I was not impressed with the article. He does not refute the efficacy of testing on animals; he just wants them performed within the government "guidelines". He also spent too much time decrying the ills that befall humans (committed by humans, of course) which in his opinion are infinitely more important than what happens to the other animals. The brutality these creatures endure will not come to an end until the other animals are no longers subjected to the tyranny of humans. Laws to regulate their brutality are a joke; who is to enforce these soft laws anyway. The other animals' ultimate end is a cruel and violent death and these sadists in the labs have no compunction with how they dispense with the lives of these creatures.

Posted by: Ana | March 10, 2008 12:37 PM

There was no logic to this piece ! just using the backs of Animal Rights Issues & Activists to air his own dis-content with human rights, which as '' Ana '' rightly pointed out is perpertrated by Human Kind again ! and again ! Maybe for these experimentors & lab degenerates the Sword is mightier than the Pen !!

Posted by: keith | March 10, 2008 05:07 PM

The article was good in some respects, but like many, the author is unaware that drug testing on animals is not only non-predictive of safety for humans, but can have deadly results. Many drugs have passed animal testing only to produce disastrous effects in our species. The dollars wasted on useless animal tests would be much more appropriately spent refining the human testing technologies now in place.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | March 10, 2008 06:05 PM

Although it is a positive to see that the protest is getting noticed, I was not a fan of this article. First of all, unlike the author stated, animals should NEVER be tested on or tourtured in the name of science. It is not their responsibility to help us, we can go test on each other. I also did not like how he interpreted Dave Bemel's comment about how people respond to monkeys because they are the most human like. He said that this is another way of saying cute, and that other animals, like snakes and rats are ignored. That is DEFINITELY not true. A life is a life, and anything that can feel pain should not have to go through it. So I do not know where he is getting his facts from... Props to the demonstrators.

Posted by: Lauren | March 10, 2008 09:04 PM

I think a great deal of his article was misinterpreted. For example, he was simply saying that cute animals are more likely to be advocated for by the general public than snakes or rats. I think he's right on the money.

The whole why-aren't-animal-activists-working-to-end-homelessness makes my head explode. Since when did it become a competition?

Posted by: Maya, CVT | March 11, 2008 01:45 PM

Maya

Hi!!!! I did not misinterpret his article. What I wrote is what he stated. He is not against vivisection whatsoever, only he wants it to follow guidelines. He repeats the same dull responses to vivisection---how it has helped humanity. There are even more cancers than there was in the 1950's. My comments are succunct and accurate about what he wrote. (March 10, 12:37 PM) It basically was crap.
As far as his comment about snakes and rats, well that's just plain stupid. As humans we try not to discriminate against humans considered "unattractive" also. At one time, Latinas were considered unattractive, now they are the rage. I remember well all of this crap as a little girl. Blacks were put on the cover of Glamour Magazine way before a Latina was and it was only until 1999 that the Rockettes finally accept a Latina dancer. It's not about the "pretty" animals, it's about the cruelty, violence, oppression and pain inflicted on all of them irregardless of looks or popularity (dogs). Peace...

Posted by: Ana | March 11, 2008 03:35 PM

Ana and Keith: I agree with you guys. I did not find this to be an excellent article at all. The author took the awareness raised by AR people and tried to use it to speak about human issues, while writing that he believes animal testing to be necessary. Not a great piece of AR writing, IMO....

Posted by: Antigone1000 | March 13, 2008 03:38 PM

Hi Ana!

Actually I wasn't referring to your comments at all - I think I agree that his tone was a bit double sided....

In my reading of the article, I took his words to mean that MANY, in fact too many people only care about cute animals, while ignoring the suffering of snakes and such.

Posted by: Maya, CVT | March 13, 2008 03:56 PM