🚀 go-pugleaf

>Fortunately, most Universities have ethics 
>committees that review test plans before allowing researchers to perform 
>tests on animals or people.  Perhaps the cosmetics industry should be forced
>to clear test plans with a government body that evaluates testing for
>reasonability.
>-- 
>Chris Lewis

This is true, UNfortunately these committees are usually rather lax,
(this is first hand, I've worked in and around such labs at some well
known places) regardless of what they may be on paper. Having seen it
first hand I would tend to tolerate some of the "extremists" on the
subject, perhaps they will at least goad the others to clean up their
house before some scandals cause them some real troubles. I think
people idealize the situation, I haven't heard any defenses from
people who have actually worked in these labs, I suspect they'd mostly
rather forget the whole thing.

More importantly, I think the conversation was specifically directed
at unnecessary testing, such as on products we probably already know
are harmful. Not medicines or new things (except perhaps new things
of dubious value, like a cheaper formulation to make your dishwasher
detergent smell "lemony!".) Animal testing motivated by vague fears
of litigation rather than adding to the base of scientific knowledge.

I have little doubt that our choice is either we engage in certain
animal testing, or we stop right here (a choice some advocate.) I also
have little doubt that those of us with compassion for animals would
like to know that such testing is done as humanely as possible. I fear
that it isn't.

	-Barry Shein, Boston University