21 Nov 05
I do not think that anti-vivsectionests realise exactly how much of their living experineces depend upon animal studies. For example, how many anti-vivisectionists have had occassion, for whatever reason, to take a pregnancy test? And yet, that pregnancy test depneds upon animal experiments and animal products. The same applies to testing for heart attacks and liver disease - animals are needed by present day diagnostic tests.
21 Nov 05
Originally posted by znshoI think sometimes it's justified for necessary medical research, but it needs to be much more firmly restricted. For example, students shouldn't be doing dissections and the like as part of a general biology course which some people only take as a pre-requisite for genetics and biochemistry, and have no reason to need to know how to dissect a rat. Psychology departments that use rats or other nonhuman animals for non-harmful experiments should release them back into nature afterwards, if applicable, rather than the university killing them so they can be used for general biology classes.
I do not think that anti-vivsectionests realise exactly how much of their living experineces depend upon animal studies. For example, how many anti-vivisectionists have had occassion, for whatever reason, to take a pregnancy test? And yet, that pregnancy test depneds upon animal experiments and animal products. The same applies to testing for heart attacks and liver disease - animals are needed by present day diagnostic tests.