Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Animal Research - Is it necessary or a waste?

Some people have suggested that using animals in experimentation is unethical since animals cannot "volunteer" to participate. They suggest humans have a moral obligation to be caretakers of our world and not subject animals to suffering. However, others contend that our superior status in the world confers upon us the right to utilize animals to advance our condition.

Please react to the two articles on the use of animals in medical research. Do you support or oppose the use of animals in experimentation? Use evidence and please be specific in referencing the articles to support your position!



First post is due September 15.


lovejonas91 said...

Mr. Yip,
I was waiting to respond to a question like this and I have so much to say. Well, I have to say that I am undecided about the answer to this question. In the article, "Animal Research is Vital to Medicine", the first line of the article clearly stated that, "Experiments using animals have played a crucial role in the development of modern medical treatments..." This article showed with many examples how many of the medicines we now have today have been previously tested on animals. If animal testing wasn’t allowed, would these medicines still have been created? It was so interesting to hear that replacement heart valves and treatments for kidney failure were created from years of animal experimentation (pages 2-3, “Animal Research is Vital to Medicine". It was so interesting to see how many of these medicines were tried on so many different animals, only some including, cats, rabbits, mice, monkeys, etc… So yes, I do believe animal experimentation does have many pros, but it also comes with its cons like anything else.

Do you ever wonder about how animals feel about anything? It may sound like a useless question for some to think about, but it is true. Like humans, animals have feelings. Is it fair for them to be the guinea pigs for our experiments? It was so fascinating to read that “animal experiments can mislead researchers or even contribute to illnesses or deaths by failing to predict the toxic effects of drugs.” (Page 1, “Animal Research is Wasteful and Misleading.” I didn’t really know much about animal experimentation until I read both of these articles. This article specifically talks about all of the failures with animal experimentation and its effects. Animal experimentation has apparently led to failures, misleading results, and uncertainties according to the article. This article convinces me that animals shouldn’t be used for research since animals and humans are different.

Unfortunately, I can’t take a final stand on this issue, because there are pros and cons to both sides of the story. If I had to lean towards one side a little more than the other, I would have to agree with the article “Animal Research is Vital to Medicine”, because after all, animals have helped many humans survive because of all the new medicines that have been created.

~Natalie D., period 1

Matt L said...

Matt Lasorsa

After reading the two articles, I feel favorably for animal research. Although innocent rodents are sacrificed, this sacrifice is necessary to save even more human lives. If we did not use animals in experimentaion, we would not have created as many medications and treatments as we now have. I also learned that open heart surgery, which is now commonly practiced, was made possible through test trails on rodents. In addition, animals used in laboratorys are bread for experimentation. Because the benefit is greater than the negatives, i feel animal experimentation is acceptable.

lovejonas91 said...

I think that Matt Lasorsa made a good point that, "Although innocent rodents are sacrificed, this sacrifice is necessary to save even more human lives."
I think my position on this issue is finally clear; animal research is NOT wasteful and misleading.
~Natalie D.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Matt and Natalie, innocents rats die to save HUMAN lives, thats what important thir saving pepwhom have the potential to do omehting wiht their liveswhen the grow up, the nex child saved from some disease thanks to to animal testing could discover the cure for aids, or cancer or discover how to make long-term space travel a possibilty, the potetial of people is neer ending. while I agree with one tvhing the ant-testing article said, that we don't know how many potential cures have bee tossed out becaue the weren't eiive animals, but that's why we have clinical trials, if a potential cure is ineffective but non-lethal to an animal test subject, a lot of time they will do further testing on humans. but i also think that the testing should not be done on rats, their biology is rather dferent from ours, pigs are actually the closet related animal to us (biology wise) that is not a primate.
-Mike D'Amore

yipf said...

Mr. Yip

I like the responses thus far. They are thoughtful and well-grounded.

