Start A Petition

Milestone Animal Welfare Achievements at 7th World Congress on Alternatives to Animal Experiments

Animals  (tags: animaltesting, animalexperiments, REACH, science, AnimalWelfare, animaladvocates, animalrights, animals, animalwelfare, AnimalCruelty, cruelty, ethics, law, protection )

- 3563 days ago -
The 7th World Congress on Alternatives to Animal Experiments organisers stating that due to scientific advancements in alternatives, animal testing of chemicals, cosmetics, pesticides and drugs will be "totally redundant within 20 years".


We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Cher C (1424)
Tuesday September 22, 2009, 11:53 am

Thnx Joanna hun!!!


Joanna D (216)
Tuesday September 22, 2009, 11:55 am
The 7th World Congress on Alternatives to Animal Experiments in Rome ended with the issuing of a statement from the organisers stating that due to scientific advancements in alternatives, animal testing of chemicals, cosmetics, pesticides and drugs will be “totally redundant within 20 years”.
They explain that the developments discussed at the conference, ranging from genomics (gene profiling), computational technologies and cell based tests, are sufficiently well advanced, that they could replace animals sooner than anticipated.
Prof. Herman Koëter, one of the organisers of the congress said: “These technologies, bringing together so much more knowledge of possible adverse effects of substances on biological systems than we were able to detect and understand ever before, will make us consider the use of experimental animals for such purposes as extremely old-fashioned in the foreseeable future”.

The Congress Press Release
"Milestone animal welfare achievements at the World Congress on the Use of Animals and Alternatives in the Life Sciences, Rome, Italy"
At the 7th World Congress on the Use of Animals and Alternatives in the Life Sciences, both the global animal welfare community and the leading scientific community embraced current developments in regulatory risk assessment in North America, Europe and Japan. These developments aim at the strategic implementation of current tools in genomics, computational technologies and high through-put testing systems to assess the safety of chemicals including pharmaceuticals, vaccines, food additives, pesticides and cosmetic products. Within the next decade this approach will result in an unprecedented decrease in the use of experimental animals. It is considered the start of a world wide process in regulatory safety testing which will likely make the use of experimental animals for safety testing totally redundant within 20 years from today.

The 7th World Congress brought together leading scientists from governments, academia and industry as well as experts and representatives of all major animal welfare organisations from more than 40 countries around the globe. The congress was held at the prestigeous Cavalieri Hotel in Rome, Italy from 30 August – 3rd September 2009 and was attended by more than 950 experts.

The congress, titled “Calling on Science”, covered 3 main themes: ‘Innovative Technologies, Concepts and Approaches’ on Monday, ‘Areas of Animal Use’ on Tuesday and ‘Progress in Life Science Domains’ on Wednesday. Under each theme, scientific progress and future expectations were addressed in more than 250 lectures and more than 400 formal scientific posters that were presented during these 3 days.
Participants agreed that current knowledge of the human genome and the genomes of many animal species have resulted in such a level of scientific progress in the area of gene mapping and expression (genomics) that it will make it possible in the near future to apply these tools, together with current computational technologies (linking and analysing massive data bases) and sophisticated second generation in vitro test systems (addressing sub-cellular metabolic processes), to assess the hazards and risks of chemical and microbiological substances without the use of experimental animals.

Herman Koëter, one of the two Co-Chairs of the congress said: “These technologies, bringing together so much more knowledge of possible adverse effects of substances on biological systems than we were able to detect and understand ever before, will make us consider the use of experimental animals for such purposes as extremely old-fashioned in the foreseeable future,”.

The last day, Thursday 3 September, was dedicated to the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the publication of Russell and Burch’s book on the reduction, refinement and replacement of the use of animals in life sciences. At this occasion the Congress unanimously named Prof Michael Balls of FRAME, Nottingham, UK, Prof Alan Goldberg of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA and Prof Horst Spielmann of the Free University of Berlin, Germany as the official Patrons of Animal Welfare in the Life Sciences. In handing the recognition awards to the Patrons, the Co-Chairs of the congress said: “Through their personal endeavour these three experts have achieved what for many years was considered impossible, namely to turn the reduction, refinement and replacement of experimental animals from an ethical issue and marginally scientific hobby into mainstream science, involving leading experts in life sciences around the globe.”. Co-Chair Prof Thomas Hartung added: “Your work will not only be remembered in the decades to come, it will be continued at an increasing speed and level: the Johns Hopkins University Center for Alternatives in Animal Testing (CAAT) has already started a trans-Atlantic dialogue of the world’s best experts to implement at national and regional levels such strategies for scientific risk assessment as proposed by a US National Academy of Sciences Committee of international experts.”.
Herman B.W.M. Koëter Thomas Hartung
Chairs, 7th World Congress

