused and/or living in filthy, disease ridden puppy mills and other deplorable conditions!

Bill S.3880 must be repealed immediately to stop the abuse and greed being inflicted on members of the animal KINGDOM.

We must stand together and be strong as this involves further decimation and erosion of rights granted to us, We the People of the United States of America under the First Amendment, to that "damn piece of paper", aka, otherwise known as THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES!!



:dem: :kick:

[HuffleClaw]

65. what a complete load of crap

i'll accept this when they enact similar legislation that SPECIFICALLY targets those loons who harrass/bomb/kill pro-choice folks.

[IndianaGreen]

69. The terrorists are the scientists that work for cosmetics companies and Big Pharma

in conducting animal experiments.

I fully support the destruction of all animal labs!

[DavidMS]

71. Good!

I came back from a business trip to London and realized how much fear has pervaded the biotechnology industry in the UK. I work for a company involved in pharmaceutical research (computer modeling, patient reported outcomes, pharmaconomics) and we got a junk fax to join a directory of animal resarch comapnies (we do not do any laboratory research). It was thrown away with the comment that its probably for targeting medical researchers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/animalrights/story/0,11917,1268819,00.html
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1463/

An excellent essay on whats wrong with animal rights: http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/~perspy/old/issues/2001/october/peta.html

http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/24741/
Article that touches apon the law includes:

The new bill is a substitute for pending legislation (S 1926 and HR 4239), but has been amended to address free speech and other concerns. Similar in some ways to legislation regulating protests at abortion clinics, the new bill expressly protects such First Amendment activities as peaceful picketing, demonstrations, and "lawful boycotts"
against animal enterprises. It also substitutes life imprisonment for the death penalty should an offense result in the death of an individual.

http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20040611140817458
An excellent article that should be quoted on the risks of equating animals and humans.

These arguments are seductive but spurious. The central analogy to the civil rights movement and the women’s movement is trivializing and ahistorical. Both of those social movements were initiated and driven by members of the dispossessed and excluded groups themselves, not by benevolent men or white people acting on their behalf. Both movements were built precisely around the idea of reclaiming and reasserting a shared humanity in the face of a society that had deprived it and denied it. No civil rights activist or feminist ever argued, “We’re sentient beings too!” They argued, “We’re fully human too!” Animal liberation doctrine, far from extending this humanist impulse, directly undermines it.

and a paragraph latter:

To grasp the significance of this difference, consider the following. I live with several people and a number of cats, toward whom I have various ethical responsibilities. If I am convinced that one of my human housemates needs to take some kind of medicine, it is not acceptable for me to force feed it to her, assuming she isn’t deranged. Instead, I can try to persuade her, through rational deliberation and ethical argument, that it would be best if she took the medicine. But if I think that one of the cats needs to take some kind of medicine, I may well have no choice but to force feed it to him or trick him into eating it.7 In other words, taking the interests of animals seriously and treating them as morally considerable beings requires a very different sort of ethical action from the sort that is typically appropriate with other people.


The failure to account for this salient feature of moral conduct is one reason why so many proponents of animal rights are hostile to humanist values. But an equally serious failing of animal rights thinking is its obliviousness to ecological values. Recall that on the animal rights view, it is only individual creatures endowed with sentience that deserve moral consideration. Trees, plants, lakes, rivers, forests, ecosystems, and even most creatures that zoologists classify as “animals”, have no interests, well-being, or worth of their own, except inasmuch as they promote the interests of sentient beings. Animal rights advocates have simply traded in speciesism for phylumism.8

and finishes:


An ecologically and socially credible effort to take animal interests seriously will dispense with the notion that killing and harm are wrong per se, and will surmount the dichotomy of sentient vs. non-sentient beings by integrating a concern for animal welfare into an inclusive appreciation for the well-being of whole ecological communities. In practice, this would likely result in a revival and refinement of the custom of humane treatment of animals, accompanied by the insight that cultivating humanist values is a component of, rather than a hindrance to, this endeavor. People will not consistently treat animals humanely until people — all people — are treated humanely.

I am deliberately skipping the discussion of Nazism and Animal Rights, as although historically interesting, would violate the 4 paragraph quote rule.

[flvegan]

74. That "excellent essay" you refer to

is the typical regurgitation of BS spewn by a wanna-be future doctor or scientist (hence her 2006 thesis). Shame Harvard doesn't stress mastering of both read and spoken English. She'd have learned context. Or maybe she's just frothing opinion.

[Barrett808]

72. Would this apply to activists opposed to "scientific" whaling?

Now that would be a huge loophole for Japan.

[flvegan]

73. If they could get American law (when signed by Bush) to stand

in international waters where it's illegal and off-limits to whale to begin with.

The fact that the IWC doesn't enforce anything is a big enough loophole for Japan as is.

[Barrett808]

78. Sadly true. n/t

[warrens]

80. Unconstitutional

We have plenty of laws that cover vandalism, theft, etc. This is just persecution by the wealthy.