However, please consider the following: what gives humans the "right" to use animals in this manner? are humans "superior" to animals? if we are superior, do we have an obligation to protect rather than hurt/destroy them?

MLRoxYourSox said...

Mr. Yip,

This is a very difficult decision. Its so hard to decide if animal testing is wrong or right. I do feel that animal testing is cruel and unethical. "The stress of handling, confinement and isolation alters an animal's physiology and introduces yet another experimental variable that makes extrapolating results to humans even more difficult."(pg. 2) This shows that animal testing cannot always be reliable because the animals are not in good condition. Animal testing could be categorized as animal cruelty. "...then killed the animals and dissected the organs;"(pg. 3) I wonder if all that was really necessary. Did the animal really have to die? I hope they made a huge breakthrough by killing this animal. I'm thinking about what you said and I do believe that it is our job to protect them because they have no say in any of this. I'm sure its painful to go through this and yet at no point can they say stop. I feel its unfair to them and its just inhumane!

However Natalie does make a good point and I wonder just as she does if the medicines that were discovered would be around if it wasn't for animal testing. Its so tough to argue because the article about animal research being vital makes very good references to all the developments of medicine from animal testing. " Open heart surgery--which saves the lives of an estimated 440,000 people every year in the U.S. alone--is now routine, thanks to 20 years of animal research by scientists..."(pg. 2) I mean you cannot complain about the advances in medicine that have been made through animal testing. I just feel like we should try every other option such as epidemiological studies and autopsy studies than sacrifice animals. These studies will have flaws just as animal testing will. There will be trial and error. I think I am just against animal testing. I will never agree with it because I just think about the torture that these animals have to endure and I don't like it at all.

~Michaela Laliberte~

lovejonas91 said...

Mr. Yip,

Humans don't really have the "right" to use animals, HOWEVER, animals are produced in multitudes unlike humans. Although several animals are extinct, many still aren't. It almost has to do with survival of the fittest and the fact that is what the meaning of life is.

I don't believe that humans are superior to animals, and they should treat animals the way they should be treated. However, animal testing is important in order for humans to live even though it means some animals will die.

~Natalie D.

lovejonas91 said...

Mr. Yip,
My mother wanted to respond to this blog too. Instead of her having to create an account, I let her use my username and respond to this blog.
Hello Mr. Yip,
First, let me introduce myself as Natalie's mother, Roxanne Donoyan, and say thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion on such an important issue of life. Let's begin...
A life is a life no matter who or what the living object is. Though I never had an animal for a pet (other than gold fish and outside pets as a bird, toad, bunny who visit us in our backyard--we live in a rural area), I always liked dogs and many of God's creatures. Though it's true an animal doesn't have a choice to say whether he/she wants to be a candidate for an experiment, animals reproduce at a rate which allows this world not to be overpopulated by these species. Even other animals eat animals for survival and for eliminating overpopulation. God created everything exactly as it should be. Further, yes, using an animal for a "guinea pig" is not fair; however, if the experiment is going to advance our medical team's research to sustain and maintain a human's life longer than it might have been, then, yes, I have to say an animal has to be our product to use. Sometimes in life there isn't a choice--if something is going to come out of something else for the good and yet someone or something had to give up something, it's worth it--everyone doesn't win--and some animals' anatomies are very similar to a human's. Again, you're so right in that humans should find a less cruel way of determining if certain medicines work for the good. Noah had been given the message to put two of each kind of animal on his Arc, so they could procreate. Life has continued since...other than some extinct animals. In conclusion, until there is another way without anyone relinquishing its life, animal testing has made many advancements in research possible. Thank you for taking the time to read this and allow me to voice this opinion of mine.

Katherine said...

Katherine Gannon

Before reading these articles I would have automatically said that animal research is downright wrong and unnecessary. I still favor using all the other methods listed in the second article over hurting innocent animals, but I can understand how animal research is necessary. It may seem completely harmful, but there's only so much you can test on a cell sample. You need to be able to see how an organism reacts as a whole to a particular medication.

