I have to say I suspected this thread may become controversial from the moment it was posted. I have to say I found it quite enlightening reading everyones comments whist avoiding joining with the debate until now
My own view is that I stand by the basic right of every individual in a democracy, to make a personal choice about what they support, without being persecuted in any way for doing so. If you choose to support such research fine, if you don't that's equally as acceptable!
We are fortunate enough to live in a democratic society and we are rightly encouraged to form our own opinions and freely voice them, within the boundaries that our laws permit. In other words paedophiles for example, are most certainly not permitted to stand on a soap box and pontificate on their actions!
I found the whole debate here was becoming quite painful to read at times, despite some of the humorous moments provided by maringo. I was extremely relieved when I reached and read Dogtireds post.
I too have lost several close family members to cancer so the subject is very near to me. I'm not a vegetarian but I still consider myself an animal lover and have always had pets.
Some of the comments seem to suggest that suggestions that you cannot be a animal lover whilst continuing to eat meat. Its an opinion of many I suppose, but not one I hold with. There is clearly a great difference between someone deliberately setting out to harm or torture an animal for sport or spite and testing them in the course of medical research under the terms of Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1986. So that people have some facts available, here's an overview of what the Act requires of all animal procedures:-
They must:
- take place only in laboratories which have appropriate animal accommodation and veterinary facilities, and have gained a certificate of designation
- are part of an approved research or testing programme which has been given a project licence
- are carried out by people with sufficient training, skills and experience as shown in their personal licence
Project licences are only granted if:
- the potential results are important enough to justify the use of animals
- the research cannot be done using non-animal methods
the minimum number of animals will be used
- dogs, cats or primates are only used when other species are not suitable
- any discomfort or suffering is kept to a minimum by appropriate use of anaesthetics or pain killers
- researchers and technicians conducting procedures have the necessary training, skills and experience
- research premises have the necessary facilities to look after the animals properly (laid down in a Home Office Code of Practice)
The Act is enforced by a team of Inspectors (all qualified vets or doctors). They visit each establishment an average of 6 times per year, often without prior notice. In addition, a named vet must be on call at each establishment at all times. Animals must be examined every day and any animal in severe pain or distress that cannot be relieved must be painlessly put down. These people are in the business of finding cures, they aren't in the business of causing suffering for the sake of it or because they take pleasure from it.
In addition, a whole new level of regulation came into effect in the UK in April 1999, with the introduction of local ethical review. In most other countries, the regulation of animal research operates either through local ethical committees or by statutory controls imposed by central government. The UK is the only country in the world to have both systems operating in parallel.
It not by mistake that we are known as a nation of animal lovers! I think the points in bold are the most relevant and revealing. In other words, to remain licenced and within the law, the tests performed would not be suitable for testing by other means, a fact often overlooked by many.
Don't misunderstand me here, Im not trying to extol the virtues of medical vivisection, Im merely stating that I understand there is a real reason and need for it and that therefore it should only be done in when its absolutely needed and always be done in as humane a way possible. (and I dont work in medical research either
)
A lot has been said here about the rights of animals as opposed to humans. In fact, to the the degree that it was suggested it's better not to find cures for cancer than to continue than to harm any animal. Again, this is was opinion they were entitled to have. but where do you draw such a line, and who has the right to make that decision.
My own conscience wouldn't allow me to face the mother of any child dieing of cancer and tell her that they may have been a cure but that she should feel comforted by the fact that 20 adorable bunny rabbits didn't have to suffer any form of discomfort, however minimal that may or may not have been, in order to help save her and others like her. I feel no guilt in admitting I would go ahead with the testing despite my own fondness for bunnies.
Right or wrong, the law currently permits regulated animal vivisection. Anti-vivisection rights activists take some of the comments made in previously this thread into their own hands and worse still, they take them to the extreme, threatening, terrorising and in some instances physically harming people they discover have any connection with such work. Is that right?
Its a fine line to walk between right and wrong and opinions get very heated on such topics. I personally found the suggestion that prisoners should be tested on before animals quite offensive. It goes against all the basic human rights supported by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as upheld by our own common laws and it goes contrary to my own personal moral codes and those of Amnesty International, who like myself, also disapprove of the Death Penalty for the same reasons. I believe a life sentence should mean just that 'life', unless later proven to be innocent (which as we all know happens all too often).
Life on our planet is a constant balancing act and to suggest that we place ourselves no higher in the 'food-chain' that animals, would suggest a return to the days when we were mere lunch for wild animals bigger and stronger than ourselves. We are not, we're are at the top of that food-chain and are no longer in that position because of a basic law of nature, the law of survival of the fittest. Not everyone will take the view that we are the most worthy, granted (and indeed we will ultimately be the architects of our own demise), but we are the most fit, as nature supports.
Is a tragic fact that far, far more harm and damage is done by man to animals (non domestic of course) through means of environmental pollution and things like the destruction of the rain-forests, the continued use of fuels which damage the world that we share with the animals we claim to hold so dear.
These days most people know the damaging effects of pollution but many don't realise that habitat loss is the greatest threat to the natural world and the creatures living in it. We are taking over habitat at an alarming rate to provide ourselves with homes and agriculture as well as resources from forests, and other natural areas. Man is directly responsible for this!
According to the BBC Science & Nature, recent estimates suggest that at least 120 out of 620 living primate species (apes, monkeys, lemurs and others) will go extinct in the wild in the next 10 to 20 years, at current rates of habitat loss. Large animals, such as tigers, mountain gorillas, pandas, Indian lions and spotted owls, are often hit hardest by loss of habitat because they need large areas in which to have a healthy breeding population. The only species not truly affected by habitat loss are those which benefit from human activity, such as cockroaches, rats and house-finches.
There are lots more truly fascinating and alarming facts to read too
www.bbc.co.uk/nature/programmes/tv/state_planet/The point I suppose I was trying to make, is that there are far more harmful things humans are doing to animals, wildlife in particular, than we ever do in the course of medical research, which in the the case of cancer research, at least serves a very real and worthy purpose. This can't be said of people who drive gas guzzling cars to the corner shop or who carelessly pollute the environment by leaving electrical items on unnecessarily, and in doing so increase global warming, contributing to the possible demise of species such as polar-bears who are unable to cope with the impact of both climatic change and water based chemical pollutants.
We all of us do things every day that directly or indirectly, adversely effect those in our immediate vicinity (animals included) as well as our environment, animals and planet as a whole. And that's without any of us ever being involved in medial research.
Aisleyne herself has made a choice and I respect it. (I would also love to see her fronting an anti-bullying campaign and had even asked this question of her in the question thread.)
At the end of the day, you picks your cause and you pays your money. I think it is inappropriate for anyone to be made to feel guilty or embarrassed for deciding to either supporting or not supporting, any charity.
I carefully select the charities my own cash goes towards and more importantly I know precisely the reasons I have chosen them (and they have nothing to do with what my dietary habits are
). I have a full awareness of the potential sacrifices which may or may not be involved, and have reached my decisions based on my own moral conscience and nobody elses, as In certain we all have.
**Sorry everyone, I think I may have filled up a whole page and made a speech. Yikes! Hope I didn't bore everyone to sleep ** 
(goes off to put the soapbox away safely under lock and key)
{=}http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k46/Bluebellberries/Where.gif{/=}
an Bar Reg{=}http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k46/Bluebellberries/Relaxed.gif{/=}