It is an incontrovertible fact that if we want to make progress in basic areas of medicine and biology, we are going to have to use animals.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Scientists should not do animal testing if there is any alternative, but subject to that, I would support it on grounds of the medical benefits.
Most of the time, those who use animals in experiments justify that use by pointing to alleged benefits to human and animal health and the supposed necessity of using animals to obtain those benefits.
We live longer and healthier lives than ever before. Animal research has improved the treatment of infections, helped with immunisation, improved cancer treatment and had a big impact on managing heart disease, brain disorders, arthritis and transplantation.
New drugs and surgical techniques offer promise in the fight against cancer, Alzheimer's, tuberculosis, AIDS, and a host of other life-threatening diseases. Animal research has been, and continues to be, fundamental to advancements in medicine.
Science is the international language, so when we are able to convince countries that good decision-making for human health and animal health is based upon science, that's a real success story for us.
When people are thinking, we are quite inventive animals.
For a large number of problems, there will be some animal of choice, or a few such animals, on which it can be most conveniently studied.
I do not believe you can work with animals - certainly you cannot train them - without deciding that if humans have souls, dogs do, too.
Using animals for entertainment is big business, plain and simple.
We'll continue to heal human bodies through biotechnology but we'll also increasingly feed, clothe and house the world through bioengineered systems. Ultimately, there's no reason why live animals should be used in any part of our food or goods chain and we're working to make that a reality.