I am against animal testing as I’m sure many vegans are. It’s in the definition of vegan, after all:
vegan: (noun) person who seeks to exclude the use of animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose.
I have many compelling reasons to avoid products tested on animals. And I have many compelling reasons to encourage the abolition of all animal testing. My main reason, however, is that animal testing is unethical. It’s wrong.
Just like it’s wrong to experiment on children, people of color, disabled people or any human being without their consent, it’s also wrong to experiment on animals.
As Mark Twain wrote:
“I am not interested to know whether Vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn’t. To know that the results are profitable to the race would not remove my hostility to it. The pains which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity towards it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further.”
Not everyone agrees. Orac, a pseudonym for someone who claims to be a surgeon/scientist, has a blog. In it, he says:
“One of the greatest threats to the preclinical research necessary for science-based medicine today is animal rights activism.”
He, like many pro-violence and anti-animal people, mischaracterizes the animal rights arguments against vivisection. He calls our non-violence, pro-peace, and pro-animal position a “threat.” He claims our arguments are these:
- Animal research doesn’t teach us anything of value or even misleads us (i.e., it is bad science).
- Animal research does not predict human physiology or response to disease, or animals are “just too different from humans to give reliable results” (i.e., it is bad science).
- There are better ways of getting the information that do not use animals (i.e., there is better science available than using animals.)
And then he sets off on rejecting those arguments. He tries, but he just can’t do a great job.
- He must concede, though he may not, that animal testing has led us down the wrong path in the past and will likely continue to produce misleading or wrong information that harms humans.
- He must concede, though he may not, that animal testing is not always reliable and that animal species have significant differences, none of which satisfactorily justify animal testing.
- He must concede, though he may not, that there are better, in the sense of good, not necessarily in the sense of productive, ways of getting information that do not use animals, some of which are also more productive.
The thing is, those aren’t the essential criticisms of animal testing. The essential criticism, as stated above, is that animal testing is wrong.
For more information, please visit these websites:
- The Truth About Vivisection
- National Anti-Vivisection Society
- American Anti-Vivisection Society
- New England Anti-Vivisection Society
UPDATE: Here are more resources for information:
“Vivisection in your area
State by state directory containing many (not all) facility reports for research labs listing animals killed, species of animals used, addresses, and more.
Vivisection Breeder’s List
No Compromise Magazine’s lab animal breeder list from 2001. Contains addresses not found in Flashpoint or Final Nail dot com.
Final Nail : The Website
Activist directory of fur farms, trapping suppliers, slaughterhouses, and lab animal breeders.
Primate Labs Database
Nearly exhaustive list of primate labs and primate vivisectors, for activists.”
Source: Voice of the Voiceless
Reminder, please read the discussion policy before leaving a comment here. For example, “No pro-meat, pro-dairy, pro-eggs, pro-hunting, or anti-animal discussion.” This is a safe space for vegans.