animal experimentation

[intrepidus6]

Here's something to think on:

Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. ~Charles R. Magel

[zendahl]

Who cares? Animals are not like us. They have similar organs and meaty stuff, but that's it. It's only that part we care about. I'd rather a milion rabits die to experiments than one person who can reap the beifits of those experiments.

[intrepidus6]

So I also assume you would rather 10 infants, or 10 mentally retarded people die to save one normal person? They are less inteligent, after all.

[DrBrainTrust]

At 3/13/07 02:34 AM, intrepidus6 wrote: Here's something to think on:

Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. ~Charles R. Magel

either humans are no better than animals or humans are superior to animals.

If humans are no better than any other animal, then there should be no moral stigma against using weaker animals to our benefit since nothing we do to the weaker creature is any more cruel than what would happen in the normal course of nature.

If humans are superior to other animals, then we have dominion over them due to our ability to reason and engage in abstract thought. We owe these creatures no form of benevolence other than what we chose to bestow, and can use them in whatever way we see fit as we have no mandate to do otherwise.

people love to bring up the whole mentally handicapped comparison in every debate concerning the use of animals, so I'll address that as well. 1) handicapped people, though mentally feeble, are still more aware and still possess higher mental faculties than any other animal. 2) they are a part of our species and thus command more loyalty from us than some random wild animal and 3) they are valued more by people as children or siblings. the only way I'll value a pig's life over some random guy off the street's is if someone I know gives birth to it.

[intrepidus6]

At 3/13/07 03:11 AM, DrBrainTrust wrote:

At 3/13/07 02:34 AM, intrepidus6 wrote: Here's something to think on:

Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. ~Charles R. Magel

either humans are no better than animals or humans are superior to animals.

If humans are no better than any other animal, then there should be no moral stigma against using weaker animals to our benefit since nothing we do to the weaker creature is any more cruel than what would happen in the normal course of nature.

If humans are superior to other animals, then we have dominion over them due to our ability to reason and engage in abstract thought. We owe these creatures no form of benevolence other than what we chose to bestow, and can use them in whatever way we see fit as we have no mandate to do otherwise.

people love to bring up the whole mentally handicapped comparison in every debate concerning the use of animals, so I'll address that as well. 1) handicapped people, though mentally feeble, are still more aware and still possess higher mental faculties than any other animal. 2) they are a part of our species and thus command more loyalty from us than some random wild animal and 3) they are valued more by people as children or siblings. the only way I'll value a pig's life over some random guy off the street's is if someone I know gives birth to it.

Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.
Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.

[The-Masses]

@intrepidus6
Congratulations on saying the first remotely intelligent thing (that I have heard) on this site in a long time! You raise a good question. Unfortunately one with no clear answer and many, many opinions by many, many people. And is it possible not to simply yell "Fuck you" every time someone disagrees with you?

@Everyone else who posted here
The depth of the retardedness and close-mindedness of some of the forum-goers on this site continues to amaze me. Every time someone with something decent to say is shouted down, I swear to god that I die a little inside.

- The-Masses

[kolpol81]

EVIL

[deslona]

I think another tangent to this issue isn't animal testing but the treatment of the animals when they are being tested. AND what they are being tested for.

I genuinely believe if an animal was being tested on for the sake of curing cancer - everyone would be okay with this. But the argument changes when it relates to cosmetics or other sundry items that are not essential for survival but just profit.

The animal testing is usually the step just prior to human trials on a small scale anyway. When a drug was created and given to humans straight off the effects are sometimes devestating (More than one Chiense firm has sold medicine that was a 'little' toxic). Also by conducting this kind of research an experiment is more controlled. Humans have a funny nature of doing their own thing...

[Boltrig]

At 3/13/07 02:34 AM, intrepidus6 wrote: Here's something to think on:

Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. ~Charles R. Magel

Heres the corrected version:

Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are biologically like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not sapient like us."

[Tomsan]

At 3/13/07 03:11 AM, DrBrainTrust wrote:
either humans are no better than animals or humans are superior to animals.

If humans are no better than any other animal, then there should be no moral stigma against using weaker animals to our benefit since nothing we do to the weaker creature is any more cruel than what would happen in the normal course of nature.

If humans are superior to other animals, then we have dominion over them due to our ability to reason and engage in abstract thought. We owe these creatures no form of benevolence other than what we chose to bestow, and can use them in whatever way we see fit as we have no mandate to do otherwise.

good arguments and I agree with you, the only thing that is significally different in cruelty in the treatment of the animals in nature and by humans is that when a preditor kills to eat there is only a short suffering period. Animal testing however takes weeks, in which the animals are exposed to alot of stress.
I did some animal research myself and in the netherlands the rules are very (very) strict. The animals are treated with the most possible care, but obviously they are used in unfriendly experiments (we had to test their startle reaction by putting them into a tube as big as themselves next to a horn wich produced 140 decibels).
what it al comes down to is that we want to obtain knowlegde and for that testing is neccesary, and computer programs dont suffise(?).

