Why do we use animals in research?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 июл 2024
- Why is their so much secrecy in animal research? Can't we do without animals in medical research? In this video Dr Simon Festing, our ex-Chief Executive, answers questions about why animals are an essential part of medical work.
Download this film here: www.understandinganimalresearc... 
Наука
0:54 seconds in... I'm sorry but he did evaded the question. What he said does not address the question, which was, "If we're so similar, why is it that many drugs that are successful in animal trials, go on to fail in human trials." It also looks like his actual response was edited. You can see a skip at the beginning of his response.
For reference, more than 80% of drugs fail in clinical trials subsequent to phase 1 trial in humans. Animal testing is used to ensure safety in pre-clinical stage. Drug's efficacy is not validated in animal models but in human models in later trials.
Thanks for uploading this video!
That is true, perhaps I spoke to broadly. In these kind of discussions, I try to get across that most scientists limit the discomfort of animals as much as possible in these tests, as well as reduce the numbers and work is being done to try to replace animal testing. However this falls on deaf ears.
Because we need to know how the drug or therapy works on a systematic level, and show that they are effective and safe. This can't be done entirely in using alternative methods, but these methods do allow us to reduce the numbers in experiments. I and many of the scientific community (the majority), do not like hurting animals, but at the same time we want to stop preventable deaths of the people we care about. That's why the 3 Rs are in effect.
Then why do we need human trials afterwards? If testing on animals provide us information about a drug safety why do we still have to do human trials
@lyvium How do you end something that can test multiple systems all at once? How one system's effects with a chemical or drug affects another system? There are many factors in testing, not just focusing on the symptom, that require, for most of them, an animal testing before human trials.
I sometimes don't get people saying end animal testing, but have no problem with repercussions with humans in trials.
I saw you comment about the 3 R's below, which along with animals having a spectrum of (not lack of) value was all i was trying to get across.
" However this falls on deaf ears."
True dat, unfortunately. I still completely agree with the guy in the video that we should not be trying to make the conditions secret. Only adds to the suspicion that the animals are being abused. Some will still find the research objectionable even with an accurate picture, but we'd do better to allay undue fears.
thank you for all of this. This is great stuff
+Dolores Aguilar Thanks!
In research? I know of one study off hand, The USDA did one finding that the majority of animals feel minor discomfort or are under an anaesthic. Very few feel real pain, though I'm trying to find the study itself.
So, if you or someone you dearly loved has a serious/painful illness.... but get refused medicine to help for a cure, treatment... or painkillers (since that's tested on animals) you'd let that happen just fine?
I'm not sure on my stance on the subject of animal testing, I just want to know who you'd cope in that situation. Because it's easy to say/think that, as you'd assume it would be other people's problems, not yours.
Do you know of any research that shows the relative levels of pain different animals experience?
When you here an animal scream you can bet it’s lvl ten . If I would kick you in the knee cap it would be lvl ten. So guess it’s the same with a dog
Condone : be willing to overlook something, to regard something that is considered immoral or wrong in a tolerant way, without criticizing it or feeling strongly about it.
I would like the full picture. Please let us know how much do people involved earn. I guess nobody here believes that it is done completely out of love for humanity.
We don't hold figures for what people in their sector earn. However, when the government recently suggested a £30,000 minimum wage for visa's to the UK post brexit the Bioscience sector informed the government this would be problematic because many scientists and technicians earn less than this.
Actually, a whole lot of drugs have been made because of animal testing, essential drugs, and to deny that is just stupid. I know you love animals, but love makes blind. Animal testing is still ESSENTIAL to drug testing.
@Amb Amb yeah? you also don't want to live, do you?
@Amb Amb the vaccines you had when you where a child where created from animal testing
may someone please help me
i need to know the interviewers name?
seif almiskry Hello, I interviewed and made this film - Richard Scrase, rscrase@uar.org.uk
i was asked to make a report about is it better to make experiments on animals rather than human being ? whould u mind help me !!! i'm so compressed :(
+Aya Acil Our resources here might help: www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/resources/animal-research-essay-resources/ All the best, Richard
And that's why we need to research curing cancer. Animal models are needed
ALF eyes on you sir.
@foxbow90 I dont realy care for your comment .. its pretty clear that it was a mistake (english being my second language) I looked up the translation for that word and apparently got the opposite... For the rest of your comment, I'm not hear to teach anything, only to give my oppinion ... so im just going to say ... no matter how many monkeys are used .. it dosnt make it right in my book (thought that was pretty clear).
I was actually paraphrasing the comments of a research scientist, whom you have inadvertently disparaged. 'A major problem in the pharmaceutical industry right now is that the drug development model is actually broken. It just does not work. It takes many, many years to get a drug to market, it's incredibly expensive, innumerable animal lives are lost - and then the results from animals usually don't predict what happens in humans.' Dr D.Inger, director of Harvard University's Wyss Institute
Not sure what your point is. If you don't approve, sanction or tolerate animal testing but don't feel the need to fight it then what does it say about you as a person?
This is deflecting attention away from the important issues on here and so I am happy for you to continue thinking what I said is silly if that appeases you.
@TheKitch2 Off the top of my head I would say : embryonic stem cell tests , the 3T3 Neutral red uptake phototoxicity tests , human skin model tests , leftovers from surgical procedures or donated cadavers and Microdosing . And to answer your other question , what has been done .. has be done .We cant change the past , and since pretty much everything in are households and phamacys have been tested on animals we dont have much choice . My point is that today we we can end this once and for all .
Are animals used in Aids research and blood diseases as much in other research
+Sawsan Zamzeer the short answer is yes, more information here: www.animalresearch.info/en/medical-advances/diseases-research/aids-hiv/
+Understanding Animal Research thank you :)
@lyvium I didn't judge you, I actually suspect you are a kind person, who cares about animals (as do I), I just wanted you to see that animal research is a necessary evil. But its mild discomfort for a little bit (like the vet) , in the majority of cases, there are occasions where its worse. However, its not like we do whatever we want, we have to get approval from a ethics committee. BTW, I assumed you made a typo, I thought your name was Kevin. Simple mistake, however it's write not wright.
Thanks Mr.Richard it really helps. One more question please ... If you are against the use of animals in experiments why than you're for the use of humans ? :)
+Aya Acil My organisation and I personally accept the use of animals for medical and scientific research if there are no alternatives. Other uses, cosmetics, etc are banned in the UK and I personally think that is a good thing.
Thank you so much Mr. Charles :)
+Aya Acil : I want to know the same thing
SOME ALTERNATIVES TO THE USE OF ANIMALS IN TESTING INCLUDE
in vitro (test tube) test methods and models based on human cell and tissue cultures
computerized patient-drug databases and virtual drug trials
computer models and simulations
stem cell and genetic testing methods
non-invasive imaging techniques such as MRIs and CT Scans
microdosing (in which humans are given very low quantities of a drug to test the effects on the body on the cellular level, without affecting the whole body system)
_NEAVS _
Your are correct that is already put in place with the 3R’s (replacement, reduction, refinement) this is a procedure they have to follow before testing is initiated
of Biologically Inspired Engineering.His solution to the problem, whether you like it or not, 'Is to do studies with human cells - but not just cells in a dish - cells that exhibit organ-like structures and functions.We are working on more than 10 different organs right now.The goal is to link them together with fluidic channels, like blood vessels, like they are in our bodies.' This and many other human-specific modalities of research are capable of replacing animals,whether you like it or not.
Develop the medicine diagnose whether diseases are treatable or not treatable
This man is a scientist. Of course he wants to use animals so he can publish his work. It's the old classic: give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. There is better ways to test things on replicas of a human organs. What better way to get an answer of how a human might react to something.
Dr Festing was a medical doctor, not a researcher
Replica of organs will be extremely expensive, you clown.
@@TomHolder Dortors are meant to do good, relieve pain & save lives. Animal experimentation does just the opposit.
This is disgusting how giving drugs to animals similar to the vet like the doctor they see blood when they do medical performance that provide good health to the animal and to humans
Microfluidic chips, Human DNA chips, microdosing and many other human-specific modalities of safety-evaluating drugs already exist. In the UK, 22 senior scientists (PhDs in/Professors of) have signed an open letter to the Health Secretary callin on him to compare animal tests with newer tests bases on human biology. Resistance is coming from the drug companies because they fear such tests would add an extra layer of cost to drug evaluation.
You saw people happily running to their GPs with toothache. Next time direct those happy souls to the dentist.