In response to your questions, yes humans are superior to animals. For years we have relied on animals to keep us alive, whether it be for food, warmth, etc. This is no exception. Doctors and researchers are not trying to hurt the animals, not in the least. If anything they are hoping to cure them of an illness they have contracted. I therefore feel that although I'm not a fan of animal research, I find it to be necessary in certain situations.

Anonymous said...

Mr Yip, the only reason we have the "right" to test on animals is the fact that we evolved into higher thought faster than they did, given mmost animals have rudimentary reasoning skills they lack the higher thought we have acess to, their actions are based on instinct, while ours, while still aree based through instinct, are filtered through our logic center, consious and unconsious minds and thus allow us to obtain a civilization

Marissa Mardo said...

Mr. Yip,

Reading these two articles allowed me to learn a lot about animal research that i otherwise wouldnt have known, which caused me to be faced with the question, "is animal research necessary or a waste?" i feel that this question can be supported with many pros, and also with many cons.

I feel that animals are much like babies, in the sense that they do have feelings, but they are unable to communicate their feelings with humans. Because of an animals lack of communication, i don't think that they should automatically be sacrificed as the source of experiment. Both animals and babies are unable to say no to something, but scientists only want to use animals as the use of experimentation. How come sacrificing the lives of humans for experimentation never crossed the minds of scientists?? I think that they believe that animals dont have feelings so they wont be affected, but that is not at all true. Humans are only concerned about other humans, so maybe it is just our society being selfish??

I also feel that using animals as the source of experimentation is necessary in order to save humans.
Many of the medicines that we use today to help humans, was previously tested on animals. Like Natalie and many of my other classmates said, "If animal testing wasn't allowed, would these medicines still have been created?"

It was interesting to learn that many of the medicines we use today are used thanks to animals. It seems selfish to say that animals deserve to be killed to help humans, when the animals are the ones that helped to save humans. Because of this, i cannot completely agree with one side because without the animals, all of the medicines we have today would not have been available to humans.
Marissa Mardo Period 1

yipf said...

Mr McNamara

Your comments are all thoughtful and show that you are approaching this topic with a critical mind.

I would agree that animal testing is a necessary evil. At some point in the past, the use of animals may have been gratuitous, i.e. testing for cosmetics. To my mind, there must be a truly worthy cause to necessitate animal testing.

Taozoo4u said...

My stance on animal research is that it is always necessary and crucial to perfecting medicines before they are used on humans and after reading these two articles i can proudly say that i have not changed my opinion. while i don't condone testing cosmetic items on animals i do think that testing medicine on animals is good before we test them on humans, if you test something on humans that can be fatal and it ends up killing a human, i have always believed, a human life is more valuable than an animals life. One thing in the article that supported what i think is "Hemophilus influenzae type B (Hib), a major cause of meningitis, which before 1993 resulted in death or severe brain damage in more than 800 children each year in the U.S.
But a new vaccine, prepared and tested in rabbits and mice, proved to be powerfully immunogenic and IS now in routine use. Within two months of the vaccine’s introduction in the U.S. and the U.K., Hib infections fell by 70 percent." and i believe that without the testing that they did on rabbits and mice Hib would still be a fatal disease in the U.S. Although there was a point made in the other article that states "During the 1920s and 1930s, studies on monkeys led to gross misconceptions that delayed the fight against poliomyelitis. These experiments indicated that the poliovirus infects mainly the nervous system; scientists later learned this was because the viral strains they had administered through the nose had artificially developed an affinity for brain tissue. The erroneous conclusion, which contradicted previous human studies demonstrating that the gastrointestinal system was the primary route of infection, resulted in misdirected preventive measures and delayed the development of a vaccine." If they would have tested the vaccine on humans first it would have showed correct data and therefore a good vaccine would have been created.

-Matt Benoit

Wynne said...

