Skip to Main Content

Vote for the March Mad Scientists!

Written by PETA | March 18, 2008

It’s been 16 long weeks since we last had a Vivisector of the Week to vote on, but we’re going to make up it for all in one go right here: You asked for it (OK, whatever, you didn’t ask for it), so here it is … just in time for March Madness, 16 of the nation’s most reprehensible, university-funded animal torturers going head-to-head in PETA’s first-ever Vivisector of the Week tournament—ladies and gentlemen, meet the March Mad Scientists!!!

For the next four weeks, I’m going to be highlighting one of the biggest showdowns in the tournament, then opening up voting for the remaining contenders. If you want to do this scientifically, you can check out this handy cheat sheet to get an idea of which institutes of learning have the most sick, pointless, and barbaric animal-experimentation programs hidden away in their basements. Or you could just vote for your hometown school and pick a bunch of other ones at random (that’s pretty much how I’m doing my NCAA brackets). So let’s get this thing underway—here’s the top bracket in this week’s … Sick Sixteen!

University of Pittsburgh vs. Michigan State University: Commons

Patrick Kochanek, Pittsburgh.

Down in Pittsburgh’s secretive laboratories, a team of experimenters led by Dr. Patrick “Frankenstein” Kochanek are working deep into the night to reanimate the corpses of dogs, pigs, and mice. Seriously, I couldn’t make this crap up if I wanted to: Under Kochanek’s cold-hearted guidance, a group of “scientists” drain the blood from animals for up to three hours, pump an ice-cold salt solution into their veins until they’re scientifically dead, then shock them back alive. The animals usually suffer massive physical and psychological trauma in the process, but that’s a small price to pay for a zombie army, right? Right?? Commons

Arthur Weber, Michigan State.

Michigan State University’s Arthur Weber ain’t afraid of no zombies. This guy has a signature move that would frighten even the undead. This cat torturer’s got his technique down pat: First he injures their optic nerve, then he dissects the overlying tissues, inserts a surgical hook, and places a clamp on the nerve. Next on the agenda: Wait for seven days until it’s time to remove the cats’ eyes while they’re still alive! Then it’s killing time, and onto another batch of kitties—Weber’s been at this game for more than 25 years. That’s a whole lot of cats!

Only one of these contenders can advance to the next round, so choose carefully! Cast your vote for the vilest vivisector using the form below, and feel free to leave a comment explaining your selection.

The cheat sheet will help you decide which other universities deserve to advance, and we’ll be back next week with the Evil Eight! Stay tuned!!!

.vote td { width: 150px; font-size: 90%; } .vote select { width: 125px; } Use the dropdown menus to pick a winner!

Please Select Pittsburgh Michigan State Please Select Stanford Kansas State Please Select Washington State Texas A&M
Please Select UT Austin Ohio State Please Select Duke Purdue Please Select Johns Hopkins Harvard
Please Select UConn Vanderbilt Please Select Washington UW Madison


Commenting is closed.
  • editor says:

    Quinoa and Antigone1000 I don’t understand how any of your quoted diatribe related to my posting? You obviously are not well educated in the science community or its publications thus necessitating the repetition of others’ opinions. I agree with Pragmatist’s statement of 32108. PETA should take some of their over abundance of time money and fanatical zeal and try to apply it to an area where it can actually be of use. Threatening the lives of researchers is not the answer. If you all are so worried about the lives of animal research models why don’t you try to develop a realistic model yourselves? How about spending your money to support other research methods that can actually replace the use of animal models in all instances? By the way in my experience I have not seen that animal research is more often published nor can it be said that making a small change to a previous paper automatically makes it acceptable. Scientists go through a vast amount of time and energy when applying for grants to do research. The ideas must be NEW in nature and must be shown to contribute something necessary to the field of science before they will even be considered. It has become increasingly more difficult to receive governmental grant money with all the cut backs which occurred with the last two presidential terms. As far as the continued statements of treatment being replaced by diet and exercise I know plenty of people myself included who diet and exercise on a regular basis but cannot change the health that is dealt them by genetics. This is a moot and less than intelligent remark. My suggestion is as stated above take some of your time and try to put it to a more productive use instead of spending so much time attacking people who are actively trying to help others. As far as mice being poor models for cancer research that may be true but that does not mean that they are not good models for other types of scientific research. Unfortunately mice and other animals are the closest models that can be used by law since there are no races or groups of humans volunteering for these experiments not because they are inflicted by sadistic scientists but because the methodsdrugs being used are not approved until they have been tested past the animal stage. Perhaps one or both of you or other members of PETA would like to volunteer as research subjects?