Sadly, animal experimentation is not predictive of human outcomes. Medicines are developed in spite of the practice, not because of it. It does, however, provide the drug companies with medico/legal protections against those who have been damaged by their products. In the UK, 22 senior scientists have signed an open letter to the Health Secretary asking him to compare the latest in-vitro technologies with animal testing for drug evaluation. The reason: 197,000 EU citizens die each year from the
Everyone makes a mistake...animals have very similar body systems and reactions to us, also similar health problems...you need to look at the other side of the argument first before writing down whatever comes to your head. Lab workers have to go through tough training and certification to be able to use animals and they need to ensure proper anaesthetics. Animals have saved more lives than 911. Now go and educate yourself please.
The only life they save is the human subjects.
I know Pro-Test offered to debate Vernon Coleman if anyone set the debate up. UAR is currently organising a widespread set of debates on the subject of animal research - animalresearchdebate[dot]org
If it was about money they would be using cheaper alternatives. The reality is that animal research is only used where absolutely necessary
The general decline in rates of human morbidity and mortality has been attributed to the supply of fresh drinking water, sanitary facilities, housing, nutritious food etc. According to the World Health Organisation, 80% of the Developing world's communicable diseases could be eradicated just by supplying everyone with a safe supply of drinking water. There is no link between animal experimentation and improvements in life-expectancy. The US is the world leader in terms of the number of animals
I'm a former employee at two different research facilities that used animals. Research using animals is like terrorism in that terrorists hide psychotic urges behind religious and political beliefs, while researchers who inflict pain and death on animals hide their psychotic urges behind scientific beliefs and career status. Torturing animals is also an early symptom exhibited by serial killers and school shooters - the difference being that the research scientists remain frozen in the animal torture phase and don't progress to preying on humans.
I’d rather they prey on humans, tbh
Meyerhuber Fanclub ^^
@lyvium I wasn't kidding about the child, it's a real life situation where what you are advocating has consequences for. Look up X-Linked Adrenoleukodystrophy, and then take a look at the Childhood phenotype. I've seen this up close and personal, the suffering these children go through is nothing compared to the life mice have in a laboratory. Which is often better than a lot pets, let alone wild mice.
If you want know how that disease looks like, rent the movie Lorenzo's Oil. It's dead on.
side-effects of drugs ---safety-evaluated on animals. Ref: European Medicines Agency, European Commission, Brussels Memo, 10th Dec. 2008. Also, The Lancet, volume 377, Issue 9781, page 1915, 4th June 2011.
On the races issue, you have no idea ho often I have to make and defend that argument :P Although I do enjoying dipping into the literature to back it up because genetics is awesome
@lyvium It isn't about emotional reasoning. It's about people's lives. Unfortunately, yes, that does mean that some animals will be killed in the process. But would you rather a thousand animal lives, or thousands of human lives, making sure something for human use was safe before releasing wide? That's what it comes down to. The animals for testing are bred for that purpose. Humans aren't.
Even if there would be comparable solutions to spare the rats they would be more expensive hence limiting cost effectiveness for rearch. This would limit research effectiveness in consequence slowing progress and costing lives. No thank you.
@lyvium If this Kevin Mainville feels this is the case, then he should not take any treatments founded by animal research when he gets sick. I bet he would in a heart beat.
Thalidomide WAS tested on non pregnant animals, ' the last medicine that wasnt properly tested on animals wasThalidomide' skewing words
Our more recent article lays out the history of the Thalidomide tragedy: www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/news/sixty-years-on-the-history-of-the-thalidomide-tragedy
Sorry. I do agree with you. I just didn't want you to think I was talking down to you. In the UK, 22 senior research scientists have signed an open letter to the Health Secretary asking him to trial the latest non-animal, in vitro technologies which the Safer Medicines Trust believes can replace animals in the testing of drugs. The European Union banned, in March of this year, all cosmetics experiments on animals, and replaced them with non animal technologies. Good news for once.
2 months later and I still have to answer responces to my messages after making myself perfectly clear on the fact that I will not change my ideals. Do your research before you start writting me out Olifs. Its actually 10's of millions of vertebrates (primates) and hundreds of millions of invertebrates (rats,mice) per year world wide... not ten. And for cecerchio "we manipulated nature" "we decide their destiny" coudnt have put it better myself. We are whats wrong in this world.
Thalidomide was not tested on pregnant animals.
my uncle is a scientist and he tests on rats we both agree comsetic testing is bad. I agree with animal testing to a certain extint even vets test on animals even my bilogy teacher had to test on mice to teach bilogy
it uses in its labs, and yet, life expectancy in the US is ranked only 51st in the world behind countries such as Puerto Rico and Greece. There is a link, however, between more drugs and more adverse reactions. The citizens of the US are the biggest consumers of drugs. 100,000 of them die each year as a result. The drugs that are essential and efficacious were produced in spite of animal experimentation, not because of it. The science of pharmacology is the vital component in drug evaluation.
