A Quote by David Rutley

We are concerned by the upward trend in the use of animals in scientific procedures. — © David Rutley
We are concerned by the upward trend in the use of animals in scientific procedures.
Welfarists are concerned with the quality of the animals' lives before or even during their slaughter and want animals to be treated, and slaughtered, "humanely." Welfarists don't necessarily feel that it is wrong for humans to use animals for our own purposes.
The market being in a trend is the main thing that eventually gets us in a trade. That is a pretty simple idea. Being consistent and making sure you do that all the time is probably more important than the particular characteristics you use to define the trend. Whatever method you use to enter trades, the most critical thing is that if there is a major trend, your approach should assure that you get in that trend.
The fundamental characteristic of the scientific method is honesty. In dealing with any question, science asks no favors. ... I believe that constant use of the scientific method must in the end leave its impress upon him who uses it. ... A life spent in accordance with scientific teachings would be of a high order. It would practically conform to the teachings of the highest types of religion. The motives would be different, but so far as conduct is concerned the results would be practically identical.
One main factor in the upward trend of animal life has been the power of wandering.
I think we'll see a leveling off and then a contraction of population, not a continued upward trend.
Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.
Most variables can show either an upward or downward trend, depending on the base year chosen.
So far as this argument is concerned nonhuman animals and infants and retarded humans are in the same category; and if we use this argument to justify experiments on nonhuman animals we have to ask ourselves whether we are also prepared to allow experiments on human infants and retarded adults; and if we make a distinction between animals and these humans, on what basis can we do it, other than a bare-faced - and morally indefensible - preference for members of our own species?
When I write about animals, I use anthropological techniques and the language you would use for a person. You don't have to anthropomorphize animals, just acknowledge their individuality.
... scientific research is compounded of ... empirical procedures, general speculative ideas, and mathematical or abstract reasoning.
I like to see a good scientific bout by men who know the use of their hands but would rather walk twenty miles than see animals in strife.
To endow animals with human emotions has long been a scientific taboo. But if we do not, we risk missing something fundamental, about both animals and us.
Computer languages of the future will be more concerned with goals and less with procedures specified by the programmer.
People are so concerned with what they put in their bodies but so few know what they're putting on their skin. I like to use preservative-free, cruelty-free makeup that hasn't been tested on animals.
The best scientific evidence suggests temperatures are rising, and the best scientific evidence suggests man-made anthropogenic carbon emissions have some substantial thing to do with that. However, does that mean the trend will continue forever? We don't know.
Wherever human beings are concerned, trend is not destiny.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!