You are here: Home Page > Animals Are Asking:
Let Us Live!
 > Stop Animal Testing! Why? > The justification for
animal testing is
more than absurd

The justification for
animal testing is
more than absurd



The Facts:

To calm many a person’s stirred-up conscience, it is gladly emphasized that permission for animal testing in Germany is a particularly expensive and difficult process. In reality, as the responsible permission-giving organ, the animal testing commission, is primarily staffed with professionals who normally profit from animal testing themselves. As a rule, they consistently outvote the representatives of animal protection organizations who are in the minority. Standard formulations are usually used for the justification of why a certain species should be taken for a test. For example, the claim that all the previous scientific literature is based on a certain question concerning this species – mice, for instance – and therefore, because of the reproducibility and comparability of the new results to be expected, it would be best if the research is again carried out on mice. And so, this means that when allergies, infections, cancer and heart and circulatory diseases that occur in human beings are to be researched, then at best first on a mouse or rat, because it has always been done that way – not because the mouse is especially similar to the human being or has the same illnesses as a human being. This justification is not only difficult to comprehend, but also bears the seed for failures and false results

Flimsy Argumentation:

Aside from the justification for the species to be used, the indispensability of the planned test is a further prerequisite for the permission for animal tests. Here the claim is necessary that the respective question can be clarified only via a test on animals. Whether this test was then truly indispensable is not questioned again. And so, no accounting has to be given about what resulted from the test on animals. Thus, there are no public statistics from the animal testing commission based on which one could monitor the approved animal tests.

Critical Evaluation:

The initiative of several private people must be thanked that they felt moved to take up this topic. In the March 2005 issue of the scientifically oriented journal »ALTEX,« they published their results in an article entitled »Animal Testing in Biomedical Research.« The subtitle of the article made the essential point clear: »An evaluation of the clinical relevance of approved animal-testing proposals: After 10 years, no verifiable implementation in human medicine.«
The work group had gone to the trouble of examining over the course of 10 years the significance of the animal tests approved by a Bavarian animal testing commission between 1991 and 1993. The result was more than disappointing: Even 10 years after being applied for and given permission, not one single animal test could lead to clinical implementation on people.

So is pointing out the special permission process for animal testing in Germany sufficient to calm people’s conscience? Hardly. More helpful would be the insight that mice, rats, dogs, cats, monkeys and other animals can not deliver the answers and solutions to questions of human health.

 

© Universal Life – The Inner Religion • E-mail Address: info@universal-life.ccPublishing Details