Tag: 上海楼凤BT

The inconspicuously obvious

first_imgDear Editor,The recent (2018/11/13) ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) pertaining to the issue of cross dressing in Guyana is indicative of the trajectory of homosexuality in this nation. The masquerade has to stop! The inconspicuously obvious is hiding in plain sight!SASOD and many sister organisations are riding the wave of human rights as they forward their advocacy against discrimination based on one’s sexual orientation. The not so obvious glaring fact, is that they are not dealing with sexual orientation in its widest sense- these folks and their supporters are, in essence, agitating for the legitimisation of same sex relationships; period! Consider the following:The laws of any society are intended to protect the citizenry. During SASOD’s press conference to inform the nation of the relevant CCJ ruling, a most prominent local senior counsel alluded to the archaic nature of sections of the constitution which pertain to cross dressing and homosexuality. What this learned individual and many in the legal fraternity is failing to address, is how these “antiquated” laws ended up on the books. I began this paragraph, by highlighting the fundamental utility of the law.So, if homosexuality is not serendipitously prohibited by the constitution, why is there an overwhelming effort to have it removed, while nothing is said about repealing the articles relating to incest, bestiality and other deviant sexual behaviour which are injurious to society? The answer is obvious. SASOD and their attorneys are quite aware of the grave potential societal dangers of incest, bestiality, homosexuality (particularly man to man) and other deviant sexual orientations. Hence, this facade about advocacy against discrimination based on one’s sexual orientation, is nothing but a smoke screen intended to hide the real agenda of SASOD–to promote and legitimise buggery. Had it not been so, there would have been equal and parallel attention given to the repealing of sections of the constitution which criminalise incest and bestiality. Aren’t these sexual orientations also?Sincerely,Errol London (Jr)last_img read more

Read more…

QA Should all animal experiments be listed in a public registry

first_img Email Daniel Strech, a bioethicist at Hannover Medical School in Germany. Animal research has a publication problem. About half of all animal experiments in academic labs, including those testing for cancer and heart drugs, are never published in scientific journals, and those that are have been notoriously hard to replicate. That’s part of the reason that most drugs that work in animals don’t work in people—only 11% of oncology compounds that show promise in mice are ever approved for humans—despite billions of dollars spent by pharmaceutical and biotech companies. Meanwhile, academic labs waste money, mice, and other resources on experiments that, unbeknownst to them, have already been done but were never reported.In response to similar concerns about human studies, the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2007 mandated that researchers conducting human clinical trials preregister the details in an online database like ClinicalTrials.gov. Now, some scientists are wondering whether a similar approach makes sense for animal experiments. In a study published this month in PLOS Biology, Daniel Strech, a bioethicist at Hannover Medical School in Germany, and colleagues investigated the idea of so-called animal study registries. They scoured the literature and interviewed nearly two dozen scientists to determine the pros and cons of such registries—and whether they would actually make a difference. Strech chatted with Science to discuss the group’s findings. This interview has been edited for clarity and length.Q: What would these registries look like? Karin Kaiser/Hannover Medical School Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country A: Before they start their animal experiments, scientists would need to document the details of the proposed study in an online database. This would include information like sample size, planned duration of study, how the experiments will be controlled, and the planned statistical analysis. A lot of these details are missing in scientific publications, which allows researchers to change their methodology after they begin a study to get the outcome they want.Q: What are the advantages of such registries?A: Animal researchers are supposed to avoid unnecessary and duplicative studies. If they are thinking about conducting a study, but a registry reveals that a similar study has already been done or is in progress, they might not do it. Or they may contact the team to try to set up a collaboration. The data could also help them refine their own study; if they’re trying to figure out what dosages of an antibiotic are most effective, for example, they can avoid dosages that another group has already tested.Transparency is also a big advantage. Researchers might be less likely to register a poorly designed animal study if they know other scientists will see it, and that might stop them from conducting the study. And if you register a study with 20 mice but then only publish results with 13 mice, people are going to wonder what happened to the other seven mice. That could cut down on publication bias. Q: What are the disadvantages? A: One of the biggest differences between human registries and animal registries is the use of experimental therapies or compounds in animal studies that aren’t known to the wider scientific community. So a lot of people are concerned about the theft of ideas—that another, bigger lab could take your idea and do it quicker. Animal registries could get around this concern by instituting a confidentiality timeframe, where others couldn’t access your registry until after you publish your work. You could also limit the level of detail you give.Some say animal registries would also add unnecessary regulations and paperwork. But to me it seems much less time intensive than all of the other things you have to do for this research—getting funding, approval, etc. Researchers are increasingly using digital versions of their protocol; you could just submit that.Finally, some researchers worry that even though these registries are supposed to reduce the number of animals in biomedical research, their labs may end up using more animals because they feel they need larger sample sizes to conduct more robust research as part of these registries. Others say we’ll use fewer animals because overall the studies will be less wasteful. Either way, a lot of researchers are concerned that animal registries will tip off animal rights activists. I was surprised how often that concern came up. But nowadays you don’t need a registry to know which university is doing which research with animals. Q: Will animal registries really have an impact?A: Registries don’t directly decrease publication bias; they just shed more light on it. But they do provide a lot of incentive for researchers to eventually publish something. And registries should reduce redundancy regardless. In our study, people told us that, of course, they would check a registry to make sure a study hasn’t already been done.With human registries, it’s been less than a decade since the FDA said all human clinical trials had to be registered. So it’s hard to tell how effective these registries have been. We also don’t know what the real publication bias was in human trials, so it’s hard to compare what has changed.Q: Are you advocating for these registries?A: When we started looking into this, we just wanted information. Now, I think the case is very clear that we need something like these registries. We need to design them as best as possible to address the interests of researchers, funders, and animals. But I’m still not clear what they should look like.Q: What’s next?A: If we want these registries to become a reality, we need a government agency like the FDA to mandate them. Journals could also require that a trial be registered as a condition for publication. Universities could advocate that their labs participate as well. In the meantime, groups like ours are working on a survey to determine how important the perceived strengths and weaknesses of these registries are to different stakeholders. It took decades from the first ideas of having a registry for human clinical trials to the reality in 2007, but I don’t think it will take that long for animal registries. I think we can skip some of those debates now, because we have solved some of the problems.last_img read more

Read more…