Shanghaiist: Fudan University worried about lab animals' 'dread and upset'

Zat Liu

Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:28:24 +0800

well said, Jim.

jim

Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:21:48 +0800

Something missing in this discussion: What prompted this was NOT animal welfare, but meeting internationally recognized standards for pharmaceuticals testing. I really don't know anything about that (not even recreationally, tragically). I assume it's about implementing standards so that results can be recreated and validated by other researchers. So in order for their work to be internationally recognized, Fudan had to put this kind of program into place. Makes sense to me. The Fudan kitty torturer got away with it because, if I remember, there was nothing actually against the rules about it. He wasn't breaking any student conduct codes, so the university couldn't really do anything about it. Whether or not the university should include that in a code of conduct is another issue. Last point: It seems very silly to me to try to draw conclusions about contemporary Chinese society from a cat story. Really.

Zat Liu

Wed, 07 Jun 2006 12:05:32 +0800

Hua 1.Please read more about culture revolution and what happened after culture revolution before you show you are a China expert. There are so many good books about it. At least get some Jasper Becker. 2. You are the one making a sweeping generalization on how people are selfish, now you are claiming my example is too small. How many figures you need? 3. I know many people who have travelled extensively still has a closed mindset. 4. Ok, you really want to get to this. first you mentioned FBI considers Animal Liberation Front (ALF) a terrorist group. Second you said it's wat in the law. How sad it is for a person who claim to have intelligent obversation to quote from a government secret agent and follow the verdict completely? And when questioned, he gives "it's what the law says" comeback without a blink. My case is settled.

HUA

Tue, 06 Jun 2006 21:00:50 +0800

Zat: 1. Mao's cultural revolution is to "re-educate" people. All the things you said such as "poverty, craziness, and ignorance" are results of the education failure. 2. Don't you think your sample is a bit too small to support your claim? I could have said "I have couple of neighbours who own dogs and ALWAYS walk their dog unleashed." 3. There's not much research on Asian culture and pets. But as a person who lived in China for over 20 yrs I don't think my observation is that ridiculous and limited. 4. Me sad too. I don't know if you can point out my naivity even if you want to. By the way, my food allergy is furry animals, too.

Zat Liu

Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:06:17 +0800

Peijin, I feel sorry for you. Too bad you are allergic to cats. :( As for HUA, you just proved you know nothing about Chinese culture and zero about the country. Your last sentence just shows how ridiculous and limited your mindset is. Ok, let me tell you, 1.People's selfishness and indifference here are not only because of the education system, but largely from the poverty and craziness during the cutlure revolution. 2. Dog owners walk their dogs without a leash is because of ignorance.I have a couple of friends who own dogs and ALWAYS walk their dog with a leash. 3.It's not culturaly acceptable to have dog/cat food in China. People are awared of this and that's the reason we are working on it. 4. ..It's what the law says..I don't even want to point out how naive is this. Sad.

HUA

Tue, 06 Jun 2006 10:26:16 +0800

I agree with Alec's observation about how selfish Chinese now are... All I can say is: it proves 50 years' of communism education a failure. This selfishness can be exemplified by dog owners walking their dogs in the neighbourhood UNLEASHED. However, the way animals are treated in China does not necessary relfect this failure... I guess it has something to do with Chinese culture. For example it is culturally acceptable to have cat/dog as food in China (and in other Asian countries). In this sense, animals' rights are still questionable. As for Zat's question about FBI. It's not really FBI dictating people's behavior.. It's what the law says..

peijin

Tue, 06 Jun 2006 01:28:12 +0800

For all you know, the person posting about animals rights or about roofies or about monkey burglars is someone who actually knows quite a bit about the human rights situation in china, and gives a shit about it, but just doesn't feel the need (or perhaps have the time and wherewithal) to make Shanghaiist a stage where they ride around on their high horse for everyone to see. Me? I like cats better than people anyway. with my cheap bag of tricks, I can make them purr on a regular basis.

