Last week, the Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine was awarded to three scientists for their work in developing genetically modified mice that are designed to develop a range of diseases that give researchers new ability to study these medical conditions in great detail. Martin Evans of the University of Cardiff ( Wales ), Oliver Smithies of the University of North Carolina, and Mario Capecchi of the University of Utah shared the prestigious award for their work in this field. According to the article, a statement from the Nobel assembly said the following:
"In summary, gene targeting in mice has pervaded all fields of biomedicine. Its impact on the understanding of gene function and its benefits to mankind will continue to increase over many years to come."
Wow. Now that's a statement that is as completely damning to prevailing animal rights lies and myth as I've ever heard. We are told constantly ad infinitum et ad nauseum by ARAs that biomedical research using animals is completely ineffective. We are told that it isn't necessary,because after all, we have computer models and cell cultures. We are told that it doesn't do anything to enhance human health. These are all lies and mindless propaganda that not only flies in the face of historical fact, but in the face of this current story about the latest cutting edge technology. Now the question is, who do you want to believe? Credible scientists and the committee that awards the most prestigious prizes in science, or zealous animal rights ideologues? I know where I stand, but everyone can make up their own mind.
Congratulations to these three scientists for winning this award for their groundbreaking work. And thanks to the good folks at Americans for Medical Progress for the heads up on this story.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
AR nuts are among the least scientifically-minded zealots out there. They hold positions and "feel" that things are a certain way (eg, believing that humanely-raised livestock somehow increases the consumption of animal products, flying in the face of economic rationality), yet never provide any empirical evidence for their beliefs.
It's just one major guilt trip perpetuated by emotionally unstable and insecure people who find temporary comfort in feelings of moral superiority.
If any of them could actually LIVE by their supposed principles (like, say, not using animal products when they say they don't, and when they do, making involved rationalizations for this "exception"), then maybe people could at least have a modicum of respect for them for sticking to their guns.
But as we know, it isn't about the animals, it's about them.
I enjoy reading this blog. It's oddly refreshing to read views different from your own. And I understand your point on this post. Though, to be fair, there is A LOT of animal testing that doesn't contribute one iota to the betterment of the human race (cosmetic testing? really? abusing animals for make up?) there is some animal testing that does lead to the betterment of the human race.
But, that's speciesist. Obviously, as the title of your blog suggest, you have no problem with that. Many AR people do. Any rational person can see that animal testing has and does benefit the human race. The AR people you're referring to are basically parroting PETA propaganda. It's unfortunate that PETA is seen as the One Voice for animal rights. There are many rational voices out there that in no way align themselves with PETA.
In response to the comment above this one: There is no way you can be 100% animal-free. Animal exploitation is built into our societal structure. As such, it's an impossibility to live a life with zero impact. I don't know any vegans who claim 100% purity. We do what we can to decrease animal suffering by as much as possible.
Hi Al:
"Though, to be fair, there is A LOT of animal testing that doesn't contribute one iota to the betterment of the human race (cosmetic testing? really? abusing animals for make up?) there is some animal testing that does lead to the betterment of the human race.'
I agree. But such testing isn't the focus of this post, so it's kind of a red herring. The fact of the matter is, there are many ARAs out there that claim ALL animal testing should be stopped, regardless of what value it might have to human, or ironically, animal health. That is not a rational position IMHO. Such a position is myopic, anti-science, and is a hallmark of a hardcore ideologue.
"There are many rational voices out there that in no way align themselves with PETA."
There are many intelligent, well-educated people that speak for animal rights. However, the ideology itself is not rational IMHO, for a myriad of reasons, many of which have been discussed here. It is a strange phenomenon that rational people often believe irrational things. If you are referring to the fanatical "abolitionist" crowd, many of them actually make many of PeTA's positions seem reasonable by comparison.
In response to the comment above this one: There is no way you can be 100% animal-free. Animal exploitation is built into our societal structure. As such, it's an impossibility to live a life with zero impact. I don't know any vegans who claim 100% purity. We do what we can to decrease animal suffering by as much as possible.
Ah, the old fallback. If you avoid something you're a saint. If you don't, it's "structural."
No, my friend, I'm talking about the most shrill and self-righteous who are consciously, directly using animal products (eg, sacrificing the life of one animal for another or partaking in animal products as food then saying "whoops! didn't know!"). These aren't people who are starting on a vegan path, they are absolutists and self-appointed moral arbiters. Yet somehow they always have a rationalization for THEIR breaking of the "code" (eg, using an animal as a pet).
Tossing aside all the foolishness in the belief structure itself and what it would actually entail if it was the compelled norm, the fact that those who are among the most prominent and hard-assed can't even live up to their own standards is laughable. How in the world is everyone supposed to adopt these ideas if the people most "committed" to them can't and make excuses and rationalizations for why they can't? Or worse, pretend like they're not even violating their own "moral code"?
I saw one recently where one of these nuts was defending giving pork insulin to her dog by saying first that pigs aren't killed for pork insulin, and when that didn't work, saying that no extra pig was killed for it - all without evidence. Plus, that's the same argument anyone could make for anything that isn't meat, and is laughable on its face, since slaughtering an animal is always with the knowledge that all its parts will be put to use.
The irony is that this person is using the existence of industrialized livestock agricultural as an excuse to justify actions which clearly violate the notion that all sentient beings have an equal right to live. Without that system there, and especially if we lived in a world where animals weren't eaten for meat, one couldn't hide behind the weak excuse that somehow no EXTRA pig was killed.
"cosmetic testing? really? abusing animals for make up?"
I never understood this it seems like an odd cut off point - really if you're going to put *anything*, makeup, perfume, medication or anything else either in or *on* your body wouldn't you rather be assured its not going to have any ill effect? I sure would.
Why stop at makeup? It seems strangely arbitrary, almost snide from the Vegan/ARA point of view to make such a statement: "Sure I support animal testing as long as its on involved with beauty products" - wait you're applying paint and other various decorations but you don't want them tested on an organic being first?
First I can't seem to buy that Vegan girls aren't going to stop wearing makeup and chances are at some point along the line the makeup they wear has been tested on an animals. Just like that insulin used by the PETA VP was batch tested on mice...
Really any sane down to earth human would want anything they use in their grooming to have some verification outside of a computer model that there won't be strange reactions when said products make contact with the human body.
Rodney
Griz, you gotta love that foul-mouthed knuckledragger named "Dan" that keeps yelling at you. "People can do whatever they want, as long as I am consulted to see if their behavior meets my narrow-minded and rigid approval." LMAO.
His latest rant about how non-vegan diets somehow are an economic burden on him, I wonder how he explains billionaire veggie Linda McCartney dying at 57.
No wonder these simpletons fall into Cult Abolition - their brains aren't strong enough to form a coherent, critical thought.
Post a Comment