Arguments against tighter restrictions on the use of animals and in favor of experimenter-regulated research.

There are several potential problems with stronger animal welfare legislation. Partly because there are no simple logical rules separating what most people would consider acceptable and what is inhumane, it may not be possible to stop the program before the restrictions become so strict that science is harmed. Provisions should at least be included that improve animal welfare without threatening science. The researcher is often best at deciding whether to do an experiment because he can best estimate the benefits. The time and effort spent meeting the bureaucratic requirements and administering the program may be largely wasted in many countries because the cruel experiments never would have been conducted in the first place. Military research is likely to be exempt from the restrictions and may become a haven for prohibited civilian research to the detriment of both the animals and science. The legislation provides legal means by which some people are given the right to impose their moral beliefs upon others, by essentially creating and administering new laws, and judging and penalizing offenders, all outside of the existing legal structure.