If your pet dog Sparky became suddenly ill, would you begin to perform experiments on your uncle Waldo to try to find a cure? Probably not, that would be ridiculous. Finding a cure for a nonhuman disease in a human is completely illogical. Yet people across the world have been led to believe that experimenting on animals to find cures for human diseases, medical progress can be made. Not only is this ridiculous, but it is totally illogical. Over 25 million animals are used in experiments yearly just in the United States. These animals suffer and usually die in laboratories testing cosmetics, for education, and for biomedical experimentation.
             A pamphlet published by the Department of Health and Human Services states "For some research, it's simply not ethical to experiment on humans..." If these experiments are so unethical that they cannot be performed on humans, why is it that it is ethical to perform them on animals? Most scientists justify their animal experiments by saying that the animals don't know what is being done to them, that they lack the intelligence and emotion of humans. However, psychologists frequently perform psychological experiments on animals so that they may be able to study the effects of depression and other emotional diseases to better help humans. This raises a very interesting question: if animals suffer emotionally in the same way humans do, is it not sadistic to conduct such experiments like removing a baby monkey from its mother in order to prove the already obvious fact that a mother's care is necessary to growth? Animal intelligence is also questioned and yet many species of ape have been taught to do sign language and have been known to teach other apes to sign and to communicate with themselves when humans are not present. It would seem that animal emotion and intelligence is only recognized by the scientific community when it suits their needs but denied when it conflicts with the ethics of ex...