HOME | IMC UK | Editorial Guidelines | Mission Statement | About Us | Contact | Help | Support Us

Oxford Indymedia

Protests escalate as work resumes at animal lab

an OxIMC volunteer | 08.12.2005 18:12 | Animal Liberation | Oxford

As work resumes on Oxford University's controversial new animal lab, the protests against it are becoming bigger, noisier and more determined than ever. In addition to the tightly controlled weekly Thursday demo a variety of impromptu gatherings have been taking place, skirting the injunction area and keeping the authorities on their toes.

The proposed lab follows on from an attempt to build what would have been Europe's largest primate lab in Cambridge. Meanwhile Oxford University are still avoiding an open public debate on vivisection.

[ Latest report | Work resumes ] [ Background info ] [ SPEAK campaign | Europeans for Medical Progress ]

Masked construction worker.
Masked construction worker.


an OxIMC volunteer

Additions

Question Everything

28.12.2005 12:13

This is posted as a reply to every post that there has been about the Oxford Animal Lab, and is an argument in favour of its completion, and animal testing for disease prevention in general.

I would like to see a lot of (reasoned) debate to follow this post.

Follow this logic:

1. We need more medicines
- To fight diseases that affect HUMANS. Due to the nature of our nasty profit-focussed drug companies, these are primarily drugs that will make them richer, which are not always the products which are most needed. e.g. I would like to see more research into cheaper AIDS drugs and TB drugs to fight diseases which are huge killers in the developing world. However, it is surely better that some research is being done at all to fight disease in whatever form it may come.
- I am convinced that testing on animals saves lives of people. For me, the ends justify the means. If animals were being tested on at Oxford to research a new type of hair dye or something, I would be on the demonstration with you, but as it stands ARNOLD and HARRY, the results of these tests could save YOUR child/mother/brother/wife... would you change your tune if it was one of these in hospital. I would expect that you are principled enough to say no. HOWEVER, would you and your activist friends agree to be tested on yourselves in the place of the animals? I would be interested to see a mass-movement of animal rights activists campaigning for their right to be tested on instead of the animals. Or do you dispute the fact that drugs should be tested at all?

2. Animal Rights ARE important
- I am the first person to be arguing against the terrible conditions on battery farms. Yes, I am an occasional meat eater (maybe once a week), but I only eat organic and free-range meat, both "marks" which carry high standards of animal welfare.
- I see no fundamental problem in rearing and killing animals for food, you may disagree, but this is besides the point. Personally, I have no problem with eating an animal if it has been reared in a "normal" way. I think industrial farming is a MUCH greater evil than animal testing.

3. Where should you focus your protest?
- This brings me onto my main point, why do you not focus your ire on things you can actually change? A recent survey in a student newspaper revealed that something like 90%+ of students agreed with the new lab. This does not make us evil people; as I argued above, animal testing is NECESSARY. I would be interested to see the results of a nationwide survey on the issue, but I expect you are fighting against 90%+ of the entire country.
- What you can change, is the British attitude towards animal rights are being abused unnecessarily, e.g. on battery and dariy farms in Oxfordshire and nationwide. Would your efforts not be better spent on campaigning on these issues, which a lot of people would support if they only knew more about the huge crime that is battery farming? Many students who buy their tesco-value chicken breasts might reconsider if they knew more.
- The problem is, that now many students are alienated by frequently being called "scum" by you lot. I attempted to ask a lady on one of your demos why "vivisection kills humans", but she just screamed something about me being ashamed of myself. These sorts of activists are only in it for the "buzz" and bravado. I was lucky that someone else noticed her bigotry, and stopped to explain the issues to me. I have to say, I was not convinced, but at least he made an attempt.
- Furthermore, many of your reports seem focussed on self-importance, e.g. "animal rights protestors centre of attention in Oxford City". Being an activist isn't about being looked at, admired, or in the papers, it is about CHANGING THINGS. And I can safely say you will NEVER stop this lab being finished.

4. Retorts
- There are issues of animal cruelty that are HUGELY more prevalent than one animal lab that will test on a insignificantly small number of animals compared to the battery farming industiry.
- Although these animals being tested upon is, how to put it "unsavoury", it is to my mind necessary. I have friends who work in the zoology labs; they do NOT "torture" animals. Yes, animals are killed, but for the advancement of science towards the cure of disease, and I consider this a fair swap.
- I'm trying to anticipate arguments that someone will advance to counter my views, one may be "what if it was your pet". I admit, I have a cat who I love very dearly, and I would not like to see her cut up. However, it ISN'T her being experimented on. This may be a rubbish argument, but it is how I deal with it. We turn a blind eye to the thousands dying of AIDS, TB, Malaria, malnutrition and everything else every day. I consider human rights to be HUGELY more important than animal rights, and I would hope that most animal rights protestors would agree, or do you consider a mouse's right to life to be equal to a child's, even if that child may be in Africa and out of your sight?

5. Conclusion
- SPEAK should stop harping on about the Oxford Animal Lab. It is GOING to get built whether you like it or not. It is GOING to save the life of YOUR baby daughter who was born with a disability, or YOUR older brother who has got AIDS. So deal with it.
- If you must fight for animal rights, your energy would be better spent focussing on the huge evils of industrial farming, which you COULD actually CHANGE with the right amount of national pressure in the right places, with the absence of your laughable hyperbole and bullshit. (Is it me, or are articles by animal rights activists ALWAYS badly-written and over-the-top? Even if your arguments made sense, they would still turn most people off)
- There are greater evils in the world than animals being tested on. PEOPLE are dying every day due to hugely unfair trade rules, crippling debts placed upon them by OUR government, and CUREABLE diseases which OUR drug companies do not target because they are not profitable. These issues are more important than one animal lab, full bloody stop. Get over it.

Right.

Could people reply to this in a reasonable way, with no calling me an "evil vivisector" and stuff like that? If you want to convince people you are right, do it without your hyperbole and name-calling.

Also, if you agree with what I've said, voice your agreement!

Thanks for reading, sorry this was so long, but a lot of things needed saying.

concerned student activist


reply to concerned student

03.01.2006 21:16

Okay, here is the reasoned debate you requested. I have not included references here, but you can look through my home page for scientific references by myself and others.

Firstly, animal experiments are not necessary for improving human health. At the cellular and physiological level, which is where drugs and toxins have their effect, differences between humans and animals make extrapolation meaningless. This is predicted by complexity theory and confirmed by numerous empirical studies and systematic reviews. In fact, the president of Glaxo even stated that differences in the physiology of human patient made drug testing on humans problematic.

