I've yet to meet anyone who, despite the accusations and implications, actually enjoys animal experimentation"
A suffering animal is, scientifically, pretty much useless in most cases. Pain or discomfort have a complex physical, biological basis, so an animal in distress is going to provide unreliable results and throw off the data obtained in any experiment that studies anything other than pain. Granted, the study of pain is medically very important, so is ongoing and uses animal subjects.
People opposed to animal testing often shout about how we should use alternatives. What alternatives? Where there's an option, we use it. Why wouldn't we?
-- Well, the alternative would presumably be human volunteers. In my experience, most animal rights activists don't want to end testing altogether, they want animals to be given similar rights to consent/non-consent as humans, or something.
Advocates for animal testing continually assure us that results from research done on animals are applicable to humans. Now you're saying data about humans aren't applicable to animals. Seems like whatever argument justifies animal testing is the one apologists reach for.
"hold humans up above animals".
« Older "The Diverging Diamond reduced traffic accidents b... | "...I heard animators critique... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt