🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <614@orbit.UUCP> avatar@pnet51.cts.com (Timothy Fay) writes:
>>
>>There is no >>doubt that a lot of cruel animal research exists, and that
>>regulations are needed.  But to say that ALL animal research
>>is cruel is wrong. 
> 
And someone else adds: (sorry)

>This is not to say all researchers are horrible, fanged monsters
>and sadists.

Thankyou for that compliment. (+:
Just a silly anectdote.  We are having a bit of a cold spell here in the
Rockies, as is, I gather, the rest of the country.  Temperatures have been
down to -25 (not counting wind-chill).   Well, the researcher in charge of
the animal facility here at our department was worried about
the mice on the top floor getting sick or dying from hopothermia.
So, he brought all of the space heaters from his own house (I've been in his
house, it needs space heaters) into the lab to keep the mice warm.
You could say that he was only concerned about his experiments going wrong,
except that he is a bacteriologist and does not use the any of the animals in
the facility.  I guess this is one of the non-fanged type of researchers.

The point is that most (ok, so not all) researchers do care about the animals.
They care about increasing our understanding of biology more, so they do use
animals in that pursuit.  I do not (anymore) use animals in my research,
because what I do cannot be done on animals.   When i did, I treated them well,
gave them the attention I could and, when the time came, I killed them.
It was not easy, but I believe that the research was important.  Those are
my priorities...I chose them thoughtfully.  The animal-rights types have no
right to sit in judgement over me.  But, if they had won a while back, it would
be the parents of children who died of small pox and polio now sitting in
judgement.  I can just hear them: "you mean medical science had a way to save
my Timmy and you bastards let him die to save a few animals!?"  Oh well, can't
please everyone.

-tony