|/ Mobilise! / Issue 34 (November 1992) / Page 5||Email page link | Print this page|
(From previous page)
The U.S. National Anti-Vivisection Society in 1983 had "substantial investments" in the following companies which carry out extensive experiments on animals, including toxicological testing: The American Cyanimid, General Foods, General Motors (the target of NZAVS recent campaign), Standard Oil of California and Union Carbide. The U.S. NAVS provides the money for Animal Rights Network to publish the Agenda magazine. The Agenda is criticised in Mobilization for Animals for being
Donald Barnes became its editor!
(Prior to travelling to Australia to testify at the Senate Select Committee Hearing, Donald Barnes approached NZAVS to finance a side-trip to Wellington with his daughter, expenses and accommodation to be paid by NZAVS! He had better luck with SAFE as we shall see.)
We now turn to the New Zealand animal societies, all of which received firm, flattering and persuasive invitations to become affiliated with AFAS in what ostensibly would become a powerful alliance as the two countries combined forces under the same policy on animal experiments. (The policy Singer, Ryder and Barnes were presenting to the Australian Government.) Prior to making this important decision NZAVS viewed the AFAS policy which left us so thunderstruck we are still reeling from the shock a decade later. The following samples summarised at random from the copious documents will explain why:
Singer, Ryder, Barnes, Hampson and other advocates of regulation/control, all push the 3R's policy: reduction of experiments, refinement of procedures, replacement by "alternatives" (which, says Hans Ruesch on p. 29 of CIVIS Bullet-in Nr. 2, was devised by the British chemical interests). As this policy has no intention of questioning the premise upon which vivisection is based but constitutes the cast-iron guarantee of its continuance it is therefore unhesitatingly and wholeheartedly endorsed by the vivisectors, who know it will never abolish vivisection but more likely increase it!
If the Recommendations were bad, the evidence in the Submission, being written by a clutch of vivisectors who wrote a strong case in defence and glorification of vivisection was worse. The Submission which was supposed to put the case for abolition in effect stated tacit support for the system. The potentially most devastating came from the case of Dr DeWayne H. Walker, Director of the Animal Resources Centre, Western Australia, who included proposals from the American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) and the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) that Australia adopt a similar format. He wrote:
Later, cosily tucked away in his exultation of the system to be adopted world-wide are the words:
"It is my opinion that the average citizen inclusive of the open-minded anti-vivisectionist will continue to accept the use of animals in research if they are satisfied that safe-guards (checks and balances) exist in the research system. The biggest mistake that the scientific community can make is to stick their heads in the sand and assume that the animal welfare issue is a passing trend. It is not, and the increasingly complex animal welfare laws introduced to the rest of the world testify to the fact that legislative trends will swing to the anti-vivisection side if animal users are passive. The Australian Government can pacify the general public at least for several years to come, by actively pursuing legislation which benefits animal rights without binding research efforts... I believe the legislation to be a public pacifier and a moral necessity of the nation."
NOTE: In Dr DeWayne H. Walker's Curriculum Vitae it is revealed that like Donald Barnes, he served his time on those monkeys at the Laboratory Animal Medicine and Surgery School of Aerospace Medicine at Brooks Airforce Base in Texas!
(Continued next page)
|< Previous | Contents | Next >||^ Top|
|Home | About | Mobilise! | Materials | Links | Contact|