LinkFang01 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Because they said that about the endangered species I'm sure >.>.

LinkFang01 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Reminds me of frog dissection.Though not entirely the same kind of testing. It is (to me) in the same realm and is cruel.From what I've heard they kill healthy frogs and preserve their bodies for what they call "a child's education experience". To me it's more like a child's entertainment since not a whole lot of children (or so I've seen) around my age takes anything seriously. I feel sick for thinking it was fun in the first place.And don't ever give me the crap "there's more in the wild".

anthonygador (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Yes they do. If they don't then why do rational people use these methods (animals are very expensive esp. special breeds) Look at any well done publication that examines a diseases pathophys. To say a drug or intervention is effective, causative, or toxic in cell culture is worlds apart from what could be happening with the compensatory, additive, or synergistic as contributed by the intact system. I condone alternatives however less radical humane societies have responsibly conceded

LisaHanke (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

this is so sad....

mackeek23 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

That was life changing!!! People who test shit on animals are STUPID BITCHS!!!....I balled the whole time!!

roxusan (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Not all the fields you mentioned require animal testing in all tests. Who are you to say when it is 'essential' to take life? Life-taking is a serious issue, yet lab animals are routinely killed and objectified as "lab supplies" in the name of science. Lab animals are treated as a neccessity when they doesn't need to be. There are alternatives, and where there still aren't, then we need to look for alternatives. Otherwise we're promoting a very dangerous and callous attitude towards life.

roxusan (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I went to public school and am now in college. I have taken and passed several science classes with A's and B's, and I liked the subject it seemed like an objective way to save lives. I wanted to be a biology major until I encountered the very un-scientific and anti-life attitude against alternatives to animal testing. Your use of the words "absolutely require" indicates you aren't even willing to consider alternatives, because you already think animal testing is the way to go.

anthonygador (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I was never arguing the usage of animals in areas where they are not essential. Look drug discovery, neuropsychology, basic research in physiology, pharmacology and biochemistry all ABSOLUTELY REQUIRE animal models for the reasons I stated before. Alternatives may reduce the number of animals (which is good because I hate handling lab rats) used to address a hypothesis but cannot entirely eliminate their need. I askwhats your schooling. Science(esp. biology) is never fully conclusive

roxusan (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Also, anthonygador, you keep talking about ending the suffering of humans while ignoring that people who abuse animals tend to abuse people, too. Not all tests require animals, yet lab animals are still widely used. Want evidence? Animal testing is NOT just used for health and disease, but has become widespead in food production and cosmetics testing (where chemistry degrees come in handy. Ever wondered about all those long food labels?) Please do more research.

roxusan (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

anthonygador--- you did not answer my points. You've created a fake "choice" between sacrificing animals and sacrificing humans. We don't have to "choose" when we have the means to explore ways which avoid or stop animal testing. Yet many scientists don't even want to talk about animal rights, and stubbornly cling to their old technology despite inconclusive data and existing alternatives. Not to mention terrible on-site animal abuse and the general disreguard for life it promotes.