Animals and research
I don't use any animals in my research. Except humans, anyway. But I have in the past and I don't object to their use. Many people do object to animals being used in research. PETA is one of the most visible.
There's many groups that have an axe to grind against science. Some of them are eloquent, and this is quite frequently true of the folk against animal experimentation, yet others are clumsy and seem foolish. I put creationists in that catagory. It's instructive to analyze why these two catagories of critic give such different impressions.
Here's a page I like from an animal rights supporter. While I often don't agree with his arguments or even his assumptions in some cases, I don't deny that he makes a well considered and persuasive argument. This is fairly typical of the animal rights movement. Contrast that to the creationists who attempt to use science to promote religious faith. It's certainly a flawed endeavor and the end result is like a train wreck. Logic doesn't beget faith. Though there's certainly many people in fields that require logic that also have religious faith, faith by it's very essense requires belief without proof. As Spock would say on those old Star Trek shows: That is not logical. Faith is the belief in something without logical justification. Creationists don't seem to get that so they insist on making clumsy attempts to rationalize their faith.
There's many groups that have an axe to grind against science. Some of them are eloquent, and this is quite frequently true of the folk against animal experimentation, yet others are clumsy and seem foolish. I put creationists in that catagory. It's instructive to analyze why these two catagories of critic give such different impressions.
Here's a page I like from an animal rights supporter. While I often don't agree with his arguments or even his assumptions in some cases, I don't deny that he makes a well considered and persuasive argument. This is fairly typical of the animal rights movement. Contrast that to the creationists who attempt to use science to promote religious faith. It's certainly a flawed endeavor and the end result is like a train wreck. Logic doesn't beget faith. Though there's certainly many people in fields that require logic that also have religious faith, faith by it's very essense requires belief without proof. As Spock would say on those old Star Trek shows: That is not logical. Faith is the belief in something without logical justification. Creationists don't seem to get that so they insist on making clumsy attempts to rationalize their faith.
Comments
A quick standpoint overview: I think animal testing is a currently necessary evil in medical research, but I also think that is completely unnessecary for cosmetics (human volunteers are available and better able to test those). I dislike the hypocricy and extremism of vehement anti-animal testing activists who wouldn't think anything was wrong by placing the value of an animal life not on EQUAL level with that of a human's, but ABOVE.
Probably not.