Pro-Test on VERO
Dear Sir,
Last week Katherine Morris of VERO was quoted in your paper saying that Pro-Test suggest that to not adopt a pro-lab stance is to be in favour of the tactics of extremism. This is quite simply not the case. Pro- Test have consistently made the distinction between extremists and the misguided. Former RSPCA Council member Robin Webb has gone on record indicating that he believes the children of researchers could be legitimate targets, this makes him an extremist.
The two dons and one librarian who are members of VERO have gone on record indicating that they believe that the use of animals to help save human lives is morally wrong. This makes them misguided. At the heart of the debate over animal research lies an ethical question. Do humans have the right to use animals to further human health? It is worth noting that tens of millions more animals are used every year in food production than in medical research.
Using animals in food production has given us steak; using animals in medical research has given us treatments for diabetes, childhood leukaemia and meningitis. One appears far more justified than the other. People will make up their own minds about whether it is justified to carry out tightly regulated experiments on animals to save human lives when there are no alternatives. I value human life above animal life, but others are entitled to their opinion.
One thing puzzles me though, why don’t animal rights activists try to ban the bacon sandwich?
Iain Simpson
11th Oct 2006