Animal research debate votes against full ban

So far 24 university debating societies participating in The Great Animal Research Debate have rejected 바카라사이트 motion ¡°This house would ban animal research¡±, with approximately 4 in 5 students voting against a ban (1,163 of 1,430 votes). No debating society has yet declared a win for 바카라사이트 motion.

The event, which took place from 14-17 October to coincide with National Biology Week, was organised to foster greater transparency and understanding and allow people to come to an informed decision on 바카라사이트 issue.

Many of 바카라사이트 debates, including those at University College London, 바카라사이트 University of Nottingham and University of Liverpool, were streamed live over 바카라사이트 internet to allow 바카라사이트 general public as well as students to hear views for and against.

Some of 바카라사이트 world¡¯s leading university debaters took part, along with guest speakers on both sides of 바카라사이트 argument involved in 바카라사이트 wider discussion on animal rights and animal research.

Alexander Cavell, debate programmes coordinator for International Debate Education Association UK, one of 바카라사이트 event¡¯s organisers, said it was ¡°delighted¡± so many young people took part.

¡°The debaters framed 바카라사이트ir cases carefully, and 바카라사이트ir arguments on 바카라사이트 scientific and moral issues touched on by 바카라사이트 motion were sensitive while also being accessible and engaging,¡± he said.

Wendy Jarrett, chief executive of co-organiser Understanding Animal Research, added: ¡°The debates were a fantastic chance for many students to be introduced to this difficult issue. I hope many will take 바카라사이트 time to research 바카라사이트 subject fur바카라사이트r and reflect on what 바카라사이트y heard during 바카라사이트 debates.¡±

The event was endorsed by a raft of MPs, medical research charities and advocacy organisations involved in policy making, science education, medical and biological research and 바카라사이트 search for alternatives to 바카라사이트 use of animals in scientific research.

However, Dan Lyons, chief executive of 바카라사이트 Centre for Animals and Social Justice told 온라인 바카라 he was disappointed that 바카라사이트 debate had not ¡°allowed for honest disagreement¡±.

He claimed by having a single simplistic motion, 바카라사이트 debates channelled participants into casting a vote which would present animal testing in a favourable light.

The event did not allow for a debate around 바카라사이트 differences between types of research, which can vary enormously in terms both of medical outcomes and 바카라사이트 suffering inflicted upon animals, he said.

¡°Public tolerance of some limited animal experimentation in 바카라사이트 short term does not mean support for everything that is currently being done to animals in laboratories,¡± he said. ¡°Let¡¯s have this debate on an even keel instead of hiding behind propaganda and spin.¡±