brilliant kiwiol, just when i liked you again.
You owned yourself in your own post. You are absolutely right animal testing has no valuable place in research, even the NY Times listed it as the least reliable form of scientific testing and yet you support the continued use of millions of animals that are suffering at the hands of researchers.
The only reason it continues is because inferior research labs are hungry for US tax payer grant money and the NIH is so old school and bogged down in bureaucracy they cant admit they are wrong. They are sold out to companies and labs with government contracts and the rich PR firms afraid of scandal.
Why would Procter and Gamble agree to phase out all their animal testing in the next five years if animal testing was so important and if their weren't better alternatives? They are leading the way. But you are towing the old company line.
As I said to Devon97, if you are concerned for human safety, campaigning against animal welfare is a strange choice. Your time could be better spent on demanding cures for Cancer and improving child welfare than getting in the way of people who care about animals. Odd choice and very suspect.
I agree dudes, valhalla is an ugly chick, I am just surprised she would strip for PETA.
I knew there was going to be some sensitive soul getting all edgy about my post. Before I address your post, I'd like you to know that I studied Microbiology with a molecular biology major, so bear in mind I'm not just saying stuff I read in Readers Digest or anything.
Opinions, especially in the field of Science are as varied as can be. There is no universal agreement on any theories or procedures or technologies or whatever, bar on basic metaphysical laws that are universal. The opinions of some even contradict that of others sometimes. What I'm trying to say is that given such a case, it's not hard for someone to back up their opinion / theory / claim by something that's mentioned in 'The NY times' or 'The London Chronicles. So, something doesn't necessarily become true or false just cause a 'prestigious' newspaper or even an established scientific magazine like Nature says it is so.
And just because one company, no matter how big it is, is phasing out animal testing doesn't mean this is way of the future or the only way to go. One company out of the tens of thousands of others is statistically insignificant, although of course, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Exceptions often prove the rule, so we'll call that a draw.
Bear in mind I do like animals and if given a choice, I'd rather they didn't suffer as they do in a lot of situations now. But our species is still evolving and learning, especially in the realm of Science and IN THIS CONTEXT, the end does justify the means. I won't go into the specifics or even the morality of animal testing, but I'll tell you this much - it is very much an invaluable part of research, especially for the pharmaceutical industry.
It's very easy for us to sit in the comfort of our home and talk about animal rights and such, but when you're one of the millions of unfortunate souls in third world countries, starving and facing death from various diseases, finding the cure for which some animals will be made to suffer, you'll look at it very differently. Concepts like morality, ethics etc will fly through the window when your stomach's empty. Of course, like I said, that doesn't justify it, but it does demand it and therefore, justice does take a back seat.
Like I said, we are still learning and evolving and are faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
ar from being able to efficiently use resources and maintain sustainability at the same time, but that's alright. Sometime in the distant future, will evolve different technologies and branches of Science that will be more efficient and less demanding and damaging to the environment and the organisms that live in it, but until then, we're gonna have to put up with things like this.
