Hey, The Economist talks about what I do!!!

They run a piece on animal testings, the good and bad of it and how companies and institutions are looking for alternatives.

Some of the passages I don't fully agree on:

In an ideal world, there would be no animal testing. It is expensive and can be of dubious scientific value, since different species often react differently to the same procedure.

Well, it still is the best we have at our disposal. Once we see that an animal is affected in a way which does not correlate well with humans, we usually look for the reasons, and if necessary take the species out of the pipeline for that compound. It's a win/win situation, except for the animals, of course. But even then, on average is a good deal for them.

As for animals used during experimental surgery procedure, well, it's not up to me to defend that field. I certainly hope that, if using aneasthetics does not invalidate the results, they will be administered, if only for 'humanitarian' reasons.

I get back to describing my attempts of saving as many guinea Pig as I can from being needlessly sacrificed.