  • Simpleton says:

    Mike Quinoa Animal testing is no more accurate than the flip of a coin as regards predictability in humans. I can only say that the above statement is just wrong simple as that. The accuracy of the animal testing depends on the testing being done the animal its being tested on and the similarities between the animal tested and humans. For instance the stomach of a pig and the stomach of a human are amazingly similar they share not only biological properties but also chemical properties. How do we know that? Well weve done animal testing on pigs and found that out. Therefore animal testing that relates to the stomach are very accurate using pigs stomachs as a comparison to human stomachs. This has been supported by the data. When we test things on a pigs stomach and then on a humans stomach we tend to see the same results. I use words like very accurate and tend to because Im a statistician by training. I could make up a stat and say its 80 or 90 accurate but that would just as inaccurate and made up as you saying its 50. We can never know the predictability of animal testing as a whole because we can never calculate all of the animal testing that would or has been done nor an accurate picture of the similarities between us and other animals. Even with a vague understanding of the accuracy percentages we can not dismiss all the animal testing out of hand. As we better understand ourselves and better understand animals and our similarities and differences from them the more accuracy we can have in animal testing. “Lab Animal magazine admits Mice are actually poor models of the majority of human cancers.” Have they looked at why they are poor models? Have they tried to understand what it is that makes them poor models for humans and then used that information to adjust the model to fit us? Have they just thought about using a different animal that would not be such a poor model? It is through failure and understanding why we failed that true breakthroughs come. It should be seen as an opportunity to not only better understand cancer but to understand mice. If you truly believe human life has more value then you should be promoting the use and development of nonanimal humanbased tests which will provide the maximum benefit to our species with the minimum of risk. I do truly believe that human life has more value maybe only because I happen to be one of them. As such I promote the use and development of any legitimate and humane techniques that will aid in the better understanding of our world and benefit the people in it. That means I cant dismiss animal testing out of hand because of emotional reasons. If you feel that human life is not more valuable then you have a defensible position. We can talk about the moral implications of either side. However you can not say that I should not support animal testing because it has no benefit to humans because that is just not the case. I agree it has flaws and its not perfect but you can not deny that it has benefited people. To do so would be to ignore small pox tuberculosis and insulin to name but a few.

  • Simpleton says:

    Gerry “The info. on this site will 100 disprove people who think animalexperimenting is helpful” I would hope that in this day and age people would know a little bit more about science. No site or information will 100 disprove anything. I can direct you to a site httpwww.fbresearch.orgindex.htm which details the benefits of animal research. Does it prove it 100 no. There is no 100 proof in a debate such as this. Antigone1000 You seem to have a very distorted view of disease and peoples behavior. Smoking and unhealthy lifestyles may be the cause of disease for rich people in the US but it is no way the leading factor contributing to disease. What about malaria tuberculosis small pox the flu diphtheria or childhood diabetes? Are you trying to suggest that the people in third worlds or even the poor in this country should just shape up and start acting healthy and all these things will go away? Poor drinking water lack of vaccines and poor nutrition and medical care are the leading causes of disease in this world. Scientist arent concerned with curing the diseases of the rich and elite of this country they are concerned about curing the diseases that most of this world has to live with on a daily basis. I assume by your lack of knowledge in this regard that you are living a privileged life where you dont have to worry about clean drinking water or a lack of medical care so you can look around and blame people for these conditions. Widen your perspective to include the world not just the people around you. As for why we live longer these daysbecause our lives are easier!! I dont know which shows a greater lack of knowledge this statement or your statement regarding why people get diseases. We live longer today because of two root causes the understanding of the germ theory of disease and better access to medical care and healthy food. With the germ theory of disease we understood that diseases came primarily from other living creatures that contaminated our food and drinking water. Once we understood that we began to take steps to minimize their negative effect on our lives such as cleaning our drinking water showering with soap and other cleansers cleaning our cooking utensils properly preparing our food washing our hands etc Additionally we have been able to find cures for the diseases that we still get despite our efforts to reduce the risks. Many of these advances in the way we live our lives and develop cures have been aided through the use of animal research. We have been able to understand that rats mosquitoes cockroaches and other animals are carriers of some of these diseases. That would not have been possible without animal research nor would our understanding of how to vaccinate against these diseases. As for better access to medical care and healthy food we cant exactly wait around until the rest of the world has access to those things. While we are trying to help the rest of the world get these things we also have to look at how to take care of people in the meantime. It is not their fault that they were not born into privilege.

