text:
Tag: AnimalTesting
May 16, 2019 May 17, 2019 Animalista Untamed1 Comment
"My promise to the animals is this: You have all of me. The lioness in the circus—I see you. The pig in the sow stall—I see you. The mouse in the medical experimentation facility—I see you. The fish crushed at the bottom of a trawler net—I see you. I know your suffering, and I will never be silent. I will push forward no matter what life throws my way because the cruelties inflicted on you must end, and I'll do all I can to see that happen. You have all of me."
The stirring words of outspoken vegan activist Emma Hurst, representative of the Animal Justice Party (AJP), at her swearing in to Australia's New South Wales State Parliament. She is now the third vegan activist elected to state office.
My last post "Isn't it Time to Stop the Killing in the Name of Conservation", cast the spotlight on the horrific scale of Australia's ongoing slaughter of wild and feral animals. Still more blood is shed to 'protect' farmers' and ranchers' interests – without mentioning the unhappy fate of the farmed animals themselves. So it's good to know Arian Wallach and the Centre for Compassionate Conservation are not alone in their campaign for kinder ways. Here is an introduction to the Animal Justice Party –
Last month vegan activists stopped the traffic in central Melbourne, while others demonstrated outside abattoirs. The Prime Minister Scott Morrison no less, said their activism was "un-Australian", and bad-mouthed them as "green-collar criminals". 40 of them were arrested. He declared his determination not to let them "pull the rug from under our Aussie farmers," at present an industry worth $30 billion.
May 18th's pivotal election
"Australians will return to the polls this Saturday in what's becoming a pivotal election for animals and the environment. The big question: Will Australia's next prime minister be friend or foe to the nation's animal agriculture industry?"
Veganism in Australia
The country has more than 2 million vegans
Veganism is especially popular among younger voters
44 percent of young people (aged 18–24) think that veganism is "cooler than smoking." (Certainly much healthier!)
The plant-based food industry there is forecasted to grow 58% by 2020
Why things have to change
1.8 billion animals have been killed for food in Australia so far this year and counting
70% of the $30 billion Australian agriculture is 'worth' comes from slaughtered animals
30% comes from milk, wool and eggs (which of course all also mean animal slaughter)
Last year the country exported 2.85 million living animals which suffered cruelly over long journeys in cramped shipping containers
2,400 sheep died of heat stress en route from Perth to the Middle East
Australia's animal agriculture accounts for 11% of national emissions of GHGs
Over 20 year timescale that actually means 50% because methane has a stronger climate forcing effect
"Nearly 85 percent of the population that lives along the coast will be impacted by rising seas, storm surges, flooding, heatwaves, and damage to public infrastructure"
And climate change is already a big problem
Last year Australia's Bureau of Meteorology issued four Special Climate Statements relating to "extreme" and "abnormal" heat, and reported broken climate records
With temperatures around 40°C in December last year, firefighters struggled to contain the 115 bush fires raging across Queensland
Piles of dead fox bats, whose brains literally fried in the heat, covered Sydney
For the last two years the country's rainfall has been 11% below average
With the severe shortage of grazing on the parched land for their cattle, farmers in Western Australia have been struggling to find the money for the cost of feed, at $10,000 dollars per truckload
Farmers have also had to drive round with tankers of water to keep their thirsty cattle alive
In spite of all this, "as far as Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Parliament's pro-farming majority are concerned, animals are no more than the means to a very profitable end for this Parliament." (This attitude is what we are all up against.)
The Animal Justice Party, which doesn't "prioritize a cattle and BBQ culture ahead of a livable climate," but does, like Emma Hurst, prioritise animal rights, certainly has its work cut out.
If you live in Australia please vote this Saturday for the AJP.
"My promise to the animals is this: You have all of me."
For the sake of the animals, please share this post widely. Thank you.
Sign Animals Australia's petition against live exports here and take more actions for the animals here
Australia Swears in Third Vegan Activist to State Parliament – Sentient Media
Australia's 2018 in weather: drought, heat and fire
Eat a Steak, Kill a Lemur, Eat a Chicken, Kill a Parrot
Eight Women Changing the World for Animals Part 2
Why I Love Women, Especially Loud Vegan Women
Isn't it Time to Stop the Killing in the Name of Conservation
Posted in All Things Animal, All Things VeganTagged AmazingVegans, AnimalRights, Animals, AnimalTesting, BigCats, Chickens, ClimateChange, Conservation, Cows, Dairy, Environment, Ethics, FarmedAnimals, Fish, Greenhousegases, InTheNews, Justice, Meat, Mice, PersonsnotProperty, Pigs, Sheep, Sustainability, Vegan, Wildlife, Zoos&Circuses
What Will Brexit Mean for UK Animals & Nature?
December 5, 2018 December 26, 2018 Animalista Untamed4 Comments
"The government's wish for the UK to become a global leader in free trade is not necessarily compatible with its desire to maintain high animal welfare standards," The House of Lords subcommittee on EU Energy and Environment
"A coalition of leading environmental groups says there is a 'significant risk' that British environmental protections will be reduced after Brexit, despite the government's positive rhetoric."
Well, somehow she (and by 'she' I mean the woman who wrote into the 2017 Tory manifesto her intention to repeal the ban on fox hunting. Yes, that 'she') She somehow got her Brexit through the Cabinet, and the 27 EU states have ceremonially signed it off. The next step is a Parliamentary vote. Who knows what will happen there? And as for after the vote, it's anyone's guess.
As the Brexit juggernaut rolls inexorably towards the edge of the cliff, what will it mean for our UK animals and nature?
Here are some disturbing reasons why all animal – and nature-lovers will want to do their damnedest to stop the juggernaut in its tracks, because Brexit is bad news for UK nature and its animals, wherever they are: in labs, in the wild or on farms.
What the EU meant for animal welfare before Brexit
The EU is renowned in the world for its pro-animal stance and high standards of animal welfare. Article 13 of the EU's Lisbon Treaty recognises nonhuman animals as 'sentient beings' for whom suffering and distress should be diminished as much as possible. Last year the UK Tory government rejected Article 13 – a foretaste of things to come?
Check this link for a comprehensive list of the EU's achievements for animals The European Parliament's Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals
Of our current legislation regulating animal welfare and the environment, 80% comes from our membership of the EU.
After Brexit?
Under the Repeal Bill, "All existing EU legislation will be copied across into domestic UK law to ensure a smooth transition on the day after Brexit. The UK Parliament can then 'amend, repeal and improve' individual laws as necessary."
It's increasingly unlikely that all these laws can be adequately translated into UK law without the access we previously had to EU organisations, and against the ticking Brexit clock. "Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary Andrea Leadsom admitted that about a third of environmental laws … could not initially be brought into UK legislation."
And "MPs fear ministers may use the process of adapting those laws to chip away environmental protections." This is a government that favours deregulation to give greater freedom to business. In this respect Theresa May and Donald Trump do indeed hold hands. Nature and animals will be the losers.
Additionally, the Commons Environmental Audit Committee fears EU legislation that does get adopted into UK law could become 'zombie legislation', no longer subject to EU updates and with no regulatory bodies to see it enforced.
The Birds and Habitats Directives which protect wild birds and Britain's most important wildlife and plant habitats will not be adopted into UK law, even if the UK remains in the Single Market. A report on the directives "warns that this could have potentially far-reaching negative consequences for the UK's biodiversity."
Bowing under pressure from farmers, the Tories have already expressed opposition to the EU's strict regulation of GM crops, chemicals and neonicotinoid pesticides – all of which can devastate insect life and the animals that feed on them. At present the European courts and the European Commission enforce these laws. After Brexit there will be nothing to stop deregulation.
The Common Agricultural Policy
No-one denies the CAP needs reforming. Farmers hate it and its complex regulations. But, the CAP provides 60% of farmers' income. And under the 2013 EU "Greening" initiative, farmers are financially incentivised to use their land sustainably, and care for natural resources.
"Under the new [2013 Greening] rules, farmers receiving payments help conserve the environment and contribute to addressing greenhouse emissions by:
making soil & ecosystems more resilient by growing a greater variety of crops
conserving soil carbon & grassland habitats associated with permanent grassland
protecting water & habitats by establishing ecological focus areas."
MPs are calling for a new UK Environmental Protection Act as part of Brexit. The Tory manifesto last year promised to make the UK environment greener after Brexit than EU regulations left it. But it's hard to see that happening. In view of this government's continual capitulation to pressure from the farming community, most notably by rolling out again this year (the 6th) an horrendous cull of a much-loved and protected species, the badger, in 32 areas across 10 counties, ignoring the science, the data, much expert advice, and public opinion … Well, I can't even finish the sentence.