We are superiour as drbrain said and that is on its own already a good enough reason to do animal testing. when no animal testing would have been allowed alot of you people would already have lost many people close to you. So the question to the ones opposed to animal testing remains: "would you kill 50 mice if you could save your mother, father and best friend?"
anyone who answers NO is genuine, but seriously has to change his priorities

[Boltrig]

At 3/13/07 03:24 AM, The-Masses wrote: @intrepidus6
Congratulations on saying the first remotely intelligent thing (that I have heard) on this site in a long time! You raise a good question. Unfortunately one with no clear answer and many, many opinions by many, many people. And is it possible not to simply yell "Fuck you" every time someone disagrees with you?

He never made any intellegent statement. He quoted someone else in his first post. And used a stupid ananlogy in his second.

@Everyone else who posted here
The depth of the retardedness and close-mindedness of some of the forum-goers on this site continues to amaze me. Every time someone with something decent to say is shouted down, I swear to god that I die a little inside.

People who cant argue without posting fuck you repeatedly deserve to be shouted down. How is regurgitation, over simplifying problems and shouting fuck you "something decent to say"?

[zendahl]

At 3/13/07 02:44 AM, intrepidus6 wrote: So I also assume you would rather 10 infants, or 10 mentally retarded people die to save one normal person? They are less inteligent, after all.

No, because infant's are human and retarded people are human, monkeys are not, rabits are not, dogs are not. Test on them. Sorry to say it, but we are on top of this world, if animals wanted to test on us, then they need to advance in the grand scheme of things (I hear chimps are making ther move). I ljoke around a bit, but it's true. It's about survival of the fittest. We can kill other animals to figure out how to live longer or better. We are more fit than them.

[AIDSextravaganza]

animals feel pain
they have emotions
thats like me stealing your kid and since hes not "intelligent" or "developed" and doing horrible tests on him
animal testing ins't a pretty thing anyway
my dad's friend worked in a lab where they would c the force it would take to rip out a spine.
this was on animals and they'd wind up severely injuring if not killing the animals
if u r willing to kill an animal u might as well kill a person

Children, the handicaped, and the elderly = Human beings
Animals = Animals

Ya got me?

[Evannator]

At 3/13/07 09:19 PM, zeus-almighty wrote: Children, the handicaped, and the elderly = Human beings
Animals = Animals

Ya got me?

Sounds good to me.

[SEXY-FETUS]

Here's the thing. Animal testing also helps animals. And the turn around to animals saved by new drugs and vaccines created by animal testing is really quite amazing. Even if animal testing didn't help humans it still saves 3 to every 1 used in the lab. And yes alot of those diseases the animals would have died from are very painful. Start thinking with logic, not emotion. You can see the movies of crates of dogs stacked on each other and think "Oh that's sad, how could those douche bag scientists do that to those dogs." and then look at video of a dog vomiting with its hair falling out from a curable disease that doesn't have a cure and think "Oh that's sad, I guess that's just nature." when one of the dogs from the first group could have provided the insight into the cure that could have saved the dogs from the second group. Animal testing does alot of good for humans and animals alike, if you let yourself be consumed by emotion for the few animals sitting in labs you're allowing the suffering of many more outside the labs.

[Dr-Worm]

At 3/13/07 02:44 AM, intrepidus6 wrote: So I also assume you would rather 10 infants, or 10 mentally retarded people die to save one normal person? They are less inteligent, after all.

No, that's completely different. Babies and mentally disabled are still human beings. Other animal species are naturally lower on the food chain than us, so if we want to kill them to increase our own chances of survival, we can.

[Alphabit]

They are like us in that their bodies react similarly to ours... But they are different in that they don't have as much intelligence as us.

It's survival of the fittest.
We need to experiment on something before we try it on humans.

[Alphabit]

At 3/13/07 09:02 PM, AIDSextravaganza wrote: animals feel pain

They enjoy pain... They never said otherwise.

they have emotions

No one cares about their emotions. They're animals.

thats like me stealing your kid and since hes not "intelligent" or "developed" and doing horrible tests on him

That kid is part of the human species, it is out duty as fellow humans to protect him/her.
In anycase, even the most ADD human is smarter than a chimp.

animal testing ins't a pretty thing anyway

It has to be done.

my dad's friend worked in a lab where they would c the force it would take to rip out a spine.

Just use a knife to cut around it more.

this was on animals and they'd wind up severely injuring if not killing the animals
if u r willing to kill an animal u might as well kill a person

It's survival of the fittest; animals are weak, so they have to take the consequences... Maybe they should have done their homework 10000 years ago and actually TRIED to get industrious... Now they are at our mercy due to technological inferiority.

... Then you might say "Well these animals didn't have the mental capacity to become industrious." Well there you go, they were DESTINED to be inferior to us and be used as tools.

