Animal Rights Bingo

Have you ever sat and listened to an animal rights activist speaking – on TV or a live debate – while you desperately grip your chair to stop yourself leaping out of your seat to challenge their every nonsense claim. “NO”, you scream to yourself, “animal research does not cause adverse drug reactions!”

Now we’ve created something to keep you occupied – animal rights bingo. Will your TV activist manage to spout enough pseudoscience and outright nonsense to get a Bingo? Try it out (we are not responsible if you jump up in the middle of a lecture and shout bingo).

Click the image to download a pdf version with clickable links.

Click the image above to download a PDF document. You can then click each myth and be linked to the debunking of each myth above.

I don’t usually like posting PeTA videos – but it’s a fun one to play animal rights bingo with – see how many error you could spot.


Speaking of Research

43 thoughts on “Animal Rights Bingo

      1. But the quote makes no mention of the other criteria one might use to judge the greatness of a nation, nor does it suggest that the treatment of animals is the ONLY criterion. And assuming that there are multiple criteria, there are no suggestions as to the order in which they should be applied. I simply cannot see why this quote should be an ‘animal rights myth’.

        1. You are correct. It is not a myth, just plain wrong. By stating “can be judged” the statement implies that knowledge of how animals are treated is sufficient to evaluate the greatness of a nation. But what about a nation that held its moral consideration of animal above that of humans? Would that be a great nation?? The greatest nation? Really?

          1. Nowhere does the quote imply that a great nation is one that gives animals greater moral consideration than humans, nor does it suggest that animals should not be used by humans in any particular way. It is making a point about fair treatment of sentient organisms by those who hold power over them. This is worthy of reflection – and, as I stated earlier, far from being an ‘animal rights myth’.

          2. Nobody disagrees that animals are worth of moral consideration. The question is if they are due the same moral consideration as that of human beings. What do you think?

  1. Ah UK is still another story
    For what I know safety and toxicology is one of the main purpose of animal experimentation and I doubt that it’s performed on death animals, don’t you? And here we are only focusing on pharma industries , and other medical or scientific research centers. Don’t forget cosmetics, tobacco, food , fashion industries.

    1. In truth safety and toxicology is only a small part. Most animals are used in the understanding of physiology and pathology and the development of new treatments (prior the actual drug being tested ideas for how to challenge a pathology must be shown).

      The toxicology research is done on both the living and dead animal – i.e. the drug is given to an animal, it is put down or dies from the drug, it is then researched on after death to understand more about how the drug has operated.

      1. Still I don’t see how you conciliate the animal rigths with animal experimentation even following your explanation.
        Give a drug to an animal and let him die or let him suffering for side effects and illness caused by the drug administration is against any right in a normal world.
        We still are focusing ONLY on pharma / scientific investigations…
        However there should be a reason why people start to oppose to it

    1. Vivisection = the cutting of live animals.

      Animal research is a broad and correct term for for all animal experiments. Vivisection is a subset of animal research – since breeding experiments (and many other experiments) don’t involve cutting live animals. Much animal research is done after an animal has been euthanised – this is not vivisection, it is necropsy.

      Animal testing is often used to mean animal research. However, in a more technical sense animal testing should only refer to safety testing (about 15% of experiments in the UK if I remember correctly) e.g. toxicology tests.

  2. Green Hill has been closed further the strong opposition of large part of the population. After the police inpection ther have been found evidences of animal abuse and law violations. Local autorities are under law persecution because they hidden abuse and violations in Green Hill – Articles are in Italian a good translator can help: and

    Regarding the US examples it’s now you that should provide evidences. But a simple question arise how can a doctor practice surgery on kittens and then move to babies and humans? Something wrong is going there?

    1. I did provide evidence – check the links – they have the news reports and other evidence showing the accusations being found groundless.

      Note that Green Hill won its recent appeal on the seizure of the dogs and despite the many accusations whenever the inspectors go in they have found nothing more than minor admin errors.

      1. You provided few cases not the global picture. The victory is only temporary waiting for further investigations. And don’t forget that Green Hill is strongly sponsored by the research industries that’s the reason why there is another action in Italy to lock the incursions of these lobbies in parlamients who whant to block the laws for a more strict regulations of animal breeding and testing. Also it’s an American firm, does it tells you something? Money Money Money….people stopped to believe in tales long ago

  3. You keep focusing on PETA but you forget that is not only PETA who fight agaist animal abuses. Also private citizens and ordinary people not affiliated to any group like me, who are informed by various sources are now aware that something really wrong going on a bit ‘in all fields of farmeceutica and non-scientific or not. For years you have had an easy life now people are starting to wake up and ask questions and want answers.

