Experiments on animals help to understand the animal world, to maintain human health and ensure his well-being. Without experiments in the BH, we would not have had many life-saving drugs, contraceptives for women, and more
Experiments on animals contributed in the past, and continue to contribute today, an essential contribution to understanding the animal world, to maintaining human health and ensuring his well-being. Man, as a living being, is part of the living world and is influenced by the laws and forces that operate in it, for better or for worse. Understanding these laws and powers down to their details is necessary to preserve the existence of human beings, provide them with food, protect them from diseases and other hazards, heal them or alleviate the suffering caused to them, and ensure the quality of their lives.
Close your eyes and imagine a world where the laws of heredity, the function of nucleic acids, the action of hormones and the damage of poisons and toxins have not yet been discovered. All these and many other achievements of "basic" biological research, which initially did not guarantee medical benefit, ended up contributing, and will continue to contribute in the future, to human health and saving lives. Without this kind of basic information, life expectancy was about half of what the inhabitants of the developed world were used to. Humans without vaccines were exposed to epidemics that fell victims and casualties (such as polio, "polio") by the thousands.
Imagine the situation of women without effective contraception and a world where one in six couples is infertile, and the fertility treatments available today are still unknown. All these achievements, and many others, which each of you can add from personal information, have been achieved thanks to biomedical research. One of the important means of this research, but not the only one, is animal experiments. Of the total biomedical research today, only about a third is done in animals, about a third in animal and human tissue and cell cultures, and about a third - clinical research in humans. Each of these approaches has an essential contribution to research, and the experts work, to the best of their ability, on choosing the most appropriate means to achieve the goals in each case.
Understanding as part of finding the cure
In the 19th century, most human diseases were the result of bacterial or viral infection. However, the doctors, at the time, believed that they stem from internal hazards originating from the patient. The discovery that external disease agents are responsible for infectious diseases begins with the work of Louis Pasteur, a French chemist, who noticed that bacterial contamination causes spoilage of the fermentation process in the preparation of wine or beer. Later, Pasteur discovered that the intestines of chickens affected by cholera contained microorganisms, which Pasteur was able to grow in culture and isolate the cause of the disease. Infecting healthy chickens with bacteria from these cultures proved that the cause of the disease was indeed isolated.
Furthermore, Pasteur noticed that these bacteria lose over time the ability to cause disease, thus paving the way for vaccination against infectious diseases. Later, vaccines were developed against diphtheria, tetanus, rabies, whooping cough, tuberculosis, polio and more. Research work to develop vaccines continues even nowadays. Much effort is devoted to developing a vaccine against AIDS and against malaria. Doctors encounter strains of microorganisms that have become resistant, or infectious diseases that "appear" and threaten human and animal health. The development of the existing vaccines was based on animal experiments, and these will be required in the future as well. The development of well-known drugs for infectious diseases, such as sulfa and various antibiotics, was based in part on animal experiments.
Animal research has also made vital contributions in many other areas of medicine. Bypass surgeries, heart valve transplants, which have become routine, and heart transplants - all of these are the result of many years of research that began and were perfected in animals of different species. The same is the case with dialysis and kidney transplants that save the lives of patients with various diseases such as kidney failure, profuse bleeding, diabetes or poisoning. It is worth noting that the essential drug for dialysis, heparin, originates from animal tissues, and its safety must be tested in experimental animals. Kidney transplants or organs such as heart, lung and liver presented medicine with possible complications and challenges for which it was necessary to find an adequate solution. Such studies cannot be carried out in cell cultures alone, and even if desperate patients were found who were willing to be used as "guinea pigs", the ethical obligations of the doctors and the laws in the cultured countries would prevent them from being carried out. Experiments in cats helped to find methods for sewing the blood vessels of the graft to those of the transplanted in such a way that they would withstand the arterial pressure and prevent blood leakage. Extensive research in animals of various species allowed the development of methods to suppress the immune response and prevent rejection of the graft.
Experiments on animals are an essential step in the development of any new drug, including new drugs such as Herceptin - for breast cancer, or Avastin - for colon cancer, the number of which increases every year in drug basket discussions. The desire of the patients who need them and their families, to include them in the drug basket, shows how necessary the development of new drugs is. It is impossible to demand advanced drugs and be blessed with them, but at the same time deprive the researchers of one of the most important tools for their development.