As for the moral issue; it is considered immoral to test on humans without their informed consent. Certainly painful human vivisection is universally condemned. The reasons given are generally that humans are capable of suffering, self aware, have future preferences, have emotions etc. All these attributes are shared by animals, and in fact an intelligent dog may have more cognitive ability than a brain damaged human. If you are opposed to factory farming you must already realise this.

Asking how I would feel if my son/daughter was dying is not a fair question. Certainly if someone close to me was dying and I thought they could be saved by taing a pig's organs, I would take the pig's organs. But by the same token I would take YOUR organs. Does this mean I should be allowed to? Since when have we based societal morals on the actions of grief crazed and desperate parents who would do ANYTHING to save their children?

I agree with you on factory farming, but so what? Most Animal Rights activists oppose ALL forms of animal cruelty. I would certainly encourage you to join CIWF if that is where your inclinations lie. If you become involved with them, you will probably spend most of your free time campaigning against factory farming and have no time for anti-vivisection activities, and there is nothing wrong with that. Similarly there would be nothing wrong with being too busy with Amnesty International or other human rights groups to have time to spare for animals. All of us concerned with fighting injustice have our own preferences on how to tackle the problem.

I would suggest however that there is plenty wrong with criticising the campaigns of those who choose a different way than yours. I am sure most CIWF members agree with the sentiments of SPEAK, and vice versa.

Lastly, if you are seriously concerned with animal abuse, then the best thing you can do is stop eating them. Meat is not necessary for human health, quite the reverse, it is the cause of a number of diseases. There are now plenty of delicious vegan alternatives available, so even the excuse of taste and convenience is no longer valid.

Michael Morris
mail e-mail: nezumi1@ihug.co.nz
- Homepage: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~nezumi1


thankyou, and questions...

04.01.2006 00:26

First of all, thankyou very much Michael, you have restored my faith in the AR lobby. I am convinced by a lot of what you have said, but not all. First of all, I am aware of the body of opinion that considers that animal tests are pointless. the speak website at  http://www.speakcampaigns.org.uk/badscience.php/ says what you've said pretty much.

As a non-scientist myself, I don't feel qualified to comment too much on this, but consider the following. Why would they carry out these experiments if they were pointless. Unfortunately, like everything else in this world, research boils down to money. Where can a researcher get funding from etc etc. I refuse to believe that they are just torturing animals for the hell of it, as some would have us believe. There must be a point, and there must be some kind of commerical way to make a profit out of it.

Now, I would argue, with my extensive (hmm...) knowledge of science, that there must be a *sufficient* similiarity in DNA between primates and humans for these experiments to have some sort of medical use? I've read all about the asthma drugs having one affect on monkeys then killing humans etc, and the other examples of the SPEAK website, but surely these are just exceptions. The (probable...) 95% of substances that have the same effect on animals and humans surely outweighs the chances of them not, and speak aren't going to list that on their website are they? (e.g. oh look, cyanide kills monkeys, let's not put that in our cough medicine...)

As far as I can tell, the main research that SPEAK object to is the brain damage research carried out on monkeys  http://www.speakcampaigns.org.uk/primateresearch.php/
This doesn't appear to have any bearing on what I've been going on about (e.g. curing AIDS or whatever) but surely it must have some bearing on treating brain-damaged people? You say that the differences between animals and humans "make extrapolation meaningless", but then why would they do it? Surely if we can better understand how an animal's brain works, then this can improve (or lay the way for improving) the way we understand the human brain? That aside, when this research facility is completed, I sincerely doubt it will be used solely for giving monkeys lobotomies. There will be lots of other (perhaps even more distasteful) stuff going on; I have to admit I don't know what this will be, but what else could it be than for medical research? I return to my argument about profit... You talk of "empirical studies and systematic reviews" but there are always two sides to every argument, and science can be made to prove anything. My main point is, there must be ENOUGH similarities to make SOME conclusions possible, otherwise the research would be pointless and not get funding. As it is, big pharmaceuticals are funding Oxford in this, they wouldn't unless they could make money out of this. I dislike this as much as you might but it's the fact. It is especially bad when this theory is translated onto humans, e.g. in the film "the constant gardner", which isn't a true story, but I'd say such things very probably happen.

I've just said this research is "distasteful", don't get me wrong, I DO find removing parts of animals brains "problematic", as you say, and it is clear the animal undergoes physical and mental stress during the process. This saddens me to think about, but I see it as *necessary* It's a question of whether the ends justify the means. If we can stop or cure brain damage in babies/people as a result of hypotheses founded on research with monkeys, then I would say that the ends have justified the means.

Now I'm not religious or anything, but I consider humans a "higher" form of life than animals (even though we are "animals"). Of course I wouldn't agree to human vivisection, and if my son/daughter were dying, I *wouldn't* kill you to take your organs. I don't really believe you would take mine, that was a clever argument you used, but it doesn't work in practice. Therefore I think it IS a fair question to ask whether you would use drugs/brain operations that had been tested on animals to cure yourself or your loved ones, and it is a FUNDAMENTAL question. You wrote "Certainly if someone close to me was dying and I thought they could be saved by taing a pig's organs, I would take the pig's organs." Doesn't this contradict everything you're campaigning against? On your argumentation, why does your child have more right to life than the pig...? etc etc

you say, an "intelligent dog may have more cognitive ability than a brain damaged human". Maybe so, but it is still, nevertheless, a dog. If you believe that a dog has more (or the same) right to life than a brain-damaged human, then this is an area of ethics where we will clearly disagree irreconcilably.

I probably shouldn't have mentioned the meat-eating argument, because it opens a whole can of worms concerning my own personal beliefs which aren't relevant to the animal testing issue. I know vegetarians who are pro the lab, and I know vegans who aren't campaigning against it, so I will ask them their opinions about it next time I see them. I suppose I only brought up the "organic/free range" thing to prove that I do actually care about animal welfare (despite eating them), and I'm not just some "evil bastard vivisector". To reiterate, I simply consider humans to be "above" other animals, and see testing upon them for our own benefit as ethically unproblematic, providing that some good comes of it, which it will.

You can go back to the fundamental principles of science: I can't remember the name of the guy, but he who first put a bell jar over a mouse, and realised it died after a few minutes due to oxygen starvation. He wouldn't have done that with a human! If we'd never tested on animals, then medically, we'd still be in the dark ages. fact. And so the principle will continue.

