In biomedical research, questions of animal ethics usually pertain to the use of whole animals to model disease and test pharmaceutical efficacy. In truth, the problem extends far beyond this. The global antibody industry, which today relies heavily on animals, is worth $80 billion. As well as contributing unnecessarily to animal suffering, this is an industry polluted by poor quality antibodies, leading to scientific inconsistency, confusion, money-wasting and meaningless results. Regardless of whether animal ethics are high on your agenda, the need for an antibody revolution today is undeniable. This is an issue that Animal-Friendly Affinity Reagents – a high quality and cost-effective alternative to animal antibodies – might help to address.
The epidemiological link between red meat and cancer is no longer debatable – what remains uncertain is how exactly this happens, and why the human species appears to be unique in its susceptibility.
Heart disease is the number one human killer, but most other members of the animal kingdom are much less susceptible to it than we are. What is it about other animals that has allows them to dodge this epidemic while we humans suffer? Linus Pauling thought Vitamin C was the answer; Robert Sapolsky has pinned the blame on stress. But what theory do you believe?
Why is it that we place such value on the sense of taste, above all other human senses? If the scream of a cow was to make the most beautiful sweet song, would you slaughter it to hear that music? If the blood of a horse could produce the most exquisite works of art, would you kill it to see those paintings? Many condemn the use of fur for clothing, while eagerly sporting leather and wool coats. Many criticise animal testing for cosmetics, while routinely purchasing meat, dairy and eggs for food. There is a murky disconnect in the way we humans think about and treat animals, and it needs to change.