Dr.Thomas Hartung (previously Head of ECVAM of the EC Joint Research Centre) is Director of the Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) and Professor of Evidence Based Toxicology at the same university, Baltimore MD, USA.
Dr. Herman B.W.M.Koëter (previously Scientific Director of the European Food Safety Authority-EFSA) is Managing Director and Executive Secretary of the Management Board of the recently established non-profit risk assessment and risk management organisation ‘Orange House Partnership’, Brussels, Belgium which is aimed at assisting public institutions in developing countries.

Joanna D (216)
Tuesday September 22, 2009, 12:01 pm
Before the Congress there was an article in Guardian UK:
The dead end of animal research
Kathy Archibald
Despite persistent lobbying for animal testing, the evidence shows it is of little use in developing medicines for humans

In his Guardian article Of mice and medicine, Alok Jha poses the question: "If a treatment works on rodents, will it cure us?" Although he acknowledges that mice have some limitations, his response to the question is basically "yes".

This is the image that Understanding Animal Research – cited as a source for the article – is keen to promote: that while laboratory animals are not perfect model humans, they are invaluable nonetheless. It should be noted that this organisation is not a charity, as stated, and is funded by the pharmaceutical industry to lobby exclusively for animal research.

My answer to the question "If a treatment works on rodents, will it cure us?" is "probably not, based on the weight of evidence to date". Cancer is a good example: former director of the US National Cancer Institute, Dr Richard Klausner lamented: "We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn't work in humans." Aids is another: while at least 80 vaccines work in animals, all 80 have failed in human trials. Similarly, every one of more than 150 stroke treatments successful in animals has failed in human testing. A study in the British Medical Journal (pdf) found that animal tests accurately predict human response less than 50% of the time.

What other area of science with such a poor track record would be promoted as indispensable? The truth is that animal research is a costly distraction from the real business of medical progress. Most medical breakthroughs are made in human studies, although animal research usually takes the credit. For example, deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's disease was pioneered in humans, not monkeys, as frequently claimed.

The key to curing human disease is to study human, rather than animal biology – as highlighted for me by my experience as a patient with a pancreatic tumour. During my treatment, researchers announced that the pancreas differs so dramatically between rodents and humans that research in animals is futile: future studies must be human-based.

Leading scientists agree that the best model for human drug development is human beings. At a recent international conference, they showcased a breathtaking array of technologies to develop medicines in a human context. These state-of-the-art techniques promise to reduce the tragic toll of adverse drug reactions, which hospitalise 1 million Britons and kill more than 10,000 every year.

Safety tests on animals are still required by the government, although they have never been compared with the latest human biology-based methods. Many MPs agree that it is time they were. A cross-party group of MPs has launched the Safety of Medicines (Evaluation) Bill 2009, calling on the government to conduct that comparison. Anyone who would like to see animal tests put to the test should ask their MP to sign Early Day Motion 569: Safety of Medicines. We must move safety testing into the 21st century, for all our sakes.

Kathy Archibald, Director, Safer Medicines Campaign an independent patient safety organisation focusing on the effectiveness of animal research. She is a geneticist who has worked in pharmaceutical development, and owes her life to modern medicine
Alok Jha - a science and environment correspondent at the Guardian, specialising in green technologies

Simone D (1462)
Tuesday September 22, 2009, 12:05 pm
Thank you Joanna.

Joanna D (216)
Tuesday September 22, 2009, 12:19 pm
the latest good news is that on 11.09.2009 the alternatives to rabbit Draize eye test had been accepted

"The BUAV today welcomed the publication of the OECD’s (The Organisation for Economic Cooperative Development) final guidance on how to conduct eye irritation tests without using live rabbits. If properly implemented, this move will prevent the untold suffering of thousands of rabbits throughout the world who would otherwise be forcibly restrained while potentially irritating chemicals and cosmetics were dripped into their eyes.

479 Draize eye tests took place in the UK during 2008 and around 4,000 rabbits are used in the EU annually.

The BCOP (bovine corneal opacity and permeability) test and the ICE (isolated chicken eye) use eyes from animals killed for food via slaughter houses.

