This House Does Not Believe Animal Research is a Moral Hazard

A lively debate at the Trinity College Dublin Philosophical Society on Thursday rejected the motion that “This House Believes that Animal Testing is a Moral Hazard”.

Speaking of Research founder, Tom Holder, joined three students in explaining both the moral and scientific case for the continued use of animals in medical research. In opposition was the Director of Antidote Europe, Andre Menache, the Campaign Director of the Animal Rights Action Network, John Carmody, and two student speakers.

ddfg

Speakers (L->R by row): Rachel Graham (s), Liam Hunt (s), Andre Menache, Tom Holder, John Carmody, Cormac Henehan (s), Ben Butler (s) and Claire Kelly (s) and Lorcan Clarke (President of The Philosophical Society). (s) denotes TCD student.

The debate was lively, with most students choosing to focus on the philosophical angle, developing and destroying arguments for and against animal rights, human contractualism and utilitarianism. Dr. Menache chose to focus on scientific issues, including TGN1412 and looking at recent developments in replacement heart valves. John Carmody expressed the view that students were a victim of society if they supported animal research, and suggested that animal rights was an inevitability. Tom Holder gave a well received speech that pointed to the past successes of animal research and explained the many levels of protection that animals in labs are afforded. He noted that Stage I clinical trial disasters such as TGN1412 were so rare because of animal safety tests, as well as supporting the advances in synthetic heart valves – pointing out that for many years there was no non-animal replacement  available. Holder wrapped by concluding that animal research was “not a moral hazard but a moral imperative“.

When the time to vote came, the nays took two-thirds of the chamber, out voting the ayes two to one. This house did not believe that animal research was a moral hazard.

3 responses to “This House Does Not Believe Animal Research is a Moral Hazard

  1. The moral hazard would be to take away animal research and go straight into human trials! Even in fundamental research (f.e. in neurosciences) research needs to keep its animal model options open and this especially when it comes to non human primate use.

  2. moshe Bushmitz

    it is always amazing to see Andre Menashe advocating against the use of animals in biomedical research , he has a very short memory or suffering from amnesia (nothing a biomedical research can not resolve ) , we still remember very very well how he was the responsible of killing thousands of dogs given to the dog shelter where Andrea used to work as the responsible vet just because it was easier then to look for someone to adopt them.Killing was done not by injection but was very brutal. Now he is making his living from fighting for animal rights . What a world !!! amazing hypocrite persons.

  3. Pingback: Medical Research Needs Your Signatures | Speaking of Research