"When a government dares to call its concrete-grey Autumn Budget environmentally "green" because of its initiative to plant a few trees alongside its billion pounds worth of road infrastructures, and when that government can barely agree on whether the cruel practice of fox hunting should be allowed, all hope is lost for the safety and welfare of animals."
Our new trading partners
Failing a decent trade agreement with Brussels, the UK is looking to the USA as a major trading partner. The US his already dictated its terms – no trade unless we eliminate our "unjustified sanitary restrictions".
Not wanting to jeopardise our chances of a deal with America, a possible future lifeline in the event of a bad Brexit, the Home Office "have failed to write-up any legally binding commitments that uphold food hygiene and humane animal treatment post-Brexit. Horror stories of chlorine washed chicken, ractopamine riddled pigs and hormone enhanced beef hitting British shores may be closer than we think."
The infographic below reveals some of the barbarity of the treatment of animals on American factory farms
If you're not already acquainted with US farming methods, let me tell you I doubt you can imagine a worse hell. Check for yourself here.
The Pound
From the Brexit referendum's results day, the pound declined in value. If we get as far as actual Brexit Day, March 29th 2019, we will see the pound plummet, sucking into the country a flood of products from unethically, inhumanely-reared animals . (Not that I will ever concede there is such a thing as humane farming of animals. Apart from anything that happens to them in the short time they are allowed to live, those lives all end in the bloody horror of the slaughterhouse. There are though, degrees of suffering.)
UK farmers will be unable to compete without a significant lowering of their own animal welfare standards, the standards at present required of them by the EU.
Farms in Norfolk and Cambridgeshire – PETA
If this is what it's like now, how much lower can they go?
In addition, in the face of ever-decreasing profit margins farmers will strongly resist legislative attempts to protect the welfare of farmed animals post-Brexit. The animals will be "collateral damage".
Levels of poverty in the UK are already "staggering" according to UN rapporteur Philip Alston. He found 1.5 million of our citizens destitute and 14 million living in poverty. Food bank use reached its highest rate on record this year. Our own Treasury has predicted that under all possible Brexit scenarios we will be worse off in 15 years time. All of which means that people will be looking for the cheapest possible food, however dodgily produced. Concerns for animal welfare will be a luxury many can no longer afford.
EU Immigrants
On many farms between 40 – 58% of the workforce are EU nationals. The labour shortage created by their disappearance will push agricultural workers' wages up, putting further financial pressure on farmers. They will look for any way possible to cut costs, and may well resort to cutting welfare corners to the detriment of the animals.
A staggering 90% of vets working in the UK are EU nationals. The British Veterinary Association warns of a severe shortage of qualified vets post-Brexit. That is not good news for any UK animal.
After Brexit, because of the change in regulations for trading with Europe, more not fewer Official Vets will be needed to supervise imports and exports and sign health certificates for live animals. Doesn't this acute shortage of properly qualified personnel mean that whatever animal protections there are supposedly in place, are going to pass by unchecked and unenforced?
"Deregulating trade while curbing immigration would lead to a sharp decline in animal welfare. When immigration is curbed and access to dedicated workers is stifled, the situation for the UK's voiceless and defenceless creatures is bleak."
Live exports
Last year Michael Gove claimed that the EU was holding us back from banning live exports.
Would a Tory government fly in the face of its supporters in the farming community to enforce such a ban? Even if they did, which seems highly unlikely, now 'free' of EU regulations the UK would be subject to World Trade Organisation rules instead. And they do not allow for such a ban. If you voted for Brexit hoping to see an end to this cruel trade, I'm sorry to disappoint.
Cruelty Free International are worried that "a no-deal Brexit could mean that the UK would need to carry out the same animal tests for chemical registration as the EU. This would mean twice as many animals would suffer. If existing EU animal-test data is not shared with the UK, then the same animal tests would have to be carried out again by the UK for the same information."
At a time when without Brexit the number of laboratory procedures continues to rise, that just does not bear thinking about. NatureWatch echoes CFI's concerns and urges the government "to ensure that re-testing does not take place and that existing testing data can be used in the UK."
The present EU pet passport system is being extensively abused by criminal gangs smuggling puppies with fake passports into the UK and other countries. The government has pledged to stamp out this cruel trade. Perhaps the only good news to come out of Brexit. Although…
In all the years we have been an EU member state, the government could have eliminated this problem anyway with better UK border checks. Plus, it's hard to imagine this will be a high priority for the Tories in a post-Brexit Britain.
One final reason to reject May's Brexit on behalf of our animals
Many animal advocacy organisations are either already working on a Europe-wide basis, or are starting to join forces with their european counterparts.
Surely we are stronger together for the animals?
Look at these EU-wide groups: Eurobadger, Eurogroup for Animals, the European Enforcement Network of Animal Welfare Lawyers and Commissioners and the vitally important aforementioned European Parliament's Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals
All in all, if the animals had a voice and were given a vote, I feel certain the result would be – Remain.
Further reading from the Ecologist and the UK Centre for Animal Law's Brexit Manifesto
We Encourage Everyone who Cares about Animals to Vote Remain
Eurobarometer 2016 Proves EU Citizens Overwhelming Support for Animal Welfare
The Fight to Protect Badgers Moves to Europe
Poll: Would Brexit be the best thing for Europe's wildlife?
EU Animals Face Torture & Abuse During Live Exports
Brexit and the future of animal welfare
Post-Brexit trade deals 'threaten UK's animal welfare standards'
What are the key issues for the Brexit negotiations?
New Environmental Act needed after Brexit
European Commission Agriculture and Rural Development
Could no-deal Brexit mean more UK animal tests?
Brexit: Does the EU stop the UK improving animal welfare?
Britain risks losing green protections after Brexit
Posted in All Things AnimalTagged Animals, AnimalTesting, AnimalWelfare, Badgers, Bees, Biodiversity, Birds, Chickens, CompanionAnimals, Cows, Environment, Europe, FactoryFarming, FarmedAnimals, Hunting, InTheNews, Meat, Pigs, Sustainability, Wildlife
Why on Earth Are We STILL Testing on Animals?
November 30, 2018 December 19, 2018 Animalista Untamed3 Comments
If you were born without a heart and simply didn't care about the horrors perpetrated on animals in laboratories all over the world, testing drugs intended for human use on animals is still a very bad idea.
"In the contentious world of animal research, one question surfaces time and again: how useful are animal experiments as a way to prepare for trials of medical treatments in humans? The issue is crucial, as public opinion is behind animal research only if it helps develop better drugs."
How did animal testing even become a thing?
Bizarrely, it's a backlash from experiments performed by the Nazis. "Decades ago, in response to horrific medical research conducted by Nazis on prisoners, Western medicine stepped back from human clinical trials and required that animal-based tests occur before people could be exposed to new drugs or treatments." – Professor Lisa Kramer.
It's so shocking to think that our decision to perform brutal experiments on other animals actually springs from a reaction to Nazi brutality. And that it's not only completely taken for granted and flourishing today, but still expanding at an alarming rate. A PETA study presented to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2015 showed a staggering 72% increase in 15 years in the number of animals used in US labs. The UK saw a leap from the 1995 figure of 1.41 million to 4.12 million in 2013, that's triple in 18 years. Medical experimentation and drug testing too barbaric even to think of inflicting on human beings, but ok for our surrogates, the nonhuman animals.
(And all the while the numbers rise, the two respective governments continue to pay lip service to the 3Rs doctrine – Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement. Write your MP your concerns about the use of the animals in labs, and I'll dance naked in Trafalgar Square if you don't get a response that declares how hard the government is working to implement the 3Rs. 😡)
Surprisingly, Lisa Kramer, University of Toronto, co-author with Dr Ray Greek of a peer-reviewed article examining the controversial question of animal testing, is not a professor of science, medicine or ethics as you might expect, but a professor of finance. Why finance?
Because animal testing makes no business sense.
Ethical arguments against animal testing are readily dismissed by scientists as being just a matter of opinion. Medical researchers claim that ethics require we put humans first, and persuade the public that using animals may be unpalatable but is a necessary evil if we wish to save human lives.
Kramer and Greek say that is a false choice. They not only demonstrate that testing on animals is in fact – looked at purely from the financial angle – an expensive waste, but that more cost-effective and reliable alternatives already exist.