In this opening we mentioned only a few of the medical developments made possible thanks to animal experiments. In the following chapters we will review the ethics of animal research, emphasizing the approach of Jewish law and the laws of the State of Israel; We will describe the approval and control processes for the experiments in the State of Israel and compare them to what is accepted in civilized countries; We will review the positions of the groups that seek to limit animal experiments or ban them altogether, and the ways these groups use to achieve their goals; And finally, we will answer some of these groups' arguments.
Ethics of animal experiments
In a society where the absolute majority eats meat, the opposition to animal experiments, which have resulted in favorable results in the well-being and health of humans and other animals, seems strange and out of place. About 0.03% of the animals are used for research, compared to 96.5% that are killed for food
The claim that the ethics of animal research must be discussed as part of society's overall approach to animals is accepted by all of us. In a society where the majority of the population eats meat, any opposition to animal experiments, which has produced beneficial results for the well-being and health of humans and animals, seems out of place and strange. Moreover, the use of animals for research is quantitatively negligible (about 0.03%) compared to killing them for food (about 96.5%) or in animal shelters (about 0.4%). These facts raise questions regarding the real reasons and the political agenda hidden behind the opposition, which sometimes assumes monstrous proportions, slanders and threats to the peace of researchers and educational and research institutions.
The three monotheistic religions clearly distinguished between the man who was "created in the image" and the other animals that man was entrusted to "decline". It must be emphasized that these religions imposed on man limitations on the exploitation of animals and obligations to preserve their welfare (we will expand on "sorrow of animals" in Jewish law later). However, it is clear that any use of animals for food or other human needs, especially for study or medicine, is allowed according to this approach.
Thinkers since Plato and Aristotle, including Descartes, Spinoza and Kant, distinguished between animals and humans, and attributed only humans a moral status. In modern times, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and Schopenhauer included animals among the owners of moral status. Bentham because of the agony the animal suffers, while Schopenhauer because of his inclination towards the religions of India, which was seasoned with virulent anti-Semitism.
In normative ethics we find two main groups of approaches at the basis of the discussion on the proper moral treatment of animals. One group are the teleological approaches (in Greek, "telos" means "purpose"), which judge the morality of any act, or set of rules, according to its consequences. One of the central teleological approaches is utilitarianism, based on Bentham's thought. According to utilitarianism, good deeds bring happiness, pleasure, satisfaction and well-being to most people, while bad deeds are those that cause them harm and suffering. Since animals have feelings of pain and suffer, Bentham fights against cruelty to animals and including them in moral considerations. It should be emphasized that in these methods the emphasis is not on the rights of humans or other creatures with moral status, but on the effect of the actions on all the creatures affected by them. Therefore, considerations of this type allow the use of animals according to needs and circumstances for the benefit of all those of moral standing. In accordance with this approach, Peter Singer (Singer) argued in his book Animal Liberation from 1975 ("Liberation of Animals", Or Am Publishing, 1998), that animals capable of feeling suffering and pleasure have a right to moral treatment. From this he concluded that we must respect animal life as we respect human life with the same level of consciousness. According to Singer's writings, discriminating in favor of a baby, a person suffering from mental disabilities, a debilitated person or in a coma ("plant") compared to an animal in the same state of consciousness is discrimination based on prejudice, speciesism, which is no better than discrimination based on Race, gender or sexual preferences.
Doctrines of Obligations
A second group of approaches of normative ethics are the deontological approaches (in Greek, "down" means "proper") or theories of obligations. These teachings determine the actions that a person must do or that he should do. Immanuel Kant (1804-1724) formulated the highest moral principle: "Do your action so that humanity, both in you and in every other person, will always serve you as an end and never only as a means" (Premise for the Metaphysics of Morals, translated by M. Shafi, Magnes, 87). In other words, Kant states that it is obligatory to act according to rules that can be used as general laws that apply to every person. According to this approach, only those who are capable of being a moral agent are entitled to moral treatment (a discussion of Kant's philosophy can be found in Zeev Bechler's article: "Kant and the Curse of the A priori", "Galileo" XNUMX). This attitude reminds us of the saying of Hillel the Elder: "What about you Seni, you will not do to your friend" (what is hateful to you, do not do to your friend, Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat XNUMX:XNUMX). Nevertheless, Kant rejected cruelty to animals for the sake of human education.
Among the modern deontological thinkers, who reject the claim for animal rights, we mention the theory of justice of John Rawls (Rawls), which establishes the principles of justice according to considerations of fairness, and of Peter Carruthers (Carruthers), according to which morality is the result of an imaginary agreement between intelligent beings ( to which we will return later).
