Wishing for the impossible
One of the hardest but, I think most important, tricks to pull off is to walk along that very fine line between gullibility and cynicism that is the path of the open mind.
This morning I was listening to Radio 4’s Today programme, while they hosted one of their depressingly contrived seven-minute “heated debates”. This one was about the testing of medicine on animals. In one corner they had Professor Robert Winston (him with the moustache off the telly who whispers about the marvels of life) who was speaking up on behalf of a booklet published today by the Research Defence Society on the benefits of animal testing. And in the other they had Cathy Archibald (her not off the telly at all and with the quavering voice of one not used to being interviewed by Mr Evan “Dragon’s Den” Davies) who was from Europeans’ for Medical Progress.
Rather reasonably and without any of the usual rancour this debate usually stirs up, Cathy argued that there should be a proper and in-depth scientific study into the efficacy of animal testing. She cited a neat case where animal testing had lead to serious delays in the introduction of an effective treatment for cancer because the drug had been highly toxic to dogs, but not for humans. She was willing to be convinced - she supported medical advancement and wasn’t just a cuddly-bunny-hugger - she just thought there should be a proper study. She was a geneticist and had just had her life saved by high-tech drugs - she just wanted a faster route to medical treatments using new testing techniques rather than following the animal research dogma (do you see what I did there?). She even accepted that sometimes animal testing could correlate with human reactions and said wouldn’t oppose animal testing if it could be demonstrated to be more effective than alternatives.
None of which made the slightest impression on Prof Winston who sounded like he’d just got up after a heavy night and who had come prepared for a knife-fight with some ALF thug. He wasn’t going to have any of this namby-pamby stuff about actually weighing the pros and cons. It was a fantastically arrogant performance - those who disagreed with him were “pseudo-scientific” and he talked all over Cathy at one point in the way only a senior medical consultant really can.
Comments(1)