I may well get involved with CIWF at some point, but right now I consider environmental concerns to be paramount. If our world is rendered uninhabitable by disaustrous climate change, then there will be no animals to experiment on, and no humans to cure! Obviously I completely agree with you that "all of us concerned with fighting injustice have our own preferences on how to tackle the problem." I don't have a problem with people campaigning against the Oxford lab, as long as they are as well-informed as you are, and in my experience this is not often the case. I was not suggesting that people should NOT oppose the lab, simply that they would achieve much more (i.e. more than nothing, because however much you oppose it, this lab *will* be built *somewhere*. Your resistance is ideological and I salute that, but it will achieve nothing), by opposing systems of animal cruelty that more people would support, e.g. factory farming and bad dairy farming. If every SPEAK activist (and ALF loon) put the same amount of energy into opposing battery hen farms as they did in opposing the Oxford lab, something might change, and you would drag along SO many more people (like myself) out with you. But as you say, each to their own, and "All of us concerned with fighting injustice have our own preferences on how to tackle the problem."

I would love to get bogged down in a discussion about why I eat meat etc, but it's late, I'm tired, and this reply is too long already. I'm sure that there are flaws in what I've written, and I'm sure you have more to come back on, so *please* do, and indeed anyone else.








concerned student activist


reply to questions

04.01.2006 08:31

The problem of why vivisection continues, when it is scientifically questionable is one that puzzled me as well, which is why I did not accept scientific anti-vivisection arguments for a long time, and based my opposition purely on the ethical arguments. Certainly the standard reply that it is based on money is an EFFECT of its popularity as a scientific method, not a CAUSE. Whenever any superstition takes hold, someone will make a buck out of it, but the buck-making is not the cause of the superstition.

But after reading more about the philosophy and sociology of science (something scientists are notoriously ignorant of) I have come to the conclusion that the popularity of vivisection is based on two false metaphysical premises, both of which are now outdated. The first is that equal effects always come from equal causes. So a human is just a rat writ large, something we now know is not true. The other premise is a relic from posititivism and that is that something is only scientifically verifiable if it is repeated under controlled conditions in a laboratory. So your example of the mouse being smothered by a bell jar is a case in point. It must have been known to humans since medieval times that people die in mines and other places where there is not enought air. The hypotehsis that there is something in the air necessary to life could have been inferred from considering these "clinical cases" but this was not considered "scientific". But the sciences of epidemiology and ecology are both based on field based "case studies" and not laboratory work.

Thus the reason why vivisection became popular. It has remained popular because as Thomas Kuhn discovered through his historical researh, science is resistant to change, and it will require a "paradigm shift" before we realise that we have been in error all these years. Part of the reason for resistance is of course that big money has now made it lucrative to maintain the status quo. So money is not a reason for its establishment, but is a reason why it continues.

Actually, I don't excuse my demand for a pig's or a human's organs if my child was dying. I am just claiming mitigating circumstances. These circumstances do not exist for most of us, and in fact the "your dog or your baby" argument does not apply,it is simply an artificial conflict invented by the research lobby.

In 1968 my sister died from cot death. At that time we were in the dark ages as far as knowing what caused this. Later I was invited to submit an application to a granting boty to conduct research into cot death using a lamb "model" to simulate brething difficulties. These "sacrifices" saved nobody. It was epidemiologists who identified the risk factors for cot death and warned parents. It was clinicians who designed monitors that would alert parents when baby had difficulty breathing. These discoveries helped reduce cot death in New Zealand from 7 in 1000 to 4 in 1000. If all the funds squandered on animal experiments had been channelled into clinical research my sister may be alive today. It was truly a case of "the lamb AND your baby".

There are numerous similar cases and it would take too long to list them. Like you I used to think these were isolated incidents. But how many isolated incidents does it take before we infer a rule? Induction is after all only the sum of a number of isolated incidences. We infer that all emeralds are green because we have observed a large number of emeralds and all have been green. Similarly I infer that vivisection is bad science because I have collected a number of examples of vivisection, and all have been bad science. When combined with the theoretical implications of complexity theory, the case seems clear cut. I don't expect you to take my word for it, but perhaps you could do some of your own research and draw your own conclusions.




Michael Morris
- Homepage: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~nezumi1


and more...

05.01.2006 19:07

hmm the cause/effect, chicken/egg problem... I would argue that since animal testing has been going on for so many years, surely SOMEONE would have noticed that the buckmakers were laughing behind science's back. I simply refuse to believe that Oxford Uni (short enough of money as they are) would waste money on this if it had no scientific benefit.

I'm sure that no scientist working in the labs really believes that "equal effects always come from equal causes", as you say. I'm sure they're only too aware of the differences between the macaques in the lab, and the effects visible in humans. What I'm trying to say, is that there are ENOUGH similarities for them to make SOME conclusions about monkeys, and then see what bearing this has on humans. SOME of the conclusions will be true, and SOME will be false. The question of whether more or true/false I don't know, but I suspect that ENOUGH are true to make it worth doing. You say "big money has now made it lucrative to maintain the status quo", this is perhaps the case, but I disagree. If vivisection had made no significant advance in medical science in the past 100 years, SOMEONE would have noticed. The fact is that it has.

You say "it must have been known to humans since medieval times that people die in mines", but they wouldn't know it was lack of oxygen, would they? there could have been all number of ideas, like toxic gases or something (some of which might have indeed been the causes of the deaths in the mines, not lack of oxygen). The point of a lab is you have a "control", where nothing is changed, and compare it to something that you do change, to see the differences, the point being that as many other factors are kept the same. Real life is not like this. You say "the sciences of epidemiology and ecology are both based on field based "case studies" and not laboratory work", what does this prove?

You say "your dog or your baby" argument does not apply,it is simply an artificial conflict invented by the research lobby." Ok... I can see we're not going to get anywhere here, I still consider it a valid argument to make. Just because you have no emotional attachment to something, why should that make any difference?

You say “It was epidemiologists who identified the risk factors for cot death and warned parents,” and claim you could list similar cases, and I don’t doubt it. I’m sure there are cases in which vivisection HAS helped. Unfortunately, I’m not in a position to be able to list them. I’m just an arts student who takes an interest in such issues. I admit this leaves me somewhat open to criticism, so give me a few weeks to do some research and talk to some people, and I’ll come up with some examples. “how many isolated incidents does it take before we infer a rule?” I don’t know, but it’s a question of extent. If 15% of animal experiments prove nothing, then fair enough. If 90% prove nothing, then this is when you can start complaining about it being a waste of money, but even then there’s an argument for saying that the 10% that DO prove something was worth it. I don’t know enough facts to back this up I’m afraid. There must be some kind of website with info about this? I’ll look into it.

