If We Could Talk with the Animals…THEY’D CUSS US OUT!
Comments (0) 
The problem with abundance is that it makes us lazy and wasteful. The more The GreenFly flies around, the more we see this. We have to be at the precipice of disaster for us to use our resources carefully.
And so it is with animals and their use in testing: from pure research like genetics and behavioral studies to applied (e.g. commercial) research such as biomedical research, drug testing and toxicology testing for the cosmetics industry and pharmaceuticals. Animals are even used in defense work (the GreenFly has always claimed that even a monkey could shoot a gun!).
Of course in the current climate of pull-your-own-damn-self-up-regardless-of-whether-you-can-read-write-or-even-hold-a-fork the running attitude is that animals are just another resource that we can exploit: our pals at The Onion show how totally ridiculous this “logic” is if we run it out to its absurd conclusion:
The Onion News: Should Animals Be Responsible For Their Own Rights?
The GreenFly knows that if animals could unionize, possessed opposable thumbs and had any sense of our history with them on the planet, mankind would be in line for the biggest whup ass ever! We’ve captured this spirit in one of our shirts
See the little man in the needle? You’ve been warned!
But since that’s not in the cards we need to start thinking about our animal sisters and brothers as not just another resource that’s been made available to us for our exploitation willy nilly. Once we do that we can start thinking of other ways to conduct scientific experimentation, exploration and testing. And the time is now to start thinking about alternatives to just exploiting animals for whatever we need.
The Humane Society of the United State’s website states that: “The term “alternative” in the context of animal testing is used to describe any change from present procedures that will result in the replacement of animals, a reduction in the numbers used, or a refinement of techniques to alleviate or minimize potential pain, distress and/or suffering.”
And even if a complete replacement of animal testing with alternative test methods is not realistic forn the immediate future. Still, the fact that alternative test methods are being discovered, promoted and implemented is pretty freakin’ encouraging.
A recent article in the Tennessean reported that David Cliffel, a Vanderbilt University chemist, recently received a grant to develop an alternative to animal testing from the Alternatives Research and Development Foundation to “assess the potential of an advanced cell monitoring system for reducing the use of animals in toxicity testing. . . . Cliffel’s system focuses on methods that evaluate chemicals’ effects using human cells and cell cultures instead of relying so heavily on animal studies.”
This form of testing is particularly dependent on animal systems so any new method will have to show itself to be at least as effective. But there may be other bonuses: less cost, faster cycling in testing. simpler lab methodologies (without the necessity to feed and house living animals before and during testing) as well as possible simpler assessement and analysis of results. And of course we get to dispense with the horrible practice of breeding hundreds of animals only for them to be euthanized. This could be the future of alternative toxicity testing and hopefully David Cliffel’s new system proves to be the bellcow to lead all those other sheep, uh we mean, scientists to alternative testing systems.
Themocracy