11/06/98

Readers Oppose Animal Testing

...in response to "Why Kill Animals?" (10/30/98)

The majority of respondents to this article wrote in opposition to the testing of animals for research purposes. Since my INSIGHTS article presented arguments in favor of such testing, the following is a representative sample of arguments from readers who are against it.

Too Many Differences Between Species

"I'm adamantly opposed to animal testing. I've read enough of both sides to know that your column sounds like carefully packaged public relations material from the pro-animal testing side. The truth is, Beth, animal response guarantees neither safety nor efficacy. There are too many species specific situations. And if we accept that, "Animal responses give clear indications about how humans will respond, before taking the next step toward controlled clinical testing on humans," then we wouldn't have chocolate, because it's very toxic to many animals.

"And things like thalidomide survived the testing process. All animal testing does is allow scientists (for whom I actually have great respect, with several in the family) to claim "It didn't cause problems in animal studies."

"I wouldn't object to testing on animals if the scientific community simply used animals who already had the condition for which they were testing. And how's this for hypocrisy: a person I know who needed a hormone from first-time pregnant mice and harvested that hormone by first taking the baby mice by the tail, slapping them down on the lab table to stun them, then snapped their necks with a pencil to kill them. She later complained when I adopted a hamster as a pet because, she said, "It's cruel keeping it locked up in that cage."

"And do you really believe human ethics should allow people at drug companies to take about 100 beagle puppies and break their legs in order to test a drug? (An actual situation stopped only because actress Kim Basinger made such a public stink about it.) If a private person deliberately breaks a puppy's leg, it's considered animal abuse, punishable by law. Why can drug company researchers do the same thing with impunity?

"Also, please don't get too comfortable with the idea that standards will ensure the animals are maintained properly. People are people and when business profit is at stake, we as a society have not stopped the flagrant abuses and dangerous toxins from affecting other people. Some labs, for instance, do not anesthetize animals because the anesthesia itself will taint the results. If we are to accept the human race as a conscionable species, we must recognize that we do not have the right to inflict pain and fear on one being to relieve it in another. Man's ability to be mean doesn't confer moral righteousness to do so. I hope you reconsider your support for testing on animals."

---

Animals Have Intelligence and Emotions, Too\

"As for alternatives to animal testing, computer modeling seems the most viable. However, if not having animals to test means research slows down, then so be it. Death and illness are natural parts of life, however harsh that may be. It's a moral dilemma. As heart breaking as human illness and distress is (and I say that as the parent of children with illness, the aunt of a baby who died two weeks ago from major birth defects, and the daughter of a most incredible man who died slowly of Alzheimer's disease), I cannot justify the means of animal testing with the ends of advancing medical treatment for humans.

"Animals have far more intelligence and emotion than most people give them credit for. If the individual animals were given a choice, not one of them would volunteer for lab duty. Do people think they have a right to a stress free life? The strong Madison Avenue push for profit has the citizens of this country convinced that we should be perfect and if we're not, pop a pill. Got a headache, menstrual cramps, a bit of heartburn? Buy our product and live pain free, we guarantee it! But if the people taking the product spent time taking care of the animal the product is tested on, they'd probably question what right they have to be pain free at the expense of the animal who isn't. The situation becomes downright obscene when the product is cosmetics or fashion.

"Why is the perfect face the one drenched in makeup? I find many moral issues as offshoots to the animal testing question."

---

Test Criminals, Not Animals

"Why don't we perform these tests on convicted child abusers, killers and rapists? They certainly deserve it. People convicted of such crimes should have no rights. Their actions are worse than those of any animal."

---

Alternative: Use Death Row Inmates

"I am an animal lover. I think scientists should perform their tests on criminals of the world, especially those on death row. There are heartless, mean people taking up space in prisons, when they could be put to scientific use and pay the world back for the pain they have caused.

"Use the killers of the Wyoming student or those of the black man who dragged him to his death. In my book, animals are higher on the ladder than some of these human prison scum, who have shown they have no heart, no feelings for their victims. Thank-you for the opportunity to stick up for the animals."

---

Animals Can't Defend Themselves

"I have grown up with animals, and I am positive that they feel a vast range of emotions. Envision yourself trapped in a metal cage, secluded from everyone, receiving no contact except from a person who inflicts pain on you. If you have ever shared your home with an animal that has given you unconditional love, picture it in that cage suffering. It turns my blood cold to think of such things.

"Why are we so special that we can cause pain and suffering to another living being? Is it right because it may make our lives better? Is it right because the animals can't defend themselves? We need to show kindness and respect for ALL living beings in order to ever prosper and grow."

Links

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)

Please send questions or comments to bbruno@snet.net.