  • Mike Quinoa says:

    Editor Why Animal Experimentation Persists If animal experimentation is so flawed why does it persist? There are several likely explanations. 1. For the chemical and pharmaceutical industries animal experiments provide an important legal sanctuary. In cases of death or disability caused by chemical products or adverse drug reactions the responsible companies claim due diligence by pointing out that they performed the legally prescribed “safety tests” on animals and are therefore not accountable. As a result the victims or their families most often come away emptyhanded after suing for damages. 2. Animal experimentation is easily published. In the “publish or perish” world of academic science it requires little originality or insight to take an already welldefined animal model change a variable or the species being used and obtain “new” and interesting” findings within a short period of time. In contrast clinical research while directly applicable to humans is more difficult expensive and timeconsuming. In addition the many species available and the nearly infinite possible manipulations offer researchers the opportunity to “prove” almost any theory that serves their economic professional or political needs. 3. Animal experimentation is selfperpetuating. Scientists salaries and professional status are often tied to grants and a critical element of success in grant applications is proof of prior experience and expertise. Researchers trained in animal experimentation techniques find it difficult or inconvenient to adopt new methods such as tissue cultures. 4. Animal experimentation is lucrative. Its traditionally respected place in modern medicine results in secure financial support which is often an integral component of a universitys budget. Many medical centers receive several hundred million dollars annually in direct grants for animal research and an average of over 40 more for overhead costs that are supposedly related to that research. Since many medical centers faced with declining clinical revenues depend on this financial windfall for much of their administrative costs construction and building maintenance they perpetuate animal experimentation by praising it in the media and to legislators. 5. Animal experimentation appears more “scientific” than clinical research. Researchers often assert that laboratory experiments are “controlled” because they can change one variable at a time. This control however is illusory. Any animal model differs in myriad ways from human physiology and pathology. In addition the laboratory setting itself creates confounding variablesfor example stress and undesired or unrecognized pathology in the animals. Such variables can have systemwide effects skew experimental results and undermine extrapolation of findings to humans. 6. The morality of animal experimentation is rarely questioned by researchers who generally choose to defend the practice dogmatically rather than confront the obvious moral issues it raises. Animal experimenters language betrays their efforts to avoid morality. For example they “sacrifice” animals rather than kill them and they may note animal “distress” but they rarely acknowledge pain or other suffering. Young scientists quickly learn to adopt such a mindset from their superiors as sociologist Arnold Arluke explains “One message almost a warning that newcomers got was that it was controversial or risky to admit to having ethical concerns because to do so was tantamount to admitting that there really was something morally wrong with animal experimentation thereby giving ‘ammunition to the enemy’.” Physician E. J. Moore also observes “Sadly young doctors must say nothing at least in public about the abuse of laboratory animals for fear of jeopardizing their career prospects.” Above from Europeans For Medical Progress website

  • Derek says:

    Actually the increase in mean life expectancy can be attributed mostly to advances in the field of obstetrics and neonatology. Women in “developed” countries for the most part do not start having children at very young ages as was common practice in premodern medicine America when approximately 1 in 4 women died during childbirth usually from hemorrhage. Couple that with being able to resuccitate neonates as young as 23 weeks at advanced institutions with reasonable “success” about 50 survive many with complications and improved nutritionvaccinationsless exposure to inclement weather for children and the mean life exptectancy rapidly rises. I would argue that Primary Care physicans not research physicians are “our life blood” given they ideally focus more on preventative medicine and disease education…of course many people who choose to live a certain lifestyle prefer to add another quickfix pill to their medicine cabinet so perhaps the research physician is their life blood.

  • Keith says:

    Pragmatist. Perhaps you should consider becoming a donor to the Dr.Hadwen Trust Replacing Animals in Medical Research. May I also conclude Peta. does contribute substantial sums of money into this research facility. Judith Freedom Fighter for Animals ” thank you for your kind endorsement.”

  • Mike Quinoa says:

    Pragmatist Yes one could argue it’s not the “fault” of animal researchers for the Vioxx tragedyit is though the inherent fault of the defective animal testing paradigm itself. As proven countless times the animal model is just not predictive for humans. Vioxx actually indicated a heart benefit in animal models. You said “Animal research is extremely useful in determining if a treatment has any effect following animal testing if a drug shows few negative side effects and quite a benefit in animals responsible scientists then put them to the test in humans.” Why then did the Food and Drug Administration report in 2004 that 92 percent of drugs that test safe and effective in animals are found to be either unsafe or ineffective in humans? Why then In London in March 2006 did a new antiinflammatory drug called TGN1412 cause devastating reactions including multiple organ failure in all six volunteers in phase 1 clinical trials despite “proof of safety” established by tests on monkeys who were given 500 times the human dose? The really sad part is a lot of drugs that may have proven useful to humans have been thrown away on the basis of negative animal tests. We don’t need an “alternative” to something that doesn’t work in the first place. We need and have technologies that directly relate to the human species and by definition those are nonanimal ones.

