This was one of the least cruel picture of animal testing I could find.
Even though many animals suffer and die at the hands of scientists, I still believe that they are dying for a greater cause. Spiegel asserts that "there is a vast duplication of research" (Spiegel 70), but I am not sure if that is necessarily a bad thing. To get a better and more accurate result in an experiment, one must get a large sample of data, and to do that one must repeat the experiment numerous times. Hence, duplication of similar experiments results in a more accurate data, so it may not be such a bad thing for the scientists.
Spiegel also states that "relatively few studies are significant enough (even within the researchers' own fields of study) to ever reach publication in a medical journal, much less achieve any degree of relevant application" (Spiegel 70). That is an upsetting phenomenon that is bound to happen. Since these ideas were approved to proceed with the experiments, obviously the non-significant experiments seemed to have merits when they were at hypothesis stages. Sadly, the conclusions of these experiments revealed little to nothing significant; however, even these experiments are necessary, for they have revealed that scientists are wrong to think such way. Furthermore, there is always the what if factor. What if the hypothesis turned out to be true and revealed something significant to the world? As the saying goes, "hindsight is twenty twenty," non-significant experiments seem to have wasted time and lives of animals, but they appeared to be important when the experiments were taking place. We have to bear with the vivisection in hopes of ideally finding something significant, as Titus explains the goal of Japanese quail experiment, "Ideally, if researchers understand the mechanisms that produce this transition it could revolutionize medicine and possibly lead improved medication for impotence and depression" (Vivisection on this campus).
According to Titus, numerous Japanese quail died to prove a simple hypothesis
However, no matter what happens I am against vivisection on humans. The only reason I support vivisection on animals is its potential benefits for humans. Hence, when scientists experiment on human beings and make humans suffer, that defeats the purpose of sheltering humans with vivisection on animals. Some racist people believe that blacks or other races are inferior and on the same level as animals. It is true that Americans treated slaves like animals and beasts: as Ashley Martinez states, "When you read the manuscript for Earthlings it sounds like a novel about slavery, all you need to do is insert the word slaves where you see animals and insert plantations where you see slaughterhouses” (U.T. most confederate campus in the nation). Back in the day when racism was more apparent, animals and humans were interchangeable; there were incidents where blacks were used to test the effect of syphilis. However, I doubt scientists practice vivisection on humans in today's society.
I think one picture is more extreme than the other, but I could be wrong.
