Animal Tests – Questions of Validity
For much of the twentieth century since animals were first employed for medical experimentation there have been individuals and groups and associations objecting to this cruel and unethical abuse of animals. Many believe the methods are inhumane in the extreme. This makes the matter particularly evil in the light of the wonderful affection and service many species of animals have offered us in their long association with humans.
“Animal testing precedes human trials, but if we do not know whether the animal testing is relevant to the problem in humans, it will lose even minimal predictive value … the continued use of broad spectrum multi-strain /multi-species testing vividly shows that researchers do not actually know which laboratory results can be legitimately applied to humans”.
Hugh LaFollette and Niall Shanks, Brute Science (London: Routledge, 1996) p 27
Many more scientists are now voicing their concern and offering a reason for surrendering the practice of vivisection and animal experimentation of all kinds. It is based on reason and evidence rather than just upon a nobler aspiration to return kindness for the help and protection the animal kingdom has given us, and still gives us in our life upon the earth.
In the living evolutionary structure of creatures and life on earth, humans have been given the role as custodians of the animal evolution, not the torturers. We must fulfill our mature role here and now or suffer the consequences that must eventuate if we continue to ignore our hearts and minds because of an outworn medical habit that denies us pride in an avenue of human endeavour and brings us shame.
In the past, there were often no alternatives to animal testing, other than testing on humans or allowing people to take the risk of using untested medications and other products.
I don’t think we should be judgemental toward people who were making the best choice they had at the time.