  • Maya, CVT says:

    I have been to an experimental lab it was part of my rotation as a vet tech. I know that experimentors are not monsters. However it was clear to me that especially if they were kindhearted they had to put themselves in at least a minor state of denial in order to treat the animals the way they did. Again they are not monsters. But the animals were put through painful procedures and were not allowed to have a humane enclosure and were not allowed to have toys. As vet techs we knew that this setup was inhumane. When we asked why they could not have a better enclosure or toys we were told that it would bias the experiments. Do I beleive it? Yes I beleive it may be the truth. However the sacrifice these animals make is enormous bordering on unacceptable even if a human’s life is saved. The underpaid workers have little say over the matter however anyone making a profit on this has an undeniable obligation to help PETA end all unnecessary testing. Testing of cosmetics pet food cigarettes alcohol heroin etc is unacceptable. It needs to end today. We all know that animal testing for diseases like leukemia heart disease etc could take a long time to stop. So in the meantime every single one of us has an obligation to end the UNNECESSARY torture testing that is out there and being paid for by taxpayer’s money.

  • Mike Quinoa says:

    Simpleton Animal testing is no more accurate than the flip of a coin as regards predictability in humans. If animals always responded to drugs in a diametrically opposite fashion to humans then you would have predictability and something useful. But animal tests sometimes correlate with human results and sometimes not thus providing nothing of worthwhile value in the prediction of drug safety or efficacy for humans The thrust of future research has to be in the field of personalized medicine since regardless of what animal tests “determine” we all vary in our genetic makeup and thus in our individual reaction to a given drug. I don’t expect animal testing to be 100 but when it’s retrospectively 50 or equal to the flip of a coin and methodologies such as in vitro testing can provide 80 accuracy it becomes a nobrainer. As far as cancer and the mouse are concerned “Lab Animal magazine admits Mice are actually poor models of the majority of human cancers.” “Leading cancer researcher Robert Weinberg has commented The preclinical animal models of human cancer in large part stink.” You said “It simply comes down to which life to place more value on that of a human or that of an animal.” If you truly believe human life has more value then you should be promoting the use and development of nonanimal humanbased tests which will provide the maximum benefit to our species with the minimum of risk.

  • Antigone1000 says:

    Pragmatist People in this day and age in this country know full well the cause of their actions and I absolutely do blame the smokers and unhealthy people for the diseases they contract as a result of the smoking and unhealthy lifestyle. They should be blamed. We are a country where no one takes responsibility for anything anymore. If they are not willing to take responsibility for themselves no animals should die for them and my insurance rates should not increase to provide their drugs and whatever else they suddenly “need.” I’ll agree to let insurance pay for their gym memberships how is that? Although there ARE diseases that people do not cause if we take the ones we cause ourselves out of the mix we would be a much healthier nation. Not that I would justify animal research for ANY reason however. As for why we live longer these daysbecause our lives are easier!! Most people have modern conveniences that they didn’t have years ago. We are making a huge mistake if we let ourselves believe that we need the vast amount of drugs being prescribed these days.

  • editor says:

    I believe in the ethical treatment of animals. That being said I know from experience that animal testing IS a necessity in the medical industry. For example behavioral tests cannot be performed on humans in every situation. If they were to be performed on humans which humans would be volunteering? Should we go back to the days where prison inmates were the subjects of research or perhaps to the Nazi days where they used an entire race of people? How can we advance as a society and continue to improve our lifestyles without the help of scientists? This cannot be done solely with diet and exercise. There are many genetic links to disease and you cannot diet away your genetics. Yes some of the tests can be performed using other methods than animal studies but they cannot all be done in this manner. If scientists use “genetically engineered” animal models that means that previous experiments have proven that a particular disease or affliction is genetic. How do you think that was discovered? Do you think they can just randomly do experiments on people? Are you suggesting that this would be a better alternative than to breed mice or rats in order to test these theories? For example why don’t we all go back 30 years to the point where alcoholism was considered to be a matter of choice or a lack of willpower. By developing these genetically engineered models the stigma has finally changed to reveal that alcoholism is actually genetic to a large degree. With this information alcoholism has come to be known as a disease and alcoholics are finally being treated the way they should be with respect and concern rather than as someone we should push under the rug or think of as a low life. If you can’t understand this then you must be one of the lucky people whose family is not touched by alcoholism or addiction. There aren’t many of those families around unfortunately. With the aid of this research hopefully this will not be the case for future generations because people will be helped before they are allowed to drink or use drugs to the point where they can no longer be helped. As far as all the money these researchers are making you all should take a closer look at the facts. Research doctors stay in their fields because they feel they can make human life better in the years to come. It has nothing to do with the money or any fame they could achieve by publishing. This is done despite being attacked by fanatics such as yourself and for very little pay. If you rationally look at the amount of schooling in addition to the hours spent working toward a positive outcome the compare it to the salaries received you would realize that the researchers are actually underpaid for their work. Research doctors are our life blood. If you think otherwise I hope you never need medical help for a disease that is currently being researched.