I can completely understand your opinion on “bad science”, but as you say “I infer that vivisection is bad science because I have collected a number of examples of vivisection, and all have been bad science”, that does not exclude the possibility that there may be some that are good science, or I’ve got a red emerald in my cupboard. I would suggest that the former is a hell of a lot more likely, but (encore une fois) I have no evidence. Woops.

So it’s come down to a conflict of chicken/egg over funding, and percentage cases of good/bad science concerning vivisection. Neither of which I or you can prove either way. I’ll do some reading and get back to you.

concerned student activist


..and even more

06.01.2006 03:14

By all means do some reading; that sounds like a very good idea. But when reading pieces by scientists try to consider who is paying their wages. If they are being paid by pharmaceutical companies or others with a vested interest in the status quo, then you don't have to be the world's greatest cynic to infer that they will be telling you what their masters want you to hear. That is not to say independent scientists cannot be prejudiced or mistaken, but the differenes is their mistakes and prejudices are their own; they are not paid to spout someone elses. They can also change their minds when confronted with evidence. Fox and Frey are two philsophers who were once pro-vivisection but who changed their views. I cannot think of any anti-vivisectionist who changed their views without being paid for it.

You say that "SOMEBODY" would have noticed that vivisection is bad science. Well "somebody" has. In fact most of the protesters outside Oxford have probably noticed. A great many books and articles by physicians, scientists and philosophers of science have been written criticising vivisection. To find most of these you will need to delve in your local academic library. Their views have not reached mainstream consciousness because it is the rich and powerful who control the established media. When Pandora Pound wrote a scathing and well referenced attack on vivisection in the prestigious "British Medical Journal" in 2004, who reported it out of the mainstream media? But any woffle about some cancer cure being "just around the corner" because of animal experiments will get front page news. In spite of the fact that not one of these promised cures has eventuated.

If you look at the history of science, you will see a number of examples, where what now appears obvious to us in hindsight was resisted bitterly. Your example of oxygen is a case in point. The presence of oxygen was not inferred by suffocating animals but from careful, controlled experiments on combustion. By burning materials in a chamber it was noticed that the weight of the combusted product inceased. At the time, the established wisdom was that there was a substance called phlogiston that was released after burning. These experiments suggested instead that there was something in the air that assisted burning and was added to the substance burned. In spite of this evidence, there was overwhelming resistance to ditching the phlogiston theory, with eminant scientists not wishing to admit they were wrong; rather like the theory of vivisection today.

As for the difference between epidemiology and lab studies I am not denying that injecting a rat in a lab is easier, cheaper and will get you more papers, kudos and professorships than laborious field work. Epidemiologists do require large sample sizes and complex statistics to overcome confounding effects. But if you are advocating laboratory animal tests over human epidemiological trials then you are no longer simply saying an animal's life is more important than a human's. What you are saying is that saving money on the cheaper experiment, at the cost of an animal's life, is more important than conducting the more ethical epidemiology experiment at the cost of some money. I.e. money is more important than lives. This is an entirely different proposition, and pro-vivisectionists need to be honest enough to admit that this what their argument is based on.

The "dog or your baby" arguments, like "lifeboat" scenarios where you are forced to say who you would choose to chuck out of a lifeboat, or "burning building" scenarios where you are forced to weigh up who you would save from a fire, are popular in pop-philosophy, but less common in real life. The most that even the pro-vivisection lobby can tell you is that animal experiments MAY lead to cures for some, as yet un-named human in the future. Again, the choice is not between an existing animal and an existing human. How can a hypothetical human, who doesn't exist, and may never exist, be given priority over the often intense suffering of a primate or other intelligent and sensitive animal, occuring right now?

And to get back to the burning building, if I had to choose between saving my son or a stranger, I would of course save my son. As would most people reading this. But does that mean strangers have no rights? That everyone can do what they like with strangers on the off chance that their sons may benefit in some way? It doesn't bear thinking about.




Michael Morris
- Homepage: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~nezumi1


Comments

Hide the following 22 comments

Yes, we're sorry you're article was so long too..

01.01.2006 05:22

.. and boring, typical, weak and pathetic, from the mouth of an animal abuse apologiser ..
"but I only eat organic and free-range meat"

.. sod off and maybe join the SWP or CIWF you fucking waste of space.

H(4)TR[3]D


hear hear

01.01.2006 13:14

Just like to say, very well said, concerned student activist. Since arriving in Oxford from overseas a year ago and so having some proximity to the issue, I've been giving a careful look at the issues the animal lib protestors have been putting forward. And pretty much reached the same conclusions.

To the responder, it's idiotic responses like that which give people the perfect excuse to completely write you (and this cause) off. It seems to epitomize a prominent part of the animal liberation movement's tactical approach that's inappropriately personalized and venemously hateful.

another student


typical response from a bigoted AR "activist"

01.01.2006 21:59

thanks for your support "another student"; we are in the majority I feel.

And as I expected, the typical venomous, UNSUBSTANTIATED-BY-REASONED-ARGUMENT comeback from a pathetic AR idiot. You, like so many others, give your cause a bad name. I challenge you to come up with a decent reply to my comment, with *arguments* instead of abuse. It's damn hard for me to refrain from abusing you right back (looks like I've alredy failed on that count... but you really are an ignorant shit). Now sit down, think about what I've argued, and write a decent response. There must be AR people somewhere who can string a sentence together? Someone else PLEASE do it instead of this loser, and let's take the (organically-reared, "happy", non-abused) bull by the horns on this. I think it would be incredibly interesting to have some kind of public debate on the issue.

I suppose you could rightfully call me, along with 99.99% of the country, an animal abuse apologiser, because I admit, testing on animals in the interest of the advancement of science is NECESSARY. So Mr/Mrs "hatred" or whoever you are, if it was your child/spouse/self who's life could be saved by a drug that had been tested on animals, would you be principled and let them die? I think NOT. Have you signed up to be tested upon to save the animals? I think NOT.

I also challenge you to prove that you have erased every element of possible animal abuse from your own life? For instance, do you ever support corporations/supermarkets who sell meat products, do you ever buy clothes from shops that sell leather? Have you ever used virtually ANY kind of medicine or beauty product in your entire life? I expect that you are a HYPOCRITE and as Haribo licorice pointed out in their reply (on the right of the main page), you are a "thrillseeker without a cause".

