UK animal “rights” group continues quest for animal testing researcher information

Back in October, I blogged about a British animal rights group attempting to pay Cambridge University students for the personal information of their friends and classmates who maybe involved in animal testing (aka vivisection). The UK Telegraph reports that The National Operation Anti-Vivisection (NOAV) is still at it, except the effort has expanded across Great Britain.

NOAV issued an open letter and put out advertisements in businesses on and surrounding Cambridge’s campus offering to pay students for information on their fellow students who are involved in animal testing. The adds the group put out state:

NOAV are willing to pay ??? [pounds pounds pounds] for information about students doing experiments on animals at your uni.

Students who perform such research will be subject to continual protest from the animal rights activists throughout their life, and will not get a moment’s peace from the ongoing aggressive but lawful pressure exerted by the animal rights movement.

Fortunately, it seems NOAV has backed off. The Telegraph states their website is down and attempts by the paper to reach them remain unanswered. In England medical research can only be performed on animals if it is scientifically or medically warranted and there is no alternative. As one anonymous researcher interviewed for the Telegraph article points out, the animals used in vivisection are bred for that purpose. By doing so, it saves human lives.

It is abundantly evident that performing testing on animals helps scientists in their studies to manufacture therapies and drugs that are beneficial to people. Animal rights groups (like NOAV, PeTA and the Animal Liberation Front) oppose the practice not out of a sense of concern for the animals but because they hate humans. Their twisted logic is based on the assumption that because humans and animals feel pain (as hypothesized by French philosopher Renee Descartes) both beings should have rights.

But individual rights are not based on a being’s ability to feel pain, but on a being’s ability to think. Unlike humans, animals lack any kind ability of deliberation and choice on which their thought process is mainly based on predatory and instinctive reactions. As a result, animals cannot and should not have rights. Humans deal with each other based on negotiation in which thought is involved throughout the process. Animals lack any such abilities and cannot be afforded the same rights as humans.