I just spent 3 hours scrolling around on line and checking out the facts of animal testing and it was one of the saddest mornings I've ever spent. I feel at a loss on what to do to actually help the cause of ending animal suffering in labs. How on earth do these people that work these places sleep at night?

I know I vowed to never use a product by a company that test on animals. It's hard but doable. Start by not using the products and telling all your friends and family what happens to the animals. People don't understand that it is as bad as it is unless you teach them. A lot of people assume that the labs just put lipstick on their lips and put hair spray in their hair. Then you can write the companies that do test and tell them you will not buy their products. It won't save the animals right away but it does help a little

Support the development of alternatives that can be used in place of animals. The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine are among the groups funding the development of such methods.



Also, check out the alerts on an organizational website such as www.aavs.org . They'll keep you up to date on proposed legislation that can help animals in labs.

That and slaughterhouses. Karma is a ***** and I hope they get what they deserve.



What can you do? Not use products tested on animals.

omg i HATE animal testing. it makes me soo so so so so so so so sad. i want nothing more than to stop it but i dont think i can. is there any way we as people can find a way to help stop it, besides not using animal tested products (which i personally dont use them). please message me if you know a way we can stop it, perhaps we can be friends and discuss it.

~Lexi

They shut their minds off and force themselves to see animals only as tools, never as living beings. I get all kinds of people who test on animals trying to tell me that the animals are kept in wonderful enclosures where they're loved and they can't be stressed because it will ruin the experiment...so, clearly, giving kittens cancer isn't at ALL stressing or cruel. /sarcasm



People like that just don't see animals as living beings. Animals are ONLY objects. Never anything more than that. It's sad.

My friend's mother used to work for a pharmaceutical company that tested on animals (she did testing). He's told me about some of the things she has done... I have no idea how she could work there. She was very disturbed by what she had to do/what went on there, which is why she left. As a result of working there, she now becomes very attached to all animals and feels like she needs to protect them, which I think is most likely karma-related. It's nice to know that not all people who work there are heartless and that she has regrets.

So do you all not take any medication, or what? What do you do if you get sick? What if it was something serious? Would you refuse medication in the ER?

I like these two thoughts on animal testing:

Well, a few people in this thread have claimed to not use animal-tested products. My questions were directed at them.

I've spent a little time working in animal testing, and I can honestly tell you that not one person I've met has had that opinion.

Vivisectors certainly understand that the animals they experiment on are alive (and probably also that they feel pain). But whether they perceive them only as instruments for science is a question of moral evaluation of their actions, and not something any current or former vivisector can "inform" anyone else about. I think treating animals only as instruments and objects is an inherent feature of vivisection.

The word 'probably' is unnecessary. I doubt any current scientist anywhere would dispute that research animals feel pain.






How anyone perceives the inherent value of an animal may inform that persons morality in regards to any given act, but it is not a moral act in and of itself. I also think any given researcher is more then capable of informing others about their own personal morality on the subject.






I disagree. Objects and instruments do not have inherent value. Research animals do. In order for animal research to be ethical the value of the results of the research must be greater then the inherent value of the animals. I just happen to think that over all it is. Others have differing opinions. If your statement was true then research that was inhumane would never be prevented due to concern for the welfare of the animals involved, and that simply is not the case.

Of course the view of someone having or not having inherent value is not an act, it's a moral view/belief/attitude.



But my point was that saying that vivisection victims are treated as mere instruments for science is, or can be, a moral/political evaluation of vivisection, and not a psychological attribution of the statement "I think animals are mere instruments for science" to vivisectors. And as such an evaluation, it's not something that vivisectors themselves, or those who know them, can claim to correct, or inform about. They can merely disagree and provide a different moral view on the situation.




Sorry but there's very little reason to hold persons' own descriptions of their morality and actions as sufficient to determine the moral nature of those actions. If what one presented was not a moral characterization of what vivisectors do to animals, but an attribution of some statement like "I think animals are worthless" to vivisectors, then they could inform others that such a claim would be incorrect.




Your use of the expression 'inherent value' is highly idiosyncratic, at least in the context of a discussion on animal rights (or the absence of them). According to your usage of the term (let's call it "schminherent value", in order to make clear it is your meaning that we're talking about), even the most callous factory farmers could be said to see sentient beings as inherently valuable individuals, since those factory farmers could be made to agree on the immorality of some ways of treating animals.



It would be difficult to find any person who would not hold all sentient beings (with the exception of those whose sentience is more controversial) as schminherently valuable: even for the most sadistic sociopath, there might be some level of suffering that he/she would consider unnecessary or cruel -- thereby attributing schminherent value.

yes animal testing is the biggest thing im against when it comes to the rights of animals. I just finished reading a book on animal testing.Here are some of the things i found out: more than 25 million animals are used for testing in the united states alone more than half of these are for cosmetic reasons. And despite all of the suffering 50 drugs that were but out on the market that were tested on animals were sent back because they caused serious problems for humans. The FDA itself estimated in 2006 that 92 percent of drugs that pass animal testing fail in human trails. this proves that animals are not humans and therfore should not be tested on. I belive that it's my job as a vegetarian and animal activist to speak for the silent animals in testing labs everywhere. Thats why i refuse to buy products tested on animals, and tell everyone i know about animal testing. Even though i know a lot of people on this site hate peta2 they offer a list of companies that don't test on animals that list goes everywhere i go.