Not a happy bunny

Widely previewed and reviewed, Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing (BBC2) on Monday evening was widely seen as an excellent documentary about a ‘difficult’ issue. But the antivivisectionists didn’t like it, if the following from ‘Beast’ on the Beyond Bunnies blog is anything to go by:

… it was the pro-vivisection tubthump it always threatened to be, in which the only person (other than Mel Broughton) from an anti-vivisection standpoint who appeared on camera was Pete Singer - who was properly stitched up, as already discussed on the below entry. Too angry to blog further. Bile coursing down nose, hard to type.

I guess the antivivs just don’t have any persuasive arguments that journalists and producers feel are worthy of inclusion in a serious documentary. They only have themselves to blame.

Contrast Beast’s whining (I concede his description of his reaction is great, I can just see him snivelling) with the review by Lucy Mangan in The Guardian on Tuesday. She thinks the documentary was ‘superbly balanced’ and ‘outstanding’. She concludes:

Wishart [Adam Wishart, producer/director] remained personally ambivalent right to the end, when he confesses with relief that a discussion between Aziz [Tipu Aziz, neuroscientist and surgeon] and Peter Singer, author of (and coiner of the phrase) Animal Liberation 30 years ago, allowed him to come down - just - on the side of the scientists. Aziz told Singer that the 100 monkeys he had used had so far helped 40,000 people with diseases such as Parkinson’s and dystonia. Singer said that he ‘could see that as justifiable’.
Wishart’s achievement lay in the fact that viewers were not manipulated into agreeing with that position. They were still free to agree or disagree - but were far better informed when it came to doing so than they had been 80 minutes before.

Comments

    Page 1 of 1 pages of comments • Follow through:
  1. More comments from AA Gill in the Sunday Times.
    Critics are meant to entertain, inform and irritate, so we should take the rough with the smooth?

    ‘Its conceit was to set itself up as a Candide-ish exploration by an honest John who had yet to make up his mind. This was a twee contrivance, barely made credible by the order in which it was edited. I didn’t for a moment doubt that having made the connection between a monkey with electrodes on its head and a child in a wheelchair with electrodes on his head, Wishart would end up gingerly plumping for the only rational answer, which is: to alleviate a great deal of human suffering, a small amount of animal suffering is acceptable.

    He chose not to complicate the argument by including animal testing for cosmetics or all the duplicated, unnecessary and bureaucratically demanded death that pharmaceuticals go through by law to make unnecessary medicine. Nor did he stray into battery farming for food or fur, where the ethics are far less clear. That said, this was a fine and sensitive look at some unpleasant and sad people. Devoting your life to the cause of dumb animals isn’t proof of a Franciscan goodness, but a symptom of something fundamental missing from your life and something twisted in your relationship with your own species.’

    Well at least the irritation should come from fact. How many time must we put up with the myth that we still test animals for cosmetics in the UK? But I must admit to being rankled by the arrogant notion that medicines are unneccesary; especially as he simply contradicts himself :-(

    Posted by Haruspica / December 06, 2006 | Wednesday | 10:59 PM |
  2. Page 1 of 1 pages of comments • Follow through:

Only registered users can comment

Please use the login form in the left column.

<< Back to main