"Medical tests on great apes should not be banned, says research chief"

Splendid! So the research chief himself volunteers for being tested on.

Ps. Sorry, great apes, comparing him to you was a tremenduos insult. My apologies. Ds.

What a tediously modern adjective to use...for shame Prof Blakemore!

As for the remark about Morrissey's not being "a representative of current opinion" - I side with Morrissey to give voice on behalf of our animal friends. Save "current opinion" for describing the ignorant masses.

Just to prove me right.... because frankly, I think Moz would sink like a rock in a discussion that requires more than simple, plump and placative singled-out statements.

And he knows that. And that's why he will never agree to do this.

Not exactly sure what the idiot would want to debate. If you don't want testing done on animals because you don't think it's right, I'm not sure where any kind of debate would enter into the topic. Not much room for any kind of debate.

For the same reason you can't have a conversation about animal rights with 99.9% of vegeterians / animal rights protestors. Their position is based soley on the emotional response that comes from anthropomorphising animals, and there is no more to it than that.

HE sews kittens eyes up cruel B******

defences from animals. So if we really would like to know that a medicine works.

Test people NOT ANIMALS. They most likely have different reactions to certain chemicals.

Notice how some of the above commentators, perhaps clueless themselves on such issues, just try to be "clever," like Morrissey? It seems indeed they're just trying to "do what Morrissey would do." Someone supported something so EVIL as medical testing? Propose testing on *him*, that's witty! Did the man criticize Morrissey? Quick, shoot back that his adjectives are "modern"?

Why does this all sound like it was yanked from Morrissey interviews? Think for yourselves, people. Just because someone makes good music doesn't mean they're right on every single issue and topic in the world, especially one so esoteric and complex as medical research.

Human clinical and epidemiological studies, cadavers, and computer simulators are faster, more reliable, less expensive, and more humane than animal tests. Ingenious scientists have developed a model "microbrain" from human brain cells to study tumors, as well as artificial skin and bone marrow. Researchers can now test for skin irritancy on cells in a test tube, produce vaccines from human cell cultures, and perform pregnancy tests using blood samples instead of killing rabbits. Says Gordon Baxter, cofounder of Pharmagene Laboratories, a drug research company that uses only human tissues and computers to develop and test drugs, "If you have information on human genes, what’s the point of going back to animals?"

An extensive nationwide (USA) values survey was recently conducted revealing less ethical diversity amongst a whole range of people than previously presumed (published in a book called "A New America") Amongst other things, the results found that 80% Americans agree that the earth is a whole living system; 91% want to become more involved in creating a better world for all beings; 96% are committed to spiritual growth... This was surprising, suggesting that what is really lacking is sound leadership, as 'ordinary' people are overwhelmingly positive in their willingness to minimise harm wherever possible. Negative discourses, such as entrenched business medics like Dr Blakemore, and Richard & Judy, that promote the conservative idea that improvement is not possible without inflicting undue suffering, are regrettable, and in fact, not representative.

So from his latest outburst I take it Morrissey does not use medicines if he needs it since all registered medicines have been tested on animals? And if he sometime in the future gets for example cancer (which a terrifying great number of us will) he will say no to treatment?

Morrissey has been challenged to a public debate on a matter Morrissey feels is extremely important. If Morrissey fails to take this scientist up on his offer for a public debate, one has to conclude that Morrissey is a coward who knows he's full of shit and have his ass handed to him. If Morrissey thinks he knows what he's talking about, he'll ceratainly meet up with this scientist for the debate. If not, Morrissey can be dismissed.

How can one not agree with Morrissey on this one?

Ours is a spiritual journey and when animals are exploited (sorry to use such a loaded word, but it's the right one) it is a deeply damaging thing for those who take the actions.

Loss, death and suffering are all part of human existence and we csn learn to accept and deal with them with dignity, grace, support and love.

I think that abusing animals is immoral.

Could a pro-vivisectionist explain their position to me regarding how they came to the decision that we have a right to inflict suffering on animals.

...and think for yourself.

There is no justification for using apes in medical research. When reactions to medicines differ so wildly within a species (i.e. human beings) common sense should dictate that creatures who only share, on average, 95% of our genetic code (chimps excluded) won't tell us what we want to know. Yet, even though they share only slightly more of our genome than a mouse or a dog, it seems doubly perverse to use them in experiments; if you've ever been up close to one of the great apes and seen the intelligence in their eyes and the way they interact with you, you can't help but balk at the idea of them being confined in a lab and sliced open to further our blundering progress on this planet.
I honestly can't say what my position is on the rest of the industry though, because as much as I despise animal testing for cosmetic purposes and their slaughter for food, if my family, friends or myself were taken ill, I'd use all medical science had to offer to make us well again. True altruism doesn't exist and this is why, as much as we desire to be humane, we will always exploit what this Earth has to offer in order to stay alive; it's instinctive for humantiy to destroy and to be selfish. It's also instinctive for us to be anthropomorphic and thus, both sides of the debate that have a vested interest in their position are buggered really.
Then again, all I see in science is money generated for the researcher's bank accounts and shadowy business dealings in the boardroom of Glaxo Smith Kline. Their position is holding medical science back from developing realistic alternatives to the suffering of animals and, indeed, the suffering of people who can't afford to pay for life saving drugs. Furthermore, the position of Western governments on the Christian Fundamentalist Right are preventing the use of stem cell research, which might show us more about medicine than has been discovered in the last few centuries. The real enemies here are the conservatives (of which Tony Blair is one). They place the life of a human cell above a creature which has as much intelligence as a two year old child. The world is a backward place, and conservative sensibilites have dragged science and industry back into the dark ages.
Morrissey won't publicly debate this issue, just as he won't go head to head on issues of politics with government ministers or even on music with other musicians. As he said recently, he is an island ... but the fact he won't debate doesn't mean he can't have an opinion.
And I have a question for Mr Blakemore; if you believe it's ethical to test on monkeys, then what's to stop you testing on human beings in a vegetative state? They have less intelligence, and, like the great apes, they also have a language centre of the brain sans high functioning vocal chords. What's the difference, biologically, just because something has a human face?
And more importantly, what happens if we ever do cure all disease? Darwin's theory of evolution, to which most of the sane world subscribe, depends upon disease in order to work. If human beings stop dying through causes other than old age then we'll surely wipe ourselves out via population explosion. This issue is extremely loaded, but I admire the stance of those, like Morrissey, who are so sure about their ethical position (that excludes Blakemore, as he's only sure of his financial position).

Funny how this professor doesn't want to challenge another "qualified" medical expert that disputes the benefits of animal testing. And there are numerous. Funny also how in order to make his point he relies on an over the top hysterical hypothetical. If that is what he considers "evidence" then it wouldn't be a debate at all. Now would it.

My position is against animal testing purely on a humane and emotional level. I acknowledge my ignorance beyond this.

But if I want to convince others this is right I need to be informed, to know the true position of the opposing points of view in order to argue my own points effectivly.

I intend therefore to go research the subject fully. I don't expect to have my mind changed but at least by presenting a knowledgeable arguement I may be able to influence others, who at present are able to dismiss criticsm of animal experiments as emotional and uninformed.

Anyone who is able to provoke debate and challenge people to think for themselves on this and other important matters has my vote of confidence, regardless of whether I ultimately agree with them or not.

they need to start "animal" testing on murderers, pedophiles and the like, those are the real animals!!!

Here then, meat is murder, vivisection is wrong!

I'm happy to help you on the way to your heart attack! Anyone else want to help?

You're gonna get us, are you?

Try to get your mind back in your body first. You do have one, a flesh-and-blood body, don't you?