[snip]: Can't say that I have any real arguments against these rules. My problem with them may come in the implementation and interpretation of them. WHO gets to do the regulating? WHO gets to do the interpretation?
: But that's where we get into all kinds of trouble with many different laws, isn't it? If I get the be the one deciding, I have you problem. If you get to decide for me, then I have problems.
I think reasonable people can concur on when a new test (be it animal or non-animal, as happens right now) becomes safe and effective. For better or worse, medical and scientific associations have organized themselves into the authoritative voices of their fields -- much like any other field. You'll always have dissenters, but at some point, people step back and say, if X and Y and Z organizations say this works, most likely it does. Thus, for example, if the American Medical Association and National Institute of Health and American Cancer Society all concur on the viability of a new alternative to animal tests, there's probably some merit to their decision.
: For this reason, I prefer less regulation, even though I would hope that men would live by the moral principles without the legislation.
Don't we all.
None.
