> I understand that RDS are a single-issue PR group whose single issue is to
> promote animal experimentation (AE). They seem determined to suppress
> anyone who opposes their view by hysterically accusing them of being
> animal rightists.
Eh? Did I say this? I gave an accurate description of the
minority pressure group DLRM and simply suggested that
journalists should do the same for the benefit of their readers.
Where's the hysteria?
Just to correct Susan's misunderstanding of what RDS does -
we represent medical researchers in the public debate about
animal experimentation, we do not "promote" animal
-----End Quoted (and cut) Message-----
You have to realise that you not only promote animal experimentation, you
are personally responsible for the deaths of lots of furry little things.
That is because anyone who does not object to the use of animals in medicine
sits alongside Ronald McDonald and Pokemon in corrupting humanity. Simply
defending the position of researchers in medicine puts you in there with the
other pond life of PR.
In other words, you are correct. The single-issue brigade has got you by the
short and curlies, as we say in impolite circles. You are in what I believe
is known as a "no-win situation", although you probably don't need me to
tell you that.
I keep wondering why the media does not suddenly switch into its usual mode.
Journalists normally like to challenge the current wisdom, not support it.
(Notice how swiftly they rounded on Labour, sorry New Labour.)
The animal rights mob, along with the opponents of nuclear power, business
is evil, the internet is wonderful, additives pollute our bodily fluids, are
now so mainstream that you expect the hacks to start challenging orthodoxy
and begin to make the counter argument.
It is difficult to know why this is so. There were complaints that the
coverage of GM food went awry when the non specialists got in there. Had the
science writers not become so cozy in their relationship with 'the
establishment', they might have been a bit more critical earlier on. (Yes,
there were questions that needed asking.) But knowing the writers as I do, I
suspect that their news editors and editors had a lot to do with this.
In the normal run of things, science writers are there to provide light
relief, not real news. This is why much of the science that gets covered is
trivial beyond belief. I mean who cares when the Universe popped into
existence? Or how many women sit at the top of the national family tree? To
pick just two terminally dull stories from recent history.
There used to be a science magazine that was interested in being ornery for
the sake of it. It seems to have gone the way of the rest of the media.
Michael Kenward OBE / Phone: +44 (0)1444 400568 Fax: 401064
Science Writer & Stuff / For light relief visit http://www.absw.org.uk