Good science versus bad science

Add a Comment

Comment by Andre Menache on February 20, 2011 at 4:26

Animal experiments do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Don't take my word for it. Take a look at the systematic reviews that compare treatment outcomes in animals and in humans. Or study the pharmaceutical industry's own data comparing toxicity in animals and adverse drug reactions in people, where the correlation is about the same as what you would expect from a coin toss. Or consider the UK government's admission in 2004 that it has never conducted a study into the efficacy of animal experiments and has no plans to do so (Caroline Flint MP). Animal experiments are on the increase while we pontificate about the intrinsic value of a rat and a monkey versus that of a human life. We have already won the moral argument. Eighty per cent of EU citizens are against experiments on non human primates "whatever the cost to human medical progress". If, in addition, we empower these citizens with the science to show that animal experiments in fact are not a "necessary evil" we might just get enough people power to replace animal testing with non animal testing methods. When it comes to challenging animal experiments, let's have a level playing field. Scientist versus scientist, not philosopher versus scientist.  

Comment by Louise Owen on February 20, 2011 at 2:24

Hi guys

I'm new to this site, but I can assure you, as a vegan, that I am totally committed to non-violence of all kinds. In an ideal world, the end of speciesism would be enough to end vivisection. However, when a hysterical parent is faced with the life of her precious daughter over the life of a laboratory rat no sane parent, either vegan or non vegan, would choose a rat. Parents are driven to hysteria when their loved one is threatened with a serious or potentially fatal illness and animal research scientists rely on this emotionally vulnerable state to peddle false claims about science. False science can only be dismissed as such by qualified experts such as Nial Shanks PhD and Dr Ray Greek MD at AFMA here www.curedisease.com or the science team at Safer Medicines Campaign here www.safermedicines.org or Antidote Europe www.antidote-europe.org We need expert scientists to protect all animals, be they non-human or human.

Comment by Tim Gier on February 20, 2011 at 1:09

I agree with you regarding the moral case. In fact, it is only the moral argument that can win the day, for, as I see it, even if it were true that by experimenting on nonhuman animals we gained unique, vital and irreplaceable knowledge, it would still be the case that such experiments were rights violations against nonhuman individuals. It's also just wrong, as anyone who has seriously attempted to do so knows, to imply that it's easy to construct a consistent and universal moral argument.  We've been trying, as a species, to do it for at least 2500 years and still, many of the most basic questions remain quite contentious.

Comment by Susan Cho on February 20, 2011 at 1:02

Just commenting on your comment, Roger:  I think the scientific argument is good to use as a corollary of sorts.  It shows how comprehensive the violence is, since it hurts everyone involved.  It's like using the health argument for a vegan diet; not the deciding factor, but significant all the same.  Shows it's an overdetermined choice.