[Boarean]

I am pretty sure in the Bible it is clearly stated that Man is superior to animal and shall of dominance and loyalty over all other things that creep upon the Earth. And aslo if your not into the divine right thing then you either have the veiw of survival of the fittest or the hippie, liberal extreme leftwing veiw of animals being equal of humans and should not be tested upon to save human beings who have an actual contribution to make to society where as animals only shit , eat food thats not theirs and of coursedo a million other things that drain societys resources in many ways, unless they are a pet where they would never be in danger of testing and would perhaps also benefit from the testing of other animals. Sure animals are living things with feelings, but people go through the same shit everyday if not worse shit so why shouldnt animals suffer a little to, and honestly how many animals do you think are being killed or even hurt irriversibaly through testing processes because its not a 6 digit number everytime a new cancer vaccine is developed. Many animals walk away unharmed and the lives saved is invaluable compared to the lives, of animals mind you which we clarified earlier only shit and eat, that may have been killed but most likely will not.

[Narusegawa]

Personally I believe that we should use humans for scientific experimentation, just because it would give slightly more accurate data.

[Memorize]

At 3/13/07 10:47 PM, BigScizot wrote: Personally I believe that we should use humans for scientific experimentation, just because it would give slightly more accurate data.

We should use death row criminals for that. But nooooo, we have human rights groups. The bastards.

[Boltrig]

At 3/14/07 12:09 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/13/07 10:47 PM, BigScizot wrote: Personally I believe that we should use humans for scientific experimentation, just because it would give slightly more accurate data.

We should use death row criminals for that. But nooooo, we have human rights groups. The bastards.

For once I agree with you. The ppeople on death row have obviously committed heinous enough crimes that warrant their execution, they could at least provide some use before they die.

[gunground]

im kinda mixed vision on this. I disagree with experimenting on animals but at the same time i support stem cell research. Animals are living creatures like you and me. Embryo's are dead unborn babys who have little to no chance of living again. The little unborn babys wouldve been discarded anyways. So instead of animals lets use embryo's.

[SEXY-FETUS]

At 3/14/07 11:56 AM, gunground wrote: im kinda mixed vision on this. I disagree with experimenting on animals but at the same time i support stem cell research. Animals are living creatures like you and me. Embryo's are dead unborn babys who have little to no chance of living again. The little unborn babys wouldve been discarded anyways. So instead of animals lets use embryo's.

Stem cell research is all about growing new tissue, not measuring effects on mature living tissue. You're comparing apples to transmissions there.

[morefngdbs]

At 3/14/07 12:09 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/13/07 10:47 PM, BigScizot wrote: Personally I believe that we should use humans for scientific experimentation, just because it would give slightly more accurate data.

We should use death row criminals for that. But nooooo, we have human rights groups. The bastards.

I agree , why torture some poor rabbit!

As for people being more important than animals, hows this for an example.
I have a dog, she's a great dog very smart doesn't run away, I trained her to obey verbal commands, my daughter loves her.

If someone I do not know (I don't care if its the most important person on the planet) is in trouble & my dog is in trouble at the same time, say they're in danger of drowning.
I guaranty I would save my dog first, and if because of my actions the person died ,to bad so sad.

Anybody out there save their pet before saving someone they don't know?

Hell I would save her before I would save many people I know.

As for useing inmates that have murdered others, I will note that there are some people falsely convicted that have been found innocent & freed from death row/life in prison.

But there are many others that they know for sure that they did evil deeds to their fellow man.
So lets make them "useful" again.
Yeah, useful for cancer research, reattachment of limbs , organ transplant experimentation etc. Sounds good to me, the rabbits we save can be used for tasty rabbit pies. mmm hmmm good.

[Durin413]

At 3/13/07 10:47 PM, BigScizot wrote:

Hell I would save her before I would save many people I know.

As for useing inmates that have murdered others, I will note that there are some people falsely convicted that have been found innocent & freed from death row/life in prison.

But there are many others that they know for sure that they did evil deeds to their fellow man.
So lets make them "useful" again.
Yeah, useful for cancer research, reattachment of limbs , organ transplant experimentation etc. Sounds good to me, the rabbits we save can be used for tasty rabbit pies. mmm hmmm good.

Yum, rabbit pie. Also, they make a good stew. Back to topic, though, if animal right activists don't want us testing on animals.... LETS TEST ON THE ACTIVISTS!!!

[Cheekyvincent]

1 humans are better than humans
2 animals cant protest
3 they have short lives already
4 theyll kill u if u dont slaughter them
5 there cheap and plentiful

[Boltrig]

At 3/14/07 02:33 PM, Durin413 wrote:

.... LETS TEST ON THE ACTIVISTS!!!

Seconded

At 3/14/07 03:20 PM, Boltrig wrote: Seconded

Thirded. At least they will go out with the pleasure of knowing that in their sacrifice they spared an insignificant (for example) lab mouse's life.