  • Gerry says:

    The website is STILL not wellknown by activists around the world. It is completely scientific without animalethics concerns. The info. on this cite will 100 disprove people who think animalexperimenting is helpfull it should be required reading for ALL who are concerned about saving people and animals.

  • lynda downie says:

    Monkey boy I’m the one who made the sarcastic comment about these vivisectors looking normal. Even granting the benefits of animal experiments which is contestableI think anyone who can look in the eyes of an innocent animal who is filled with heart pounding terror and yet intentionally inflict raw undiluted pain on himher is abnormal. Were this emotional detachment of vivisectors directed to humans they’d be locked up in an insane asylum. As to being thankful all of humanity owes an immeasurable debt of gratitude to the victims of vivisection and scientists dedicated to finding alternatives to animal experimentation.

  • pragmatist says:

    Quinoa The Vioxx tragedy is awful but it is not the fault of animal researchers but of greedy drug companies who push their drugs through clinical trials before all of the effects can be studied. Many of the effects of Vioxx were results of prolonged use read several years time that the drug companies are unwilling to sacrifice especially when they can make a profit. Animal research is extremely useful in determining if a treatment has any effect following animal testing if a drug shows few negative side effects and quite a benefit in animals responsible scientists then put them to the test in humans. Many of these effects are impossible to study via the other methods you have stated as they are either correlational or they are indirect measures of phenomenon. One of the best imaging techniques functional MRI fMRI measures oxygenation which indicates increased blood flow which indicates higher activity in the general vicinity. Neither fMRI or PET are particularly clear images so not much can be interpreted from those data. I believe that these techniques will improve with time and that we will develop more techniques to either use fewer animals or in some cases eliminate animal testing altogether and I do think it is a good goal to have. One of the beautiful things about science is that its very nature is selfcorrecting. The fact of the matter is that these animalfree technologies are in their infancy and it will take time for them to become viable alternatives. So PETA if you really want to help eliminate animal research you will stop the sensationalist BS and start pouring your money towards developing alternative techniques that are as scientifically sound as animal testing. You would actually become a USEFUL organization! If you started doing things that ACTUALLY mattered rather than spending all of your time criticizing I would join your group. I am not procruelty but I would like to live a long healthy life with my family and friends and some 40 year old dogs and cats once the research moves toward veterinary care around me.

  • Simpleton says:

    Mike Quinoa You are right regarding the way in which animal testing was mandated in the US as well as the Vioxx tragedy. However I would to like to point out a very simple flaw in your thinking. You are trying to insinuate that animal testing needs to be 100 in order to provide value and that if you can show where it has flaws then it must go away completely. However science is not like religion or the majority of politics these days. It is not an all or nothing endevour. Just because you can site times when it has not worked does not mean that there aren’t other times when it has proved to be invaluable. While the cures of cancer in mice did not directely translate to humans it did provide a means to better understand the disease and hopefully use that gained knowledge to find a cure for humans. Why didn’t it work for us? Why did it work for them? Can we replicate the difference in mice that allowed it to work for them? I’m sure you get the picture. There are many other alternatives to animal testing and many of them are used extensively. However there are times when animal testing can provide invaluable information to us. Animals should be treated as humanly as possible but it simply comes down to which live to place more value on that of a human or that of an animal. Without the tests on animals we would not have insulin. High memembers of PETA would not be alive today if they did not have this medicine. Are there lives worth more than the animals that are used to provide them with the means to live? I’d say yes. I’m all for watch guarding these people to ensure they are not violating basic humane standards but to throw it all out the window is an unjustifable position.

  • Thomas says:

    I think you are right about other procedures being available but I think your last paragraph is a little bit of an oversimplification. I do not think the people who started this post were completely honest about the experiments either using them to incite unneeded rage against researchers who are just trying to make things better for people not “take the easy way out and just torture animals.” We both know that’s not true they wouldn’t work as hard for their PhD’s if they always wanted the easy way out. It also makes me sick that people are wishing death upon them… come on. Michael Vick and experimental research are completely different… let the crazies stick to Michael Vick. No one should have anything like that wished upon them.

