Animal rights activists protested outside the downtown Hilton on Nov. 19 wearing black, militant clothing and covering their faces. They said their anonymity was to show solidarity with research animals.
Although protesting is a right that should be protected, nobody has the right to bully people into relinquishing their support of legitimate animal research. The knowledge gained by animal research is the only hope for millions of people suffering from cancer, AIDS, spinal-cord injuries, blindness, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and infertility, just to name a few. Animal research is vital for developing knowledge and understanding of these and thousands more debilitating, disfiguring and sometimes fatal diseases.
Tom Parks, vice president of research at the U, said scientists have come to rely on animal models, and because non-violent animal rights activists have increased social awareness of the importance of minimizing the number of animals used in testing, animal tests have been greatly reduced and, in many cases, replaced entirely with non-animal tests.
At the same time, he believes researchers have also helped people concerned about animal welfare to be aware of the essential role animals play in modern biomedical research.
“We don’t have any effective ways of replacing animals completely in many different types of research,” Parks said. “All of the medical procedures, devices and drugs that we now have in modern medicine were developed with the use of animals as part of the research program and it is a federal law that new devices, procedures and drugs have to be tested on animals before they can be used in humans.”
There is no shame in believing and supporting the continued efforts of researchers across the world, and if you genuinely disagree with it, then change it.
On April 20, several animal activists chose to conduct a protest at a U researcher’s home, even though they knew a new Salt Lake City ordinance prohibited them from protesting within 100 feet of the residence. Police arrested three and cited 16 with a Class B misdemeanor, which can carry a fine of $1,000 and six months in jail.
Salt Lake City prosecutor Sim Gill said the ongoing case is set for another motion hearing Dec. 15. At that time, it will be determined if the issue will be resolved or moved to trial.
The greatest privileges of being an American are the rights to believe differently, to voice our opinions and to labor toward changing the minds of the public and enacting new laws. Differences of opinion do not justify hatred, anger and threats towards researchers or their families and homes.
No one has the right to use intimidation and terroristic tactics to drive researchers out of their lines of work. These threats are shameful and unnecessary. Change will only be accomplished by legal means and by creating a consensus within the majority of the population—the very same population that is hoping and praying for future advancements in medical science to save them or their loved ones.
letters@chronicle.utah.edu
The Daily Utah Chronicle > Opinion
Animal research worth the cost
Published: Monday, December 1, 2008
Updated: Monday, December 1, 2008
 "Photo: N/A")
Alicia Williams
Second point, animals don't conduct cruel test on one eachother just to save themselves, and animals aren't depleting the world as it stands?, it's how humans have taken care of ourselves that cause all these diseases, people talk about over poplution, ever think these diseases are the earths way of getting rid of us? and the test researchers(have you ever seen a video on how they treat these animals, actual researchers have come out before and talked about what they have done) have done they've been doing for 20+ years, and they still don't have an answer, why? because animals do not react to certain diseases or medicines we invent, these diseases are here specifically for us, animals do have their own diseases, why aren't we testing on humans to cure the animals of all diseases in the world? oh right, because it wouldn't work! . another point is meat increases the risk of disease, maybe if you stopped consuming animals(if you noticed the revenge animals get on humans? you murdered them, torture them, and guess what when you eat their flesh, your colon rots, and you body because a vessel for disease).
Of course vice president of the research done at the U will state that it's necessary, first of all, he gets paid to have it their, when you take money and funding away from it all, and research the truth, it would come out.
Sorry to be so blunt, but ignorance is not a passage or a right, it's idiocy, and no one cares for it.
Give us glass walls, then you can choose if you truly believe in animal research.
2. Most of the posters displayed at the hotel and April 20 outreach spoke out against vivisection, which is "the action of cutting into or dissecting a living body, the practice of subjecting living animals to cutting operations, esp. in order to advance physiological and pathological knowledge." Vivisection is an antiquated means of research.
3. "I never said there were no benefits to animal testing. We're not going to cure all our diseases though, or for that matter solve all our problems. Even if we COULD, that wouldn't justify unethical behavior to achieve that end." --What you are saying is that we can't ethically justify saving human lives at the expense of non-sapient organisms. I would argue that fighting a disease is a more ethical response than allowing that disease to kill people. I would also argue that the Just War theories apply in a similar manner for why we should fight off disease.
4. "I wouldn't harm innocent individuals in order to save my life or the life of a loved one, so why would I ask others to do this for me? (Granted, not all research is really "harmful" to the animal -- so I'm more or less indifferent to some research.)" --But you do take medicine don't you? You've used a band-aid, right? You have, or someone you have loved has been to the hospital, correct? Well, you helped support animal testing. If you really want to put an end and are truly disturbed by animal testing, I suggest you stop all medical treatment from here on. Everything in the medical industry is required by your government to be tested on animals. Whether it's a band-aid or Lipitor.I've said this in other posts: Please understand, if there was an alternative, I would totally support it. Animal testing is not ideal. But there are too many variables involved with in vivo testing and there is just no in vitro equivalent, yet. So instead of wasting time protesting (and arguing sentience and sapience), why not help with coming up with an alternative? There are many animal researchers who would applaud the effort and alternative.