The rationale for this approach is, when those at the top can't be swayed by ethical arguments, highlighting that the animal research model makes for very bad economics will surely make them sit up in their seats and take note. Money talks.
So leaving entirely aside ethical issues of animal rights and animal welfare, the paper's co-authors demonstrate that assuming other species' response to drugs can accurately predict the human response is a big mistake. The pair cite "hundreds of medical studies published in prestigious journals such as Nature, Science, and The New England Journal of Medicine to show that animal models are not predictive of human responses to drugs and disease."
Here are just a few examples of those hundreds of drugs that were deemed both effective and safe in animal tests:
Fen-phen – a diet drug recalled after causing serious heart-valve failure in 30% of patients
Thalidomide prescribed for nausea in pregnancy – infants born with severe abnormalities
Vioxx, an anti-inflammatory – taken by 80 million people until it was discovered it caused heart attacks and strokes
Rezulin – caused liver failure. Many people died
Propulsid – life-threatening heart rhythm abnormalities. Again, many died
TGN1412 to treat cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and multiple sclerosis – caused multiple organ failure at doses 500 times lower than had been used in animal studies
In 2012 Van Meer and his colleagues decided to take a look at this from the other end of the telescope. They "retrospectively studied whether serious adverse drug reactions in humans could have been identified using animal models prior to the release of various drugs. They evaluated drugs currently on the market and discovered that only 19 percent of 93 serious adverse drug reactions were seen in animals."
Who, apart from the animals, are the losers?
The answer is all of us. Everyone who ever needs or administers medical treatments. And perhaps, those genuinely dedicated to finding cures.
Patients obviously suffer when drugs pronounced safe from animal trials cause harm and sometimes kill.
They also suffer when drugs that seemed to work in animals, don't work for them. "Researchers have cured cancer in mice countless times, and yet there remains no cure for humans. Likewise, about a hundred vaccines are effective against HIV-like viruses in animals but none work in humans."
Then there are useful drugs that are erroneously consigned to the bin because they don't work on animals. For example, "It took decades and countless deaths before the therapeutic value of penicillin and the polio vaccine were recognized. An unknowable number of other drugs may never be discovered if we continue down this … path" of putting our reliance on animal trials.
"In a comparison between animal-based methods and a purely random method, such as flipping a coin, you'd be better off relying on the coin flip."
And unbelievably, large numbers of animals bred for the labs are never even used, just wasted. A tragic waste of individual lives, but as at the moment we're only looking at the finances not the animals, a profligate waste of money too.
Let's not forget the taxpayer's place among the losers from mandatory animal testing, since it's the taxpayer that is ultimately footing the bill for the drugs prescribed by the health service. A bill which came in at the unthinkable sum of £20 billion for the NHS last year.
And if we must feel sorry for them, even the shareholders of the pharmaceutical companies themselves are being short-changed by this flawed research model.
Yet vast sums continue to be spent on animal research. Why?
First because currently our law demands that all drugs be tested on animals before they can be licensed for human use. The law needs to change to make drug testing safer, cheaper and more effective (still leaving aside the issue of animal rights and animal suffering.)
Second, there are those who have a strong financial interest in maintaining the status quo and blocking change: research establishments, scientists, regulators, laboratory inspectors and those responsible for granting licences. As for the companies that breed, sell, and ship nonhuman animal subjects to the labs, and suppliers of equipment for the research, animal testing is a hugely profitable business.
Don't be fooled by those with vested interests who "point only to success stories where life-saving drugs have emerged from animal-based research. Of course, bad models can accidentally produce right answers. Famously, stopped clocks are right twice a day, but we don't use them to keep time."
Not only is animal testing expensive, unreliable, unsafe and wasteful, it is also unnecessary.
New technologies that provide alternatives are emerging all the time. Micro-dosing, organs-on-a-chip, computer modelling, human-patient simulators, computerised patient-drug databases and virtual drug trials, stem cell and genetic testing, MRIs and CT scans – all already available.
At best testing on animals is a scandalous waste of money. At worst it is deadly – to them certainly, but also to us.
If you do have a heart, and want a glimpse of why regulations intended to safeguard the welfare of lab animals are not the answer, watch this short video.
Check in case your favourite health charity is funding cruel experiments on animals here
ICYMT Please sign and share petitions widely:
Urge the Government to Commit to Ending All Experiments on Animals – UK citizens
Stop lost, stray or abandoned dogs from being sold to labs – anyone can sign
Mandatory Alternatives Petition – U.S. citizens only
Click here to ask the Royal Veterinary College to stop testing on animals
Horrific laboratory deaths described in annual report. Order a mouse-shaped postcard to send to your MP
Each year inside British laboratories, more than 4 million animals are experimented on. Every 8 seconds, one animal dies. Find out how to help stop this here
Updates 11th December 2018
Dog research at U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs gets formal review
Newly discovered pain pathway may help explain why animal tests fail to reveal the best painkillers
Why most animal models are bound to fail
It's time to stop testing drugs on animals and start using better, more modern methods
Number of animal experiments continues to rise in UK
Alternatives to animal testing
An Insufferable Business: Ethics, Nonhuman Animals and Biomedical Experiments
When Money Speaks Louder Than Compassion
The True Cost of New Drugs
Things About to Get a Whole Lot Worse for Animals in US Labs
Animal-Cruelty-Free testing methods will be tested by the US Food & Drug Administration
Throwing Wide the Window on Animal Testing – A Blessing or a Curse?
Taking the Lid Off Animal Research Labs – Don't Worry, It's All Good
New Official Roadmap to Save Millions of Lives in US Labs
Posted in All Things Animal, All Things VeganTagged AnimalRights, AnimalTesting, AnimalWelfare, Ethics, FoodforThought, Health&Medicine, Primates
New Official Roadmap to Save Millions of Animals in US Labs
February 14, 2018 February 26, 2018 Animalista Untamed5 Comments
"We hope to see government agencies use this roadmap to expedite the acceptance of robust testing approaches that will better protect human health and save animals from suffering and dying in toxicity tests" PETA
Less than one month ago, to say the outlook for animals in US laboratories was looking even grimmer than before, is an understatement.
In line with the present administration's passion for deregulation, the USDA, the NIH and the FDA, who between them oversee the majority of testing on animals, are said to be working together to reduce the "administrative burden" on the researchers and institutions that use animals.
What's more, according to the Humane Society, the researchers themselves are actively pushing proposals to"try to stifle transparency, and make sure their interests are met and not the animals.'"
The two most worrying recommendations from the researchers to the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare's consultation are:-
Abolishing the requirement to trawl the literature for alternatives to animal testing
Calling on the White House "to create a new advisory panel made up of animal researchers"
Just a week or two later, we get news that appears to be taking the fate of animals in labs in a much happier and exactly opposite direction:
The Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), a government committee composed of representatives from 16 U.S. federal regulatory and research agencies, published its new roadmap to "facilitate the development of toxicological testing methods that replace, reduce, or refine the use of animals."
Well yes, our gut reaction is bitter laughter – how many times have we heard the top brass trot out the 3 Rs with little or no evidence of their implementation on the ground.
But, it is the first strategic plan the agency has put forward in two decades, and so far, so good. This is what the National Institutes for Health has to say:
"The roadmap was developed to guide the application of new technologies, such as high-throughput screening, tissue chips, and computational models, to toxicity testing of chemicals and medical products.
"The roadmap describes three strategic goals required for progress:-
Connecting new test method developers with end users.
Promoting flexible approaches for establishing confidence in new methods.
Encourage the adoption of new methods by federal agencies and regulated industries once validated.
"To continue this process, ICCVAM is sponsoring a session on the roadmap at the Society of Toxicology meeting in March, and several other scientific meetings in the spring."
Clearly, even if the researchers get their way and future deregulation means they are no longer required to "trawl the literature for alternatives to animal testing", the NIH is actively seeking to promote and encourage the use of the many alternatives now available.