"I would kill an entire species to save ONE AIDs patient, because I value human life and put it above an animals."
this principle totally depends on the species here, but i could agree if it was an inconsequential insect species for example. But if it's a species that has any significant ability to feel pain or has higher brain functions than the value difference would shrink drastically (with humans of course still being higher).
you know insects feel pain, right?
@@aidanswanson9575 Yes, but I don't think it's enough to matter under normal circumstances (e.g. quickly stepping on the insect to kill it). If you're purposefully torturing the insect over a long period of time, that would be a different story.
EDIT: Didn't realize my original comment was 8 years old. Holy shit!
@@synchronium24 yeah i suppose but wiping out a whole entire species would be harmful to other animals and ecosystems
Thank you so much! I'm doing a research project, and I have to give a presentation to my class about Animal Testing Pro. There were too many videos that are animal testing con and are extremely inaccurate and does not support my side of the argument. Finally a logical source I can use for my presentation.
Linh Senpai Thanks, glad you found our materials useful.
Can you see any potential long- term benefits and what are these benefits ? and what are the costs of using animals in a research?
YAY puppies
Among 10 drugs withdrawn from the US market, 8 had more severe side effects in women than in men. If men cannot predict the effects of a drug for women, who in their right mind would think that rodents or monkeys will do it? You may question my sanity if you wish, but I think independent research scientists, J.Lazarou, B.H.Pomeranz et al are worthy of respect. Their data, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, reveal that the side effects of prescribed drugs are
Its not the same as if they went to a vet, since the vet is trying to save their life. We do need to find a new way to try and research for meds. But u people refuse to find any other methods... Would u snatch a child off the street and use them in research? The answer is most likely no, cause its inhumane. And can't use the excuse animals are built different since u said it yourself. Humans and animals are very similar... I am doing animal research on abuse in animals and this is part of my research. I am trying to do this in the most non bias way and would like to have a tour of one of these places. But I hate the fact we always seem to put our species above all else.
If I knew anyone who worked in one of these places they wouldn't be allowed anywhere near me or my pets! Sheesh!
Well, there's actually no way of knowing since rats, especially dead ones, cannot speak. Moreover, the rodent and human experiences may be completely unrelated. No one can say for sure. The idea that animals are only used where absolutely necessary would be laughable were it not for the pain and suffering inflicted upon them, and the diverting of resources away from human relevant modalities of research.
We're obligated to find alterantives and stop subjecting animals to cruelty and trading their lives for ours.
The range of toxicity tests applied to rodents, monkeys and Beagle dogs, in the vain and futile attempt to determine the safety of drugs, produce symptoms which include: vomiting, internal bleeding, diarrhoea, salivation, coma, convulsions, tremours, nasal discharge, breathing difficulties and death. It is all conducted in a 'controlled' environment, not that it makes any difference to the tortured subjects, and the data are as useful as a chocolate coffee-pot.
"THE GOAL is to link them together....". The "soulless human body" isn't created yet, it may be a replacement OVER TIME, developement of simple human organs is also at a very early stage, and the ducts and complicated structure of a human body takes years to develope. Please take your time and think through what you're going to write next time.
As much as i don't like animal research, i can see why it has to be done (until there's a viable alternative and governments change the law allowing scientists to discontinue the use of animals) unfortunately until this happens animal testing is here to stay.
In recent years scientists have made massive reductions in the amount of animals used in research, the animal rights activists shouldn't be threatening lab staff who for the most part highly dislike animal testing and spend their time and money on researching alternatives.
I would do nearly anything I could to rescue the animals subjected to cruel animal experiments, if there was a way.
But I'm in no way out after revenge against the scientists (which I think most animal right activists actually are), I know most of them probably follow this system because they have to. Its equivalent to soldiers in a war, they do cruel actions to but its not their own choice.
I just think its absolutely horrible and not in the slightest better to do cruel experiments on animals than humans. It should be banished on both.
zakosist i'm sure you probably don't know what you are talking about, start by stopping reading peta sites and try to study about the subject
@@zakosist If U consider them not to be responsable of their own actions then they shouldn't be working in such an important field.
What do you mean, rats can't talk? You don't seem to have any trouble communicating.
