Forty Reasons to Act. Five Minutes to do it.

The Science Action Network, which includes Speaking of Research, have been working hard to help dispel some of the animal rights myths across the web. Thanks to your help we have rebalanced many of the online discussions about animal research, for example, in the Independent (UK national newspaper) there was a poorly constructed argument about why mouse models can’t be useful for cancer. The Science Action Network got to work tweeting out this #ARnonsense (Twitter hashtag used to alert people about animal rights nonsense that needs commenting on). Currently there are twice as many comments explaining the merit of mouse models as those opposing animal tests, and twice as many votes disagreeing with the article as agreeing with it (95 to 42 at time of writing). There is still time for you to add your own votes and comments.

Now Understanding Animal Research have created “Forty Reasons Why We Need Animals in Research“. This allows people to mix and match statements to make their own argument for animal research that they can use online:

Combined with the @AnimalresearchRT, which lists all the #ARnonsense currently needing a response, you have the directions and tools for finding and responding to the mistruths of those who misrepresent animal research. All that is needed if for you to spend 5 minutes per week acting on it.

UAR have all this information, including lists of #ARnonsense, on one page of their website for you to share easily among your friends and colleagues.

Act now!

Here are three things you could do in the next 5 minutes:

Vote that you agree with animal research on this poll.

Leave a comment and vote that you disagree with this article.

Vote on this poll.

3 responses to “Forty Reasons to Act. Five Minutes to do it.

  1. Your arguments for continued research on animals are the same arguments that people used for the continued owning of slaves, and the continued pollution and degradation of the environment. Your arguments are the same that have been used to justify genocide and the same that dictators have used to continue oppressing their people. In short, your arguments are crap, and they will go the same way as slavery, as will your asinine and pointless animal testing.

    • It’s easy to criticize what you don’t understand. The science of biomedical research is complex and tough to grasp. To come out making references to dictators and genocide shows me you don’t understand it and probably never will

  2. What?! These arguments work for neither slavery nor continued pollution.

    “Modern anaesthetics, the tetanus vaccine, penicillin, insulin all relied on **slavery** in their development”

    …er, no. Let’s try once more:

    “Thanks to continued pollution, cancer survival rates have continued to rise”

    … still no.