Two thinkers who stand out in their preaching to expand the moral status of animals are Tom Reagan (Reagan), who attributes to animals their own rights and value, beyond utilitarian considerations. Kant's approach, which attributes value to every human life, he expands and states that even animals with awareness (Regan does not specify which awareness) have intrinsic value, and forbids treating them as means. It is understood that in this Regan drops the principle of reciprocity that is the basis of Kant's theory and the basis of all the theories that base morality on an imaginary agreement or contract between human beings. Similarly, jurist Gary Francione claims that the status of animals should be raised from objects belonging to their owners to "persons" deserving of equal consideration in a conflict of interests with people...
One of the claims put forward by those in favor of the rights or liberation of animals negates the distinction between humans and animals based on the mental differences between them (such as self-awareness and the ability to recognize morals), because the treatment of people who are fully or partially unaware should, therefore, be equal to that of their owners. -A life equal to them in terms of their abilities. Infants, the mentally ill, the comatose ("plants") and the mentally debilitated serve, in their opinion, as a sufficient reason to compare man and beast. Regarding them, human babies, the brain-damaged, comatose patients and the mentally debilitated are treated better compared to animals with the same level of awareness as racial discrimination, and therefore it is necessary to give them the same moral status.
Crossers, basing morality on principles of contractual justice in his 1992 book The Animal Issue, proposed two ways to resolve this question:
The first solution, the "slippery slope" argument, is based on the continuous transition between baby and adult and the gradual acquisition of self-awareness. Similarly, there are different degrees, difficult to separate, of damage to ability and consciousness. It is difficult to distinguish between an unintelligent adult and a mentally damaged person, between an old man and an exhausted soul. This continuity leads to the conclusion that we must grant the same rights to all human beings, being human beings. If we don't do this, unscrupulous people will abuse this loophole, according to their ideas.
On the other hand, the distinction between humans and animals is so clear that there is no danger whatsoever in granting moral status to infants and mentally challenged and denying it to animals. "There is a low probability that the claim that since animals have no rights, they should also be denied to babies, and therefore there is no moral objection to the extermination of Jews, Gypsies, or other 'perverts'."
A second solution to the question is based on maintaining social stability. Infants, injured people and the mentally debilitated have parents, offspring and other relatives whose fate touches their hearts. Therefore, any set of rules that would harm the safety of the youngest, the oldest and the mentally challenged could lead to harming public peace by people who could not put up with these draconian rules. In this context, it is appropriate to mention the words of Prof. Yeshayahu Leibovitch (in relation to "euthanasia"): "The possibility of our human existence together is conditioned by the fact that we do not touch the assumption of the prohibition of taking human life" ("Between Science and Philosophy", Ekadmon Publishing, 289 p. XNUMX). In conclusion, according to Crossers, animals in themselves do not have any moral status. However, we are committed to the well-being of animals and the prevention of their suffering, taking into account the feelings of animal lovers and to educate humans for compassion and the prevention of cruelty.
Other thinkers emphasize that the attribution of a moral status to a person is based on the characteristics of humans as a species, and not on the individual characteristics of each individual person at a certain stage of his life. Therefore, babies are part of human society and are entitled to all the basic rights as human beings. The lack of mental capacity is relevant to certain rights (such as the right to make decisions about themselves or the right to vote) but does not violate their basic rights as human beings (C. Cohen, New England Journal of Medicine 315: 866, 1986; N. Levy, Journal of Applied Philosophy, 21:213, 2004).
Additional articles on the subject:Development at the Technion: Animals will simulate human systems for experiments
26 תגובות
Greetings
I wanted to know which journal volume is famous? And on which pages
Greetings,
I wanted to know in which volume the journal is published? And on which pages?
Thanks,
final
Hello Mr. Roy Tsezana!
I was very impressed with the article you wrote. So far I have "ploughed" on quite a few articles before my work on the topic "in favor of animal experiments" and I would like to emphasize that I absolutely agree with you and your arguments.
I would like to talk with you or receive additional materials that will help me in my work that I have to submit next week.
I very much hope you can respond to my email soon.
Thanks in advance
fund
Lara,
Everyone and their wishes.
I wish that your children never get Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer, diabetes, arteriosclerosis or any of the other universal diseases. If they get sick, God forbid, then I hope that medicine will have advanced enough by now thanks to animal experiments, to provide your children with many more years of health and high quality life.
Shabbat Shalom,
Roy.
Roy Cezana,
You are a terrible and terrible person. You are so opaque and so searching for how to dissolve the blood of the animals that I am very sorry but you are no better than all the "enlightened" scientists in Germany 1942.