Exactly!
@lyvium To keep my comment short, invitro testing was developed to reduce, not replace animal research. A drug might work well on a cell line, but how it will it work on a system? Invitro testing can't predict this. Microdosing can't predict side effects or toxicity at therapeutic levels. It's unrealistic to expect this to replace animal research. I hope for a day when animal research isn't necessary, but we have to live in the present, and try to reduce and refine animal research.
You appear to be misinformed, animal testing is normally used to DETECT any critical side effects, not as a last instance before world wide distribution. That is why we have small- to medium-sized groups of human test subjects to see how it works on us. I doubt you have any scientific background if you dare to label the hypothetico-deductive model as "pseudo-science", the main reason for the evolution of science.
@Amb Amb animals aren't any better you asshole
Ok, than put your money where your mouth is, stop taking medication that was researched using animals. I doubt it, because people like you are always so much talk, but when it comes to you or your loved ones, its give the medicine. BTW testing is done on humans in clinical trials. We are also researching other methods, but the reality is that we still need animals, however most of them feel no pain, or little or it. And this research also is used to treat other animals
@lyvium Can you name them? What other ways? If there were other more effective, cheaper ways on doing research, then we would use them, that makes sense, as we would be able to do better research for cheaper. I don't know of any scientist that wouldn't jump at that opportunity. But let me ask you this, would you use any treatment that used animal research that saved either you or you childs life? Don't be so quick to choose someone who views other people as worh saving over another species.
...animals have not been as critical to the advancement of medicine as is typically claimed by proponents of animal experimentation.
Moreover, a great deal of animal experimentation has been misleading and resulted in either withholding of drugs, sometimes for years, that were subsequently found to be highly beneficial to humans, or to the release and use of drugs that, though harmless to animals, have actually contributed to human suffering and death.
Jane Goodall 'Reason for Hope', 1999
SOME ALTERNATIVES TO THE USE OF ANIMALS IN TESTING INCLUDE
in vitro (test tube) test methods and models based on human cell and tissue cultures
computerized patient-drug databases and virtual drug trials
computer models and simulations
stem cell and genetic testing methods
non-invasive imaging techniques such as MRIs and CT Scans
microdosing (in which humans are given very low quantities of a drug to test the effects on the body on the cellular level, without affecting the whole body system)
_NEAVS _
I didn't say that, but after the scandal it was for sure. My point is that even though we are all animals, we can't predict what's going to happen to a human based on what happened to a mice/rat/rabbit/dog etc...
like si te lo colocaron a ver en una clase :v
Follow the money
Care to offer proof?
@lyvium Last comment, promise, I hate the 500 limit! Animal research also helps animals as well as humans.
Sacrifice of animals to help animals?!? No comment.
@mine man Test on humans?... Who will willingly volunteer?... No one. The direct test on human will cause irreversable consequences... And humans specially bred for testing? I don't think it's the best idea.
@Amb Amb animals are insentient you dolt.Its not like they're mass murdering cats and dogs
I'm relieved to say that UK animal welfare laws on animal testing is to a higher and stricter standard to that of other countries such as America who still uses cosmetics and household products on animals
how would you like a new makeup that melts your face off
UK does test household and pesticides on animals
i like cake
It takes a rat to understand a rat.
Yet DOMESTICATED dogs kill several children annually, are these killings displays of "unconditional love"?
To actually adress the real issue here, unnecessary animal testing is wrong, at least when it causes pain to the test subjects. This is why cosmetic testing on animals is fundamentally wrong.
As for medical testing it is necessary in order to understand what side-effects might occur, most of the actual testing is simulated on a computer, but the physiology is more complicated than that.
@Amb Amb go live with the animals
....I've personally worked with, sedated, and dissected rats (relatively simple brains, low value to me) for research, but i still try to ease their suffering as much as possible.
holy 100% staged interview, batman.
giving a dog a wee scratch, yeah, that's what happens. just like going to the vet. *rolls eyes*
Lol ... someone who can't spell is trying to teach me grammar. Seriously, I do honestly feel that by doing nothing you are accepting animal testing, and therefore condoning it. The animals can’t fight for themselves so if not people like you and me then who?
Stop with your comments regarding that animals are tortured. If you don't want medicine to be proved in animals, then why don't you volunteer to be experimented on? huh? clowns you all!
