of them,using ingredients already knownto be safe. That
does not seemto be any great loss. But fortesting really
essential products, as well as for other kinds of research,
alternativemethodsnotrequiringanimalscanandwouldbe
found.
InthefirsteditionofthisbookIwrotethat“scientistsdonot
lookforalternativessimplybecausetheydonotcareenough
abouttheanimalstheyareusing.”ThenImadeaprediction:
“Consideringhowlittleefforthasbeenputintothisfield,the
earlyresults promisemuchgreater progressifthe effortis
steppedup.” Inthepastdecade,boththesestatementshave
proved true. Wehave already seen that in product testing
therehasbeenahugeincreaseintheamountofeffortputinto
lookingforalternativestoanimalexperiments—notbecause
scientistshavesuddenlystartedtocaremoreaboutanimals,
but as a result of hard-fought campaigns by Animal
Liberationists.Thesamethingcouldhappeninmanyother
fields of animal experimentation.
Althoughtens ofthousandsofanimalshavebeenforcedto
inhaletobaccosmokeformonthsandevenyears,theproofof
the connection between tobacco use and lung cancer was
basedondatafromclinicalobservationsinhumanbeings.^126
TheUnitedStatesgovernmentcontinuestopourbillionsof
dollarsintoresearchoncancer, whileitalso subsidizesthe
tobaccoindustry.Muchoftheresearchmoneygoestoward
animalexperiments,manyofthemonlyremotelyconnected
with fighting cancer—experimenters have been known to
relabeltheirwork“cancerresearch” whentheyfound they
couldgetmoremoneyforitthatwaythanundersomeother
label.Meanwhilewearecontinuingtolosethefightagainst
mostformsofcancer.Figuresreleasedin 1988 bytheUnited