Do you think scientist have the right to mistreat animals in order for to provide datas?

Laika was a Russian space dog that became the first living creature from Earth to enter orbit.Laika died a few hours after launch from stress and overheating. The true cause of her death was not made public until decades after the flight. Previously, officials had stated that she was euthanized by poisoned food, or that she had died when her oxygen ran out. Sputnik 2 was not designed to be retrievable, so it was intended all along that Laika would die during the mission.In 1998, Oleg Gazenko, one of the leading scientists responsible for sending Laika into space, did express regret for allowing her to die: "The more time passes, the more I am sorry about it. We did not learn enough from the mission to justify the death of the dog."

I wonder what would you tell them if you had chance to meet the scientists who send Laika to space and allowed her to die

it is sad to hear that some of you think that, animals's life are less important than us.This is because we have the intelligence? Then would it be more etiquette that sending a person in vegetative state to space and allow that person to die?

I do NOT believe in the senseless killing of animals. You state that they did not learn enough from this mission to justify the death of Laika, but you do not state what they did learn. I am not an animal activist, but, as I did state, I do NOT believe in the senseless killing of animals. I have pets, including dogs, which I love as much as children. I believe that my pets have the ability to rationalize, even though others do not. If I had the opportunity to give my life for science to save the MANY I would. But only, if I knew that by doing so, it would save the MANY. For instance, the first to try a new vaccination, a new drug, a new CURE of some sort for a disease such as AIDS, or for cancer, or diabetes, etc. I know that exploration is of a different sort, but maybe, just maybe, there are planets, life forms, etc., out there that will provide humanity new knowledge that would advance us in medicine and technology. If by sacrifycing one animal, it were possible to do this, I would not be opposed. If it was done needlessly, yes, I would be opposed. From what you have written above, when Oleg Gazenko, who obviously has a conscience, originally sent Laika on her mission felt that she was serving such a purpose, one that he hoped would benefit society as a whole. When the mission was a failure, as you so indicate (I haven't researched), he is/has been having feelings of regret. I actually feel sorry for Oleg more than anything. If Laika had been human, I would have hoped that she would have willingly given her life to have had the opportunity that she had. It is a shame she died if the mission was truly a failure. I don't know the purpose of the mission, but did it reap any kind of benefits? Did they gain any knowledge from the mission? Did her death have any significance at all? I hope so. Although she did not have a choice in the matter, which is not fair, I would rather see an animal sacrificed than a human.

Like I said the last time you asked this, it's better than losing a human life.

NO! I would tell them that I was a Animal activist and tell them off! but little would that do they don`t care!!!

yes.. they are at the bottom of the food chain...

I don't think animals should be cruelly treated or tested on, but if it comes down to either a human or an animal, I would have to say it would be better to test it on an animal than a human. Imagine how much more tragic it would have been to send a human into space and have them die.

Do you think the animals have the rights to mistreat us when we go into their habitat?

Think about this next time you:

1) take a medication
2) put on make-up (assuming you are a girl)
3) buy any high-tech equipment

In all those fields, companies use lab animals to record data. Those lab animals are NOT cheap. A pair of a lab mice can cost as much as 1500 dollars. Companies do it to provide safe products to human consumers. Not only for animal welfare aspects, but for cost reasons, companies would rather NOT do this.

Those companies and lab technicians do not get any joy out of destroying animals.

Your thought appears to be very emotional and one-sided (single minded) and you will probably not hear anything that do not agree with your own ideas.

Try to see any subject you comment from all aspects including your own and learn from it. Extremists in any fashion do not do any of us any good - including animal welfare extremists. You are probably doing harm in business of animal welfare by not being able to present a fair and researched case against it as well.

Think about it.

We have sent humans into space that have died from it - think of the Challenger explosion.

But seriously, I've burned the cornea of my eye on a face wash that bragged about not being tested on animals, and it hurt like crazy, I didn't appreciate being the one to be tested on.

On the other hand, I think the tests should be more reflective of how we actually use a product. It seems like a lot of mice are daily ingesting twice their body weight of something, and then they end up having birth defects. NO KIDDING! If I swallowed twice my body weight in water, I would be dead, let alone have babies with birth defects, please, not only is that needless torture, there's no results I can actually apply to my daily life.