You do realize that this was a joke right?
Yes, it's from The Onion. Like all successful satire, it is poignant because it is so accurate -- many animals being hurt to answer obvious or stupid questions and "serious" researchers who are blind to the inane nature of their work.
There have also been several excellent Onion stories which are poignant because they accurately demonstrate how animal activists demonize all research having to do with animals and how they frequently exaggerate or oversimplify. You should consider posting those too!
Send me the links; I'll look at them.
Here are a few that poke fun at the outrageousness and illogical moves of the animal rights movement. The last two expose the false propaganda spread by the movement suggesting that animal studies or unnecessary or that animal scientists are cruel. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28724http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39180http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39105http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30800
Anonymous seems to miss both the humor and the underlying issue in http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39105 - Revlon Forced To Test Cosmetics On Plants.The humor is that the satire piece shows the folly of testing cosmetics on non-humans. The tests are so contrived, inaccurate, and species-dependent - and on a number of occasions companies have admitted that they perfom these sloppy pseudoscientific exercises only for liability reasons - that one may as well test on rose bushes.As an example of showing the cruelty and ridiculousness of such tests, the piece includes passages like: "To determine whether our new Revlon SureHold hair spray is safe for human use, we will take a rhododendron, remove it from its natural soil-based environment, and strap it into a leather restraining harness," Revlon researcher Warren Gilbride said. "The plant's leaves will then be scraped raw and soaked in SureHold, and the spray will be injected into its stem and poured into its flowers. The effect of this treatment on the overall health and well-being of the plant will be meticulously recorded, and the product's likely effect on humans will be extrapolated from the results." Substitute "rat" and you've got a typical animal product testing lab. The underlying issue missed by anonymous (one of them, anyway) is that neither Revlon nor any other company is forced (or required by law) to test hair spray or other personal care products on animals. There are perfectly acceptable tests available using human tissue and so forth, which don't suffer from the extrapolation problems of animal models. (And a growing number of scientists who are not connected to the animal rights movement in any way have publicly lamented the considerable shortfalls of using animal models to predict toxicity in humans.) Or companies can simply use safer and/or well-known ingredients. Likewise, consumers can choose to buy hair spray, toothpaste, soap, lotions, and other cosmetics that work great and weren't tested on animals - or plants. Look for the leaping bunny or climbing rose bush logo.
Here's another piece of biting satire from The Onion that shows the sociopathic cruelty of primate labs: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29083Art imitates life and vice versa...have we not seen videos, both before and after the piece was published - and sometimes taken by the lab workers themselves (!) - that show researchers and technicians laughing at monkeys on whom they've inflicted prolonged, repeated, and severe pain?
Gary,I think you are expecting too much from Anonymous. How could one support animal experimentation AND appreciate satire? I suspect that Anonymous thinks that Captain Bananas proves that lab workers like animals; why else would they give the little guy a name?
Post a Comment