Quote:
Quote by: kubedawg  Animal testing isn't bad as long as it's for something that benefits us medically,... |
It is inefficient use of recourses when money (often tax dollars from grants and subsidies)),talent, and energy is used to make nominal benefits instead of making greater contributions to health when other opportunities readily exist that are known and proven where they (funds) can be focused and applied more to. Theforefore, to do the opposite is wrong for that will mean a smaller number of people are helped in the aggregate.
Take cancer and heart disease for example, we have pumped billions of dollars into animal testing for that research and geuss what? We are losing the war on cancer and heart disease. Rates have stayed pretty much the same, if not increased since Nixon declared war on cancer.
Why haven`t those white coated scientists found a cure after causing millions of rats and mice to get cancer for the last 30 or more years? Perhaps it is because
we are not mice and therefore the model is wrong and a suck on recourses. But, why would Pharmas and university/private researchers want to give up using the mouse when their proposed studies with them as subjects has resulted in year after year of getting large grant funds? After all, someone has to pay for the Pharma`s executive`s mansions, boats, cars, status, etc... Never has such a small animal contributed to such large lifestyles of luxury.
As the sedentary and unhealthy eating habits of man have increased, so has cancer and heart desease, too, increased. All that money spent on animal testing has not pushed cancer or heart disease rates down. Now, if those funds were spent on education and affectng lifestyles -- focusing on those things we know that works, in all probability the epidemic of those rates would not be besieging us as strongly as they are.