Cox & Forkum on Animal Testing
Tags:
Political cartoonists Cox & Forkum take "animal rights terrorists" to task for blocking research that could help humans by implying that these particular activists will regret that decision. But that line of criticism fails.
That is, when they face degenerative brain diseases, like Parkinson's, they would rather die than let animals suffer in research labs. Furthermore, more odiously, they want to force others to do the same.
What I find amusing is that the lab won't be opened because "Cambridge decided that it could not afford the ... danger to staff that [violent protests] would involve". But:
Millions of humans would suffer and die unnecessarily if animal testing were prohibited. Animal rights activists know this, but are unmoved. Chris DeRose, founder of the group Last Chance for Animals, writes: "If the death of one rat cured all diseases, it wouldn't make any difference to me."
Implying what? That it's OK to kill or wound people to save rats, but not OK to destroy a rat to save people? Even accepting the premise that all life is infinitely valuable, I don't see how this is logically consistent.
A tasteless postscript — if they have Alzheimer's, they likely won't remember their activism anyway.
Animal research is often worthless - just because they can make a rat do something, it doesn't mean they can do it in humans.
And we are different from animals in some ways you wouldn't believe. Chocolate is poisonous to most animals, and onions, garlic, and aspirin are toxic to cats (aspirin is converted to cyanide in a cat's body). In the end, the most important testing is on volunteers and controlled groups.
So, what does that say? We need a lower level of testing on humans. But who? Volunteers? Criminals on death row?
Eventually computer simulations will take care of this kind of thing. That comic was stupid, by 2064 this won't be an issue.
Also, if animal testing is to be taken seriously, the government should ban Nutrasweet. It causes cancer in rats. In fact, Nutrasweet once had a warning that said so. But they've managed to get it removed.
If any studies were to be taken seriously
No, animal testing isn't perfect.
But it's better than the current computer models/simulations and the ethical implications of early-stage testing on humans are even worse.
Still, if animal testing was worthless, why would independent researchers (i.e. not big pharmaceutical companies) do it?
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on February 19, 2004 8:32 PM | permalinkNote that I said "often worthless" and not completely worthless.
Posted by: O'dell on February 20, 2004 1:01 AM | permalinkOh yeah, and as for "why," animals are the next best thing after humans.
Why should your ethics be the "right" ethics? Either do that testing on both humans and animals, or neither. That's quite a bit of hipocrisy there.
Posted by: O'dell on February 20, 2004 1:19 AM | permalinkOne final comment... I would have thought that you'd be a supporter of human testing. I mean, you don't feel that anyone deserves free health care. Why not offer health care to people willing to go through low level tests?
Wouldn't you like that? We don't promote that evil socialism with free care, and the wealthy can benefit from the poor, like usual.
Posted by: O'dell on February 20, 2004 1:27 AM | permalinkYes, I support human testing in some respects. They already do that with trials of new drugs, for example.
But "let us remove parts of your brain and we'll give you cash" ain't gonna fly with most people. That's extreme Libertarianism, something I don't subscribe to.
"Why should your ethics be the "right" ethics?"
They shouldn't. But these activists are in a teeny, tiny minority and butting into something that doesn't affect them personally.
"Either do that testing on both humans and animals, or neither. That's quite a bit of hipocrisy there."
I don't think so at all. Other animals simply don't have the same rights as humans; that's a premise of every single legal system.
animal testing is the most wrong thing i can think of. Why would you hurt a million animals to save one human? Why would you torture animals, or the fact that they have different symtoms doesn'tmake a difference? So just make it stop
Posted by: Hanna on April 2, 2007 7:58 AM | permalink"Animal testing is the most wrong thing i can think of. Why would you hurt a million animals to save one human?"
Because human life is worth more.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on April 2, 2007 8:43 AM | permalinkNo more comments! Either someone has violated Godwin's Law, I'm tired of the discussion or, most likely, the ten-week window has closed. You can, however, contact me through email.