Of course the proof of the pudding …. We will have to wait to see which way this tug of war between the roadmap and deregulation will go. Hopefully, the negative effects of any deregulation will swiftly be overtaken not just by the impetus the roadmap is going to provide, but by an economic imperative. As technology continues to advance and get cheaper (using animals in labs is a very costly business, in dollars as well as lives) we will see more cost-effective, more reliable, and above all more humane methods of testing winning the day.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has had significant input to the new roadmap. The charity has its own Regulatory Testing Department headed by Jessica Sandler, a specialist in biological and chemical hazards for formerly working for the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration. She now has a number of highly qualified staff working alongside her dedicated to saving the lives of millions of animals.
Read some of their achievements here
Help animals in US labs
If you are a US citizen, have your say in the USDA's consultation process about the lowering of inspection standards for animals in labs here You have until March 21st to speak up for animals.
Petitions:- if you haven't signed them already. If you have, please share.
Take Action here US citizens only
LOTS of petitions by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine here. Everyone can sign
Experimenters Want to Gut Protections for Animals in Labs. You Can Fight Back here (Everyone)
NEAVS' petition to end cosmetics testing on animals in the US, sign here (US citizens only)
Sign up for NEAVS' news and action alerts here
Sign up for PETA's news and action alerts here
Follow the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) on Facebook and Twitter
Yesterday, February 13th 2018, the UK labour Party unveiled its 50-point plan for animal welfare, which includes "a review of all animal testing with a view to improving practice, limiting animal suffering and increasing transparency." Now all we need is to get them into power! HuffPost
Progress! Feds Have a New Roadmap to Reducing Experiments on Animals
Roadmap to guide progress toward replacing animal use in toxicty testing
Posted in All Things AnimalTagged AnimalRights, AnimalTesting, AnimalWelfare, Health&Medicine
High Schools Across China Are Now Offering Animal Welfare Courses!
January 31, 2018 March 8, 2018 Animalista Untamed7 Comments
"In a long due yet still impressive act of growth, the Chinese Ministry of Education has added an animal welfare course for high schools and students."
This is MAJOR good news, so welcome after everything anti-animal and anti-nature emanating from the other side of the Pacific in the USA, a country which is travelling back into the dark ages under the present administration.
What makes the news even more exciting is that China has a population of 1.411 billion¹, the largest of any country in the world. And approximately 30% of them are aged between 0 – 24 years². That is a lot of young people, and they will be the ones to shape the country's future.
Can we hope this is a turning point in Chinese attitudes towards animals and Nature? There have been some exciting trends in the last couple of years –
Just last week at a media event in Beijing, China announced it will host the 11th World Wilderness Congress (Wild11) in 2019
In 2016 the Chinese government formulated a vision to become the ecological civilization of the 21st century
Also in 2016, this vast country – which accompanying its growing affluence had seen an off-the-scale increase in demand for meat and diary in the last couple of decades – announced its plan to cut meat consumption by 50% – a move warmly welcomed by environmentalists and animal-lovers alike
And in 2017, then the market for 70% of ivory, China announced its ban on the ivory trade
Now "China's State Oceanic Administration (SOA) earlier this month announced it will dramatically curb commercial development of coastal wetlands. "I've never heard of anything quite so monumental," says Nicola Crockford of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds U.K., which has worked to protect habitat of migratory birds in China and elsewhere."
Does China need to keep making changes? It so does. In spite of there being a growing animal advocacy movement in recent years, the country and its people at large still have a reputation for horrific cruelty to animals.
Bear bile farming
Bears are kept in cages sometimes so small they cannot stand up or turn around in them. Bile is extracted from the living bear's gallbladder as an ingredient for traditional Chinese medicine. Most of the bears are starved and dehydrated and suffer from multiple diseases and malignant tumours that end up killing them.
Are cruelly slaughtered for their meat. Often they are stolen pets. They suffer broken limbs being transported vast differences without food or water to meat markets.
Animal in Zoos
Kept in small barren cages. Some such as elephants in chains. Live (and terrified) hens, cows, donkeys and pigs are dropped into the enclosure of lions and tigers for the entertainment of the crowds. The animals are often cruelly broken by trainers to force them to perform. Tigers and lions have their teeth ripped and claws ripped out. Babies are removed from their mothers for lucrative photo ops.
Donkeys for Ejaio
Donkeys hit with sledgehammers before having their throats slit. Then skinned. Their skins are rendered down into ejaio, a gelatin considered to be a cure for all ills in traditional Chinese medicine.
Illegal imports of endangered animal parts in huge quantities from around the world
Animals Used in Science
Even now Chinese scientists have announced their breakthrough cloning of 2 macaques. They and further cloned monkeys will be used for animal testing. Scientists have also perfected the technology for creating the human/pig hybrid – 'incubating' human hearts in pigs. The intention is to use pigs to produce a regular supply for human heart transplants.
At this point China has no kind of animal welfare laws in place. There is much that needs to change if we are to credit the country with any sense of humanity towards nonhuman animals. So, if these Animal Welfare classes can open up Chinese youth to a newfound empathy with and compassion for their fellow creatures, we can hope for some big changes in the not-too-distant-future. For once, some animal news to get excited about!
(The cover photo is there simply because I couldn't resist its absolute gorgeousness. Hopefully the endangered red panda will eventually be a beneficiary of this step forward in the education of Chinese children.)
China, of course is scarcely the only culprit treating animals with scant regard for their welfare. It has to be said that even in countries like the UK and the US with long established animal protection laws, there are still so many ways both domesticated animals and wildlife experience cruelty at human hands.
8th March 2018 Massive new panda national park in China will try to save the iconic species
¹Demographics of China
².Indexmundi
High Schools Across China Are Now Offering Animal Welfare Courses! – One Green PlanetOne Green Planet
Facts about Cruelty to Animals in Asia
China moves to protect coastal wetlands used by migratory birds
World First – China's Bird Airport
Hands Clasped Across the River for Two Big Cats
The Next Extinction – Donkeys??
Posted in All Things AnimalTagged AnimalTesting, AnimalWelfare, Bears, BigCats, Cats, China, CompanionAnimals, Compassion, Cows, Dairy, Dogs, Endangered, Environment, Health&Medicine, Hens, Horses&Donkeys, InTheNews, Meat, Pigs, Primates, ReverenceforLife, Wildlife, Zoos&Circuses
January 22, 2018 Animalista Untamed6 Comments
"A key reason animals are still used so widely is money. Vivisection is very big business. The pharmaceutical industry is the most profitable industry in the world and its interests are strongly protected by governments. Animal experiments are in the industry's interests because they can be used to market their products more quickly and – most importantly – they provide a legal defence for the company when people are injured or killed by ADRs [adverse drug reactions]. They will argue that, having carried out the animal tests, no blame can be laid at their door." – Animal Aid
Animal advocates – up against "the most profitable industry in the world" – that is some formidable foe. Faunalytics Fundamentals aims to arm us for the fight with the best and latest data from the USA on what people think about the issue of animal research; and on the millions of animals that suffer distress, harm and death in labs every year, and the millions more lined up to replace them. (It's safe to read on – there are no graphic images or descriptions here. They are important, but I leave that to others.)
MEET THE ANIMALS
With their complex thoughts and intricate social structures, primates are the nonhuman animals most like humans. Good reasons not to use them in labs one would think, but unfortunately the very reasons they are used
Docile, friendly, cooperative, eager to please. Makes them 'perfect' lab subjects
Easily handled gentle animals that 'purr' when they are happy
Empathetic and altruistic – they've been seen to risk themselves to save cage-mates in captivity
While these are the most commonly used in labs, cats, birds, fish, frogs, rabbits, pigs, horses, cows, sheep, goats are unhappy lab residents too.
"Animals live rich and complex lives" and the animals used in labs are each "unique, sentient, and deserving of their rights to life and freedom."
Over time (between 2008 – 2016) there has been a welcome decline in the US in the percentage of people agreeing to the statement, "Animal research is necessary for medical advancement" – a drop from 55% to 45%.
In general, people don't want to see animal testing for cosmetics and personal care products, but many are still ready to believe it is necessary if it is said to be for the purpose of improving or saving human lives. There's clearly much room here for raising awareness.
Changing public perceptions is vital – just think, for example of good-hearted people donating to medical charities that fund animal research, completely unaware of what is happening in the labs.
BREEDING & TRANSPORT
