On Thursday 20th January 2005 Oxford University’s world-famous debating society, the “Oxford Union”, debated “This House would accept the use of Animals in Medical Research”, with Andre Menache, the scientific consultant to Animal Aid, speaking second on the opposition side.
The motion was proposed by Johnathan Wright, who was frankly most impressive, combining knowledge, commonsense and humanity with a mild charisma. We can expect to see him eventually in the cabinet or shadow cabinet.
The girl who spoke against the motion was, regrettably, largely inaudible and ineffective. Lord Taverne brought a great deal of experience to bear in supporting it, but was followed by the most professional of all present on the subject, Andre Menache. One can only assume he was not at his best. He spoke at great length, but was not convincing. Saying that he was himself a vet, he assured us that to study cat illnesses one studied cats not dogs, so it made sense to study humans not animals for human illnesses. He did not mention the extent to which cats and dogs are given similar pharmaceuticals.
Dr Simon Festing made short work of Menache’s arguments, pointing out that some 80% of the preparations used by vets on animals of all kinds are also used on humans. Stanley Johnson, the Conservative PPC for Teignbridge, did little to help the anti-research cause.
Various students spoke well, memorably reminding us that animals only care for themselves and that there is no reason why we should not look after the welfare of our own species too,while not being as brutal as animals. The best speaker of the whole evening in support of the animals was a female biochemistry student.
However, unsurprisingly the motion was carried, by 204 votes to 53.
The girl who spoke against the motion was, regrettably, largely inaudible and ineffective. Lord Taverne brought a great deal of experience to bear in supporting it, but was followed by the most professional of all present on the subject, Andre Menache. One can only assume he was not at his best. He spoke at great length, but was not convincing. Saying that he was himself a vet, he assured us that to study cat illnesses one studied cats not dogs, so it made sense to study humans not animals for human illnesses. He did not mention the extent to which cats and dogs are given similar pharmaceuticals.
Dr Simon Festing made short work of Menache’s arguments, pointing out that some 80% of the preparations used by vets on animals of all kinds are also used on humans. Stanley Johnson, the Conservative PPC for Teignbridge, did little to help the anti-research cause.
Various students spoke well, memorably reminding us that animals only care for themselves and that there is no reason why we should not look after the welfare of our own species too,while not being as brutal as animals. The best speaker of the whole evening in support of the animals was a female biochemistry student.
However, unsurprisingly the motion was carried, by 204 votes to 53.
Comments
Hide the following 7 comments
Selected audience
30.01.2005 20:50
Kris
Kris
Missing the point.
30.01.2005 22:20
The vast majority of animal research is done to test NOT MEDICINE but OTHER THINGS such as washing up liquid, air freshener, mascara and cigarettes.
My position is that the small minority of animal testing that is concerned with medicine should be allowed to continue, while the overwhelming majority that tests luxury consumer products (and they are luxuries - they're totally unnecessary) should be stopped.
Another issue is that people should stop kicking animals for fun and doing sadistic experiments for a laugh - those were, after all, the reasons why the whole anti-HLS campaign kicked off in the first place, cataylised by the Channel 4 under cover documentary that revealed what was going on (and probably still is) behind closed doors.
In summary, most testing should be stopped because most testing is NOT for medical purposes. And secondly, testing that is allowed to continue must be properly accountable to the public so that we can see that suffering is kept to a minimum and sadism is prevented.
Ozymandias
Misconceptions
31.01.2005 12:51
The Oxford Union does not pretend to be anything other than the debating society of Oxford University, just as the working men’s club of a factory does not pretend to be anything other than the working men’s club of a factory. If all societies were open to everybody, they would be potentially identical, and certainly open to infiltration. This piece, which is my own honest account of the proceedings, may be of interest as reporting what happened with Oxford Union members. Naturally, if large numbers of Animal Activists had come to this one debate specially, it would have been predictably different.
It is Ozymandias who is missing the point ! The debate WAS specifically about MEDICAL research, and he would have been ruled out of order if he had gone on at length about something else. However, I’m sure almost everybody present would have agreed with him completely.
Ape
new research methods in the 21st century
31.01.2005 16:12
Even if medical breakthroughs in the past were due to animal experiments, I dont think theres any need for them in todays society. I know you are both convinced that vivisection is what finds cures but do me a favour and look at www.curedisease.net and have a quick look at the FAQ section. Many animal experiments have delayed medical progress. I am not anti-science, but I do believe that vivisection is not the way forward. The cure disease website is a non profit organisation run by Doctors and Scientists on scientific grounds.
Kris
Human progress
31.01.2005 20:12
I'm sure there are animal experiments that do lead to "results" in a narrow sense.
However, at what cost?
Humans who conduct these experiments in the full knowledge they cause indescribable suffering to sentinent creatures can only have a violated view of the value of life.
There is no human progress when based on violence.
Scientists: adapt, use less degrading methods - spiritually, you and your work are nothing when it involves degradation.
ant
Proceedural Point
31.01.2005 23:31
Just a quick point - the Oxford Union is not an institution of Oxford University as such. It is a private members' club and a highly prestigious debating society - the University have absolutely no say over what goes on within its walls. Therefore the University [for once] are not hiding at all - they do actually have nothing to do with it.
Caz
Missed the point? O RLY?
06.02.2006 12:40
"This House would accept the use of Animals in MEDICAL Research" (emphasis added)
David