Hi Axel,
>
> >In a nutshell, I see that you react strongly against animal
> >experimentation,
>
> of course, because i have human sensitivity, and most importantly because i
> have read books that tell what sort of barbaric nazi experiments they do
> with animals, and that was enough to convince me that they are WRONG. yes,
> WRONG, there can not be a justification for extreme torture of creatures
> that feel pain as much as you and me. no experiments.
>
May I drop in with my two cents worth here on animal experiments (is
this on topic BTW?...I suppose so to some degree).

Let me start by categorically saying that I hate animal experiments
as well...I think deep down everybody does..including those who
have to carry them out. There are, however, arguments for animal
experiments which are difficult to counter:

- When testing a medication for toxicity the law requires that the
toxic level to rats or mice is determined. This can then be
extrapolated to roughly estimate the safe dosage which can be
given to the first human volunteer testers. The majority of these
"first human volunteers" actually work for the pharma company
which has developed the medication (all experiments must be
recorded, including the names of the volunteers).

- Animal experiments require a pharma company to keep or purchase
a supply of animals which are for all intents and purposes
identical in their constitution and upbringing. This is extremely
expensive and pharma companies (which are there to make money)
are the first to favour cheaper and maybe even better (or at
least equal) alternatives (such as eggs etc.)

- When testing medication for circulatory problems there is no
alternative at present but to use whole, live animals (the
same is said to apply for nervous disorders).

- When testing medication to treat bones and joints there is no
alternative at present except a live animal.

Of course, if you claim that medication is not necessary (except
perhaps to treat otherwise fatal large open wounds) and the
people who have circulatory problems or nervous disorders etc.
should just be (forced?) to eat better then you would be
arguing against the majority (which both want and even demand
medicines). Very few people today accept the responsibility for
their own health..except perhaps most who write in here.. but
even they would probably not want their "normal" food-eating
family members to die prematurely because of not taking some
life-sustaining (I did not say health sustaining) medication.

People in desperate need of money often contact pharma companies
to take part in initial human experiments. But as many of these
people suffer from anything from drug addiction to malnutrition
they are not suitable candidates for such experiments.

It has been suggested that persons incarcerated for murder and
rape and child molesting etc. should be forced to take part
in such medical experiments (i.e. particularly in countries
which still support the death penalty). This is generally
rejected as most of these people are sick or were under the
influence of a drug or else in some state of shock when they
committed the crime. One possible alternative which has been
suggested is to reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment
if a person agrees to take part in such medical tests for a
specific period. The problem here is that the death sentence
has been abolished in most western countries and there is no
public pressure for those imprisoned for life to get out
earlier if they agreed to take part in such experiments.

Alan