This is where the tragic story begins. Most are born in large breeding facilities and then shipped to the labs. While some 'suppliers' are relatively well-regulated, many are not. The graphic below shows the picture in Southeast Asia. Macaques and humans share 93% of their genes. Substitute 'humans' in the infographic below for 'macaques' to sense the true horror of what is happening.
IN THE LABORATORY
While it is impossible to know exact numbers of animals bred for the labs and used in experiments, best estimates put it at 115 – 127 million worldwide.
As the rats and mice, fishes, birds, insects and invertebrates are not covered by the US's Animal Welfare Act, not only are researchers not required to keep statistics for them, there are also next to no protections for them, or official controls, or oversight governing their use. There are no witnesses to their suffering but the perpetrators themselves.
The HSUS has put together an interactive map of testing facilities in the US – you will be shocked to see how many there are. And these are ONLY those covered by the Animal Welfare Act, so there are many many more not identified. You will not readily happen across one when you're out and about. They are invariably well-concealed. (The same here in the UK. There used to be one only a mile from my home. I never knew it was there until after it ceased to function. It was literally underground – entirely invisible to passers-by.)
Dissection in schools may not have a direct connection with the powerful pharmaceutical industry, but it's certainly a channel for insidious conditioning to the supposed necessity of using animals in research. So in that sense, schools are doing the pharmaceuticals' dirty work for them.
Luckily many students, rightly revolted at being made to cut up animals, are demanding alternatives. Some schools have responded by creating "student choice policies" which allow students to opt out of dissection for ethical reasons. So far 18 states and the District of Columbia have such policies in place – a small minority. Unfortunately, even where the option is in place, 53% of teachers aren't aware of it, neither are 38% of students. Interesting that students are more clued up than their teachers – clearly a great opportunity here too for advocacy and raising awareness.
As if ethical arguments were not enough, there is an overwhelming practical argument against testing on animals – and that is, its ineffectiveness.
Of about 100 vaccines that worked against HIV-like animal viruses – NONE prevented HIV in humans
Of approx, 1000 drugs effective for neuroprotection in animals – NONE worked in humans
9 OUT OF 10 DRUGS FAIL because they cannot predict how they will affect humans
ONLY between 0% and 5% of drugs tested on animals are considered fit for human use
A meta-study found the researchers OVERESTIMATE BY 30% the probability that treatments work, because negative results are often not published
"Animal studies are done for legal reasons and not for scientific reasons. The predictive value of such studies for man is often meaningless." – Dr James Gallagher, Director of Medical Research Lederle Laboratories
Even if you were one of those people who believed testing on nonhuman animals was justified for human benefit, would you not grieve for all those millions of animals that suffered and died for NOTHING?
There are many alternatives to animal research, and many more being developed.
The infographic shows just a few. FRAME, INTERNICHE, and Animalearn are some of the organisations pioneering and promoting alternatives in research and education.
WHAT WE CAN DRAW FROM THIS TO BETTER ADVOCATE FOR ANIMALS
It has to be about raising awareness – arming ourselves with the facts and getting them out there. As we've seen from AnimalTest Info and the Lab Animal Tour, those invested in testing on animals are expert at presenting the public with a highly-sanitised picture of their work. They also have no conscience about employing emotional blackmail – "What if it was your son/daughter with leukaemia/cerebral palsy/kidney disease?" Neatly sidestepping all other objections to research conducted on animals such as its ineffectiveness and the availability of better alternatives.
WHERE WE CAN LOOK FOR MORE INFORMATION & SUPPORT
In the UK
Animal Aid comprehensively covers abuse of animals in the name of science. We can find out everything we need to know here. We can order an End Animal Experiments action pack here
NEAVS has a brilliant page of FAQs. We can arm ourselves with all the answers we need in our advocacy for the millions of animals suffering in labs. There is also a useful list of other practical ways we can help end vivisection.
Sign petition to tell Congress to Reintroduce The Humane Cosmetics Act 2017
and petition to stop US Fish & Wildlife Service from Making Another Mistake
and petition to stop Air France Transporting Monkeys to Their Deaths
Support SAEN, (Stop Animal Exploitation Now) founded to "force an end to animal abuse in laboratories"
Fundamentals: Animal Research
See all Faunalytics' sources here
Things About to Get a Whole Lot Worse for Animals in US Labs (I would urge to you to read the comment on this post from Ahimsa Forever. It provides deeper insight into the dark corners of animal research in the US)
Posted in All Things AnimalTagged AnimalRights, AnimalTesting, Birds, Cats, Compassion, Cows, Dogs, Ethics, Fish, Goats, Health&Medicine, Horses&Donkeys, Mice, Pigs, Rabbits, Sheep
January 18, 2018 March 6, 2018 Animalista Untamed10 Comments
US researchers are "trying to stifle transparency, and make sure that their interests are met and not the animals'"
Kathleen Conlee of the HSUS
It seems like things are about to get a whole lot worse for the millions of unfortunate animals being tested on in US labs. The Trump administration has a passion for deregulation, unaware (if we're feeling generous) or not caring (if we're brutally honest) that regulations were put in place to begin with to provide important legal protections – protections for the environment, for drinking water, for clean air, for safe food, for national parks, for indigenous sacred places etc. And for animals.
The 21st Century Cures Act
To say the first year of the new presidency has kept the newsmen and women busy is an understatement. Trump and the GOP have attempted, and sometimes succeeded, in getting through Congress some very controversial and retrograde bills. But the 21st Century Cures Act Congress passed last month appears to have attracted little press attention.
The Act "is designed to help accelerate medical product development and bring new innovations and advances to patients who need them faster and more efficiently." So far so good. What's not to like? But the devil is in the detail. One provision of the Act calls on the USDA, the NIH and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to work together to reduce the "administrative burden" on the researchers and institutions that use animals. Under those two innocuous words lie a worrying threat to lab animals in the USA.
The mishmash that is the current US animal-testing legislation
Admitted, the rules around animal testing are at present quite the mishmash. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) oversees tests on rabbits and larger mammals (800,000 animals in 2016). The National Institutes of Health (NIH) oversees testing on rats, mice and birds – these animals are considered so unimportant that no statistics about them are required to be recorded. Then there are privately-funded animal studies, already pretty much under the regulation-radar.
What's bugging the scientists
Animal-testing scientists and their universities have grumbled for years about what they see as tedious and time-wasting red tape, the paperwork they are required to complete, and the regulations they are required to adhere to. Now the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and three other groups have joined forces in a new report to demand –
"Moving all oversight to a single agency, conducting less frequent lab inspections, and giving researchers greater say in crafting new rules"
Can you hear the alarm bells ringing? Well, you are not alone. Kathleen Conlee of the Humane Society (HSUS) says, "It's clear this would negatively impact animal welfare."
These are the present legal requirements scientists find so irksome:-
Animal facilities must be inspected by university committees every 6 months
Test protocols must be reviewed by the universities every year
Researchers must submit their protocols long before they get grants, and need to complete and resubmit more paperwork if the protocols change
Worst of all as far as the scientists are concerned, they are required to check the literature for "less invasive alternatives" before opting to test on animals
What the scientists want
So this is what the scientists are calling for:-
Animal facility inspections once a year instead of every 6 months
Protocol reviews reduced to every 3 years
Doing away with annual site inspections by government officials. Instead focusing only on facilities with a poor track record
Exempting certain types of experiments from full review by the university committees
"The goal", says Sally Thompson-Iritani, overseer of animal research at the University of Washington, "is getting scientists back to the bench doing their research, and animal care specialists getting back to their animals." (It's unclear what she means by "animal care specialists." Animal care and animal testing are two concepts troublesome to reconcile.)
And there's worse
I haven't yet mentioned the two most disquieting of the animal-testing scientists' proposals:-
Less than a year ago, the company Emulate was proud to announce its new partnership with the FDA to test its organ-chips, a great breakthrough. These organs-on-a-chip have the potential to "eliminate the need to test drugs or cosmetics on animals." Empty the labs, in other words. How perfect would that be. Apparently the FDA is still committed to this venture. On its website: "FDA has research and development efforts underway to reduce the need for animal testing and to work toward replacement of animal testing."