The BCOP test was developed in the 1940s, pioneered by alternatives experts in the 1970s and finally validated by the European Centre for Alternative Methods in 2007. It is shocking that it has taken this long for international acceptance.

The OECD is an economic alliance of 30 of the world's industrialised countries. Based in Paris, the OECD co-ordinates the development of standardised chemical testing guidelines which are then adopted by the member countries."

Do you get it? Two years waiting for some signatures!!!!!!!!!!!
alternatives exist and are much better than animal experiments
scientists are doing great job but the all validation and legislation procedures are %$%&

the Congress is great achivement as it focuses on the real problem - outdated regulations!!
EU directive which is supposed to protect animals used in experiments is 20 years old!!!
REACH is piece of... thanks to its regulations and outdated procedures the number of animals used in testing increased!

Dalia H (1280)
Tuesday September 22, 2009, 12:45 pm
Noted with many thanks Dearest Joana.
Black Dalia:)

Dusty K (1339)
Tuesday September 22, 2009, 12:49 pm
Thanks Joanna. Its a shame that its gonna take 20 years though to get this accomplished. Seems to me alot of the experiments could be cut out now.


Joanna D (216)
Tuesday September 22, 2009, 12:56 pm
Dusty some of them shouldn't be done at all:
The BUAV, along with other animal protection groups, are delighted that their calls to ECHA (the European Chemicals Agency) for clarity over REACH requirements have been listened to; as a result, we estimate around 4.5 million animals’ lives will be saved.

European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE), Eurogroup for Animals, Humane Society International-Europe, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and PETA Europe and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine––wrote last month to ECHA[1] raising concerns about the risk of companies conducting duplicative animal tests for some types of toxicity when registering their chemicals under REACH.

Joanna D (216)
Tuesday September 22, 2009, 12:59 pm
the duplicative tests are the tests which results already are in databases

MARY D (158)
Tuesday September 22, 2009, 1:10 pm
Truly a milestone for all here that care and the animals to. Thank you very, very much Joanna for posting this.

Eleanor B (909)
Tuesday September 22, 2009, 1:14 pm
None of them should be done at all, duplicative or otherwise. There is no excuse for them. Nothing but nothing justifies the horrific torture inflicted upon captive animals. Twenty years of more suffering is twenty years too many.

Rhonda Maness (580)
Tuesday September 22, 2009, 1:17 pm
Thanks Joanna

Joanna D (216)
Tuesday September 22, 2009, 1:33 pm
Eleanor of course you're right and most of us say the same
- the problem is that pro-vivisectionists say there are no alternatives even if you show them Science Jurnal for those stupid people there is only one truth - LAW
and because regulations say you can do it on animals and because all have been doing it for years pro-vivisectionists "think" that animal experiments are needed

and the congress showed that there is no problem in science (the technologies are enough advanced and everyday developed more) but in regulations


Eleanor B (909)
Tuesday September 22, 2009, 2:21 pm
Animal activists are now treated as terrorists such is the power of this lobby. It sickens me when I hear of new laboratories being opened and the protection afforded them against ordinary people who view their practices as obscene. Look at universities where people write their theses and gain their doctorates on the back of animal suffering. Thousands of them performing needless cruel experiments. And then there are the companies who also have a vested interest in keeping experiments going even though they know damn well that they are useless besides being cruel. I don't believe that even in 20 years they will give them up. To torture a human is regarded as wrong - well it used to be (times have sadly changed) - but torture of other sentient animals is acceptable. I totally disagree but my opinion and yours don't matter because big business has the power to stifle opposition. I am glad of any progress but there isn't enough.

Eleanor B (909)
Tuesday September 22, 2009, 2:23 pm
For example, the EU drew back from banning experiments on primates because of the powerful pro-torture lobby.That's the sickening power they have.

Margaret S (53)
Tuesday September 22, 2009, 3:04 pm
Good news but not happy about the 20 years....a lot of pain still for these animals! Thanks Joanna!

serge vrabec (278)
Tuesday September 22, 2009, 3:05 pm
That is GREAT news, It is the time to lift the animals up as we lift all life up :):):)
All animal testing should and will be banned shortly, it does not serve us any longer. I rejoice KNOWING That humanity is FINALLY ready to respect the interrelatedness, interdepandence of ALL the kingdoms here on Earth

Thx Joanna !

