A Letter to the Editor of The Toronto Star

Sir/Madam,

Your article, ‘Legal aid boycott hits native communities’, highlights the disproportionate danger of poor public investment on already marginalised groups. As a society we allegedly value the presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial, however, in practice we put more money into prosecuting people than defending them. This hardly seems fair.

The courts, both civil and criminal, are a public service and must be equally accessible for all the people of Ontario for them to serve their purpose of dispensing justice and enforcing the laws of the land. Attorney General Chris Bentley should be ashamed of the perversion of fairness in compensation for legal aid certificates and the resultant perversion of justice in our courts and society as a whole.

-Rafiq Rahemtulla - Sudbury, ON

A Letter to the Editor of The Globe and Mail

Sir/Madam,

Your article 'Goodyear questions Mideast forum funds' did not state that SSHRC, as well as NSERC and CIHR, are mandated to run at arms-length from government to prevent political interference. While the controversy of the mideast crisis is clearly at play, Mr. Goodyear’s actions are a sign of a far more systemic problem of government interference in academia.

Universities are the only place we have set aside in our society that the great debates and controversies of our time can be freely discussed without fear of retribution. The freedom to take an unpopular stance on an issue is a fundamental requisite of creative problem solving; this is the rationale behind tenure.

Academics must be permitted to think, explore and debate without fear of persecution. As such the National Graduate Caucasus’ and the CAUT’s call for the dismissal of Mr. Goodyear is both appropriate and necessary. The last thing we need in these difficult times is to have our best and brightest minds afraid to seek creative solutions to the problems we face.

Sincerely,
Rafiq Rahemtulla – Sudbury, ON

Memorandum of Cooperation

Despite All Their Rage They’ll Still be Plenty of Rats in a Cage

On the 27th of April representatives from Japan, the European Union, the United States and Canada signed a Memorandum of Cooperation to reduce the number of animals used in product safety testing. Specifically, scientists from these countries will have to share null results as well as positive ones to avoid replication of failed experiments thereby reducing the number of animals used and to fast-track approval of alternative methods between the signatory agencies.

Many are referring to this as a great leap forward for the cause of animal welfare. However, neither the memorandum, nor any of the discussions surrounding it make any mention of the number of animals that it will save. The Canadian representative, David Blakey is from the Environmental Health Science and Research Bureau within Health Canada, and as such only has jurisdiction over regulatory policies and practices surrounding product safety and toxicity testing.

In order to determine the potential impact of the Memorandum on the three Rs, specifically, reduce, the 2007 survey (the most recent available data) on animal used compiled by the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) was consulted. 10% of animal used under the auspices of the CCAC were used for testing while 4% were used for teaching and a whopping 86% were used for research (including basic, medical or veterinary). The proportions have been fairly similar for the past few years.

The 2007 survey of animal in research use from the Home Office in the United Kingdom was also consulted. Product and toxicology testing falls under “Protection of man, animals of environment”. This category accounted of only 5% of animals used in the UK.

While international cooperation among regulatory bodies and scientists can be immesely beneficial and improve efficiencies it is important to keep things in perspective. I doubt William Russell and Rex Burch who coined the 3Rs would consider this new agreement the great leap forward that the media and others are calling it. If anything it is a babystep, but at least is one in the right direction towards transparency and further collaboration rather than blanket restrictions and limitations like the new policies currently making their way through European parliament.