I find it disingenuous to put chimps above other animals. The idea that since chimps are closer to humans makes them better, more thoughtful animals somehow more impacted by testing, establishes an artificial hierarchy. Sentient animals with feelings exist across the spectrum. A report earlier this week described rats rescuing their comrades when they detected suffering, and they also shared their food.

I'm not opposed to animal testing, when well-conducted and when all other possible tests have been exhausted FIRST. Animal testing should be (with any animals) be rare and last resort. The division between testing on chimps and other animals is artificial. Though we hear scientists regularly express astonishment as they learn that yet another "lower" animal seems to express emotions, most people with reasonable powers of observation can see it all around them. It isn't anthropomorphism to see "play" in kittens, puppies, chicks, young of many species. To see true emotions. Pleasure and distress seem to be easy to recognize across many species. If we can connect in that way, what makes it more acceptable to test lower mammals than higher ones?

Here's an example that came my way today. This lizard is playing a game. It isn't eating, yet it is willingly participating in this exercise. It looks like this lizard is playing. If we can detect the sentient being, can we dismiss it as being less important, as being more acceptable for testing? Let's drop this artificial discrimination between species and examine the entire issue of animal testing. And be damned sure that when we do it that it's really necessary.

SRS