SENATE BILL: Animal Protection Act (Law'd)

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Nay

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Is injecting a monkey with an experimental anti-AIDS drug before testing it on a person cruel research if the monkey ends up dying?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Repeal of the Primate Protection Act is unnecessary and repulsive.

I agree!! Senator, can you explain why you don't think we need a ban on experiments involving primates if we're prohibiting cruel and unnecessary research? It seems like for a Court, that's a pretty broad text.

Certainly, while I favor banning cruel and unnecessary research, cruel but necessary research can be necessary.  I admit it is a double-standard for people and animals, I realize this will be an unpopular position, but the realities are what they are.  And the reality is that sometimes cruel and necessary research on animals is...well...necessary.  Also, I do think we need a ban on many types of experiments involving primates, but some types are necessary.  I don't think the Primate Protection Act is the answer to this problem.  My position is not that we should simply repeal it, it is that we should repeal it and replace it with a better and less absolutist piece of legislation. 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Repeal of the Primate Protection Act is unnecessary and repulsive.

I agree!! Senator, can you explain why you don't think we need a ban on experiments involving primates if we're prohibiting cruel and unnecessary research? It seems like for a Court, that's a pretty broad text.

Certainly, while I favor banning cruel and unnecessary research, cruel but necessary research can be necessary.  I admit it is a double-standard for people and animals, I realize this will be an unpopular position, but the realities are what they are.  And the reality is that sometimes cruel and necessary research on animals is...well...necessary.  Also, I do think we need a ban on many types of experiments involving primates, but some types are necessary.  I don't think the Primate Protection Act is the answer to this problem.  My position is not that we should simply repeal it, it is that we should repeal it and replace it with a better and less absolutist piece of legislation. 

If you offer some examples of research that is necessary that can no longer be conducted I am more likely to be swayed. Lifting a ban for hypothetical research that may or may not exist will only lead to more deaths.

Also I would like to see Nix's definition of cruel because its possible we may be all on the same page. I dunno.

That is a good point, before proceeding we should find out how Senator Nix's definition of cruel.  As for examples, how would such a hypothetical drug as the one I described be able to be tested, if not on primates?  I'd be fine with both this and The Primate Protection Act if you could let point out some other ways it could be tested without risking human lives.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Repeal of the Primate Protection Act is unnecessary and repulsive.

I agree!! Senator, can you explain why you don't think we need a ban on experiments involving primates if we're prohibiting cruel and unnecessary research? It seems like for a Court, that's a pretty broad text.

Certainly, while I favor banning cruel and unnecessary research, cruel but necessary research can be necessary.  I admit it is a double-standard for people and animals, I realize this will be an unpopular position, but the realities are what they are.  And the reality is that sometimes cruel and necessary research on animals is...well...necessary.  Also, I do think we need a ban on many types of experiments involving primates, but some types are necessary.  I don't think the Primate Protection Act is the answer to this problem.  My position is not that we should simply repeal it, it is that we should repeal it and replace it with a better and less absolutist piece of legislation. 

If you offer some examples of research that is necessary that can no longer be conducted I am more likely to be swayed. Lifting a ban for hypothetical research that may or may not exist will only lead to more deaths.

Also I would like to see Nix's definition of cruel because its possible we may be all on the same page. I dunno.

That is a good point, before proceeding we should find out how Senator Nix's definition of cruel.  As for examples, how would such a hypothetical drug as the one I described be able to be tested, if not on primates?  I'd be fine with both this and The Primate Protection Act if you could let point out some other ways it could be tested without risking human lives.

you test it on volunteer humans and the like. Keep in mind, our research capabilities allow us to understand what combinations will and will not be lethal, so usually the risks are not that severe, but humans and primates don't always even operate or react the same when being tested with various things. Primate research isn't necessarily our most effective tool and if we can protect the animals, we must.

Fair enough!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Although, I've made some significant changes to the bill, I've only heard comments from a couple of Senators and one Senator-elect. I was hoping to see some more feedback before proceeding, because I'm sure that my colleagues have suggestions that would improve this.

Anyway, I'm not introducing this an amendment yet because I'm waiting until I've finished making a couple of other edits to the bill, but I'm satisfied with this definition of animals protected by this legislation:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My remaining tasks are:

- defining cruel experiments
- including a pest control exception (I'm not exactly sure what needs modification, so suggestions would be helpful)
- presenting Senator Hagrid with some evidence that we're better off without growth hormones

Senator Nix, would you be open to establishing an application process by which someone seeking to preform what could be deemed a cruel experiment could apply for a government permit allowing them to do so if the experiment is deemed truly vital (we'd need a very strict definition) and important enough that it needs to be conducted and can best be preformed on an animal.  Such permits would only be given out under very rare circumstances, but at least then we acknowledge the possibility of such a situation.  Include all the oversight and restrictions you want, but I would argue we need to somehow account for the possibility that this sort of situation may occasionally occur.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm not necessarily opposed to it, I suppose. Can you pose some kind of hypothetical case in which most of us would agree that our rules relating to cruelty should be suspended?

More than anything, I just think the bill should account for the fact that such a scenario could occur.  I can't think of any off the top of my head other than drug-testing of some sort.  Perhaps to try to determine the level at which a new drug can be toxic or an experimental drug could be best tested by inducing an illness and trying to treat it with the drug.  I don't know exactly, those aren't the best examples, but I definitely think we need to account for the rare possibility that such experiments may very, very rarely be necessary (though hopefully they are not).  If researchers have to apply for a government permit and essentially get clearance to preform their experiment or conduct their research, it provides a safeguard against unnecessary deaths that might otherwise occur because of any exceptions.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I am happy to say that the amended bill will have my support!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Aye

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

AYE