I notice that you’re ignoring the fact that I did, so you can complain about this.

You imply that you’d be willing to forego animal testing if there were viable alternatives but right now it’s a “necessity”, you say. Let me ask you this: what do you call “necessity?” what would you be willing to give up right now, today?
- Drug studies, since over 90% of drugs deemed safe on animals are found unsafe or ineffective when tested on humans? (Big waste of money if you ask me)
- How about unconscionably cruel studies, for example, the one Henry Spira is famous for putting and end to at the Museum of Natural History where cat’s brains were damaged to see if they’d try to have sex with a rabbit over another cat? Really important stuff here.
- Other pointless behavioural and psychological studies?
- Burn studies?
- The Draize eye test?
- Heart disease studies that promise hope to fat Westerners that eat too much fast food?

Do you see the problem here? The assholes who invasively mutilated cats’ brains convinced themselves that their work is necessary.

Did the dogs consent to being used in this way? We’ll never, ever know. But we don’t CARE. We did what we wanted TO those animals, and we then justify it by saying, a) it serves a human purpose, and b) we aren’t harming the animals when we do use them.

Again, a slave holder could treat his slaves nicely, or he could beat them nightly. Yes, treating them nicely is nicer for the slaves than being beaten every night. But not being slaves is better than either.

Animals are not a resource to be exploited by humans — not in a lab, not sniffing packages for law enforcement, not to assist disabled humans.

What are you not understanding?

You’re against veterinarians? Odd. Where do you stand on things like Seeing Eye dogs and the such. I had a friend who was a quadriplegic due to a car accident and he was afforded a trained dog that would help him with simple tasks that were beyond his ability. It allowed him to live on his own instead of in a hospital. How about the use of drug sniffing dogs (unless you’re in favor of illegal drugs. That’s your business)? There are even dogs used now for sniffing out cancer in patients. Not sure how that works but it’s pretty cool. How about therapy dogs? If you ban all domesticated animals what would happen to the types of people that benefit from their services? Do we tell the blind and injured, “Tough shit buddy, sucks being you.”?

You seem to be operating under the misconception that we don’t already know that. Yes, by your own personal estimation, you care about *some* animals. That you don’t club seal pups or treat your dog well is nice. It’s nice for you, and it’s nice for your dog. No one is disputing that.

That doesn’t change the fact that the animals you *do* test or train on are a means to an end, as are the animals you eat (may I presume you’re non-vegan?)

I’d have no qualms about having puppy mills shut down. We’re not the picture some in the animal rights movement would like to paint us.

I want puppy mills (and so-called “responsible”) breeders shut down TOO, Jack. But I also want YOU shut down, as well. The problem here is that you’re resting on claims of human benefit as though that makes your actions ethically neutral. They’re not. They’re wrong. In the service of some human purpose, perhaps, and perhaps a justifiable wrong in the minds of many, but nevertheless still *wrong*. It does not matter if a slave owner treats his slaves relatively well, or he beats them nightly: slavery is still wrong.

I applaud your desire for a perfect world, really I do.

None of us are being utopian. When we move beyond seeing animals as exploitable resources, as a means to our ends, we will still have places where our interests conflict with animal interests. What we’re asking for is that society take more consideration of those animal interests into account than we do *now*, and we don’t default to using animals for our purposes without a VERY good reason for doing so. Most – the vast majority, really – of our claimed “necessity cases” now are really just issues of human pleasure or convenience.

I have no problem with people working towards finding alternatives to animal research.

Then you have more of an onus, if you wish to be taken seriously, in your welfare claims here, to do MORE than you’re doing now, to make those welfare standards mean something. I mean “you” generally, in terms of the scientific community as a whole. You’re going to do whatever you’re going to do; implement tighter standards, or don’t. It won’t change the fundamental ethical issue either way. Animals STILL won’t be ours to use.