The fact is, animal abuse is deeply engrained in our culture, and there's not a lot you can do about it. It's sad to say, but humans naturally exploit people/animals weaker than them, and we should do all we can to eradicate such injustice, where it is *possible* and *relevant*.

I'd never actually heard of the CIWF before so at least I can thank you for that; from their website they seem like a decent organisation, who are campaigning on issues that can actually be changed. The number of animals that will be tested upon in Oxford will be MINISCULE compared to the numbers of animals abused in other areas, e.g. farming. Don't you care about them?

Obviously, I don't think my response was boring (or I wouldn't have written it). could have been more succinct I admit (as could this one) but tough shit. Now don't be a pathetic, lazy motherfucker, and write a REASONED reply to this. go on. If you can convince me, I'll come on your next fucking demo, and that's a promise.



concerned student activist (again)


Identity

01.01.2006 22:02

Just as I'd support the right of the Wombles to freedom of speech, and the right to "mask up" to avoid being catalogued and blacklisted by the state police, I'd also support the right of kids to wear hoodies, and workers to wear balaclavas to protect their own identities.

Animal protestors' attacks on individual construction workers and threats of such attacks on their families are idiotics, and definitely counterproductive to that organisations aims, assuming that it might include reduction in animal experimentation.

You can't have identity issues both ways - either an individual has a right to protect their identity for their own protection (even if its only a perceived threat) or they don't - but you can't rationally call a brickie a "terrorist", unless you've a screw loose.

Of course, the word "terrorist" is also meaningless.

My own view is that the rights of animals should be placed well below the well being of all human beings, even vivisectors, so that it is immoral for a person to attack another because that person causes harm or suffering to animals. In current UK law, people who commit violence against another person are not sentenced to violent punishments, and people are animals, and I don't see the ALF pursuing violent criminals.

More positive support for the new biotechnologies which will reduce animal experimentation would be more productive for animal protestors, if a little less thrilling than direct action - but then I suspect many are really thrillseekers without a cause.

 http://wombles.org.uk/albums/opfreespeech/free4.jpg

Haribo Licorice


no need to get nasty

12.01.2006 22:34

There is no need to get nasty with people.

Animal rights advocates have the facts piled up on their side, so they don't need to get angry and bitchy!!

The basic fact is vivisection is a total fraud, if you want i'll go into this much more, with dozens of examples of scientific breakthroughs done without vivisection, or set back by vivisection. There is a mountain of evidence against vivisection, from scientists, professors, to the alf 'members' and the old women on the end of street- they all have strong arguements when provided with the truth.

As for meat, put politely- fuck it. Its disgusting. For you health, the enviroment and the animals rights. You ever seen the 'meet your meat' vid?

I'm ready to engage in any sensible debates with people.

DS

DS


lest we forget

16.01.2006 11:18

Is it just coincedence that the pro vivisection arguers here are STUDENTS?

This would imply two things at least 1) They are young 2) They have a vested interest in protecting thier future.

How is it that they would be willing to accept the idea that the great establisment that is teaching them to become the leaders and movers in tommorows world COULD BE WRONG.

I mean it's a big thing to ask.. we are talking about thier whole life here, they have nothing else other than the little dream of becoming GREAT with an OXFORD education. Imagine the excitement they felt upon being accepted to OXFORD, wow what a thrill. Mummy and Daddy must be so proud.

Well wake up and smell the stink kiddies.

If your not pissed off, your not paying attention.

Stop protecting your EGO and get wise.

jools


nonsensical jools...

18.01.2006 02:50

Jools you are making no sense. Why does it matter that the two people that have chosen to post pro-vivisection arguments are students? You say, "How is it that they would be willing to accept the idea that the great establisment that is teaching them to become the leaders and movers in tommorows world COULD BE WRONG." What a load of bullshit...

Students are involved in countless campaigns against university authorities, against them investing in the arms trade, against them switching back from renewable energy to fossil fuels, against them doing a lot of shit stuff. I'm pissed off about these things AND I'm paying attention. I'm also paying a lot of attention to the animal lab, and guess what? I STILL think it's a good thing.

You are taking the typical *bigoted* view that all oxford students are spoilt little tory rich kids who want to go and be oh so successful. Well we aren't. You're the one with the problem here... "Mummy and Daddy must be so proud." you're pathetic. Perhaps with an Oxford education you might be able to "get wise" yourself (and learn how to spell as well). I doubt you even read all of these posts properly.

I would be extremely interested to see a referendum of the whole country on vivisection, or even just Oxford itself. Does anyone know of any (non-biased...) opinion polls carried out in this field? The only one I've heard of is in one of the student newspapers, where something like 90% of students were in favour. Annoyingly, I can't find the link right now, does anyone know where this article is? I am fairly sure that a similar percentage (or at least 70%+) would be in favour on a national scale.

one of many student pro-vivisectionists


re: nonsensical jools...

19.01.2006 15:46

Yeah well thanks for helping me prove my point there mega brain.

Listen to yourself, How old are you?

You are clearly a closed book. A fact based machine just like the rest of you twats who incedently, I DID go to uni with.

Students are involved in campains that are countless indeed because thats as far as it goes for you eh. Just enough campaining to look good and have something right on to talk about in the union.

Then what? Nice job, car, house, comsume, consume, consume.

>"I'm also paying a lot of attention to the animal lab, and guess what? I STILL think it's a >good thing. "

Of course you do, because you havn't thought about it as much as me yet. And what's more you'll probably give up thinking about it when your not a student anymore and carry on thinking your right you short sighted little git.

You won't get wise in school fool.

>"I would be extremely interested to see a referendum of the whole country on vivisection, >or even just Oxford itself. "

Of course you would because it would include all the opinions of uninformed shallow bottom feeders like yourself. The Sun used to travel round the earth and the earth was flat you know.

Hmmm I wonder what the national opinion is on GOD or ALIENS or GHOSTS or SADDAM HOUSSAIN or STARSIGNS or anything else you care to mention like it matters as much as your opinion.

seeya.

jools


try reading this one students

19.01.2006 16:15

Hey students who think you are not like the rest of them. Uhhhh, yeah, right.

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/oxford/2006/01/331484.html

me
- Homepage: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/oxford/2006/01/331484.html


ahhhh

19.01.2006 18:52

well why the hell should your opinion matter more than mine? I am not a "closed book", I have read a hell of a lot on this issue (pro and anti, the speak website is actually quite good!) and come to a conclusion which you can't accept because you are so convinced you are right! People are entitled do disagree with you, you don't have a monopoly on the truth I'm afraid mate...

