Another main concern is that "[t]he fundamental moral wrong. . .is not that animals are kept in stressful close confinement or isolation, or that their pain and suffering, their needs and preferences are ignored or discounted [It is] the deeper, systematic wrong that allows these animals to be viewed. . .[only] as resources for us - as, indeed, a renewable resource" (Reagan 39-40). However, activists argue that animals, as beings, deserve the exact rights that humans receive and are ultimately deserving of respect (20). Modern religious activists contend that "God [made] a covenant with the animals (ARWCC 52). It is widely accepted that ". . .[H]uman sin has caused the subjection of all creation to futility. . ." (52). Thus, "the biblical and theological messages about the value of animals speak with one voice: Animals do not exist for the sake of the unbridled pursuit if human avarice and greed" (55). The voice of other anti-experimental animal rights activists shouts the same: "Lab animals are not our tasters; we are not their kings" (Reagan 39).
Concurrently, supporters of animal experimentation are willing to ignore the points that animal activists may make concerning research. Instead, "[t]hey point to the millions of people whose lives have been saved or improved through research on animals" (Day 14-15). The ideas of morality instilled in this group of people unmistakably differs from those of the activists in that the moral significance is put on saving human lives instead of preventing harm to animals (14). Even though claims have been made that "[w]hen bad conditions are found in a research environment, the work may be stopped" (Wood 47) researchers are still urged to conduct experimentation in vitro, using computer models and mathematical predictions (43). However, it is argued that "The congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) reported that it is not possible to make a computer program that would substitute for a living animal" (43).
