More likely, these groups simply won’t give up their quest for life-saving research – some of which involves animals – in order to join forces with the truth-twisting likes of PeTA and PCRM.  How twisty?  A look at the Council’s approved charities gives you a good idea.  Pledging not to support animal research must have been easy for many of these charities since they have absolutely nothing to do with animal research. To wit: Action Against Hunger supplies nutrition, water and sanitation, food security, and health programmes in times of emergency or disaster; Lifegains provides specialised child foster care; The Magic Path gives free gifts of magic tricks to terminally ill children.  I could go on, but I’m sure you get my drift. 

On the other hand, charities like Gay Men’s Health Crisis have undeniable connections to animal research, which contributes to the search for disease cures.  Their appearance on the list is presumably meant to give the impression that they feel medical progress can occur without the use of animals.  But closer examination reveals this to be yet more disingenuousness.  GMHC’s mission is to reduce HIV/AIDS and help people with HIV/AIDS maintain health and independence.  That is, they are a welfare organisation.  The research GMHC supports is behavioural and epidemiological rather than clinical.  If, however, you search the GMHC web site with the word ‘animal,’ what do you get?  A whole load of results detailing HIV/AIDS research that has depended on animals! (Also see the RDS web site on the use of animals in AIDS research.)

PCRM may be able to slice the bologna thin enough to assert that GMHC itself doesn’t fund animal research, but one has serious trouble imagining that GMHC discounts the importance of animal research in treating AIDS.  At least PeTA high priestess Ingrid Newkirk leaves you in no doubt where she and PeTA stand.  In a September 1989 Vogue interview, Newkirk said even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, ‘We’d be against it.’ But then again, what do you expect from an organisation that reportedly contributed over $70,000 to the legal defence of an eco/animal extremist who served four years in prison for a $1.2 million arson attack on a university laboratory(1), and who is now charged with ‘distribution of information relating to explosives, destructive devices, and weapons of mass destruction’?

In explaining their relationship with Coronado, Newkirk and PeTA continue to borrow from the Clinton canon, essentially protesting that, ‘we did not have inappropriate relations with that man, Mister Coronado.’ And what do you know?  A movement is afoot to impeach Newkirk.

(1) Keith Dovkants, ‘The ugly face of PeTA,’ Evening Standard, 17 February 2006; to request a copy of the article, ring + (0)207 620 0022 or e-mail news@standard.co.uk.