This is psychology, right? How does a class blog on whether or not animal research is right or wrong have anything to do with psychology? I can see how it can be used to see how we all have different opinions and beliefs, or maybe it could relate to the ONE paragraph written to show how human and animal psychologies have very little difference. But, I still don’t get it.
That aside, I am a firm believer that testing animals is necessary for the well being of human kind. I can’t imagine the horrible present we’d currently be in if it were not for animal research. Botting and Morrison were right on target when they said how many of the negative opinions on animal research have come from animal-rights propaganda. I can’t stand people who get all ecstatic and teary eyed when they see someone wearing a fur jacket or something. I don’t get it. “Save the African Gorilla!” They might say – protesters outside some factory in California or wherever. How about saving the … just a thought here… the people in Africa. How about we look towards the well-being of our own species before going out sticking red flags on some bizarre creature in Tim-Buck-Two; something that we’ve never even heard of before. It just makes more sense.
Barnard and Kaufman write how animal testing can be misleading. Yet, how about we stop for a moment and think about all the good it’s done. If it were not for Louis Pasteur and his animal testing who knows if the world would ever know what a “germ” was. Cures for Hib, puerperal sepsis, polio, and lobar pneumonia, along with the creation of insulin and penicillin have all come from research that has involved animals. Countless diseases have been stopped because of animal testing and if killing a monkey means saving a human life…well, I don’t see the big problem.

Wynne said...

The above comment was written by Ted Wynne by the way.

Roberto said...

Alright well after reading both articles I'm undecided over the whole animal testing arguement. Both articles put up very solid points regarding the subject, although I believe that the article by Barnard and Kaufman contradicts itself at a certain point. When it gets down to it I'm going to have to say that it's all a matter of your morals and whether or not you believe that you have the right to conduct experiments on animals because you are the "superior" being. Now from that point of view the whole Holocaust could be justified because the Nazi's thought that they were "superior" beings.

mishy91 said...

Michelle Lefracnois

I understand that animal experimentation is vital to saving thousands of human lives, including mine. But I think we need to ask the question of whether or not we have the right to take advantage of animals in this way. Just because our intelligence is higher than theirs, doesn't make it alright for us to abuse them for our own gain. I don't think anything on this planet has that sort of right, especially us. I've realized that its a lot easier for people to make a judgment on something with just facts and nothing else. I think the foundation that those that are pro stand on would become shaky if they were to actually see and hear what is done up close and personal. I don't think animal research is a waste because it has proven to have save lives, but for those lives to continue, other lives have to be cut short. And that is not anyone's decision to make.

McCall Theriault said...

McCall Theriault says:
As stated by the FDA, "In animal testing, drug companies make every effort to use as few animals as possible and to ensure their humane and proper care. Generally, two or more species (one rodent, one non-rodent) are tested because a drug may affect one species differently from another. Animal testing is used to measure how much of a drug is absorbed into the blood, how it is broken down chemically in the body, the toxicity of the drug and its breakdown products (metabolites), and how quickly the drug and its metabolites are excreted from the body."

However, I am undecided about this topic! I really think that the cruel use of animals is not fair and just but there is a time where it is needed! I for one think that if a drug were to help me when i was in great need that if it was tested on animals and it were to save my life then it would be alright. I don't want to sound selfish or mean but there comes a time when you have to think of yourself and the needs that need to be meet.

When I was born, I was a severally asthmatic and was on a ventilator for the first year and 6 months of my life it wasn't until medical research and the testing on animals that i was able to come off of the ventilator and be released for m the hospital. How this relates to the topic is that I believe there is a place for all types of life and that no life should be harmed if it is not necessary.

I know that each year many animals are harmed in ways such as becoming blind, maimed or even genetically manipulated. However in order to answer this question I feel that it is not what you believe is right and just but what can be done to fix the problems and still have the benefits of the ways that animal testing can help us.

Anonymous said...

