irritants, suchaslye,ammonia,and oven cleaners,did not
needtobetestedontheeyesofconsciousrabbits.^75 Butthe
battleis byno meansover. To quoteoncemorefrom the
report inScienceof April 17, 1987:
Unnecessarytestingisstillwastingalotofanimals,notonly
becauseofoutmodedrequirementsbutbecausemuchexisting
information is not easily accessible. Theodore M. Farber,
director of the [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s]
ToxicologyBranchsaidthathisagencyhasfilesof42,000
completedtests,and16,000LD50tests.Hesaidthesecould
beoffarmoreuseineliminatingredundanttestsiftheywere
computerized for easy accessibility. “Many of us in
regulatory toxicology see the same studies over and over
again,” said Farber.
Stoppingthiswaste ofanimallivesand animalpainshould
not be difficult,ifpeople really wantto doit. Developing
completelyadequatealternativestoalltestsfortoxicitywill
takelonger,butitshouldbepossible.Meanwhilethereisa
simplewaytocutdowntheamountofsufferinginvolvedin
suchtests.Untilwehavedevelopedsatisfactoryalternatives,
as a first step we should just do without any new but
potentiallyhazardoussubstancesthatarenotessentialtoour
lives.
When experiments can be brought under the heading
“medical”we areinclinedto thinkthat any suffering they
involve must be justifiable because the research is
contributing to the alleviation of suffering. But we have
alreadyseenthatthetestingoftherapeuticdrugsislesslikely
tobemotivatedbythedesireformaximumgoodtoallthan
bythedesireformaximumprofit.Thebroadlabel“medical