Thread: Five held in grave theft inquiry
View Single Post
Old 27-09-2005, 14:25   #73
SMHarman
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Services: Cablevision
Posts: 8,305
SMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronze
SMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronzeSMHarman is cast in bronze
Re: Five held in grave theft inquiry
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangebird
Erm, I'd trust the test on human skin rather than rabbits skin.... I really don't get why people think because a little drop of something didn't burn a rabbits eye out that it won't burn a humans out...
because we know the genetic makeup of thumpers eye is almost identical to the makeup of our own, just as rats have similar genetic predisposition and well monkeys and humans share something like 99+% dna and biological makeup, thus testing on them and proof that testing on them has not caused harm means less testing is needed (and with lower risk) on humans.
I don't think any scientist involved in this stuff enjoys testing on animals, just considers it a necessary part of the evolution of new lifesaving products (on the pharmacutical side), it is probably a lot less necessary for cosmetics, but what do I know about developments in that field (or medicine for that matter).
SMHarman is offline   Reply With Quote