"Just enough campaining to look good and have something right on to talk about in the union." Well if you take that attitude, is every student campaigner a waste of space? since you claim to have gone to university (even though you can't spell "tomorrow" and you don't know the difference between "your" and "you're"), is that the attitude you took of yourself when you were my age. I think not. wanker.

"Nice job, car, house, comsume, consume, consume" So you don't live in a house? You don't have a job? Fuck you, don't claim you're better than anyone else in this country. Of course I consume, so does everyone, now get off your high horse. I challenge anyone to consume nothing.

I am NOT an "uninformed shallow bottom feeder", you are clearly incapable of accepting that anybody can hold a view different to you, and are not worth arguing with. You didn't offer a single point to counter what I was arguing, pathetic, another useless AR idiot, I've only found two of you who's opinions I respect so far...

the same student


free the0

19.01.2006 20:29

^ Oh grow up, stop resorting to swearing at people because your arguments are crap! Plus I was wondering how you can call yourself a student activist when you support this awful monstrosity called an "animal hotel".


We know we are right... yes ofcourse you are entitled to disagree with us... but you would be wrong if you did.

Oh and just browsing through a few of your comments before, yes basically every opposer to the oxford lab DOES care about farmed animals - the majority of us are vegans - can't get much better than that now.

Also you seem to be opposed to us protesting against the lab because you do not think our goals would ever be possible... So what do you care if we spend days campaigning for something which you don't even think will ever be seen? Oh and by the way, it is possible to stop the lab - we managed to stop it for 18 months, we can do it again... oh and another case study - cambridge university.

Oh and the choice is not between my mother or a dog... there are over 450 alternatives to animal testing including computer modules, invitro, cell cultures etc. etc... In fact discoveries were delayed as a result of animal testing, or animal testing led us to believe that dangerous substances were safe for us... You seem to suggest that these are simply a few cases but there are so many! Think of thalidomide, of Vioxx, of Asbestos (which doesn't cause cancer in other animals but is the biggest carciogenic for humans) or of us being told cigarettes do not cause cancer. Vivisection misleads. Also humans are tested on already! Whether it is desperately ill patients or volunteers... This is the last stage in the drug testing and it is what really shows whether a drug is safe.

Also vivisection does not produce these drugs! It is not a result of vivisection that these drugs are produced... The drugs are simply tested by vivisection. In the same way an exam doesn't produce an intelligent student, it simply tests that student.

 http://www.buav.org/faqs.html#faq2

"to sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men"

ceybard dead... ahh s6rry... 3ater...

G


go home student

21.01.2006 12:05

well I couldn't have put it better myself. Thanks G :)

So go home silly student. I guess you don't come from this town, the town I have lived in for 30 years.

I live here and I could do without your opinion if your not even gonna live here more than 3 years you pedantic pathetic perverted excuse for a human being.

Change your ways, it's not too late.

jools

jools


replies to G and their FAQ

22.01.2006 16:06

Yes that’s right jools, you couldn’t have but it better yourself, because you are incapable of making anything like the considered argument that G has just made. For god’s sake, why does it matter if I’m not from this town? It’s irrelevant. Half of the demonstrators came from all across the country last week! Do you think their opinions don’t matter either? Would you have preferred they didn't come. Oh, so I’m a “pedantic pathetic perverted excuse for a human being.”? *sigh* you’re not worth talking too, and I’m pretty sure G is ashamed to be associate with you. Sorry for bitching again, but bigots make me angry.

Oh yeah, I’m sorry for resorting to swearing, I know it’s a bit rubbish, it’s just I object to being called a “closed book” by someone who is clearly myopic and bigoted. You G, are not, therefore of course I will not swear at you.

Right.

I never said it was an "animal hotel" did I? I don’t think so. It’s clearly not. It’s a medical research facility designed to test on animals in order to benefit future humans; I perceive this to be justifiable. It’s my opinion, and there’s no reason why I can't be an activist just because I support it? That’s ludicrous. Look, do you really think I, or anybody working at animal labs, really enjoy inflicting pain on animals? I find the pictures on the SPEAK (and other org’s) website quite distressing, but I justify it to myself because I FIRMLY BELIEVE that it is going to do some good to people. And don’t say I’ve got my head in the sand, I’ve done a lot of reading on this, it is a CONSIDERED OPINION. Thankyou for sending me that FAQ by the way it was very interesting, and cleared a lot of stuff up. I’d like to address some of the stuff in it, please reply with your thoughts, but a few other responses first.

---“every opposer to the oxford lab DOES care about farmed animals - the majority of us are vegans”. Yep, that’s fine. What I was arguing is that your time would be better spent helping the **millions** of animals living in terrible conditions on farms, rather than the **hundreds** of animals that will be housed in this facility. Anyway, that’s by the by, and Michael gave a pretty good response to that anyway.

---“Oh and by the way, it is possible to stop the lab”. Yeah, I suppose you’re right; I admit I was wrong on that one. I suppose it depends on you finding out the identity of the construction company, who appear to be doing a pretty good job of concealing themselves at the moment. I find it laughable that some of you call them “terrorists”, (like that guy did in the speech holding up the balaclava), when other people in the crowd were wearing balaclavas (and thereby contradicting his point… woops). Anyway, that too is by the by, they’re just people doing their job, and don’t deserve the daily abuse they get. I suppose that even if the building does get finished, some idiot will burn it down (as you chanted), resulting in the deaths of all the animals inside and probably some people too. Would it have been worth it?

--“there are over 450 alternatives to animal testing including computer modules, invitro, cell cultures etc. etc... In fact discoveries were delayed as a result of animal testing, or animal testing led us to believe that dangerous substances were safe for us...” Yes! You have many many examples, and they are unfortunate. No science is perfect is it? It’s a question of percentage success/failure. Now, I would love to have a collection of all the drugs tested on animals (i.e. virtually ALL of them) that have gone on to be widely used. True enough, penicillin kills guinea pigs, and even if 100 other drugs do too, there are still a million drugs that have ENOUGH of a SIMILAR effect on animals to make advance possible. I’ll come back to this.

