Ice Bucket Challenge Sparks Debate on Animal Testing

In an opinion piece criticizing Pamela Anderson for opposing the ALS Association’s ice bucket challenge because the organization funds animal testing, the New York Post made no mention of why Ms. Anderson and “39 percent of Americans say medical testing on animals is morally wrong.” In fact, the Post attempts to discredit her by portraying her opposition as merely philosophical while stating that the benefits of animal testing are real.

The movement to ban animal testing isn’t philosophical; it is based on a frantic desire to stop animals from being tortured in labs. In her statement regarding the ALS ice bucket challenge, Ms. Anderson wrote: “In recent experiments funded by the ALS Association, mice had holes drilled into their skulls, were inflicted with crippling illnesses, and were forced to run on an inclined treadmill until they collapsed from exhaustion. Monkeys had chemicals injected into their brains and backs and were later killed and dissected.”

Some scientists maintain that animal research is necessary; others argue that it’s outdated and irrelevant to humans. Animal rights say it’s unjustifiable. But can all sides agree on one thing — that imprisoning animals in small cages for their entire lives, depriving them of everything that comes naturally to them and conducting painful experiments on them constitute torture? When making a decision about whether or not to support animal testing, shouldn’t people be equipped with that baseline knowledge?

If chimpanzees used in medical experiments had the power to switch places with and conduct tests on their captors, wouldn’t the researchers demand to be released on moral grounds? Wouldn’t they hope and pray that others rescue them?  If so, then they should follow the golden rule: Do unto others, animal cutters!

Humans are an arrogant bunch.  We think we are so superior to every other other species that we can do whatever we want to them, but aren’t we the only species that is destroying the planet?

One statement in the NY Post article (inadvertently) acknowledges the need for the animal rights activists like Pamela Anderson: “It’s fine, maybe even admirable, to strip naked to urge humane treatment of pets, combat cruel factory-farming or oppose unnecessary animal testing (as in the cosmetics industry).” The Post editors and mainstream society will eventually oppose all animal testing; they just don’t know it yet.