This paper does not argue, as the opening paragraphs of this section may seem to suggest, that animals should be seen as devoid of rights. On the contrary, it is filled with strong arguments pointing the other way. Its final assertion, however, is that those seeking to secure protection for animals in cosmetic laboratories should not allow themselves to become entangled in the emotional side of this old and ongoing debate. To do so invites an ultimately inconclusory, and perhaps violent, discourse. While animal advocates should continue to uphold whatever emotion-based views they feel are correct, if they are interested in tangible change they should follow the advice of the Commission of the European Communities’s Annual Report and not only encourage legislation that will force industry to eliminate in vivo testing through alternative methods but also seek to demonstrate just how much money could be saved in the long run if, even absent legislation compelling them to do so, cosmetics manufacturers would invest now in developing in vitro and other alternative means of testing their products that require less time than traditional in vivo tests and, most importantly, fewer dollars and cents.