How this endeavour will fare going forward if the end-users, the researchers, get their way, who knows. Proposal No.1 is as perverse as it is retrograde and horrifying.
And as for No.2, who will there be to speak for the animals?
Until December 2018
The Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare has received the animal-testers' proposals, and has until the December 2018 deadline to present recommendations that comply with Congress's call to cut the red tape.
Which means we who care about the plight of those millions suffering in US labs have until then to support every possible campaign that is speaking up for the animals.
Update from PETA
"The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is considering a move that would let the agency shirk its responsibility to ensure that laboratories are complying with the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). If this happens, laboratories and other animal-abusing industries—including puppy mills, circuses, and roadside zoos—could be allowed to use private, industry-friendly groups to inspect their facilities, leading to even more suffering for animals imprisoned in them and even less transparency."
Or here, everyone
Source: United States should dramatically retool animal research rules, groups say | Science | AAAS
Posted in All Things AnimalTagged AnimalRights, AnimalTesting, Birds, Health&Medicine, Mice, PersonsnotProperty, Rabbits
Taking the Lid Off Animal Research Labs -Don't Worry, It's All Good
January 12, 2018 Animalista Untamed10 Comments
If I said to you, "You are invited inside an animal research lab, free to venture where you will on an open access, 360-degree, street-view-style virtual tour," what would you think?
Would you even want to – even in the interests of arming yourself with the facts? What if I added, "Don't worry, there is absolutely nothing here to upset you"? Would you be ready to believe me and give it a go?
Well, it's for real – times 4. Four animal testing facilities in the UK opened up their doors and welcomed in the film crew of the Lab Animal Tour. And so with this groundbreaking initiative, you and I, anyone and his aunt can now nosey around inside the labs to our heart's content. Just click on the link.
I promise you will be impressed and reassured. It's all gleaming and spotless and the animals are so well looked after – not that you will see that much of them. But when you do, they are looking healthy and well-fed, with clean dry bedding and constant access to water. Their pens or cages for the most part are of a 'decent' size, you might think. And they are not being kept in isolation. The very worst I saw was an apparently willing and calm rhesus macaque monkey placed in some contraption designed to keep him/her immobilised while being slid into an MRI machine. Not too terrible, one might consider.
What's more, there are little videos embedded in the tour, with researchers or animal-carers explaining what they are doing and why. And it's all very nice, clean and reasonable, and entirely devoid of anything remotely cruel or bloody.
Except….
Notably and significantly, certain rooms on our virtual tour such as the operating theatre, the post-mortem suite and the intensive care unit are displayed with no animal presence. We only get to view these rooms empty, in all their nice, shiny, glass and steel clinical cleanliness. But just the names of those rooms must surely sound alarm bells.
The Lab Animal Tour, a commendable project in open access and transparency? Open access yes. Transparency no. As you may have worked out by now, my take on the Lab Animal Tour is more than a little sceptical. The Lab Animal Tour is no better than a PR exercise, a carefully sanitised piece of propaganda on behalf of those who have no interest in animal testing coming to an end.
So who created the tour? And how is it funded?
It's all the work of an organisation called Understanding Animal Research (UAR), a misleadingly innocuous title. Who are they? "A not-for-profit organisation that explains why animals are used in medical and scientific research. We aim to achieve a broad understanding of the humane use of animals in medical, veterinary, scientific and environmental research in the UK. We are funded by our members who include universities, professional societies, industry and charities."
In other words, the force behind the Lab Animal Tour is none other than the designated spokesbody for the researchers themselves. Faultless PR is UAR's remit, not impartiality.
Understanding Animal Research's website purports to tell you everything you need to know about animal research in the UK. This is a flavour of their list of 'Myths' we the public have 'erroneously' swallowed about the use of animals in medical research – which they are at pains to debunk:
Research on animals is not relevant to people because animals are different from people
Systematic reviews demonstrate that animal studies are meaningless for human health
There is an endless list of drugs that have to be withdrawn because of side effects, and these side effects are a major cause of hospital deaths
Many pointless, unnecessary experiments are carried out
Researchers do not care about the wellbeing of laboratory animals
Laboratory animals suffer great pain and distress
How could we be so stupid as to believe such nonsense! There are lots more supposed 'myths' listed on this page. If you want to look at them and see the 'facts' with which the organisation puts us straight on our delusions, click here
Animal Aid though, paints a very different picture
The difference is that Animal Aid (with assistance from PETA) is courageously uncovering the truth animal researchers are at such pains to conceal. UAR's carefully-edited version of life in the lab is designed to reassure a public only too happy to believe that testing on animals is both necessary and humane. After all, which would you prefer to be true: that animals suffer, or that everything is fine?
According to Animal Aid,"Each year inside British laboratories, around 4 million animals are experimented on. Every 8 seconds, one animal dies." No mention of that in the Lab Animal Tour. And these are just some of the unhappy animals making up that number, everyone a person not a statistic
There's a short video on Animal Aid's website, "This will make you rethink animal experiments", which I chose not to watch. So just to warn you, I can't vouch for how graphic it is. Their Animal Experiments section is packed with impeccably resourced information. And another important fact you won't discover on the Lab Animal Tour is that animals are being abused daily, not just for 'vital' medical research, but also for testing:-
Product safety – agricultural and industrial chemicals, food additives, paints, and household cleaning products
Warfare – effects of injury, shooting, radiation, chemical poisoning and gases
Pain analysis I won't list the tortures animals are subjected to for this purpose. Refer to the Animal Aid website if you really want to know
Psychology – sounds innocent enough, but ditto the above
Animal Aid also tells us that hundreds of thousands of genetically modified animals are specially bred every year, mostly mice. "And for every GM mouse used in an experiment, hundreds more die or are killed, either because they are surplus to requirements, because they fail to exhibit the desired genetic alteration or because they are born with other, unintended malformations." Another unpalatable fact that the Lab Animal Tour and UAR avoid mentioning.
UAR and their Lab Animal Tour/Animal Aid – diametrically apposed to one another
'Have no truck with Animal Aid; it is the same lunatic animal rights brigade in a new package. Society must leave these dangerous fools behind'
That strongly worded statement appears on UAR's website, on a page called Life Stories – ordinary people bearing witness to how animal testing "has changed their lives for the better."
It's unlikely any of us have ever heard of David Dade, the man who made that statement, and one whose 'Life Story' is featured. This unfortunate man has both parents suffering from cancer, and his son from diabetes. Understandable then that he's willing to provide a testimonial for a website promoting the use of nonhuman animals in medical research.
He's possibly unaware of what a glance at Animal Aid's website would tell him: the large and growing number of reliable alternative methods – such as organs on a chip, and the use of human tissue – that can make animal testing a bad dream of the past.
The moral of the story?
It has to be, looking out for what we are not shown, not told. People who have something to gain by using animals, in whatever way, are always expert at putting a gloss on their activities. Think McDonald's and their ads with kids and animals frolicking happily together on a picture-perfect farm.
Compared with other users of nonhuman animals though, the Lab Animal Tour, UAR and lab animal researchers in general have an additional and potent weapon up their sleeve. They claim to have moral right on their side. No-one is morally obliged to eat meat, or take a trip to the zoo. But who, they say, could be so callous as to deny those suffering from crippling diseases the hope of a cure? That is the way subjecting unwilling victims to horrific, and sometimes fatal procedures is justified.
Click here for Animal Aid's useful pdf document about human tissue donation (to donate your tissue you don't have to die first!)
To ensure your charitable giving does not help fund research on animals click here for a comprehensive list of testing and non-testing charities.
Sign up to receive Animal Aid's e-newsletter here
Check out the Humane Research Trust
And Animal Free Research UK
Source New project gives you 360-degree, Open Street-like view into animal research labs
The Punk Rocker with a Snake Venom Habit – An Unexpected Hero for Animals?
Animal cruelty-free testing methods will be tested by U.S. Food & Drug Administration
Because THEY Are Worth It
Ten Fascinating Way Technology is Saving Animals
Posted in All Things AnimalTagged AnimalRights, AnimalTesting, Birds, Cats, Chickens, Dogs, Ethics, Health&Medicine, Hens, Horses&Donkeys, PersonsnotProperty, Primates, Rabbits