Nick Withycombe

Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:10:27 +0800

"I also work in the western media, which, unlike the state-run apparatus that is churns out local 'journalism', is occasionally permitted to report about injustices that happen in this country." What a lot of time you wasted on studying and self-appreciation. Your CV aside - why don't you just watch the local Shanghai news on STV? You will see that they regularly feature news pieces on wrong-doing, corruption, and injustices. Although I don't have a little degree that is related to China, I suppose my comment was invalid. "just think people's energies are better spent trying to better the situation of poor people, rather than poor animals." That is a very naive statement.

Nick Withycombe

Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:03:38 +0800

Do all sane people agree that Chinese people in rural environments should have better education and healthcare - yes. Do all sane people agree that China badly needs to change it's societies view on animal welfare and on animal treatment - yes. Changing the second one is something that the people (local and foreign alike) can actually have a say/affect in/on.

Zat Liu

Mon, 05 Jun 2006 18:05:16 +0800

"occassionally", this is a very interesting word.Your last sentence also applies to some of the local media here if you know where you can get your source.

seriously

Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:36:18 +0800

I just think people's energies are better spent trying to better the situation of poor people, rather than poor animals. But you have made a valid point Alec, empathy (and less apathy) is in dire need here and these issues are certainly linked. In response to your query, Zat, I have a degree in modern Chinese political history, i speak mandarin fluently, and I've lived in China for five years (in several provinces). I also work in the western media, which, unlike the state-run apparatus that is churns out local 'journalism', is occasionally permitted to report about injustices that happen in this country.

Zat Liu

Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:44:52 +0800

Seriously, please don't tell me you only know China from prejudicial western media, or at least don't tell me you do believe everything to be reported in western media. There are obviously many different levels in this 1.3 million, I don't see why everybody has to be tied to the same suviving line, for people who get enough above education, cloth and food, can't they fight for something else? To be honest, I'm not turning a blind eye to the problems mentioned in your comments, but I'd rather save more kittens' lives. I do what I'm able to do.

Alec

Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:22:12 +0800

No doubt that human life should be valued more than animal. But saying that 'well, we shouldn't worry about animals because humans have it bad' is a terrible approach. There should not be a limited amount of empathy in this country - we should try to change the attitudes regarding a broad swathe of issues: human life and rights, animal life / humane treatment, care for the environment, etc. Honestly, I think the attitudes held are inter-linked, and that headway on one issue might help accelerate change in another. No-where in Zat's post did she claim that animal rights should trump human. She merely drew attention to the changing attitudes towards animals, and if anyone posting here doesn't see that as a positive trend, or what it could mean for other issues of concern in China, then they can go jump in the Huangpu.

seriously

Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:53:26 +0800

I reluctantly agree with Hua - when this country can figure out how to educate, clothe and feed its 1.3 billion I think it can start worrying about how animals are being treated. Not to mention the countless human rights abuses that stem from oppressive govenment and general lack of respect for the peasant class. Don't you think China has bigger fish to fry, Zat? It's positively absurd that people are more concerned about eating dogs or testing cosmetics on kitties than harvesting organs from the 10,000 odd people that get a bullet in the head each year.

Zat Liu

Mon, 05 Jun 2006 11:20:50 +0800

Interesting comments, Hua, but can you answer me one question: How does calling for animal rights conflict with human rights？ Also, I don't see what makes FBI determine what we should do or what we shouldn't?

Alec

Mon, 05 Jun 2006 09:53:55 +0800

Actually, China needs tree-hugging animal rights people pretty damn badly. I don't know if you've noticed, but the environment in this country is in big big trouble. Most analysts think that the two major hurdles that China will have to overcome in the next decade is their deteriorating environment and the disparity in incomes, both of which could lead to major social upheaval. Animal rights is an extension of a mentality that China badly needs to cultivate: simply put, an ability to empathize (with other people, living things, whatever), and think beyond one's own narrow interests. Funny how an ostensibly communitarian society is in actuality one of the most selfish in the world.