Without animal testing, we would not be where we are today in the medical world. Not all animal testing is harmful to the animal. Animal food companies use test animals to see if a little of this or that oil in the diet makes for a healthier coat, etc. Go online to the Iams company and learn about their animal testing policy. As i did some online research i found out some cons on animal testing

" To measure severe burns on live tissue, a pet is burned alive with a flame-thrower until the charred flesh can be removed in large pieces from while the animal is still alive.
An experiment to study head trauma requires a pet’s head to be strapped down and receive high impact blows to the head resulting in severe brain damage.
To demonstrate there is no difference in eye protein levels of the site deprived, pet’s eyelids are sewn shut then later compared to normal protein levels." this is definitely a waste do test animals like this, http://www.geocities.com/paws_n_tails/AnimalTestingFacts.html
I have also learned from the same website that "Drugs that pass animal tests end up harming or killing humans about 61% of the time. Promising treatments are withheld from humans when they don't pass animal tests. Scientists point to huge chances of possible vaccines for cancer, heart disease, and HIV being withheld from the public because of faulty animal tests."

I would say animal test is good for somethings but bad for others. I think we should be testing medicine before giving it to humans but it still doesn't give scientists the right to harm animals but in some cases in the long run humans are helped.

~Michael Amaral

laurynp said...

aaI believe that animal testing is horrible and not necessary what so ever. Through the years Americans, as well as humans in general have learned that taking advantage of someone/thing is wrong. It is not okay to use someone just for the benefit of yourself. It is not okay to treat others with no respect and to deliberately hurt them and in turn, kill them. Animals are a living thing and have every right as every other living thing. We as humans know its not okay to just take another person and hurt them intentionally. People may do it, but then they suffer the dire consequences. We as a society know that.

So why do people think it's okay to take advantage of a living thing, just because you think it doesn't have feelings?....because it cant talk?... People and Scientists may think the cure to cancer, or another deadly disease can be cured and by testing on animals it will make it quicker and easier. Well that is not the case, in the Article Animal Testing is Wasteful and Misleading, "the stress of handling, confinement, and isolation alters and animals physiology and introduces yet another experimental variable that makes extrapolating results to humans even more difficult." Not only are humans and most animals, completely different but most animals are not okay with getting stuff forced upon them. Just as any human would feel.

Who are we to decide the fate of a living thing besides ourself? No body appointed us to judge if an animal should live or die, be tested on or not be tested on. It's not fair that animals are bred just for this purpose and don't get to live the life nature intended for them. I believe it is cruel and unjust to test chemicals and drugs on helpless animals. They deserve every chance at life that humans do, and humans that believe other wise should think twice.

Ben Pickering said...

For me this was an obvious choice. I would definately support animal testing, due to all the good it has done in the evolution of finding cures and causes of diseases. The way I see it is that is either them, a rat or some rodent, or me. Despite it being cruel and harmful, the fact is that it saves lives. Due to animal testing, many lives have been saved. 440,000 peoples lives are saved a year because of open heart sergery due to the advancements made by animal experimentation. In the end animal test works and has definately made advancements in science. Without animal testing what else would there be out there to help scientists find cures to diseases? Therefore, animal testing, despite being cruel is a good idea and helps save many human lives.
Ben Pickering

laurynp said...

RESPONSE- to ted's comment.I think that Ted Wynne made a good point to the opposite side that i am for. It is true that maybe helping people that really need the help instead of worrying about this is more important. We have many problem within our own species so why don;t we settle that first. Good point woooo

Anonymous said...

Mr. Yip

Before I begain to read, i was totally against animal testing because it is cruel to the animal. The animal doesnt have a voice, and cant express pain as much a human can. But as I read more and more, i realized that animal testing is essential for medical research. Animal testing helped discover solutions to kidney problems, heart, and other infections. Medical research is essential, and the only way to do this is on animals.
As long as the animal is in aboslutly no pain, then it is a win-win situation for both animal, and humans.

