Sound bite or Science?

If we were to read media coverage as ‘gospel’, then we would now be abandoning all hope of ever achieving any progress on the road to establishing animal rights. The truth is, however, that the media is currently dancing a merry little sound bite dance without substance to the tune of pro-vivisectionists. It has abandoned all attempts at paying even the merest lip service to the anti-vivisectionist cause in favour of covering the pro-faction’s publicity stunts. These counter measures ride on arguments based not on the science that they are meant to represent, but on gimmickry. And one thing’s for certain: an awful lot of money is being spent to try to claw back public confidence in vivisection-based science, suggesting that someone out there is just a tad nervous…

One of the main reasons for vivisectors’ refusal to enter into any debate with anti vivisectionists is their often cited fear of violence from animal rights activists. Apparently, vivisectors would welcome an open debate on the merits of vivisection but they are just too frightened to speak out because of repercussions from ‘extremists’. There is, however, no data to suggest that they are in any danger whatsoever if they go public.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘science’ as: a branch of knowledge involving systematized observation and experiment. Therefore: the scientist’s profession in its purest sense is based on facts and statistics, rather than sound bite, emotion or fiction. Yet when it comes to the ‘science’ of vivisection, the systematized observations go straight out of the window, along with logic. There is probably no other arm of science that doesn’t have to justify its existence: in space exploration, for example, every expenditure must be accounted for and every new project must be carefully scrutinised. Meanwhile, the vivisection industry has money thrown at it; no study has ever been commissioned to evaluate whether the public are getting value for that money.

Since the vivisectors themselves admit that vivisection is not an exact science but merely part of a process, it follows that as a stand-alone discipline it is pretty useless. Based on that admission, one could say that vivisection isn’t a science, but a lottery, and it's one that anti-vivisectionists would argue is holding back medical progress.

Accepting, then, that vivisection is not an exact science, how can we therefore arrive at a truth? Well, that’s difficult to determine, especially when the opposition doesn’t actually present the facts! So what are the facts? Well, again that’s difficult to say! Closer scrutiny of the pro-vivisectionists’ hype reveals nothing of substance: its aim appears to be merely to cloud the issues further, and deny access to the truth, which is of course ultimately what they want.

So what are the chosen methods of debate that the vivisectionists ARE keen to propagate? Well, there’s the power of the petition: recently we were told that 500 "eminent" scientists, among them ‘Nobel Prize’ winners, added their names to a petition supporting research on animals. The RDS held it up as proof that vivisection is necessary; the media regurgitated the information they had been spoon fed, omitting to mention that most of the names in the list are of those heavily involved in vivisection in one form or another themselves. No bias there, then.

More recently still, an online petition was set up last week by the Coalition for Medical Progress, a front organisation for vivisectors. Details of the petition appeared in every major media outlet, which will of course guarantee many signatures. When was the last time any petition got that much media exposure? Probably never and on top of that, the petition is anonymous, which obviously leaves it open to misuse.

Here’s another sideshow, and how the media love this one! Patients suffering from a given illness are (presumably) persuaded that by appearing before cameras to demonstrate how they have been helped by vivisection, they will be helping fellow sufferers. Predictably, when reporting the gimmicky exploitation of patients, the flaws in the arguments are overlooked in media coverage: SPEAK – like many other anti-vivisection organisations - has argued both in its magazine and in its website that many of today’s cures attributed to vivisection in fact owe a debt to non-animal based research.

Pro-vivisectionists have been arguing that several reports compiled on vivisection in the last 4 years must be proof positive that vivisection actually works. The most recent report into the "ethics of research involving animals", commissioned by the Nuffield Council - an organisation allied to vivisectors - stated predictably that there was a need for animal experiments. The report was sponsored by The Academy of Medical Sciences, The Royal Society, The Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust - all are heavily involved in and support vivisection.

So far, so predictable. Reports, petitions, counter-demonstrations, victim cards, ‘how we saved Mr X from disease Y’, etc, etc – so far, no science, just PR rhetoric and playing the media game. Where are the systematized observations we should expect from scientists? Why - if they are so confident of their science and in possession of all the data and statistics that can prove that using animals in experiments really is the best way of finding cures for human disease - why then, are they not only running from the calls by the anti vivisectionists for a proper scientific enquiry but also actively trying to sabotage one?

An Early Day Motion (EDM 92) currently in Parliament states:

"That this House, in common with Europeans for Medical Progress, expresses its concerns regarding the safeguarding of public health through data obtained from laboratory animals, particularly in light of large numbers of serious and fatal adverse drug reactions that were not predicted by animal studies; is concerned that the Government has not commissioned or evaluated any formal research on the efficacy of animal experiments, and has no plans to do so; and, in common with 83 per cent. of general practitioners in a recent survey, calls upon the Government to facilitate an independent and transparent scientific evaluation of the use of animals as surrogate humans in drug safety testing and medical research."

One would imagine that this might offer vivisectors a unique opportunity to finally argue their case and prove that the scientific arguments against vivisection are flawed. Yet rather than support it, they are trying to sabotage it; certain novice pro-vivisection support groups ask on the ‘Get Involved’ pages on their website that supporters contact the 200 MP's who have so far signed the motion, in order to put pressure on them to withdraw their support.

Why, if they truly believe in what they are supporting, do they feel that they must scupper an independent enquiry that could finally answer one way or the other the debate about vivisection that continues to rage? Could it be that they fear the outcome?

At the end of the day those that support vivisection can involve themselves in any number publicity stunts, take part in TV interviews or debates, even at the "World Famous" Oxford Union debating society, yes of course its nice to dress up in your tuxedo and there nothing like a bit of pomp and ceremony to massage the ego, but that’s all it does, it doesn’t get us any closer to finding out if vivisection actually works! Debates whether it’s at the Oxford Union or on television can only every afford itself to sound bites and sound bites are not going to get us any closer to finding out if vivisection actually works. The vivisectionists cannot put off the inevitable, sooner or later they are going to have to come out and present their facts rather than just the anecdotal evidence they have presented so far. Anti-vivisectionists are ready for the challenge. The question is: are the pro-vivisectionists?

Disclaimer: The information on this website is for the purpose of legal protest and information only. It should not be used to commit any criminal acts or harassment.