Reply #5: I do research every day.

[SnowGoose]

In a School of Public Health. And yes, many people here experiment on animals (usually mice, sometimes rats). And no, no one here "blinds kittens."

Your contention that "There are so many alternatives" is sometimes true, and when such alternatives exist, they tend to be used. In vitro models are generally much cheaper, and the amount of paperwork and committee approval necessary to use animals in research is a substantial barrier that most researchers in academia try to avoid if there's any other way to get to the answer (can't speak for the corporate labs, as I've never worked in one). People don't *try* to make their jobs more difficult. However, there are often not suitable in vitro models in existence.

During a stint in between my master's and PhD research, I worked in a lab that was trying to understand a particular type of adverse drug reaction (caused by anti-psychotics, as well as other drugs). So I have some familiarity with the notion that drugs can have unwanted effects.

There are plenty of diseases, however, where the drug can help or heal you, and without it, you either suffer the disease or just die. Lifesaving medicines really do exist, surely you know that, right? The fact that there are drugs out there that have bad effects doesn't really support the notion that there shouldn't be testing - animal or otherwise.

I accept that some people don't want to be responsible for the killing of animals, particularly if that killing is not necessary (That's why I'm a vegetarian, in fact.). If some people want to take it even further and don't take any medicines when they're sick, don't eat animal products, and don't own any leather, and let's be honest, don't use petrochemicals like gasoline or plastics, since that industry is so detrimental to animals and ecosystems, then I salute those people's strength of belief and moral consistency.

But I've only met a handful of those people, and let's just say they weren't posting on the internets (they lived in a religious commune, in fact). The rest of us are guilty of enjoying the benefits of technology, that like it or not, come at the expense of other animals. The challenge is deciding where you draw the line - that's why I won't eat meat (because I don't need to), but I will take an antibiotic if I have a bacterial infection. And if it were a choice between starving and having a cheeseburger, no question, pass the ketchup.

Maybe you draw the line somewhere else in your personal life - but unless I'm very much mistaken, you do draw a line somewhere. A place where you say, "I know this thing I need/want came at the expense of some animal somewhere, but I think the benefit to me is worth the cost to the animal(s)." Maybe it is a medicine you've taken, maybe you eat meat or eggs or one of the thousand products with stealth animal ingredients like gelatin, maybe you drive a car, maybe you use chemical cleaners or dish detergents, maybe there's paint on your house, maybe you use deodorant.

However, knowing that we all share to at least some extent in the benefits of exploiting or displacing other animals, it just doesn't seem fair for you to say that others ought to draw their lines in the same place you do.

But that's just me.