"Students are expected to refrain from being in the presence of others who are violating school policies. Students knowingly continuing in the presence of a violation will be held accountable for their actions even if they are not participating in prohibited conduct. This includes, but is not limited to, students who are in the presence of others using alcohol, illegal drugs, or misused substances, even if they are not using these substances themselves. Students are expected to report promptly any conduct or activity posing a danger to the community or to its members.
While no concrete plan yet exists, students have reported instances of certain members of the MSMS staff speaking on the possibility of this policy being implemented in the near future, possibly even next year. While the idea of this type of policy may seem attractive to the administration in an attempt to prevent any rule-breaking by the student body, we believe that the administration must consider the many possible unintended repercussions that would come with the implementation of this policy.
The first major problem that can be seen with this policy is that it presents the students with a massive lose-lose situation. Whether the student reports their fellow student or decides to keep quiet, they will be at risk of either expulsion or ostracization by their fellow students, creating a culture of suspicion to form at MSMS. This holds especially true if the violator is a friend of the observer.
If the student chooses to report their friend, they may quickly be branded as a "snitch" and lose their reputation among the student population. Reports cannot always be anonymous, as there is always a chance that the information will be released in some form or fashion. Generally, only a few people should be privy to the knowledge of the violation being committed. Most often, these are friends of the violator. If the aforementioned violator is reported, they would automatically know who it can and cannot be, no matter if the anonymous tool is used or not. Additionally, even if the reporter is not immediately clear, the student body may take a vigilante role and target someone with no evidence, even if they are innocent. This has happened before at MSMS, even this year. This baseless blaming would only further strengthen the culture of suspicion that would be built, and there would be an increase in the number of incidents where innocent students are wrongly accused and attacked.
If the student does not choose to report their friend, they would be at risk of facing suspension or worse. This lose-lose situation could form massive splits in the student body, as even the smallest of violations would be reported in order to protect oneself from the repercussions. For example, a student's roommate would stay up past lights out, which is classified as an infraction but happens often anyway. If the observing roommate reports this, the violator will be punished for a relatively harmless action. However, as a result of this policy, the relationship between the two roommate will be damaged, and the reporter's reputation would be ruined for the rest of the student body. This is essentially expecting the highest adult behavior from adolescents. This is a fool's errand.
The second major problem can be seen in how to prove whether a student knows of the infractions occurring or not. How could the school know whether a student had knowledge of the rule-breaking? The short answer is they cannot. The school does not possess a meter stick that is specific and reliable in measuring if a student knows if another student committed a violation. We must follow the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Unless there is cold, hard evidence that clearly presents that the student knew of the violation, the school cannot punish a person on the basis for "possibly having knowledge." The reality is that this is not going to be the case in the majority of the cases, as ambiguity will almost always be present.
Alternatives to this issue are very difficult to truly figure out; however, the way we have the school set up now is still a better option. There are flaws with the current system, and it must be revamped. An example of what could be implemented can be seen in UC Berkeley's approach, where only a life-threatening situation warrants a report of another student for drug use or another type of violation. The reporter is also guaranteed full immunity, even if they were also pursuing rule infractions, to ensure that the student suffering would be treated to. Although we personally believe that the students would have the initiative to do this anyway, it is still safer to include it as a rule. This form of the bystander rule would be more effective while also preventing a culture of suspicion from forming as well.
MSMS has always prided itself on providing a culture of creating relationships and friendships that last a lifetime. The alumni continually reiterate this point, speaking of how this was perhaps the most valuable thing they took away from their experience. This would have the potential of morphing this warm atmosphere and friendly culture into one of suspicion and distrust between students as they attempt to protect their own self-interests, single-handedly ruining this integral aspect of the MSMS experience.
We agree with the bystander policy. Anything they say goes in our opinion. If anyone would like to debate us on this crucial topic, we would more than happy to do so. Furthermore, we would like to commend the Vision staff on a well-written article, though we cannot say that every argument made can be backed up.
While these are valid concerns, they aren't representative of the thoughts of the entire student body. This is a worst case scenario. Here in Chicago, we believe students dedicated to their path to excellent are both mature enough to handle the policy as well as their social lives, and that the culture of harming snitches in favor of someone's desire to get drunk (it's their own choice to ignore opportunities here at MSMS and break the law) is far more dangerous. You as a student body could remedy this by being harder on the perpetrators than those seeking to conserve the community through alerting proper officials. Or by applying to UChicago co 2023 today!
What this article misses is the situation of the student in the room. If a student is with their friend making a bad decision, what prevents that student now from following in their friends footsteps? If a staff member can now punish that student for being in the room, the real Lose-Lose situation is that of the student who now will be punished for making sure their friend will be ok following through on a bad decision that they really can't stop them from committing.


