activist and former prisoner

                   

"If they haven't got prisoners, we have stopped fighting. If our prisoners are forgotten about, they have beaten us."
— Keith Mann, ALF activist and former prisoner

It is crucial to not forget our fellow activists who are sitting in jail. They have made a huge, selfless sacrifice for animals and now they are paying the price for it. Show your support by writing letters, donating money to their commissary or legal defense and simply showing your support for direct action.

Wednesday 9 december 3 09 /12 /Dic 07:32
                                  

Animal rights law courses may threaten the use of animals in medical research.


                                                 

A. US law schools were categorized by whether they have an animal law course, are at an institution that performs animal research, or are associated directly with a medical school. Additionally, the rank of each law school according to the 2008 U.S. News & World Report was included.

Over half of US law schools now have animal law courses, including many in universities with medical and research programs that utilize animals protected by federal welfare laws. Courses that promote standards for humane animal care and welfare are unlikely to provoke conflict, but programs championing animal rights or “liberation” set up adversarial potential on campuses and pose a serious risk to the future of animal research. The use of the law instead of violence and threats, however, should be acknowledged as a forward step.

According to the course catalogues of 203 law schools listed on the website for the Law School Admissions Council (LSAC.org), 111 (55%) teach an animal law course (B). Of 121 student groups throughout US law schools with a focus on animal law and animal rights, 85 are at schools with an animal law class while 37 are at schools without such a class. Accordingly, animal law, through either coursework or student groups, is being addressed at 148 (73%) of US law schools. 

Among the top 50 law schools in the country, 36 maintain at least one animal law course in their curriculum. Growth in animal law programs has been supported by contributions from “The Bob Barker Endowment Fund for the Study of Animal Rights Law,” providing $1 million gifts each to Harvard, Duke, Stanford, Columbia, and other universities.1

Considering the potential influence of these courses on research, the access that law schools have to the perspectives of scientists was measured, and defined by whether the home institution had a medical school or a Public Health Service Approved Animal Welfare Assurance. Eighty-three (41%) law schools have a connection to a medical school and 138 (68%) conduct animal research. Among the 111 schools teaching animal law, 44 (40%) have an institutional connection to a medical campus and 77 (69%) are housed in institutions that conduct animal 



B. Overall distribution of law schools with an animal law class and associated with animal research or a medical school.

Under current US law, things are either property or persons. Legal rights for animals require the establishment of personhood; property cannot have rights. US welfare laws view animals as property, but emphasize our responsibility to care for them humanely. The effort to ascribe “personhood” to animals is a central focus of animal rights supporters, since changing public perception of animals is one way to stop their use in food, clothing, entertainment, and research. In some jurisdictions, “pet owner” has been replaced by “animal guardian,” ascribing a different status for the animal. References to animal researchers as “vivisectors” who “exploit” “sentient beings” and practice “torture” and “cruelty” (applied generally to research), also impact the public. In a poll earlier this year (May 7–10),2 only 57% felt that animal research was morally acceptable, down from 62% in 2004.

The future may see an attempt to recognize Aristotle’s three categories: things, animals, and persons. Animals may not ultimately enjoy the rights of persons, but the law may become increasingly specific about our obligation to care for them. If, on the other hand, “personhood” for animals is achieved, this status is likely to be in conflict with animal research.

Failure to address developments in the education of law students is likely to have a long-ranging impact on the ability to develop new treatments needed for human and animal well-being.

P. Michael Conn is Director of Research Advocacy at Oregon Health and Sciences University and Oregon National Primate Research Center.

source:  http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/56167/ 
Di ft - Pubblicato in : Vivisection - Community : DIRITTI DEGLI ANIMALI
Scrivi un commento - Vedi 0 commenti
Torna alla home

Presentation

  • : animals against vivisectors
  • animals against vivisectors
  • : animal rights vivisection Blog
  • : Anti-vivisection campaigners are not against medicines, treatments, or cures for disease, however what we want is for products to be tested in a way that does not torture and murder innocent animals; and in a way that actually benefits human kind. We want safer, more reliable methods of testing implemented which do not harm animals or people.
  • Segnala questo blog
  • Torna alla home
  • Contatti

category

Archives

free cruelty,not cruelty free!

There are things that are known and things that are unknown; in between is exploration. Someone had to pay the final price for achieving their goal. Not that she ever wanted to, nobody asked her. She was the chosen one.

She walked the streets of Moscow in beauty, with dignity, though homeless. Her ancestry was not known for certain except that she was born somewhere in that country. Her destiny was determined by the greed of mankind.

They called her Laika.

 

 

 

 

WHY DO THEY TEST?

.

We have many examples of pointless experiments carried out at HLS, but the ones we feature here are amongst the most striking. Remember every drug or product that is withdrawn because of serious side effects, every pesticide that proves to be carcinogenic, every stupid 'new and improved' household product that we don't need, Huntingdon will have forced that product down the throats of thousands of animals and then passed it safe just for it later to go on to maim, harm and kill humans...

animal liberation

    

save the seals

Crea un blog gratis su over-blog.com - Contatti - C.G.U. - Remunerazione in diritti d'autore - Segnala abusi