American law "does nothing to
genuinely protect animals, nor does it recognize their true value and special
place in our homes and within our families," two animal rights authorities say.
"Our legal system just does
not recognize the bond between people and their companion animals, and when
that bond is severed, it completely fails to compensate for that loss," write
law professors Diane Sullivan and Holly Vietzke of the Massachusetts School of
Law at Andover.
Furthermore, they contend,
torture of laboratory animals is as widespread as it is unnecessary, and they
question "the propriety of treating millions of animals like property for
research at the hand and whim of the researcher." Proponents of testing argue
that animal research is "necessary" and/or "justified." "To advance this
position requires a rationale that a dog, cat, or chimp is the equivalent of an
innate piece of property."
With the advancement of
science and technology, Sullivan and Vietzke continue, "it is now possible to
conduct testing without having to use live animals. Human tissue, donated from
human cells, can be grown in test tubes."
Moreover, they assert,
computers can use simulation software to virtually conduct tests, even
incorporating "hundreds of variables" to simulate various human conditions and
the effects the drug or product would have on them.
1 | 2 | 3
|The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.