  • Judith, Freedom Fighter for Animals says:

    Keith I’m in your corner. Judith

  • keith says:

    Pragmatist. The one great factor that we live longer than our ancestors is the resource of clean drinking water. and good sanitation. Apology thats Two.

  • Mike Quinoa says:

    Pragmatist and Thomas Because of the thalidomide tragedy the U.S. Congress passed the KefauverHarris Act in October of 1962 which among other things mandated that all drugs undergo preclinical animal testing to ostensibly guarantee their safety and effectiveness for humansthis Act created the basis for animal testing in the USA. How much the animal tests actually “aided” the research is questionable particularly since drugs like penicillin would have been shelved if animaltested today. Obviously in light of the Vioxx tragedy 150000200000 human deaths animal drug testing has been not only of minimal value but actually detrimental to humans. If thalidomide was tested on animals today for its original purpose of alleviating morning sickness it would pass since originally of all the animals tested only New Zealand White rabbits shared the same tragic sideeffects that humans suffered. Cancers have actually been cured in mice but the findings were ineffective in humans. There are many nonanimal methodologies pharmacogenomics epidemiology clinical research microdosing DNA chips computer modeling autopsies and biopsies microfluidic circuits postmarketing surveillance noninvasive imaging devices such as CAT MRI PET and SPECT scans in vitro cell and tissue cultures and more that give much more accurate predictability for human use than outdated animal tests. Why do they do it? To plagiarize myself… It’s a “publish or perish” type of industry and rather than devising useful but perhaps more timeconsuming human studies they lazily take the easy way out and just torture animals. They publish their paper and then move on to the next batch of innocent animals pocketing money all along the way.

  • Thomas says:

    As a student at Purdue University I think it is hilarious that you all do not realize that these experiments are used not for the main purpose of torturing animals but in order to further benefit and lengthen human life. Have you ever used insulin as a diabetic?? Many of you do not realize that the drugs you keep in your medicine cabinets were founded using animal studies. Perhaps you should stick to your liberal arts majors and keep watching the E channel. Have a nice day.

  • pragmatist says:

    First and foremost scientists are NOT doing their research for the money. Anyone who gets a job working as a professor at a major research institution could be making 23x as much in industry or medicine. They are doing it to make human lives better and often the treatments developed can also be used to treat sick animals. Antigone if eating right and exercising were all that was necessary to live a long life why did our ancestors who did not eat the high fat diets and worked much harder physically live 25 30 40 years less than we currently do? Also I find the fact that you blame the obese smokers etc. for the diseases that they later contract. This kind of attitude is NOT respect for life in any way. Try a little forgiveness for people who were unfortunate enough to get into these situations not all of them knew the consequences of their actions. Additionally science has provided treatments and cures for a multitude of illnesses that have little to no relationship to “poor choices.” Treatments for diabetes polio malaria TB heart disease cancer and NUMEROUS others have been developed with the aid of animal models. I do agree that it is important to give the animal the most comfortable home possible and to use the least painful procedures when animal testing in addition to being humane it makes for better science with more believable results. As scientists we should respect the lives lost in each study and always weigh the cost vs. benefit. That said I believe almost all of you would personally kill an animal to save your life whether it was a research subject to treat your cancer or a source of calories to nourish you during a time of starvation. Furthermore if you would NOT do such a thing you are very lucky to live in a time where natural selection does not occur to the same extent as it did 300 years ago and should appreciate the scientists that have made your animalfree lifestyle possible.

  • Maya, CVT says:

    Thank you Judith! Namaste!

  • Mike says:

    UCONN UConn! UConn! UConn!!!

  • Mike Quinoa says:

    Monkey Boy I doubt very much you’ve ever taught animal researchyou don’t seem to know much about it. Have you ever heard of Vioxx? Most analysts have put worldwide deaths from Vioxx adverse drug reactions to be somewhere in the range of 150000 to 200000. This is a drug that passed animal tests but doesn’t appear to be much of a boon to mankind. “Although some adverse drug reactions ADR are not very serious others cause the death hospitalization or serious injury of more than 2 million people in the United States each year including more than 100000 fatalities. In fact adverse drug reactions are one of the leading causes of death in the United States.” Lazarou J Pomeranz BH Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients A metaanalysis of prospective studies. Journal of the American Medical Association Apr 15 1998 279 1200 1205.” Once again all the drugs above that caused such carnage and human suffering passed animal tests with flying colors. If you can’t name at least 10 effective nonanimal research modalities then you’ve got a lot to learn. If you don’t want to use the PETA website to educate yourself then go elsewhere.