Chris said...

After reading both articles and reading everyone's comments, I have to say it's hard for me to take a side. Both articles and everyone here makes great points. I'm in the middle of all this. I feel that animal testing is both necessary, but also harmful at the same time.

I believe animals have the same rights as humans. They're God's creation, just like humans. They have a purpose on this Earth, as do humans. They may not be the same purpose, but as the saying goes, "Everything happens for a reason." Only, I do not know, what reason is, I can't explain it.

Regarding the subject at hand, though, I feel that a perfectly healthy animal shouldn't be tested because they don't need to. Also, you don't know if the test is going work out well, if it doesn't if harm the animal. However, if you have an animal who's either suffering from the diease being test for or the animal is just all around sick and dying, with no hope, then you could test that animal. I feel this way, because whether or not the test is successful you're not doing much harm.

-Chris E. (Period 1)

Chris said...

Natalie stated:

"I don't believe that humans are superior to animals, and they should treat animals the way they should be treated. However, animal testing is important in order for humans to live even though it means some animals will die. "

I agree with this. I feel that animal testing is necessary to find out what can cure humans, but shouldn't be taken to the level where humans feel they're above animals. Like, I said in my previous comments, animal testing has it's advantages and disadvantages. Once again, animal testing shouldn't be done to animals who perfectly healthy, becuase you're just wasting an animals life, if the test is unsuccessful. However, if you're testing an animal who has no hope to live, then, you're not really causing harm, because you're trying to find a cure for humans, and myabe even the animal if the test is successful.

gary31 said...

I think that animal experimenting is a good thing because if we didn’t have this we would be a lot further behind were we are now in the medical fields the human race didn’t get to where we are now by feeling bad for animals and taking care of them we got were we are now by killing and eating them. So if someone needs to do a test on an animal to further the human race growth and by all means do it. According to jack h. Botting and Adrian r. Morrison animal research decreased hemophilus influenza type b by 70%

Leslie said...

Excuse me, animal what? I think animal research is necessary. I mean with animal research we were able to find out the cures to some dieases. For example, Pasteur used microbe that causes anthrax, on guinea pigs and rabbits found a vaccine for that. He also found vaccines for various infectious diseases like the whooping cough, measeles, mumps and many more. I definitely don't have a problem with using animals for testing. Better them than me right?

Anonymous said...

reading what michelle wrote, i just want to reinforce the statement that we ARE NOT using animals for "perdonal gain" we're using them to make sure we SURVIVE not get more money or anything we use them to cure diseases that afflict our people, and sometimes as a by-product, find cures for diseases that attack our pets

Katherine said...

I see the comments getting progressively hostile. No worries here. I'm simply commenting on the nice points people have been making, and to politely critique others. For the most part, the majority of the class seems to support animal research. I can see Lauryn has a different opinion, which I respect. I used to hold the exact same feelings as her. However, after really thinking about it I know now that although it may not seem beneficial to animals, it is to everyone in the long run.

She wrote, "Who are we to decide the fate of a living thing besides ourself? No body appointed us to judge if an animal should live or die, be tested on or not be tested on." However, we do judge animals all the time and we are constantly making decisions for them, not just because they cannot speak. What happens when your dog becomes sick? You take him to the vet and give him the shots he needs, whether he likes it or not. Or what if your dog appears to be suffering from an illness, but you don't know the extent of his pain? Do you put him to sleep or let him suffer? You make the decision you THINK is right for them. Humans are constantly shaping animals lives, and they're doing it for their own benefit. I don't think animal researches purposely want to cause animals any harm. Overall, they just want what's best.

Katherine Gannon

mishy91 said...

In response to mcclearenf14me, I never stated that I believed that humans test on animals for money. And like I had said in my last post, I know and understand why we do animal research, I just don't agree with the fact of taking advantage of them. I just think we need to ask the question of whether or not we have the right to do use animal testing. I'm not trying to attack anyone's opinion, just stating my own. :)


yipf said...

