³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I know that many disabled people have a bone to pick - or perhaps even an entire skeleton - with the medical establishment. I for one would like to give a piece of my mind to some of the folks who created various treatments for anxiety disorders such as my own. But at the end of the day, I believe in science. I believe that the brilliant minds working behind closed doors in their labs have the capability to know more about nature, including what makes us humans tick, than I could ever imagine. And it is for precisely this reason that current events in Oxford have me at the edge of my seat.

Right now, an £18 million biomedical research lab is at the centre of a long-running between animal rights activists such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and people who support the animal testing that will take place there. In particular, a group called , founded only a few weeks ago by 16 year-old Laurie Pycroft, has garnered attention for standing up to the threats of the animal rights groups.

What is at stake is not pretty. Within these new labs, animals specially bred for research will be used to study the effects of everything from Dyslexia to Parkinson's Disease in an attempt to find treatments.

Situated in the centre of one of the world's most famous university towns, packed with the brightest analytical minds researching the alleviation of human suffering, this lab has great potential to make a difference. But there's one catch - the animals themselves.

You don't have to remind me that animal testing is an imperfect science. I know that human biology is different from that of rodents. I know that medications sometimes don't work on animals. And above all, I know that the animals in medical tests suffer. But at the risk of breaking every taboo in the social-model-of-disability rule book, SO DO I. And I would be fascinated to know how many members of these anti-vivisection groups are alive and able to protest today thanks to medical advances made using animal testing.

But what intrigues me even more than the hysteria of protestors is the silence of disability rights groups in what should be a burning-hot issue.

Flip back to March 2005, when groups like Not Dead Yet turned out en masse to protest the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. Where are they now? Why are they not crowding the streets of Oxford? Where are the British groups?

Of course, it's a lot more difficult to defend a picture of an ape with a tube in its skull than it is to rally behind a defenceless woman. But it is important - no, it is utterly crucial - that disabled people defend animal testing, lest we return to both the medical and social conditions of what are, thankfully, days long gone.

I for one would rather test on chimps before people. Let's not forget that in the heyday of eugenics, disabled people were used as medical guinea pigs. Call me an animal-hating barbarian, but I would rather use animals than my fellow mental types.

Animal rights protestors believe that because we don't see the suffering of animals locked up in labs, we forget their suffering, but it is for that precise reason that I believe those of us who have benefited from the experiments forget what a massive debt we owe to rats, dogs, and chimps.

We need a reality check. If we stop testing on animals, we might as well say goodbye to all the medical advances that let us live a little easier.

I don't remind myself on a daily basis that plenty of primates suffered so I can have tablets to keep me functioning and terror free without turning my brain to blotto. But maybe I should. It's not going to change the minds of the anti-vivisectionists, but it will keep me fighting for MY fundamental human rights to live without pain.