> If so, then you logically also must agree with this (which equates): "I don’t agree with condemning the research because it involves myself" It certainly doe

> If so, then you logically also must agree with this (which equates): "I don’t agree with condemning the research because it involves myself" It certainly does not equate. I think the point you're getting at is that it is wrong to experiment on animals. I personally don't agree, as I think there's a large gradient within experiments, ranging from "making the animals really suffer", to harmlessly "measuring the size of the animal each day". I'm not being especially brave when I say that I don't advocate for making animals suffer needlessly. Nobody wants that. But the reason for the concept of "model organisms" is that it would often be unethical to perform those same experiments on humans, so we need a proxy. The choices seem to be (and honestly, please correct me if I'm missing an option here. I can be pretty dull on occasion.): 1. Don't perform the experiments 2. Use a human 3. Use a proxy I personally would not choose 1 or 2 (depending on the experiment of course). The best proxy right now seems to be other living organisms. I'd rather that wasn't the case, but well... it is. And for what it's worth, I wouldn't advocate for people experimenting on you either. I adore animals (especially mammals!), but I just empathize with humans much more.