Experimentation

Observation is a passive science, experimentation an active science.

Experimentation can be good.

The key is experimentation.

Animal experimentation is cruel.

It is often debated is whether animal experimentation for the development of cosmetics or pharmaceuticals is justified. Many oppose such experimentation on the basis that it causes unnecessary suffering. I argue that it is harmful to animals, unneeded for humans, and morally wrong.

Though animal experimentation is often argued to be necessary for life-saving medical research, this is often not the case.

Animal experimentation may involve removing organs for no medical reasons, exposing animals to high quantities of toxic or potentially toxic substances, and numerous other procedures that, if performed on humans, would be grounds for prosecution of the experimenter.

In conclusion, animal experimentation is both morally wrong and of limited practical value. It is morally far more costly than the cosmetic products it produces, significantly flawed as a tool for medical research, and its practice in the absence of similar human experimentation is an ethical double standard.

Maria Elena Pompo, who moved from Venezuela to the United States, developed her natural dyeing technique through experimentation.

Everything indicates that chess will remain a field of experimentation for artificial intelligence for many years.