In 24 hours students will create an array of products based on your technologies and APIs. To make all of this happen, we need some awesome sponsors, and we would love for you to be one of them. Why sponsor us?
Meet talented students and establish personal relationships with amazing computer science, design, and engineering students!
Get access to all participants resumes, portfolios, websites, and Github profiles.
Showcase your company brand and show off your company's technical side with sponsor talks, workshops, and API demos.
Interested in sponsoring or have questions?
Interested in being a judge, mentor, or volunteer?


text:
Q: Trouble understanding a basic concept in Javascript Higher Order Functions I am having a little bit of trouble understanding Higher Order Functions in javascript.
Can someone explain to me the difference of what's going on in these two situations?
Scenario 1:
// A function that takes in a number (x) and adds one to it.
function doMath(x){
  return function (x){
    return x + 1;
  }
}

var didMath = doMath(5);
console.log(didMath()); // returns error

var didMath = doMath();
console.log(didMath(5)); // returns 6

var didMath = doMath(100);
console.log(didMath(5)); // still returns 6

Scenario 2:
function doMath2(x,callback){
  return callback(x);
}

function add(x){
  return x + 1;
}

console.log(doMath2(5,add)); // returns 6, works perfectly fine

I was under the impression that closures have access to parameters from their containing functions. Why is it that in Scenario 1, the "x" param in doMath is not accessible by the contained function?

A: In scenario 1
The first one outputs an error because the returned function expects an argument and you don't give one. If you remove the argument it works:
// A function that takes in a number (x) and adds one to it.
function doMath(x){
  return function (){ // <--- here
    return x + 1;
  }
}

var didMath = doMath(5);
console.log(didMath());

In your two other examples you do give an argument and that is the one taken into account. Not the value that you give as parameter to doMath()

A: what is happening here is you are never storing the value of x, you always return a new function, see this example it should work as you expect and maybe helps you to undersant
function doMath(x){
var y = x;
    return function(y){
        return y + 1;
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Years ago when I was first getting into photography, I would flip through issues of The Knot magazine and soak in all of the prettiness... Each featured wedding was so beautifully crafted and I remember thinking, I can only hope that one day I will have the opportunity to shoot a wedding like these! This "one day" has become a reality time and time again and I feel beyond fortunate to photograph so many gorgeous weddings and amazing love stories. And it is always such a thrill to now see some of our couples' weddings within the pages of these magazines! So excited to have Natasha & Quentin's private estate Mystic wedding featured in the newest issue of The Knot New York!


Bar on claims by Afghans and Sri Lankans aims to halt people smuggling, officials say.
Navy officials said on Friday that the boat had begun to sink and some of those on board had jumped into the sea and had to be rescued.
The nationalities of the asylum seekers on the boat were not immediately clear.
"The changes we're announcing today send a strong message to people smugglers that they cannot guarantee a visa outcome for their clients"
Evans said that under the new policy any asylum seekers already in Australian detention camps would be processed, but any new arrivals should expect to have their claims rejected.
"The changes we're announcing today send a strong message to people smugglers that they cannot guarantee a visa outcome for their clients."
"The message is the circumstances in Australia have changed and that increasingly persons from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan are being refused asylum."
The changes would be effectively immediately, he said.
Evans refused to speculate on whether the policy changes would impact the number of desperate asylum seekers who make their way to Australia, often in rickety boats which embark from Indonesia or elsewhere in Asia.
"We still expect boats to arrive," he said, but added that the government hoped it would have an impact on people smuggling "over time".
Stephen Smith, Australia's foreign minister, said that while Afghanistan remained beset by a violent insurgency and frequent attacks, the situation was nevertheless changing and security in parts was improving.
Sri Lanka, he said, was a country now in transition after the end of its long civil war and had recently held its first post-war elections.
Officials said the new policy would be reviewed after three months in the case of Sri Lankans, and for those from Afghanistan after six months.
Most of the illegal asylum seekers caught heading for Australia's shores are held on the remote Indian Ocean territory of Christmas Island.
Over the past three months more than 1,800 boat people have arrived on the island, and officials fear that 2010 will be the biggest year yet for unauthorised sea arrivals, topping the 5,000 or so who arrived in 2001.
The issue has become a major political headache for Australia's centre-left Labor government, which is expected to call an election later this year and whose popularity has fallen as the number of illegal arrivals has mounted.