As Nick says:
Interestingly, as opponents of science (…..) continue to take on increasingly scientific-sounding arguments (….) this study demonstrates that these are only quasi-scientific, manufactured to support a particular viewpoint and not intended to actually communicate new information.
I am kinda tired of animal rightists trolls in my comments, so feel free to dissect this site on your own blogs….
On the other hand, I’d like someone with some expertise in reading legalese to explain what SB1032 really means.
My favorite is when they tell me I can do all my experiments on computers. No need for cells, serum, antibodies, in vivo studies, nothing. Just computers and human experimentation, their idea of the future of bioscience.
Don’t worry, I’m not an animal rights nutjob, but I still have a problem defending the apparent species-ist stance of a lot of researchers. How do you back up treating one species as expendable while our own species seems to be sacred? Do you use intelligence (or lack thereof) to decide whether an animal can be experimented on? Or awareness of pain? Also do you support all animal experimentation, including for non-fatal ilnesses or cosmetic products/procedures?
Honestly not trolling, and I appreciate that these experiments can save lives in the long run, just genuinely interested in the arguments.
As I wrote here:
Cool, that’s the sort of thing I was looking for. Thanks.
Seems we hear the protestors’ side of things everywhere we go, from news stories to stalls set up on the streets such as the Huntingdon Life Sciences stand that always seems to apear on Princes Street here in Edinburgh. I reckon a lot of people who are instinctively against animal testing would change their minds if they realised the modern reality behind it.