Hi Everyone,

I received this e-mail from PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) just before our Socratic Seminar. I thought you might be interested in reading this as a last word on the discussion.

In NO WAY am I suggesting that you donate to or join PETA. This is strictly for those interested in the viewpoint of this organization.

Dear Friend,

As I write to you, countless dogs, cats, mice, rabbits, and other animals are suffering in outdated and unnecessary animal tests. This year alone, more than 100 million individual animals in North America will be killed in these cruel tests.

Since our founding nearly 30 years ago, PETA has made groundbreaking progress in our fight to stop all animal tests. With your help today, we can accomplish twice as much for those suffering behind the closed doors of laboratories. Thanks to a group of generous PETA donors, online donations received through our special "Stop Animal Testing" Challenge over the next month, up to a maximum of $250,000, will be matched dollar for dollar!

People of conscience have always opposed needless and cruel experiments on animals, but thanks to PETA's hard work and the dedication of our supporters, animal testing has been laid bare as junk science—of no benefit to anyone except the profiteers who make money from it.

When you give during the "Stop Animal Testing" Challenge, your donation will be worth twice as much to PETA and the animals we are working tirelessly to save.

By donating today to have your gift and impact doubled, you will help answer the cries of the millions of individual animals killed in North American laboratories every year, including the following animals:

Dogs who are poisoned by toxic pesticides.
Mice who are put in water chambers and forced to swim until they drown from exhaustion.
Rabbits who have chemicals poured into their eyes.
Pigs who are shot and burned by the U.S. Army for medical trainings.
Monkeys who have metal screws drilled into their skulls.
These experiments are not only cruel but also unreliable, dangerous, and bad science. We know that non-animal tests are less expensive and that they are better at protecting human health. The U.S. government's own scientific advisory board, the National Academy of Sciences, has concluded that many animal tests are useless and should largely be replaced by superior non-animal test methods. But even with that recommendation, animal testing continues, and animals whose minds and bodies are being shattered in laboratories desperately need our help.

PETA—and supporters like you—are often the only hope for these helpless animals. Our undercover investigations into vivisection facilities have exposed their horrors for public scrutiny. Our negotiations with corporations like Coca-Cola and PepsiCo have spurred them to adopt cruelty-free policies and practices and compelled hundreds of others to give up animal testing forever. Our whistleblower program and our shareholder activism are also helping to hold corporate animal abusers accountable and save animals' lives.

But as long as any company, university, or government blinds, poisons, maims, tortures, and kills animals, our job isn't done. We urgently need your support to keep this fight going strong.

Please make a generous gift during this special online challenge today to help us permanently end the senseless abuse of animals in laboratories.

With your immediate help, we can save animals from cruel and painful deaths in laboratories.

Kind regards,

Ingrid E. Newkirk

P.S. There is no justification for another dog, cat, rabbit, monkey, pig, or other animal to suffer and die for pointless chemical, cosmetics, pesticide, or food-additive tests. With your help, PETA has the power to end these experiments. Please help us double our resources during this special "Stop Animal Testing" Challenge by making a generous gift today!

dirkdiggler said...

since i am not posting this comment till after the socratic seminar i now how almost all of you feel on the subject and im just going to say what mr.yip said in class why not use the mentally retarded.

Anonymous said...

Even though we are the care takers for animals and mentally disabled people, they still have rights. Just becasue we are able to take advantage of animals, dosent mean that we should. So what if the mentally disabled have a lower IQ then some of the test animals? the bottom line is ITS NOT RIGHT. Its also not right to throw or inject chemicals into ANY animal, and expect it not to react. Animals have instincts. And when you mess with animals, they will react. Some of the tests are absolutly unecisarry. I understand that some of the tests are AbSoLuTlEy necissary. And i say go for it, but there should be a limit. NO PAIN should be caused to the animal.