Over the last decades, animal rights activists have been strongly protesting against the use of animals for various purposes. But one has to mention that these activists often don¡t have any scientific facts to prove their statements as they mostly concentrate on the ethical side of the issue and don¡t give enough importance to scientific evidence. They chose to act on emotions rather than science, which seriously limit their ability to effectively analyze situations and propose practical solutions, rather than the often utopian and unfeasible demands they make. As a result, their arguments or point of views end up being self- contradictory. For instance, a large number of animal rights activists have been vehemently protesting against the use of animals for educating children in schools and colleges and in scientific studies, regarding it as immoral and inhuman. My immediate reaction to this is- Is killing millions of animals and eating them more 'ethical¡ and more 'human¡ than using a few thousands of animals for the novel purposes of educating children and finding cures to deadly diseases, and, in turn, saving millions of human lives? Majority of the world¡s population consumes meat on a general basis. But I can bet a thousand dollars on the fact that no animal rights activist would have ever protested against the killing of killing of animals for food even though they are well aware of the fact that there are numerous alternatives to eating meat for food (I¡m not by any means saying that eating meat is wrong- I think both the practices are right as long as they are regulated to a certain level, and do not harm the environment). In fact, I won¡t even be surprised to find out that some of the animal rights activists eat meat themselves (isn¡t that a blatant example of hypocrisy?). However, they have no qualms in objecting to the use of animals for numerous benevolent purposes like education and research for which the only...