Aberdeen University promises to reduce animal experiments

It is quite remarkable - scientists at Aberdeen University decided to undertake experiments which reportedly 'involved injecting the rats with cannabis and dropping them into a vat of milk.Scientists then watched to see if the rodents could remember where a submerged platform was.' I can't help but think that this seems a somewhat pointless exercise with little likely future benefit for either humans or rodents. So, quite possibly it would have been better if that research had never been undertaken. Animal rights folks have been up in arms about this kind of research, pointing out that in other studies rodents were injected with lethal doses of all sorts of illicit drugs. Now, surely if these drugs are illegal in the sense that you may not sell, purchase and use them, why would we want to subject animals (who tend not usually to be in the market for such chemicals) to pain and death by injecting them with such substances? Anyone taking such drugs is responsible for the consequences of such an action. There's no need to torture animals to death in order to find out what the effect of such drugs is on rodents - who, this is worth repeating, don't normally sell, purchase and take such drugs.
Well, in response to the public outcry the University of Aberdeen promises to reduce animal experiments. That's a start.

Primate experiments are 'morally required' say scientists

A report by a group of leading biomedical researchers, chaired by David Weatherall, has concluded, according to THE TIMES that 'Experiments with monkeys are “morally required” as the only way to answer scientific questions of crucial importance to human health, an expert inquiry said yesterday.' I am not qualified to evaluate the scientific claim herein, namely that 'scientific questions of crucial importance to human health' can only be answered by undertaking experiments involving primates. I have some doubts, as surely, experiments involving humans should yield even better results. Be that as it may, though, an ethical case for primate research could not possibly be made even if that statement was correct. It is not possible to derive a moral ought from this observation. To be fair, however, this conclusion was cooked up by a TIMES journalist. The actual report contains a reasonably sophisticated analysis of the ethical issues involved.