That will never happen. The ALF and ARM are adamant that prisoners should be used for the research, claiming they have given up all their rights. Just one problem with that theory: Not every prisoner actually committed the crime. Some were wrongfully accused, and having a hard time convincing a judge that an appeal should happen.
this is why corona is here : stay away from animals
I still think that if the animals really suffers through the experiments, it's exactly equally bad as doing the same to humans. The cruelest animal experiments should be banished no matter what. But I may tolerate testing on dead or unconscious animals since some research is important.
I don't think it's the slightest extreme to think that no living creature should be subjected to torture (And I'm not one of those who think the entire world has to go vegan, just treat the animals somewhat good) but as long as you cant guarantee the animals don't get tortured in the lab experiments (or at least that its very rare and illegal), then i would really free the animals if I could.
I would also consider to donate money to medical research some time, if there was no cruel treatment of test animals and it was guaranteed and proven (that's a must).
Please do explain how I may test the effects of a drug on an animal that is dead.
I know most effects cannot be tested on dead anmals. One can test whether the substance is corrosive or not by having it on the animals skin, but not much more than that. Either way I think its wrong and as i said no better than doing the same to a human.
The ONLY case I think testing on anything living may be okay, is if a person or animal have gotten severely sick by accident (its never okay to cause it on purpose) and you test out a cure that may possibly help it. Then the damage is already done and could probably only get better from that point. If its a person, then the person must agree as far as their are in consciousness.
I know many people say we need animal testing to cure people, but we do not need it MORE THAN the animals themselves need to be healthy and free from suffering. Both are individuals with emotions and ability to feel pain. Besides humanity have survived for thousands of years without animal testing.
And many things can be done to prevent diseases in the first place (or at least reduce the risk), by being aware of your daily lifestyle like what you eat and that you execise daily, avoid smoking etc.
Yeh no thanks on the gaslighting.
Spot on, teenage girl! Spot on! To test your theory, walk towards a polar bear, a lion or any sort of big predator, and they'll embrace you with huge, sharp teeth of unconditonal love.
Godwins law, do you understand it? Comparing me to Hitler? Dude seriously you've just lost the moral high ground and the argument, if you seriousy can't understand that, then you're not worth replying too. For the record, thats a slippery slope fallacy. Also btw, THERE IS NO BIOLOGICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR RACES!!!!!!!
I refuse to take someone serious who can’t spell RIDICULOUS
Frankenstein house of horrors. 😢 don’t listen to this guy. Trust me. They like to use beagles. I’ve heard those dogs scream and not bark going through medical procedures. If a dog could steam like a person. You will here it in those facilities. Or worse the cats in tiny cages with diodes on there heads.
He’s lying in this video.
so wrong:(
@csbair I think I've said everything I wanted to say on this matter , you guys are clearly stuck to your conclusions... and so am I . I do not think one life deservers more then another and I do not think other species should pay for humans ... I just dont . You cant understand how I can think that way ... and I cant understand how you cant . Its just the way it is .
Keven Mainville , still a supporter of the anti-vivisection movement.
#stopanimaltesting i saw a picture of cats being tested on and i burst into tears, it's wrong, just because animals are different to us does not mean we can treat them like this.
This is outdated, I mean COME ON!!!! WE'RE IN 2013 DAMN IT!!!!!! Poor animals...
test on humans not animals
Sure ,why don't you volunteer yourself and your family first ?
this video looks so edited
There is NO “understanding” of animal research.
absolute nonsense I challenge you to tell me what animal testing has cured
d
@CollinMaessen I'm getting a little tired of this ( value of a childs life ) reasoning . Listen guys I'm all for life .. I just dont think one is better or more deserving then the other . Of course anyone who is placed in that position will probably have the same response (do what you have to do) . But then again , If you are to lose someone you love , you wont mind loosing 5 you dont even know ( human or animal ) . Emotional reasoning isnt a reason to justify death .. only misguided thoughts .
A totally evil, abhorrent individual!
school children?! So that you can teach kids from a young age can learn that animals are worthless? this man disgusts me.
Animals aren't humans.We humans need to use whatever we can to better our situations just like the animals use whatever they find . They are not sentient beings.
@@LeafyPeach we humans are animals. sentience bill states otherwise
A stupid and pointless statement. I don't approve of people being murdered, but I certainly don't want to take their place either. There are other ways other than animal testing to achieve the right results
@Amb Amb Stupid and money hungry.
this was boring
I would rather die, than experiment on animals, They are god's creation, Pleas leave them,...