--“Also humans are tested on already! Whether it is desperately ill patients or volunteers... This is the last stage in the drug testing and it is what really shows whether a drug is safe.” Of course. The point is that you have to make it as safe as possible for these people before they get tested on. Do you seriously advocate testing drugs on humans when they are in the early stages of development? Animal research is not flawless in any way (as you point out), but it’s a step along the way to producing a drug. Yes, it IS in theory SOMETIMES an unnecessary step. BUT it would take 10 times as long (and a lot more human deaths) to get to the same stage without testing on animals, wouldn’t it? Here it may seem that I’m contradicting myself, but I’m not. Animal testing is NOT necessary in all situations, but it ADVANCES SCIENCE, quickly, cheaply (unless you need 10,000 police and security and 3 construction companies etc.), and in the MOST EFFICIENT way. Do you seriously think I would advocate animal testing if this wasn’t the case? To reiterate, I find a lot of the stuff that goes on quite distressing, but at the moment it is the BEST WE HAVE, in SOME situations.

To quote the FAQ “There are a huge range of sophisticated, advanced non-animal research techniques such as computer simulations, cell, tissue or organ cultures, complex artificial systems, epidemiology, QSARs or brain imaging that utilise human biological material or data so that the results are directly applicable to the human situation. These techniques are not only more humane but also often cheaper and quicker to perform as well as offering more relevant and reliable results.” YES, but they’re simply not as good yet. If they were cheaper and better, WHY THE HELL are we still testing on animals???? The answer is that these techniques are simply not as good, YET. As soon as they give as good results as animal testing does, do you think people would still spend so much on animal testing? Of course not. Everything in this world (unfortunately…) boils down to economics, right? Why would companies and the university waste MILLIONS on this lab if the research from it was going to be pointless? This is one of my most important points. To generalise on “scientists and science” is bad, but I would expect that Oxford academics are among the best in the world, and they wouldn’t be part of a research programme that was a load of bollocks. I trust them.

---“Also vivisection does not produce these drugs! It is not a result of vivisection that these drugs are produced... The drugs are simply tested by vivisection. In the same way an exam doesn't produce an intelligent student, it simply tests that student.” Maybe so in some cases. BUT, do you question the fact that we need to test drugs? Also, the result of the tests certainly would mean the scientists making changes to the drug to improve it, produce better results etc. Therefore it DOES help develop the drug. Your exam scenario is flawed.

Now a few things arising from the FAQ…

---“One argument often used by pro-vivisectionists to justify animal experiments is that humans are 'superior' to other animals. Just like other forms of prejudice such as racism, this speciesist argument implies that because we consider ourselves to be superior, the rights, suffering or death of those we consider to be inferior (in this case other sentient creatures) is somehow less significant or valid than our own”. Yes, I do think this. Sorry if I’m “speciesist” but that’s just my view, and most probably the view of the vast majority of this country. It’s a natural thing, just like the “my child or your child” question. Bad luck, 99% of people are speciesist.

--- the “unrealistic dilemma”. “Vivisection never delivers us the straight choice between saving a child or saving a rat. Instead it is about deliberately inflicting suffering and ultimately death on thousands if not millions of animals with no more than the mere hope that that immense collective suffering may in some way lead to a greater understanding of a given disease.” Yes it is, and if you can save **people’s** lives through experimenting on all those rats, then it was justified.

---“Yet even that basic premise is fundamentally flawed, because it is based on the assumption that extrapolating test results from biologically and physiologically distinct animals is a reliable, credible and robust method of scientific endeavour.” Yes, animals are different from humans, congratulations. BUT they are SIMILAR ENOUGH for certain premises to be made, that CAN be related to humans, and then affect the way further research into human problems. E.g. a human is different from a macaque, but it is SIMILAR ENOUGH that anything you find out about the macaque’s brain will help you COME CLOSER to understanding the way the human brain works, without cutting people’s brains apart, which wouldn’t be allowed. Unsavoury, but the best way.

---“Animal experiments tell us about animals, not about people. The results of animal studies can never guarantee the safety or efficacy of human medicines or other products because of the fundamental biological, anatomical and biochemical differences between the species. … Penicillin is a widely used antibiotic in humans and yet it can kill guinea pigs” I’ve already said a bit about this, but the same argument follows. It is a MINORITY of substances that are like this, and ENOUGH have the same effect that premises CAN be made in more cases than they can't. e.g. arsenic kills humans and mice. We could both offer examples to kingdom come, but surely you must see that there are MORE substances that have the SAME effect than there are which don’t.

“We all want to see real advancement in the treatment of painful and debilitating human diseases, but we believe that these advances depend on developing and using modern, biologically relevant research techniques that do not involve animals.It's also worth remembering that there are companies developing and testing drugs that don't use animals at all. For example, the UK company Pharmagene Laboratories only uses human data, tissues and computers and still produces safe drugs.” Maybe they do, but I’m sure that these processes are in their infancy, and only applicable to a minority of drugs. If they weren’t, EVERYBODY WOULD BE USING THEM AND THEY AREN’T. And again, it’s not because people testing on animals are evil, it’s because animal testing is better AT THE MOMENT. As soon as these techniques are perfected, animal testing will be out the window, and I want that day to come as soon as you do, but the fact is, it ain’t here yet. In some (not all) situations, animal testing is the best we have, and that is why it continues.

“The fact that vivisection has taken place as one part of a multi-layer research & development phase in the lead up to a drug entering the market, is not the same thing at all as being able to say that that drug was only developed because of vivisection. Indeed it is very different to saying that it could not have been developed if vivisection had not been included at all.” Fair enough, but vivisection MADE IT QUICKER, and SAVED PEOPLE’S LIVES, and I’m sure that SOME drugs wouldn’t ever have been developed without using vivisection because there was no alternative at that time. BUT, as you’ve said, we do now have alternatives, but they’re not good enough for all situations yet.

---“Today, diseases such as cancer and heart disease are the major killers in our society, while HIV/AIDS continues to increase. Despite a massive rise in animal based research around the world, conditions such as these continue to take their toll. Animal based research is failing to find the answers to these problems.” YES this is true. We need other ways to cure these diseases. You can see this vein through all my arguments, animal testing is used where it is the best of the options available. I never said animal testing was the best in any situation, hopefully some time in the future we won’t need it any more, but at the moment, we DO.

Right, I hope that clears a few things up, and I hope you have things to come back on, but my two main points remain.
1. Universities/Companies WOULDN’T put millions into testing on animals if it was a waste of time, they just wouldn’t. Economics rules the world.
2. The alternatives to animal testing aren’t good enough yet in some situations, as soon as they improve, vivisection will become obsolete, and I want this to happen as much as you do.

I await G’s responses, cheers.

me again


re: me again

23.01.2006 12:39

Well it seem clear that I will have to bow to your superior intellect.
Sorry to have troubled you sir.
Your suggestion that I am both short sighted and attached to my own opinions is clearly correct and I apologise for having been such a fool.
It seems I have been completely wrong the whole time and so with humble heart and soul I have decided to change my ways.

