Animal Testing
May 18th 2006 02:31
Category: No Category
"He has had the opportunity to instigate a Europe-wide commitment to funding research into the search for validated alternatives to the use of animals in laboratories and he has signally failed to take that opportunity."
The chief executive of the company whose interests lie at the crux of this debate expresses his view,
"I am greatly encouraged by his personal commitment, and that of his government, to ensuring an environment in the UK that is conducive to the research and development of vital new medicines… On behalf of medical researchers, who live in fear of such intimidation, I thank Tony Blair for his personal courage in declaring his support for the use of animals in research, when there is no alternative."
The arguments from both sides provide valid points. The supporters of Blair make some valid points, Professor Chris Higgins says,
“Animal testing is regulated by EU and British Law. The studies are done under very controlled conditions. The Home Office regulates it very tightly, it inspects animal houses for standards and hygiene and ensures studies are not done if there is an alternative…
The law requires numbers of animal experiments to ensure we have safe chemicals in the environment and safe medicines…
It's a very straight forward and simple choice - if you want new medicines that are safe and effective we have to use animals.
I would rather a new medicine was tested on a rat than tested on my child. Children's lives are more valuable than rats”
Tomorrow, I'll look at the animal activists side...
| 45 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