Elm Morrison (357)
Tuesday September 22, 2009, 3:14 pm
Joanna, great news! I agree that 20 years is too long. But it has taken almost a century just to get to this point. Humans are anything but civilised in most instances when profit vs torture or war.

I pray for the day when the vivisectionists will be classified as terroriist and the animal rights movements hailed as saviours - as a matter of LAW.

Kudos to all the brave animal lover scientist - fighting the vivisectionist lobbies with TRUTH and REALITY - using science to refute their bogus claims. And kudos to all the activists who never give up - even if it means prison.

Sort of makes me think of the motor vehicle industry and the oil lobbyist. They will protect their right to oil profit down to the last dying ihabitant of our world. Likewise the vivisectionists - methinks we need another Ghandi to march on these labs. A heroic saint - whom the people will follow. They cannot put entire populations of countries into prison. Ghandi made salt and broke the back of the British empire - can us animal rights activists make our 'salt'? Or are we too attuned to our worldly comforts, only paying lip service to issues we care about?

Food for thought.......

Sheila G (267)
Tuesday September 22, 2009, 6:02 pm
baby steps, those idiots need to take baby steps, thank God they are learning how to walk at all, pray some animals are left before they are done. the rabbit test replacement is fabulous, I have to run tell a friend in myspace, Naomi Dutch, she campaigns against rabbit abuse and cares for so many Bunns in her home, she will be thrilled to hear this, ty Joanna, any news positive is well recieved.

Tuesday September 22, 2009, 7:02 pm
20 yrs? how many animals are still going to be tortured and suffer and die by the time 20 yrs goes by

this is ridiculous, just like the animal welfare laws in ca giving farmers 7 yrs to change from battery cages and not using gestation cages.

this is great that it will end some day, but 20 yrs???!!!!!

Wolfweeps Pommawolf (251)
Tuesday September 22, 2009, 7:02 pm

Kit B (276)
Tuesday September 22, 2009, 7:33 pm
This is good news, but I too feel that another twenty years is just to much time and far to many animals must suffer while profit incentives continue.

Joycey B (750)
Tuesday September 22, 2009, 7:44 pm
Big thanks for this great news Joanna.

Shirley S (187)
Tuesday September 22, 2009, 9:43 pm
Within 20 years IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. They need more PRESSURE on them to hasten the proceedings

Julie van Niekerk (230)
Tuesday September 22, 2009, 11:17 pm
Twenty years are too long, by that time I will not be around to rejoice in the eliminating of laboratory animals. For the next twenty yeare another 20million animls still have to suffer, I dont like this. Anyhow, my daughter and granddaughter can celebrate this eventful day when this cruelty ends.

Joanna D (216)
Wednesday September 23, 2009, 1:17 am
I remind you that the Congress' opinion is not about the technologies but about regulations!
Seeing that to approve one test it took them 2 years the 20 it's quite reasonable:
"The BCOP test was developed in the 1940s, pioneered by alternatives experts in the 1970s and finally validated by the European Centre for Alternative Methods in 2007. It is shocking that it has taken this long for international acceptance. "
but it is NOT - animals can't suffer because some stupid procedures needed to get a few signatures!!
this all depends on our MEPs, MP, Congressmen - they need pressure and the all latest news give us a base to demand change of regulations

MmAway M (519)
Wednesday September 23, 2009, 8:25 am
Thank you for this news...

UMMMM 20 years, way to long! Good that they are going towards a humane end. But, "Me Thinks" in 20 years the World as we know it will be gone, or all of our special creatures will be gone and Mankind will have to do all of these stupid tests on each other (like they should of done in the first place!!!)))

Again, thanks for this news!

Sheila G (267)
Wednesday September 23, 2009, 6:20 pm
they won't learn a thing, Nyack, but because they are all a bunch of monsters and can get away with this they will, self important, nothing but huge ego trips. and yeah, let's not forget that check to go with the notoriety.

