Working in lab today, I received an e-mail acting as a heads-up about violent animal rights activism against research universities, with an increased focus on undergraduate and graduate students (link to source: http://negotiationisover.com/bringing-the-war-to-the-student-body-the-soft-bellied-target-of-the-vivisection-complex/ ).
I'm a doctoral student at the University of Michigan, and I'm involved in animal research. While most of my work is done on processed human samples, I still work with animal models (primarily mice) and feel remorse when they're sacrificed at the end of an experiment. I don't enjoy killing animals and wish it wasn't necessary, but I also realize my work is translational (i.e. trying to translate from basic science into human applications) and feel that the benefits outweigh the cost. My university also has a very strict (and, I like to think, very humanitarian) animal use policy, and both the faculty I've worked with and the people in the animal facilities follow it rigorously.
We have PETA protest here several times a year, and--to their credit--it has always been civil discourse. What I don't understand how somebody can come to the conclusion that "sterile debate doesn't solve anything" and leap to the conclusion that violence and terrorism is necessary to force their viewpoint on others, particularly when they (almost certainly) have reaped the benefits of modern medicine built upon a necessary foundation of animal research.
I don't know; I guess I'm just burned out on all the incendiary, inflammatory rhetoric bandied about from people like this...
I'm a doctoral student at the University of Michigan, and I'm involved in animal research. While most of my work is done on processed human samples, I still work with animal models (primarily mice) and feel remorse when they're sacrificed at the end of an experiment. I don't enjoy killing animals and wish it wasn't necessary, but I also realize my work is translational (i.e. trying to translate from basic science into human applications) and feel that the benefits outweigh the cost. My university also has a very strict (and, I like to think, very humanitarian) animal use policy, and both the faculty I've worked with and the people in the animal facilities follow it rigorously.
We have PETA protest here several times a year, and--to their credit--it has always been civil discourse. What I don't understand how somebody can come to the conclusion that "sterile debate doesn't solve anything" and leap to the conclusion that violence and terrorism is necessary to force their viewpoint on others, particularly when they (almost certainly) have reaped the benefits of modern medicine built upon a necessary foundation of animal research.
I don't know; I guess I'm just burned out on all the incendiary, inflammatory rhetoric bandied about from people like this...