That may seem obvious to you. To some animal rights activists it is not.
Two weeks ago, two ads in Brookfield Now presented both sides of the argument: for and against animal testing at the Medical College of Wisconsin. This week I saw only a pro letter.
A column by
Eugene Kane caught my eye. In it he presented some interesting quotes and interviews. On the pro side, the medical college statement reads, "As a medical school, it is essential that we remain true to our mission, which is to improve human life by educating the next generation of physicians..." On the con side, "According to Angela Speed, public relations specialist for the humane society, the shelter feels there's no compelling reason for the college to use dogs when top medical colleges like Harvard, Yale and Johns Hopkins don't. She said those universities use pigs instead."
So why not just use pigs, sheep, or goats? Because they are hoofed animals and not anatomically like the human. I can still remember back to my college days of physiology and anatomy class. We dissected cats. Why cats we asked? Because they were anatomically and physiologically similar to humans: The bones, muscles, and organs of felines and canines are arranged and function much like a human's.
By the way, I owned and loved a cat for 16 years. We affectionately called him our firstborn. We now own an adorable Maltese mutt, who rounds out our family to a nice even number of 4.
Seems pretty simple to me: People before animals.