Joanna D (216)
Thursday September 24, 2009, 12:56 am
Just think about theall replies from MEPs we got during the action to review european directive - 80% of replies stated there were no alternatives to animal experiments to replace them, the same stated EU Commission in May.
04.05.2009 Debate
There were more than 10 speakers in parliament debate last night and only 2 MEPs spoke in favour of animals: Chatzimarkakis Jorgo from Germany and Caroline Lucas from UK.
MEPs were clear that the AGRI commission amendments are supposed to help scientists who do research on animals and to keep money from animal research in Europe.
For Immediate Release: By: ECEAE European Coalition to End Animal Experiments
European ombudsman asked to investigate ‘deeply flawed and biased’ report about monkeys in research as the European Parliament considers animal experimentation law

The European Ombudsman has today been asked to investigate a complaint that a report by the European Commission into experiments on non-human primates is scientifically flawed and biased. The charge is made by the EU-wide European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE), which has submitted a 26-page complaint.
The submission of this complaint coincides with the plenary vote due to take place in the EU Parliament on Tuesday 5th May concerning revision of EU Directive 86/609 that governs animal experimentation. The trade and use of primates in research within the EU is one of the controversial issues to be voted on.

In May 2008, the Commission asked one of its standing scientific committees, the Scientific Committee on Health and Scientific Risks (SCHER), to conduct an inquiry into whether primate research works and the alternatives to it. The inquiry was in part a response to a written declaration signed by no fewer than 433 MEPs in 2007 calling on The Commission to bring forward proposals to replace primate use.
In fact, the Commission’s proposals, based on SCHER’s report which strongly backed primate use and played down the role and potential of alternatives, contain nothing to phase out primate use. A further change by a key committee of the European Parliament would allow primate use for just about any purpose. The full Parliament will vote on this and other aspects of animal experiments on 5th May. The ECEAE’s main complaints are:

• Neither SCHER nor the working group it set up had the necessary expertise in primate research nor in alternative techniques. Most of the working group members were animal researchers (but not primate researchers). Only one member had (limited) expertise in alternatives to primate use. Contrary to its own procedures, the Commission refused even to disclose who was on the working group until after SCHER produced its report.

• SCHER simply assumed that primate research works without analyzing the evidence. The Commission agrees that this was a key part of its function

• SCHER ignored huge amounts of peer-reviewed evidence submitted by the ECEAE and numerous other animal protection and patient safety organisations casting serious doubt on whether primate research works. This covers such important areas as AIDS, strokes, malaria and Parkinson’s disease. For example: not one of the 85 or more candidate AIDS vaccines tested successfully on primates has worked in patients; over 1,000 potential neuroprotective stroke treatments have been tested in animal models but none of the 150 which have progressed to human trials has proved successful.

• Similarly, SCHER dealt dismissively and cursorily with the substantial amount of evidence submitted about the existing and potential application of alternatives, including neuroimaging and computer modeling.

Michelle Thew, chief executive of the ECEAE commented:

‘A recent opinion poll by YouGov in the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Italy and the Czech Republic showed that 81% of people are opposed to experiments on primates causing pain or suffering. This issue is enormously important not only for animal welfare but also for human health. It is truly unforgivable that the EU should come up with such a one-sided and unscientific report, from a working group packed with inexpert animal researchers. We are asking the ombudsman to order the Commission to set up a proper scientific inquiry as a matter of urgency’
06.05.2009 EU Parliament fails critical test to improve animal protection legislation

Greens' press release:
"More than 12 million animals are used in experiments in the EU each year. Commenting on today's vote on revising the existing 1986 EU Directive to regulate animal testing, Caroline Lucas, co-sponsor of a written declaration in 2006 (1) and Vice-President of Parliament's intergroup on animal protection, commented:

"You don't need a microscope to spot the blatant flaws in the revision to animal testing legislation that was approved by European Parliament today. We had hoped for a better report from Neil Parish, who seemed more tuned into industry concerns than his role as President of the European Parliament's animal welfare intergroup.
A majority of MEPs chose to rubber stamp his flawed report and reject critical improvements tabled by the Greens that could have secured long overdue changes to the rules.
Authorisation rules will now have a limited scope to experiments classed as 'moderate' and 'severe' in terms of distress and harm they cause to animals. The revision means that all other experiments get a carte blanche and will no longer be subject to a centrally-monitored ethical review. It takes a leap of faith to believe that the legislation is truly acting to underpin the three Rs of reduction, refinement and replacement when the vast majority of experiments will now slip the net.
Those MEPs who are claiming today's vote is a step forward for protection of great apes are neglecting to mention that Parliament also approved an amendment meaning testing on primates need not to be linked to life-threatening conditions in human beings. This opens the door to non-essential use of primates in experiments.
For the sake of both the animals and for human health, it is essential that more modern, effective non-animal tests come into use as soon as possible. Unfortunately this approved revision to the legislation, after 23 years of waiting, will do precious little to speed up the process."

mary f (200)
Thursday September 24, 2009, 2:24 am
i agree twenty years is too long but change always comes too slowly thanks for this joanna i'l keep protesting and praying

Nan B (62)
Thursday September 24, 2009, 2:01 pm
Very informative,
Thank you so much Joanna!