You see it's not just about facts, I mean I really do feel that the right thing to do is to make sure that the few have everything they need while the rest suffer.
What better representatives for the human race than those who can see far enough to realise the greater good for all society?
Clearly as we solve all the problems of disease and begin our new adventure into the sterile future it's people like you who we can thank by being your subservient followers.

In future I shall know my place and continue to empty your bins and tidy up your fucking mess.

jools


come ON!

24.01.2006 00:25

oh for god's sake Jools! You can do better than that, and you KNOW it.

A little effort wouldn't go amiss now, would it? I'm sorry for having a go at you, but if you actually made the effort to give proper comebacks to what I've said, then we might all learn something, especially me... now take a deep breath and try again; you're probably not as stupid as I think you are.

and again...


Dilemma with alternatives

24.01.2006 17:05

The dilemma of saying we should stop animal testing now is that then we wouldn't be able to use the alternatives because most of the alternatives we already do have are based on data that we have obtained through animal testing. So to develop these alternatives to animal research, we need to use either animals or humans in the first place. I don't think we sacrifice humans to the gods anymore so I guess we need to obtain biological data from animals instead. How else can we develop the models we are searching for? I think a much more sensible approach would be to endeavour to always reduce the testing we do do on animals.

Another dilemma with stopping testing on animals is that quite often animal testing is done to understand the biology of the animal itself rather than to develop treatments for human ailments. We not only require medication for veterinary use to make sure that injured and sick animals get better, we also need to understand how to conserve endangered species and how to humanely irradicate introduced animals that are threatening native species. Without animal testing, then the existance of a whole species may be at risk! So by stopping animal testing we may actually be bringing more suffering and pain on the animal kingdom.

Dilemma


comming on

02.02.2006 12:25

Well sorry to dissapoint you dude, I know you like a fight (I bet your still looking here). You want to be persuaded and your inner voice tells you it's wrong. You just need to start listening to yourself. I can't and won't persuade you because then it will lack the impact of discovering for yourself.

Cold hard facts will never explain your feelings or mine. You are young(why are you so concerned and fighting so hard anyway? Because you are being guided by forces you don't understand yet?), don't commit to soon, give it some time and the guides will make themselves known to you.

Good luck. See you when it falls.

Jools

jools


No primate centrum in uni NL for fear of protests

02.02.2006 22:15

In Holland, Maastricht, the university decided midway 2005 not to build a primate center, for severeal reasons, one being fear of activism!

 http://www.observant.unimaas.nl/jrg25/obs30/art38.htm (Dutch)

danny


and again coming on

03.02.2006 09:57

Hi

Well I understand you want a fight. You are young and angry which is exactly why you havn't used you heart in this just cold hard facts. We only use cold hard facts because people like you won't listen to anything else.

Well I'm sorry, you are just gonna have to trust what you already know but won't listen to on this. I'm not gonna make it easy for you. Follow me? Don't worry i'm not trying to make you look a fool.

Try and explain your feelings or my feelings or the sensation you get stroking the soft ears of a golden retriver puppy, with your cold hard facts.

When/if you have children try and spend time with them and love them instead of making animals suffer at the lab. Then you might understand some of these other points of view.

Jools

jools


what if

07.02.2006 17:03

So what if the reaserch is good? What if the Labs produce wonderful drugs that work? What if the pro science posse are right about it being worthwhile?

Well it just shows how naive they really are. Do you believe that drug tested and passed in this way are really for the benifit of us all? Do you really think that Oxford Uni is so altruistic? That they care sooo much about humanity?

Or are they doing it for the Money, Power and Greed?

This comes from here... http://publish.indymedia.org/en/2006/01/831267.shtml

"Just like with the rise of automation, electronics and early computers in the 40's and 50's, the new heavily-subsidized technologies find their primary application as an elite tool for their class war at home and imperialism abroad, to control, manage and disempower people for their own narrow benefit. However, whereas the previous era's "progress" aimed at the substitution of capital for labor in a drive towards what engineers called the "push button factory," in which workers were either replaced or deskilled to the point of powerlessness on the job, today's developments seem much more aimed directly at control, quantification, management, deterrence and punishment."

So, what do you think now? If it were your child but you didn't have the money to pay for it, how would that be?

Evil Fuckers have always ruled by FEAR. Fear of Death, Fear of Devil, Fear of Pain, Fear of Homelessness, Fear of being an Outsider, Fear of Failure.........

Fuck the fear, no more, Burn the LAB. Burn the Fuckin UNI. Burn the Church.

Fire will Win.

me


an informed view

11.02.2006 10:27

It is a fact that 98% of drugs succesfully tested on animals fail on humans, what gives us as a species the right to inflict pain and suffering on other sentient beings for our own benefit?

The creationists are arguing that there is no such thing as evolution, sadly this may very well be true, at least for us humans, the medicines we have are weakening the gene pool by keeping people alive that in normal circumstances would have died.

I know death is a sad thing and not to be trivialised but it seems to me at least, that all we are doing is prolonging the inevitable.

if you have to test drugs, test them on the people that are going to die anyway.

Gordie
mail e-mail: gordie@osweb.co.uk


It is done

28.09.2007 13:30

They built it - depsite all that was tried it is complete.

So now what - a campaign to disrupt the lab despite the failure of the previous one?

More lawful and ignored demos?

There is a lot of passion and strong words here but they signify nothing - the lab was built and now it runs.

What will you do?

Michel Delafon


Publish your news
-->

Kollektives

Birmingham
Cambridge
Liverpool
London
Oxford
Sheffield
South Coast
Wales
World

Other UK IMCs
Bristol/South West
London
Northern Indymedia
Scotland

Oxford Topics

Afghanistan
Analysis
Animal Liberation
Anti-Nuclear
Anti-militarism
Anti-racism
Bio-technology
Climate Chaos
Culture
Ecology
Education
Energy Crisis
Fracking
Free Spaces
Gender
Globalisation
Health
History
Indymedia
Iraq
Migration
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Palestine
Policing
Public sector cuts
Repression
Social Struggles
Technology
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Zapatista

IMCs


www.indymedia.org

Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa

Europe
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
brussels
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
northern england
nottingham imc
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
sardegna
scotland
sverige
switzerland
torun
toscana
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela

Oceania
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
perth
qc
sydney

South Asia
india


United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
Austin
binghamton
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester

West Asia
Armenia
Beirut
Israel
Palestine

Topics
biotech

Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech