You may already know about this, as it was covered on an article on the BBC news website, but the other day, scientists (I don’t know which ones) announced that they had developed ways of using robots to automate the testing of potentially hazardous chemicals (because you’re worth it). Traditionally, they inject “rodent models” with these chemicals and then watch them, to see if they get sick. The new method means that a much higher volume of tests (10000 a day, versus 100) can be conducted, at a fraction of the monetary cost and without consuming large numbers of animals. Plus, rodent testing “doesn’t always predict which chemicals will be harmful to humans”.
Did the scientists just admit that animal testing is pointless, because that’s what I heard. Breaking down what the scientist actually said (you might need to read the article):
- The tests consume large numbers of animals and consuming large numbers of animals is bad;
- The tests are expensive;
- Tests don’t actually prove things one way or another.
Q: Clearly, anyone with half a kumquat for a brain can see that animal testing is wrong then?!?
A: Obviously not, because Clarins have been taken off the “animal friendly” list.