Tony Banks speaks in support of animal
rights
As protesters stood their ground at Darley Oaks this
Sunday it was a blessing to read in the corporate rag 'The Mail on Sunday' this
honest and graphic account by Tony Banks MP on why vivisection is no more than
a clandestine, barbaric and industrialised killing machine. It is from this
business which the Halls have amassed millions - particularly from 'the agony'
of cosmetic, weapons and product testing; and they wonder why activists have
vowed NEVER to let them enjoy their fortune!
'SHOW US WHAT SCIENTISTS ARE DOING TO
ANIMALS IN OUR NAME AND LET US DECIDE IF THE EXPERIMENTS SHOULD CONTINUE'
'THE announcement of new plans to crack down on what
is described as a reign of terror by animal rights extremists means harassment
laws will be strengthened and, for the first time, police will be able to arrest
militant activists who protest outside their targets homes...
Quite rightly, no one could support the letter bombs
or death threats that are the weapons of intimidation of these people, which
explains why this news has received considerable media coverage. This news-managed
initiative by the Government succeeded in securing headlines which made them
look tough but has failed, in truth, to address the real issue. It is that we
already have sufficient legislation in place to deal with anybody from any pressure
group who decides to take the law into their own hands.
My fear is that these new laws will result in greater
power for the medical and pharmaceutical industries who want to stifle legitimate
debate on the morality and medical efficacy of animal experimentation and shield
them even further from the public gaze.
It is an astute tactic for them to undermine the very
real concerns about their work by painting any conscientious objector, no matter
how lawful, as a deranged and dangerous fanatic. It means the doors of their
laboratories can remain closed and attention conveniently diverted from what
I believe are often abominable experiments. Let s be clear about what s involved
here and it s not for the squeamish.
Inside these research labs, monkeys redraw eyeballs are
injected with chemicals; rabbits stomachs rupture from the sheer bulk of drugs
pumped into them; beagles have their leg bones sawn and snapped off with a steel
wire and mice have tubes of household products forced down their throats until
they are bloated, then killed so their livers can be examined for tumours.
I admit not everybody feels as I do: that there is no
moral justification for the experiments on animals that often result in what
appears to be torture.
I also accept there are those who believe these procedures
necessary to find cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis
or Parkinson's disease, which lay waste to human life and cause untold misery
and suffering. It is on this premise that the medical research industry is founded
and on which its work is legitimised. For many years I have been advocating
a different way forward. If the scientists are so sure of the validity of their
trials and the humane manner of their experiments (for they always insist there
is no pain involved), let the public for the first time actually see what these
people are doing. Let them decide if they want these experiments to be conducted
in their name.
I am convinced the arguments would fall if the public
could witness the grim reality of life inside laboratories such as Huntingdon
Life Sciences. Let the TV cameras in to see the experiments to test the effect
of detergent enzymes. Let the public watch as two-inch needles filled with detergent
are inserted into the wind-pipes of guinea pigs for up to ten weeks, until the
animals can barely breathe.
Millions of animals have died since experimentation began
in earnest 100 years ago. Last year in Britain 2.5 million cats, dogs, horses,
mice and rats were used. Yet we still have little scientific proof that the
suffering endured by these creatures was not in vain.
My father died 15 years ago of cancer. Since then millions
of animals have been used in the name of medical advancement, yet he would,
in all probability, still have died from the same disease today. There is growing
evidence to suggest that, at best, animal experiments are of marginal use and,
at worst, might even mislead the scientists.
MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) scanners can tell you
more about what s going on in a human brain than you find out by opening up
a marmoset s head. Ray Greek, medical director of Europeans for Medical Advancement,
recently pointed out that the track record of primate research was abysmal.
He is one of our most respected scientists and believes computers should be
used instead of animals. So why does nobody seem to be listening?
We use animals not only in the medical world but also
for weapons testing, which is vile and barbarous. We use them for cosmetic testing,
which is a cruel and trivial reason for putting animals through so much agony
and ultimately death. Chemicals are dripped into the eyes of conscious rabbits,
which have no blink reflex, so they find it very hard to cry away the substance
and are given no pain relief over the days they are observed.
So we're using animals to find better ways of killing
each other while also using them for better ways to make ourselves look more
attractive. It is grotesque. I accept there have been reductions in the levels
of pain that are allowed to be inflicted upon them but it is only because of
public pressure that there is now a voluntary code with regard to cosmetic testing.
This is progress, but it is slow, and it always will
be in a world where there are so many vested interests. We have lost count of
the number of animals that, in pursuit of commercial as much as medical gain,
have been sacrificed in duplicated, triplicated, multiple experiments.
Pharmaceutical companies do not share their information,
for obvious commercial reasons. As a consequence, they run parallel research
programmes using vast numbers of animals and come to more or less the same conclusions.
In the academic world, a scientist must attract funding.
In order to do so, he or she must publish their work, and to do this they will
often repeat experiments that have been already tried hundreds of times before.
Can this really be justified?
In 1996, before the election, Tony Blair gave his name
to the paper New Labour, New Life for Animals , proposing a Royal Commission
on genetic engineering of animals. There has been no such commission. I do not
need to be persuaded of the abhorrence of the practice but I would like to see
a critical examination of animal experimentation.
I listen to the so-called experts but I remain unconvinced
of the need for animals in experiments. History is littered with the mistakes
of experts, be they scientific, political or medical, and I think this is how
animal experimentation will be judged.
Animals give the human race loyalty and love and we are the better for sharing
this world with them. We also owe them duties of care, understanding and compassion.'
Gandhi said: 'The morality of a country
is judged by the way it treats its animals. We should think carefully about
the way we are treating ours.' TONY BANKS