HUA

Sun, 04 Jun 2006 23:15:42 +0800

You claimed "how people treat animals reflects generally on their character". If it is true how do you justify the fact that FBI considers Animal Liberation Front (ALF) a terrorist group? I am not suggesting that animal cruelty is justified. All I am saying is: China has more serious issues than how the animals are treated. We can discuss if animals have rights only after human's rights are recognized and protected. By the way, probably you heard Dahmer's story from PETA leaders.

xingyu

Sun, 04 Jun 2006 20:05:02 +0800

Hua, I disagree completely. I truly believe how people treat animals reflects generally on their character. I'm not sure who said it but when this story was first reported, it was mentioned that serial killers like Jeffrey Dahmer first began torturing and killing animals before they graduated to humans. Setting standards for how to treat animals is also a practical issue. The reason that diseases like the avian flu and SARS develop and spread so quickly around Asia largely has to do with how the animals who carry these diseases are treated: in dirty cages, in close quarters, lying in their own shit, festering in the heat. So before you call all this mere hippie crap, keep in mind that it's not just the conditions that humans live in that affect us in real ways. I'm not particularly religious but Buddhists will tell you that are all living on this earth, animals and humans, together so why not respect all living life? Why wouldn't advocating humane and cruel free treatment be good for China? For the world in general? Seriously, you may harp on "tree-hugging animal rights people" but I bet you good money if someone took a kitten and gouged its eyes out in front you, you'd be calling for these standards as well.

HUA

Sat, 03 Jun 2006 20:40:26 +0800

Come on.. Give me a break! The last thing China needs is the tree hugging animal rights people. Compared to those who died in the coal mining accidents and those ignorant brain-washed college students, how cats/dogs are treated in the lab, seriously, has the least consequences for China..

W

Sat, 03 Jun 2006 16:47:13 +0800

Maybe if we go pointing fingers at eachother and ourselves, we can make things a bit better?

Micah

Sat, 03 Jun 2006 16:31:51 +0800

I'm convinced that if we weren't allowed to be hypocrites to some degree, we'd explode. So I don't go pointing fingers.

peijin

Sat, 03 Jun 2006 15:12:10 +0800

i'm afraid that i'm an even worse hypocrite than Dan; i was once a socialist, but lately i've been eating at McDonald's and even i bought a pair of new Balance sneakers. i've even befriended people who work at multinational corporations. i dont have a good grasp on "losing face," but i would venture that the impulse behind it--to keep up appearances, even as "reality" diverges from it--suggests that human beings need to maintain certain self-image, which is connected to their feeling of self-worth. In that sense, the will to truth has always been fighting a losing battle. We can't handle the truth. Way before Jack and Tom, there was Galileo and the church. Of course, when it comes to faking bountiful harvests for Chairman Mao when the people are starving, the line is crossedd. "Chained to the bottom?"--well, i agree with the idea, but not the phrasing. Not achieving its profit potential--that sounds more like in keeping with the times (and spirit of this place).

Zat Liu

Sat, 03 Jun 2006 14:37:36 +0800

Does put on lipsticks count in makeups? Did you ever see me carry eyeshade and all that? Please, spare me with this losing face theory, I'm never afraid of losing face.

hc

Sat, 03 Jun 2006 14:33:10 +0800

Nice article and I hope this dude gets attacked by a gang of baboons. But zat, I know for a fact that you wear make up. Why lie on a website? Why lose credibility with such a little lie? Ah the good old "loss of face" thing: not even the truth is as important as keeping face. And THAT is what chains China to the bottom.

Worth

Sat, 03 Jun 2006 14:20:07 +0800

@ Dan: Then you are a hypocrite. Maybe hypocrisy seems normal to you, that's fine.

Dan

Sat, 03 Jun 2006 13:36:19 +0800

@ Worth: People can't use products that involve animal testing and feel uncomfortable when they picture the animals getting tested? Seems normal to me. I eat meat, but I don't enjoy thinking about animals getting slaughtered.

Zat Liu

Sat, 03 Jun 2006 13:31:55 +0800

no, I don't.

Worth

Sat, 03 Jun 2006 13:08:47 +0800

"the thought of animal testing gives us the shivers," You wear make-up, right?