  4. You play with the lives of living and sentient beings. There is nothing of ridiculous in this. It’s extremely seriuos.

    1. We take our responsibility towards the animals very seriously. Far more seriously than organizations like PETA and the HSUS do for the animals unfortunate enough to end up in their care. The care for the animals is done by a highly trained and dedicated staff that check on the health and welfare of the animals in their care on a daily basis. You’ve thrown around some very vague claims, how about backing them up with some documented evidence? Biomedical research in the US is the second most heavily regulated industry in the country. The only one more highly regulated is aviation. There are more regulations governing the care of animals in research than there are governing the food you’re served in a restaurant. As someone who works daily with research animals I take great offense when people claim we don’t care about the animals, or that we intentionally circumvent the rules, or that we torture animals. All of the people I know in the industry are very dedicated to the care and welfare of the animals they work with. To suggest otherwise is ignorant.

      1. What about your evidences? The complaint of ill-treatment of animals in their industries is generated from the evidence recorded by people who belong or not to support groups for animal rights. You talk about welfare and ethical treatment but this is a contarddizione in terms of the time that animals use them as objects for your experiments. I have personal experience of what I say both direct and indirect, and above all I have experience of what you are cautious about revealing its what happens in your laboratories to avoid the judgment dlla people.

      2. The Minnesota story is presumably the IACUC’s not revealing data in order to protect its researchers – extremism may be in decline but it’s certainly not gone away in the US.

        The Washington Uni cat story is a bit rubbish – there is no evidence that the cats welfare is compromised at all. It may seem cruel to you, but the animals are fully anaesthetised, are not killed, are kept well,and save lives by allowing people real living experience of surgery.

        The Green Hill situation seems to be more a political one than anything else – I will be interested to find the truth there.

      3. We see very public allegations by groups like PETA quite often, but we rarely read about the result of the investigations.

        UW Madison cleared after PeTA caught making false allegations:

        Accusations by StopUBC against Prof. Doudet found to be groundless:

        Accusations against Prime Products Inc. cleared by USDA

      4. Silvana: Way to ignore the content of my comments. You’re so called proof is two opinion pieces by people opposed to animal research and a poll. All from the same site I might add. I don’t know what you’ve experienced, but I know those in my industry and we’re just as concerned about animal welfare as you are. The difference is we believe human welfare takes a higher priority. As a cancer survivor myself I can say that I’m thankful for the animal research that potentially saved my life. I can probably say with authority that my family is thankful too.

    2. The other way around. Animal rights activists are playing with the lives of patients, and the likelihood of finding new cures and therapies Yes, it is extremely serious indeed.

  5. We are not here to vouch for every practise by pharmaceuticals – no doubt many practises are very questionable – nonetheless that does not condemn the practise of animal research (which is done more by universities and charities than by pharma companies)

    1. Does not condemn the practice of animal research? Really ? So you’re telling me that at the beginning of XXI century we still need to rely on the obsolete practice of animal experimentation to progress the science even if this is questionable? I’m expecting that like in every other human field also the science should have been evolved some way. The scientists are then unable to evolve therefore continue killing and torturing living beings? No alternative methods are possible? Interesting expecially considering that you’re supposed to bring innovation to the science and patients, just to remain into the medical field.

      1. Parallel.
        Computer science has come on so far that surely in the 21st century they don’t need to use resisters to progress science.
        Chemistry has come on so far that surely in the 21st century they don’t need to use pipettes to progress science.
        Mathematics has come on so far that surely in the 21st century we don’t need to continue to use algebra to progress further.

        All obviously ridiculous statements, yet it somehow becomes ok to make similarly ludicrous statements about biosciences.

  6. And let me add another comment please. I have been enough in contact with pharma industry and so called scientists to know very well about the lies they sell around to keep doing their business. The conclusion is nobody care about nobody. A human being is just a source of business when he’s getting sick , old and in a health trouble. But it is interesting only when can pay for the care. Selling is the priority number one whatever is the goals and the tools to achieve it.

  7. I’m sorry to see that despite the best intentions, I find this post quite misleading and biased. I checked some of the links offered and what I found is that
    1 – in the tortured animals we are talking about laws governing animal experimentation but does not mention the countless violations, lack of controls, blatant circumvention of the law because they are too flexible. The same scienziani a bit ‘more conscientious admit when they are afraid of being in front of someone who thinks differently from them.
    2 – also known as alternative methods are possible but this does not deny that animals are tortured
    3-in the animals used for money talking about the wages of individuals but there is no mention of funding enjoyed by these centers thanks to the lobbying of breeding of laboratory animals and private people making this traffic a business.
    4 – in the scientists do not care of laboratory animals it comes to people and institutions specifically dedicated to the care of these animals. But where do you live? Have been documented the real methods of care and respect that you have in relation to laboratory animals, the scientists say they are too busy to carry out their experiments to waste time worrying about the welfare of animals. But the very concept of a USE To be an experiment of living and sentient toxicology, painful, death does not make you think of a contradiction? why not use humans then? The sick, psychopaths, people in a vegetative state if you have such good care of them?
    I can not for a long time because contunuare explore other statements would only be a waste of time.

    1. Silvana, people have already been far too cooperative with the animal rights groups. That’s gotten a lot of animals robbed from loving homes, a lot of them killed, and a lot of bloodlines ended.

      1. I know that some animal rights groups are not the best options for the animals. But what happens but what happens to the animals in every corner of the world, in every human activity from research to teaching, from the cosmetics industry to food, from tobacco industry to the exploitation of resources is unacceptable, inhumane and unnecessary. Someone has to speak loudly so the people can hear and and especially to understand the scope of this horror, this farce of this scandal.

    2. 1 – Frankly there aren’t countless violations. There are countless accusations, most of which are found to be baseless when investigated. You’d have to provide more information on how the law is circumvented.
      2 – I’m not sure what your point is? There are other methods used alongside animal research, that has little to do with torture.
      3 – Are you suggesting breeding facilities are lobbying research committees to pick animal research over other research?
      4 – What scientists say they are too busy to are about animal research? This also misses the point that most of the welfare upkeep is done by technicians and veterinarians who are trained specifically to do this.
      Most (all?) the SR committee either work in, or have visited labs.
      Humans have rights we must respect. However, we have a responsibility of care to animals – this is not uncommon in other areas – most people would agree we have a duty of care to works of art without giving them rights. The duty of care to animals if obviously higher than for other non-feeling objects.

      1. to clarify the last sentence. The duty of care for animals (which can feel) is higher than for a painting (which can’t feel)

      2. The animal rights groups love to use the USDA because when the USDA “inspects” an exotic animal owner that owner usually doesn’t have deep pockets to help them face down false accusations. Any accusation can become a “violation” particularly since the HSUS now controls their inspectors.

        Laboratories backed by industry money can defend themselves.

  8. It’s obvious that they use a chain of false logic that is almost plausible. The “Animal Intervention” series is going to prove all over again that they push people with their bad logic and bad reasoning and a few give in. Then they get on the Ellen Degeneres show and talk nasty about those who didn’t give in. It just makes me want to throw things. Those people are so nasty, so stupid and overbearing and malicious.

    1. Yes, especially if you’re under the age of 5, and/or unable to separate fact from fiction.

      1. You might try downloading the document, clicking on the links, and learning your facts from your fiction because you seem very confused about it.

  9. two of their arguments contridic each other them being “Its wrong to use animals because they are similar to us” and “animal research is inaccrate because they are so different from us”. LOL

    1. @Ed

      First, learn how to spell.

      Second, you are mixing up the the ethical argument against animal research with the scientific argument. Both have merit…the ethical argument being that because they are sentient creatures that can suffer it is wrong to subject them to cruel, invasive experiments…the scientific argument being that because of important species differences experiments on animals are not predictive of human response, and are therefore scientifically fraudulent.

      Got it?

      1. Should put my comment through spell checker I am dyslexic by the way but you probably say that is no longer an excuse. Animals can and do suffer from the same diseases than humans / but I would say when a scientists apply for a research grant the people handing out the grant are more biased towards experiments which would benefit humans (more profit in it maybe?) more than multiple species. Now if this biased was to disappear then in my opinion research using animals could be more justifiable. Since the use of animals in medical research is the most controversial use of animals it is by law or should be the most strictly controlled (e.g. the 3Rs) animal use. Trouble with some AR groups is that they what to see animal research stop completely and it would happen over night which currentlly is impossible. Research into alterantives does occur but they as of yet have not replaced all research which may use animals thus total replacement is slow and gradual process not a quick fix which some AR groups believe. What some AR groups would be better off doing is funding scientists and organisations which want to improve and refine the alterantives which already excist and find new ones. Instead of funding organisations which use direct action such as blackmail, fire bombing research labs, sending out death threats and even digging up the remains of someone connected to farm which breeds animals for medical research to stop animal research. One organisation who wants to improve and refine the alterantives which already excist and find new ones is FRAME who believes that the current scale of animal experimentation is unacceptable, but recognises that the immediate abolition of all laboratory animal use is not possible.

Comments are closed.