We won’t stop advocating for an end to research if you change some standards of treatment. IF you do, that will at least be something, and it will make the many claims that the scientific community “cares” about animal welfare a little less tedious and patently annoying, but there is no magical welfare standard that will make animals acceptable to use as resources for our ends.

I object to firebombing someones house.

So do I; but you (again, the scientific community as a whole) refuse to listen. Some folks are tired of being polite and attempting to be heard by a brick wall.

You wouldn’t like it if I did it to you now would you?

No, but while I disagree with the *tactic* on political and moral grounds, I understand the *motivation.* It’s not about me, or what I like. It’s not about you, or what you like. It’s about the animals we’re enslaving for our purposes, with no end in sight.

That said, I work with reality. The reality is that animal research is needed right now.

You keep saying that as if you’re being told otherwise. See several of my comments earlier in the thread. See Soscha’s. Etc.

My chosen job is to ensure that the animals used are treated as humanely as possible…

No, Jack, it isn’t. As humanely as *possible* would be not to use animals AT ALL. You’re willing to treat animals as humanely as you WISH, in order to satisfy your emotional preference not to see animals suffer according to some arbitrary standard of “too much suffering,” while still continuing to use animals.

I understand that you may not *enjoy* causing suffering. But when you get right down to it, the claimed human benefit trumps animal suffering, first, last and always. You’re not doing ANYTHING to ensure these animals are used as humanely as *possible*. You’re ensuring some standards of welfare, as defined by you, when you see fit to allow for it, and you’re denying it, when you see fit to deny it. That’s not doing everything POSSIBLE. That’s doing the bare minimum your conscience can possibly allow, while still allowing the unethical use to persist.

This is akin to people who claim they’re upset because vegans are “preachy” and we don’t pat people on the head for eating as “little meat as possible.” As little as *possible* is simple: none.

As you say, you’re not going to change the system soon

If we stop calling for an end to testing, we won’t change the system *at all*.

so in the meantime there are people like myself doing what we can to ensure the animals are not abused.

No, you’re doing what you can to allow yourself to claim they’re not abused “too much.” They are still abused. You just see much of it as acceptable abuse, given that humans will derive benefits from that abuse.

I’m sure our definitions of abuse differ though.

The entire system of animal exploitation is abuse. It’s not all *equally* bad, but it is all bad.

But right now, in reality, the alternatives aren’t nearly sufficient and that’s why I do what I do.

Then develop better alternatives. Right now, while the community keeps harping on about claimed human benefits, no real movement toward alternatives is happening *AT ALL*. Yes, there are some token measures. That’s not progress. That’s PR.

It’s simply the decent thing to do.

Beyond that, human or nonhuman, physician or vet, I’m entirely consistent –

I think you’re splitting hairs. It’s not as though your animals have made a conscious choice to stay with you. I love my cats too and I’m glad that when they get sick there is a veterinarian to take them too that can heal them. I’m glad that there are medicines out there that can treat their ills and those medicines were developed using animal research.

I applaud your desire for a perfect world, really I do. I have no problem with people working towards finding alternatives to animal research. I have no problem with people wanting to ensure that welfare laws are enforceable and meaningful. What I do object to are some of the tactics used by some animal rights members. I object to firebombing someones house. You wouldn’t like it if I did it to you now would you? I object to harassing those in research and destroying property. Those types of actions do more harm than good for your cause. Especially in the climate of anger towards terrorism, which is what those tactics are.

That said, I work with reality. The reality is that animal research is needed right now. My chosen job is to ensure that the animals used are treated as humanely as possible and to make sure those working with animals understand the care they must provide. As you say, you’re not going to change the system soon so in the meantime there are people like myself doing what we can to ensure the animals are not abused. I’m sure our definitions of abuse differ though.

I by no means meant to imply that the scientific community has an obligation to work towards alternatives. My point was that they do more in that line than most animal rights activists. But right now, in reality, the alternatives aren’t nearly sufficient and that’s why I do what I do.