even think their decree is correct, it does not mean it is. The superior position of humans does not serve as adequate grounds for excluding animals from moral concern. It was best said by David Hartly, an 18th century psychologist. While speaking of animals he said:
             We seem to be in the place of God to them, to be his Viceregents, and empowered to receive homage from them in his name. And we are
             obliged by the same tenure to be their guardians and benefactors,
             Animals are sentient- can experience pain, suffering, enjoyment, and happiness- the pain of a rat is as important as the pain of a human. People who do not consider animals make the same mistakes as people who are racist or sexist. (Owen 1993)
             "Animal tests have caused a very substantial loss. In the terms of money, in the terms of the loss of good minds being devoted to a very, very, limited methodology, and in terms of indicating that certain things are true which aren't true" states animal activist Neal Barnard. A perfect example to back up his quote is the debate over cigarette smoking in the early 1960's. A study was done then that 'proved' cigarettes did not contribute to contracting lung cancer. Experimenters had taken tobacco smoke and forced animals to inhale it chronically; the animals did not develop lung cancer. The only reason the connection between lung cancer and cigarettes was proven was by examining information on what happened in the human population. Barnard also said "The way to put it is: We know that animal experimentation is a very seriously double-edged sword.
             ...