  • Antigone1000 says:

    Monkey Boy Actually thanks to these people and their predecessors we have become a nation that depends on drugs we do not need but which make pharma companies a great deal of money. If you want to add 25 years to your life EAT RIGHT AND EXERCISE. It disgusts me that we torment and kill these innocent animals to “save the lives” of lazy human beings that won’t make even the most minimal of efforts to save their own. If you want to eat like a glutton and sit around and do nothing and subsequently develop heart disease diabetes whatever that is YOUR fault. If you smoke and develop cancer that is YOUR fault. If you die as a result that is YOUR fault. No animal life should be taken to save a body you were too lazy to take proper care of in the first place.

  • Judith, Freedom Fighter for Animals says:

    Maya You are absolutely Brilliant!

  • Maureen says:

    Just reading about and entering into the world of these people takes us to a kind of hell on earth. There is no horror book or film that compares to the unspeakable torture these animals are forced to endure. The complete lack of empathy for our fellow creatures shown by these people is shocking and in a better world they would never be allowed to get within one foot of any animal.

  • Derek says:

    Monkey Boy Extending OUR lives by 25 years? A majority of current medical therapies other than overused antibiotics are aimed at treating the results of poor lifestyle decisions smoking unhealthy diet lack of exercise etc. and of little use to those that care about their bodies and health. Yes there are familial traits that predispose people to such conditions as high cholesterol certain types of cancers Type I diabetes cystic fibrosis etc. that require medical intervention but a substantial number of pharmaceutical therapies are aimed at covering up or providing a fix for a selfinduced condition. I have not looked extensively into research practices including potentially viable nonanimal based models to argue on this point specifically but there is a need for humane practices which are often lacking when one of my friends was a research assistant he used to “pop” a rat’s eye out of its socket in order to draw blood!. By the way unless you are teaching an elective media class there is a strong possibility that “polling” students in an obviously biased manner would represent a potential ehtical violation or at the very least abuse who is going to disagree with the person giving out their grade?. I guess I will just be brushed off as some “nutters” is that a term they are teaching college professors to use these days? but I am confident that my scientific and medical knowledge is sufficient to support my claims.

  • Maya, CVT says:

    Monkey boy I just have to ask under what insane circumstances is it relevant to show the PETA site in a college classroom? Quite frankly it sounds unbecoming of college professor. After I earn my graduate degree and if I teach I would not find it appropriate in any way to teach a science course and show a website that sways people politically or in any activist manner. It’s biased. Sure we may discuss ethics but with the assumption that the professor is not pushing for one side or the other which you are. Do you not think that any scientist working to cure diseases and relieve suffering should do it for the right reasons not for money or fame? Then you would know as a scientist that nonhuman animals can suffer under laboratory circumstances and at the very least you should keep your opinion out of it if you refues to acknowledge that some beings may deserve some sympathy for their sacrifice. I’m not trying to come across as a bitch it just seems like you’re not in the least bit concerned about the real issue here empathy for lab animals.

  • Glen Venezio says:

    I commented the other day on this post and there was nothing offensive in my comments and they were not posted. In fact this is about the 10th comment I have made on this blog that has never been posted. Why do I bother to post if they are never approved? I post every day on the PETA Forums but obviously your blog doesn’t seem to be interested in any of my comments.

  • Monkey Boy says:

    This is classic crazy from PeTA again. Any time I need a laugh I can count on you nutters. These laboratory animals purpose bred for research are our KIDS? Dogs cats have more rights than rats? Every time I teach a college course that includes animal research I only have to show the crazy coming out of this website and they instantly shake their heads. Taking a large sample of juniorsenior college students it’s over 800 now I’ve only ever had 1 who was not convinced that the folks PeTA were not at least hypocrites at most lunatics. But ALL of them agree that if rats could use humans in some way to extend their lifespan ability to reproduce then they would do so without hesitation. If there can be no contract or reciprocity there are no rights. Someone posted that the researchers looked really normal. Thanks to them and their predecessors you’ll have about 25 years more lifespan to consider that tidbit. We humans are lucky to be able to consider the humanity and ethics of animal treatment thanks in large part to these ‘barbarians’.

  • keith says:

    I have said it before..and will say it again..”Peta you really have to become more aggressive with your efforts towards these cretins and Universities. otherwise I can see your donations will begin to dry up mine included as people become more and more disafected with your inertia.”

  • Judith, Freedom Fighter for Animals says:

    They are taking our children and teaching them cruelty. How many of these kids will have scars? I am afraid of the young ones when at one huge time I absolutely loved these kids. What kind of hope do we have? Please tell mePlease tell me.

