irus that can consume the entire body in a matter of hours. The media compare these new diseases with the Black Plague and Leprosy, bringing to mind a devastation so great that the sacrifice of a few dumb animals seems a small price to pay for the survival of the human race and the avoidance of human pain. Yet the media also show images of mistreated pets, and Bambi and Thumper have become part of modern culture, leading many to wonder if killing animals is really right or even necessary.
Scientists have logic on their side, for it is the primary tool of their profession. But they too play on emotion, the emotion of human beings willing to sacrifice a lesser species to ensure the survival of the greatest species of them all: homo sapiens sapiens. Antivivisectionists counter with footage of little puppies or kittens, baby chimpanzees that look disturbingly human, then juxtapose these images with those of stiff animal corpses injected with lethal, slow-acting, pain racking diseases, all in the name of scientific curiosity, and the question is clear: "Why are you killing Old Yeller?" What antivivisectionists lack, however, is an argument that can stand up in the court of logic as well as in the court of compassion. Perhaps more important, they lack logical and physical consistency.
Scientists Loeb, Hendee, Smith and Schwarz state the argument for animal research thus: "The use of animals in research is fundamentally an ethical question: is it more ethical to ban all research with animals or to use a limited number of animals in research under humane conditions when no alternatives exist to achieve medical advances that reduce substantial human suffering and misery?"( Loeb, et al., 1989, p. 2716). This may, in fact, be more a question of ethics than of logic. Is it logical for humans to sacrifice themselves for the welfare of other, apparently less intelligent and useful species? Put another way: imagine a boulder is about to...