. (0)
Thursday September 24, 2009, 3:26 pm
Thanks for bringing this great and very informative news Joanna.

Personally, I feel that when we talk about pain, suffering and torturing innocent animals for invalid experiments the 20 year time period, although good news that an end may finally come, when measure in pain and suffering is like being immeasurable.

There are some very good comments made on this story and I don't want to repeat what people have said but I feel that we need a strong world wide leader or organization that will penetrate politics and push through many overdue changes needed for animal rights, as changes seem to be taking forever. And we have governments going against people who are standing up for these rights and putting them in jail and calling them criminals when all they are doing is exposing the TRUTH. So, the way I see it is we need activists for animals to become politicians.

At the moment in the UK there is a political party for the animals and in Germany a few years ago an animal rights party had two members of parliament elected and I feel this is the way to go world wide.


. (0)
Thursday September 24, 2009, 6:31 pm
Its good news that its going to stop but to some people they will bitch and moan about it any way I know every thing takes time. Look at nobana with the insurance it not going to happen this year or maybe not next year for it not worth a crap. At least with there will be a end to this treatment of animals. But Obama in anoth e years.

Cherida Hivale (73)
Friday September 25, 2009, 6:44 am
It's not as quick as I'm sure all animal lovers will agree, anyone of us would have liked, but it is a huge step towards ending the torture of innocent animals worldwide. If we keep fighting, the 20 years might come down to five and if we fight harder - maybe even less. So I gues let's keep fighting, writing and emailing till it stops - forever.

Eleanor B (909)
Friday September 25, 2009, 1:41 pm
some people they will bitch and moan about it ????? The EU were set to stop experiments on primates - they knew how opposed people were to it - but the powerful pro-animal-torture lobby won the day. Big business wins again. Yes I will bitch and moan for the sake of all the primates within the EU who will be subjected to hideous torture for the next twenty years - WHEN IT WAS GOING TO BE STOPPED! It is sickening. And after 20 years the same lobby will win again. Money talks and animal suffering means nothing. How can anyone say this is ok?

Larry S (645)
Friday September 25, 2009, 6:19 pm
20 yrs. seems like an awful long time. Why not pay volunteers to be guinee pigs, or, and kind of not right, those convicted of violent crime would be real good guinee pigs! (sorry, that's the bad side of my thinking, not meant to offend anyone)

Goddess Lozz (213)
Saturday September 26, 2009, 8:39 am
Products tested on animals are never safe, they let them through anyway coz it's big money for them! Big pharma has never cared about anyone, just their bank balance!

Shirley H (49)
Saturday September 26, 2009, 2:45 pm
20 years is way too long to wait - in the mean time the news IS wonderful. Hoping & praying it won't take such a long time for the animals sake.
Shirley H.

Rain For Change (163)
Sunday September 27, 2009, 4:25 am
noted, this is a paw in the right direction

Sunday September 27, 2009, 8:01 am

Susan D (116)
Sunday September 27, 2009, 2:59 pm
I dont think we should hold our breath. Animal experiments could end NOW if the will was there-- better alternatives already exist, and no animal should be suffering. Unfortunately, some people make a lot of money out of this suffering, so it is likely to continue. We cannot sit back, until all vivisection is abolished.

Joanna D (216)
Monday September 28, 2009, 2:10 am
Alexandra you missed the point of this message...

Eleanor B (909)
Monday September 28, 2009, 2:35 am
To cause pain to any creature, in any circumstance should be illegal. How can people on the one hand be charged with animal cruelty if they maltreat their dog or cat yet these companies can quite literally torture sentient creatures day in, day out? The idea of experimenting on any creature is vile. The idea of experimenting on prisoners puts me in mind of how the Untermensch were treated by Adolf Hitler.

Past Member (0)
Tuesday September 29, 2009, 5:58 pm
anyone in favor of experimentation on our political leaders and vivisectors?


they seem to like playing god with everyone's lives, it might be nice to turn the tables on them and the vivisectors for a change..

Winefred M (88)
Friday October 2, 2009, 8:51 am
Noted and thanks Joanna.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Animals

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.