  • Judith, Freedom Fighter for Animals says:

    These people are monsters. The top ones that hurt the dogs and cats were my husband and my choice. Although they all should die for the cruelty that these bastards are showing our youth of today. My husband and I say Patrick and Authur should go straigh to HELL. You horrible bastards. Thanks Jack for not posting the other post but my mind has not changed. Judith I can’t believe our taxes are paying for these fuckers. Judith Peace!!!

  • Jazz says:

    Thank you so much for the “Cheat Sheet”. I learned a lot of things that I never wanted to but NEEDED to know. I think I will find it impossible to vote though. How can I choose the greater evil? How can I choose between the life of a monkey or the life of a rat? The life of a rabbit or a rat? A monkey or a dog? You get the idea. All animals are equal and all of these animaltorturers are equally wrong!

  • Michele says:

    I cannot even read through all of the “entries” because these sick bastards are causing such horrific trauma to these animals. What a bunch of fucking psychopaths!

  • lynda downie says:

    And they look so normal!! I gotta do me some thinking before I casts my vote.

  • Patricia Panitz says:

    I know that some people will do just about anything for money but these people top the list. The NIH is just as bad funding them for torture which is all this is. At a time when local governments are scrounging to find money to pay for basic services like education we spend tax dollars on this? Just goes to show the power of the pharmaceutical corporations.

  • Maya, CVT says:

    Hi Aran! What an interesting site you pointed out thank you for that! I agree that there are many alternative methods that should be explored however complimentary therapies like glocosamine herbs etc are being largely ignored by the scientific community. In addition computer models and lab cells cannot tell us how they would recover as a whole being after surgery. A dog or cat in the hands of a loving owner recovering at home will give us an idea of pain management mobility etc. There are advantages to using companion animals. I’m not saying they should be guinea pigs just that it’s already being done why not use the info?

  • Aran says:

    Maya well whilst your idea may be good for the animals it will not make animal testing anymore reliable. We need to move to nonanimal methods

  • Mike Quinoa says:

    It’s a “publish or perish” type of industry and rather than devising useful but perhaps more timeconsuming human studies they lazily take the easy way out and just torture animals. They publish their paper and then move on to the next batch of innocent animals pocketing money all along the way. Any one of us could easily invent some kind of cruel animal experiment in 5 minutes. If they weren’t such lazy and sick sadists they would use their “brainpower” for humanity’s good without the animal world having to pay the freight.

  • Carla says:

    It’s hard to choose just one face off!! Down with all the wastes’ of society who call themselves “vivisectors”! How can they do this day in and day out and not feel some remorse and move on to better themselves and others at being more productive in life ya know like doing something with meaning! You know how? It’s called “SOULESS” and they walk the streets amoung us everyday. Putting on a brave face and doing nothing more for us “humans” then I would do spitting!! There are alternatives that benefit “us” if need be instead of using living breathing feeling beings! WHAT a waste in all aspects of the word!!

  • Harley says:

    MY GOD THAT ARTHUR GUY IS PSYCHOTIC!! Zombie Army? tisk tisk Scientist these days… Sounds like a horror movie.

  • keith says:

    Its never will end until these mother F K S begin to pay with their lives for these hideous crimes against animals. All must be equal in being total bastards.

  • Canaduck says:

    Ugh how can I even choose? These are all disgusting.

  • Ana says:

    Arthur Weber is a piece of junk all of these sickos are sadists and belong in jail. But what is even more horrifying are the idiot members of the public that defend these abominations as being necessary to help humans. How stupid is the average member of society that could possibly believe these atrocities benefit the health of anyone ? The vivisectors are the ones making $$$ money from inflicting agonizing pain on these helpless creatures. Wake up America these experiments are cruel violent unnecessary and useless!!!

  • kelly says:

    These deranged sadists are WHITE COLLAR CRIMINALS wasting money and time that could actually go toward helping people. They just do the same useless pointless things over and over again and CASH THEIR CHECKS Useless people that could never succeeed in the real world. Well the universities let them hide out there.

  • Maya, CVT says:

    ps These experiments are disgusting. All of them.

  • Maya, CVT says:

    See? This backs up what I had been saying before. Correct me if I’m wrong but I think the first experiment is used to prevent people from becoming paralyzed after a spinal cord injury. Now I saw dozens of neck and spine injuries in cats rabbits dogs etc etc. These young precious pets were destroyed at the clinics where I worked. Why couldn’t we test this procedure on companions who will otherwise have to be put to sleep? It could count as an experiment so the owners would not have to pay an arm and a leg and young healthy pets can be saved.