🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <5963@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, by skellyjp@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (James P Skelly):
> In article <221@anselm.UUCP>, sperry@anselm.UUCP (MALF) writes:
>>     Using animals for scientific research is completely unnecessary and
>> cruel to the animals.  With todays technology we do not need to use
>> animals for the research.  The tests done have been done at least 100
>> times allready. 
> 
> This is wrong.  There is no substitute for the use of animals in medical
> research nor is animal research cruel to the animals.  Except in
> rare cases animals are given all the care that pets would get
> when they go to a vet.  Since so many people seem to be unaware of how
> animal research has benefitted medical practice, including veterinary
> medicine, I've included some information. 
[ Information Deleted}

Let's take a hypothetical situation here.  Looking at all of the numbers
given in the examples, you can see that there are millions if not billions
of people out there that would not be alive today if it were not for medical
research and developments in new pharmaceuticals.  Yet what do we accomplish
by all of this.  We end up with a lot of sick people that would not survive
without medical help.  

So, if there were a major disaster that restricted medical professionals to
treating those who were injured, i.e. a war, then we would have a lot of
dying people out there, dying from cronic illnesses.  My point is that maybe
we need to look at what long term effects we are creating by breeding
diseases into our future generations.  I can imagine that countries that are
not as medically advanced inherit a stronger gene pool of people simply
because the weak will perish.  Will the future of the world be inherited by
us, the medically pampered, or the third world?






Alan
-- 
		{	Humans are the only animals that       }
		{	don't breed to improve the species.    }

			--Alan