Thanks for this link - I have a number of annoying vegetarian/animal-rights-activist friends and can use a source of info like this.

For my part, I think we shouldn't needlessly experiment on animals. I myself, for example, favor products that don't (or claim not to) use animals in testing research - my right as a consumer in a free society.

I also think that a lot of superfluous animal experiments are done (in the US at least) to avoid lawsuits and could be avoided if people would take a more responsible attitude to consumer choice. Any fool could tell you that if your mascara causes your skin to swell up you should switch to another brand - no need to torture rabbits to prove the point.

That said, there is no denying that testing on animals is absolutely necessary to swift progress in other more critical industries - especially the pharmaceutical industry. In such cases - I'm all for it. Human welfare comes first. I'm not ashamed of what idiots like Peter Singer would call my "speciesism."

The point is, who gets to decide whether an experiment is "necessary" or not? And it's obvious that's not a choice best left to governments or "public interest" groups. The Peter Singers of the world would rather see a million men die than for one bunny to get a sore eye in a noble cause.

Quite right - I don't want the government involved.

I'll stick to consumer choice and advertising campaigns.

A couple years ago, my wife and I were in San Francisco over the same weekend of the Gay Pride parade, which included a group called Leather Pride - really proud of their leather outfits, I guess. We watched the festivities for a while, then walking back to our hotel, we passed a couple waifs from PETA picketing Neiman Marcus, closed at the time, carrying signs titled Neiman Carcass. I remember thinking: Hey, you missed it! There is a whole mob of people down there flaunting their leather and you're up here picketing an empty store? I could never figure that out.

Thanks for the link; the video is quite instructive.