Need Safeguards for Gene-Tinkered Foods

[Jim Wellehan]

In article <C96Inn.L8 at murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
wrp at cyclops.micr.Virginia.EDU (Bill Pearson) writes:

>  James.F.X.Wellehan at dartmouth.edu (Jim Wellehan) writes:
> >
> >And since when have animal rights been antithetical to science?  All
> >that most activists are opposed to are some methods.
> 
>         You have not been reading talk.politics.animals lately.  The
> basic premise of almost all of the organized animal rights groups is
> that animal research does not play a fundamental role in biomedical
> science.  I have heard again and again that animal experiments are
> uninformative - they don't tell us anything about humans - since drigs
> must be tested on humans it is an immoral waste to test them on
> animals - etc, etc.

The animal rights groups morally oppose animal experiments.  This is
not a refutation of scientific evidence, unlike creationism.  The
debate is a moral one, not a factual one.  The contention was that the
animal-rights groups were liars.  From what I've seen, they just have a
different viewpoint.

Jim (I'd rather tinker with genes than test animals, anyway)