vwi. • section
Sir: Bernard Dixon (November 4), is of course right in what he says, and would, in fact, have been absolutely right if he had said a lot more — that is to say, if he, had said that experiments on animals to test drugs for teratogenicity (or for anything else) are practically no guide re human beings. Vivisecors may have thought they were in the past, but probably today almost all vivisectors feel, as I read one vivisector saying, that they can never be sure that the results on man will be the same as on the animals on which they tested them, or any other animals. That being so, experiments on animals are just a waste of time and money and suffering, and it is high time it was made illegal. There are today humane alternatives to much vivisection. It may not apply to all, but, if it doesn't, there soon would be alternatives found if the vivisection was not allowed.
,Your readers may ask, "But
Why would vivisectors vivisect if it !s useless?" Well, of course, there is a, lot of money in it for them. It
Is difficult to think there can be any Other reason. Bernard Dixon speakS of the naivety of the general public who think that drugs are either safe or not. But the naivety of the vivisectors who think the general public admire
them for their 'discoveries ' through vivisection is surely greaterYet perhaps not. Surely the gerteral public must think something of the sort or surely they Would work to get vivisection Made illegal. It is the animals who are suffering (mankind too when
we are misled through the experiments as so often happens). But all of us suffer through our pockets by being taxed to find the money paid to vivisectors, so why, oh why, do we sit still and allow it?
Lillie Houghton 96 Acheson Road, Hall Green, Birmingham
Previous page
