Is Narmada water being made to flow in Sabarmati not supplied to city of Ahmedabad? This has furthered the idea of river...
I have been selling glass for commercial buildings talking about light, thermal/solar heat gain etc.etc..but I...
Dear Saxena ji,
Thank you for inquiry.
West facing windows can be a big source of heat, first measure which you...
the bitter spat that ensued over poor maintenance of animals in research laboratories saw two heads roll in the Union cabinet. The two ministers had been taking potshots at each other ever since the Pune-based National Institute of Virology (niv) was raided by the Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (cpcsea). Animal rights activists from around the world rallied around as the then union minister of state for statistics and programme implementation Maneka Gandhi, who also headed the Department Animal Welfare, stood her ground. And the erstwhile health minister C P Thakur's criticism of the animal seizure added fuel to the loud protests by researchers and scientists on the need to allow testing of animals for research (see frontpage: 'Spare the subject').
The entire episode had a familiar ring to it as the issue was polarised and the government's weak governance got exposed. The drama was similar to the debate sparked over the turtle excluder device (ted) to protect the endangered Olive Ridley turtle from fishing nets. us conservationists, furious at India's lack of commitment to turtle protection, succeeded in banning shrimp imports from India. India cried foul and though it won the day at the World Trade Organisation (wto), when it appealed against the us and unfair barrier to trade, there was a basic kernel of truth in the animal rights' lobby.
This time round too, they had a point to make. All that they asked for was humane treatment meted out to the laboratory inmates. Not a ban on testing. By allowing the incident to get blown into this proportion the cabinet had to pay a heavy price. But then these are issues that need to be addressed urgently. With all this dragging of feet and dilly-dallying, they will only end up getting polarised and labelled as pro and anti-animal lobbies. For one thing, well laid out rules and regulations must be enacted and properly implemented. It is at the end of the day, in the interest of research to do so. Secondly, in the current case, alternatives to animal testing must be explored. Researchers must take the cue from the cosmetics industry, which has shown the way for animal test free products. Whatever decision is ultimately taken, at the moment it is research that is being jeopardized. The cacophony must begin to make some sense.
(See also: Spare the subject)