I hope that one day you will donate your child to those experiments, I am sure that he will bring more benefit to finding a cure for all those patients with Parkinson's, cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, arteriosclerosis or any other western disease, than all those poor monkeys and rabbits that you exploit, torture, And a slaughterer, and even worse than that - justifies your own crimes.
I always wondered if the name "life sciences" is appropriate for places where experiments are done on animals, or perhaps "death sciences" would be more appropriate.
And one more thing - to the author of the article - maybe it will sound strange to you, but man is an animal...
pipsfoni,
Science never sanctifies any means. But human life sanctifies animal sacrifice, and this is a point that cannot be compromised. Even the most pious vegan is complicit in the 'crime' of poisoning mice, rabbits and rats so they don't destroy the crops. Why does the vegan agree to this? So that he will continue to have food, and can continue to live.
Exactly the same with cancer patients and other diseases. Experiments in medicine can bring the solution to these diseases and allow these people to return to life. Those who are opposed to experiments in the field of medicine usually do not understand the advances that these experiments have brought to medical science, or that in their opposition to future experiments, they are injuring the judgment of many patients.
Pine ,
Well done, for bringing up the subject again..many of us are right with you, in one way or another.
Roy,
I noticed that your responses are usually balanced and moderate, I would like to wish
Go to reach the necessary insights, without sacrificing the lives of the other varieties.
The word "science" and various superlatvian motives do not sanctify any means.
Well, I'm sorry, I don't have the strength now to philosophize..time will take its course and anchor.
In the XNUMXst century, thanks to all those who understand the matter, and respond, when things are clear
They are annoying.
Pine,
If 'just as we want to live in the wild so do the animals' is considered a valid argument to you, I also suggest that you stop eating meat, animals die to provide it. And while we're at Shuang, stop eating fruits and vegetables too, because they're sprayed with poisons against insects. And don't forget the grain! Millions of mice are killed every year to prevent them from looting the grain that humans store in barns. So if all these animals die for a justified purpose (so that humans can eat), what is the problem with animal experiments, the results of which have been saving humans for over a century?
Why do you give animals the right to live in peace, but deny the same right to patients with cancer, AIDS, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, arteriosclerosis, strokes and other diseases?
Being tested in the BAH is such bullshit (sorry for the word). Everyone thinks it's fine, so I wish no shit of a life!!!!!!!
Excuse me, tell me, they would have done experiments on you without your permission, in my opinion, it would not have been acceptable to you. Animals were born to live, does this imply something to you? Just like we want to live in peace, the animals also want to! And finally, why do you think that the suffering of animals will help us? The truth is that animals A lot of us deserve to live because in general they benefit us and not to mention food....so anyone who thinks that the experiments in the BAH are justified then start to calm down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Odelia,
Vaccination campaigns have saved hundreds of millions of lives in the past decades. As an example, you can search for 'smallpox' on the science website.
Experiments on animals are not necessarily done in chambers. Many universities have a zoo that houses the animals with trained operators, and a veterinarian oversees the experiments. Also, in Israel there is a committee to which every request for animal experiments in universities goes. According to the statistics I am familiar with, 20% of requests are rejected outright, 20% are accepted the first time, and 60% are sent back with demands for correction in order to prevent unnecessary harm or pain to the animals involved.
If you are asking why such experiments are not broadcast on Channel 2, then it is for the same reason that what happens in slaughterhouses is not broadcast. These are necessary experiments, but they are not pleasing to anyone, just as slaughtering animals for food is not pleasing to the eye.
It is difficult for me to comment on your claim that experiments are done to prove things that have already been proven, for example smoking, because you do not specify in which experiment the things are supposed to be. As we know, smoking has many effects, and I see no reason not to do experiments on animals to understand the different effects of passive or active smoking. When we say that smoking is 'carcinogenic', it does not explain the mechanism or the mode of action of the hundreds of substances in cigarette smoke, or how the cells react to them. This can be tested in animals, for the benefit of man.
In the end I agree with you that animal abuse is unequivocally wrong. But the word abuse implies causing pain for the purpose of causing pain and nothing else. Sadism for his name. This is not how things are supposed to be in animal experiments. The purpose of the experiments is to advance humanity and prevent diseases, to save people from a state of physical disability and to prevent babies of their age from dying from diseases that could have been prevented... if only we understood them better. Animal experiments are currently the best way to reach this understanding.
good week,
Roy.
I don't understand some things in the article:
A. How is the last part "teachings of obligations" relevant to the topic?
B. Have vaccines really contributed to society and the health system? I read differently.
third. If experiments on animals are necessary and legitimate why are they done in rooms and so hard to obtain evidence? Is it not possible to reduce the damage even a little? What about the many experiments that are done in order to prove things that have already been proven (like smoking for example)? Are these experiments necessary?
d. What is the relationship between the number of falcon that are killed for food and the number of falcon that are used for experiments?
The common man distinguishes between good and bad and it cannot be that prolonged abuse of animals brings benefits, it is simply not possible
Hila,
I carefully read the interesting, even if biased, review. She provides many sources, but quotes only a small part of the source, and sometimes does not refer to the spirit of the original article.
My biggest problem with the review is the shaky solutions it offers. The problem of clinical trials is well known, and we also know that only 8% of the drugs developed with the help of clinical trials reach the market. At the same time, all the solutions that the review offers are not possible with current technology, or have not yet reached the level of sophistication and adequate reliability.
At the moment when suitable alternatives to experiments in the stock market are offered, the free market will do its thing and the pharmaceutical companies will promote these alternatives quickly and aggressively. Meanwhile, all the solutions in the review - such as cell cultures, testing drugs on human tissue cultures, producing vaccines (I am quoting the following delusional sentence from the article, which is false and misleading, because the source from which it was taken does not write accordingly: "As early as 1949, researchers discovered that vaccines made from cultures human tissue, more effective, safer and less expensive than vaccines produced from monkey tissue208,209, while completely preventing the danger of infection from an animal virus"), microfluidic circuits and so on, are simply not at the required technological level.
By the way, I am a researcher in a laboratory where they are trying to develop a 'microfluidic circuit' in which cells will be grown. It has potential, but it will require many more years of research before it is possible to obtain something that even approaches human tissue, or a pool of tissues.
In short, the problems exist, but at the end of the day there is no other way at the moment except animal experiments.
Thanks for the interesting link.
Roy.
to Roy Tsenza,
You are welcome to search for "animal experiments - critical review" on Google and find it on the website of the Association Against Animal Experiments, for example. You can get this brochure printed if you call the association's phone number.
What this writer confuses the mind!!!
Obviously this is not true, go to the website of the Israeli Association against Animal Experimentation and then you will see the real face of these experiments, the picture that the brazen sect showed does not reflect the essence of the experiments at all!!!
So don't let these lies get into your head!!
The comments have been deleted. Thanks
To my father
We will not allow Manblei here to lower the level of comments on the site.
The place of the previous two responses is not the knowledge site
Sabdarmish Yehuda
gift,
please give me a link to
"The serious studies that examined the subject came to unequivocal conclusions, according to which the reliance on animal experiments not only did not advance medicine, but usually hindered it."
I am not aware of such studies, but I would love to read them.
I'm also not familiar with the research on polio or bypass surgery. But if they are anything like your reliance on Semmelweis's research, then I tend not to accept that evidence.
There is no way that Zemmelweis required animal experiments to prove his claims, and I did not find any mention of it in the articles I read about him. The ignoring of Zemlweiss (whose chapter will be published in Science in a few days) was due to the fact that the medical establishment did not believe in bacteria at the time. As someone who accuses the writer of "trying to mislead the ignorant among the readers in such a blatant way", your reliance on falsified facts is not in your favor either.
The article is not scientific, as it contains a long list of scientific facts. It is clear that the writer (who, by the way?) has a personal interest in conducting experiments on animals, who otherwise would not have tried to mislead the ignorant among the readers in such a blatant way, that anyone who knows a little about the subject can notice it: historians of medicine, and all serious studies that have examined the subject , reached unequivocal conclusions, according to which the reliance on animal experiments not only did not advance medicine, but usually hindered it. Thus in the case of the polio vaccine, which Sabin, who developed it, described as the experiments on monkeys misled the researchers for years and delayed the development of the vaccine, the development of the bypass surgery was delayed because of experiments conducted on dogs from which they came to the erroneous conclusion that veins cannot be used to replace blocked arteries, and for years they ignored R. Zemelweis, who discovered the bacteria and tried to encourage hygiene, because he did not prove his findings in animals but through observation and clinical experience, and thus thousands more people died.
As Safi Horowitz pointed out here, it is a short time to put all the trending lies written in this article in their place. All the chatter about animal rights and what the animal organizations think are not relevant here, it's just cheap demagoguery and the diversion of the discussion. Animal experiments harm humans.
Experiments on animals are done despite their inefficiency and their irrelevance regarding the development of medical treatments for humans, because it is an easy way to thwart approval for research (the goal of researchers and research institutions is to do as much research as possible - from the promotion and budgets point of view). In other words, animal research is the search for the coin under the lantern in another city. And that's at best. In other cases, animal research, such as research on objects and irrelevant populations of humans, is simply a common method of biasing research by selecting an irrelevant research population, to the benefit of the research funders, thus ensuring continued receipt of funding from the client. "Animal safety testing" is the common method of providing "proof" for the industries that harmful substances they distribute in the human environment (including cosmetic products and drugs) are "safe".
In conclusion, animal research hinders progress and medicine, and if the billions that have been wasted to date on finding treatments for cancer in mice were invested in finding treatments for human cancer (or to prevent cancer) we would be in a much better situation.
Those who experiment on animals do so in the interest of promoting themselves, at the expense of advancing science and medicine.
A trending and false article, there is no point in attacking each and every claim, just a series of poor lies.
It's interesting that "Galileo" didn't talk, for example, about Viox - a drug that killed between 50,000 and 200,000 people, not BAH - people. The "drug" was tested on many different animals, and no fear of dangerous side effects was found. The killing The crowds they caused did not prevent the distributors of the drug from reaping profits of about 2.5 billion dollars. Experiments on animals, and this is a fact - harm us, the humans.
Hello Joe,
You say that there are many drugs that worked on animals and were introduced for use in humans - and they were found to harm humans. In the next sentence you complain that the FDA dictates an endless set of trials to approve the drug.
Without these endless trials, how can we identify potentially harmful drugs? Are you interested in another thilodimid-style drug, which will be released to the market only because someone in the FDA did not oblige the inventors with all the necessary trials?
A number of other mistakes I would like to address:
1. Although a tiny fraction of human medicines cause harm to animals, credit can be given to researchers in this field. They test new drugs on mice, hamsters, ferrets and rabbits. Even if one of them develops a counter-reaction, the others will prove the drug's effectiveness.
2. The pharmaceutical corporations develop drugs at huge costs, and have to pass them through the FDA's approval process for an average of 10 years. Explicitly limiting the developments does not serve their purpose, as they would like to put the drugs on the market immediately upon completion of the development. They have no reason to stop the development process and delay it. Any such delay costs them a fortune in profits after the drug is released to the market.
thank you for your response,
Roy.
The article, like many of its kind, ignores the decisive factors on the subject of animal experiments.
There are many examples of drugs that worked on animals and were put to use in humans with horrific results, for example thallium, on the other hand well-known and common drugs like aspirin cause severe deformities in mice and would not be put to use in humans today. (Aspirin was put into use in the 19th century before the practice of animal testing).
The significant reason for animal experiments is not a decision of the scientists involved in the development of the drug, but rather a dictate of the FDA, which requires an endless set of experiments as a condition for the approval of the drug or cosmetic product. And even though there is no clear correlation between the experiments and the safety of the preparation.
Those experiments as well as other failures that the FDA and its European counterpart conspire to immeasurably increase the costs of product development, delay for many years medicines that could have saved lives only for unnecessary tests and the price in quality of life and price we all pay.
The interests of the FDA, whose directors all come from the pharmaceutical corporations and represent the interests of those corporations, are clear. Limiting developments in the field of pharmaceuticals serves first of all the large corporations that can stop small competitors, and make the drugs as expensive as possible.
And this is before the subject of the ethics of animal experiments.
I think that experiments in the BAH are appalling. Now an article was broadcast on Channel 10 that showed photos that were appalling! In response, Aviv Drucker concluded that we are the superior race and therefore we are allowed to commit such disgraces to save ourselves..
So to all the druckers of all kinds - a superior race is actually one that does good to the other supposedly "inferior" races, and how can one not be reminded of another superior race (see Nazis) who saw fit to do horrible experiments on humans.
How can these scientists who torture and kill innocent animals (I still have in my mind the image of the monkey with the confused look in his eyes and with his brain wide open held in a cage and waiting...) can live with themselves and get up to work in the morning and then go back and look their loved ones and children in the eyes. I am ashamed!
Nonsense!
Although experiments are necessary, other methods can be found
To all those who experiment on animals: what is this thing!!!! Shame on you for what you are doing! You have no shame in taking helpless animals that have done nothing wrong to anyone and doing experiments on them! What is wrong with you!!!!