☰ Sidebar
Voting period for this idea type has passed

SXSW Interactive 2014

How Tech Saves Us From Junk Science & Animal Abuse

Who's the biggest funder of animal experimentation? Pharmaceutical companies? Cosmetic companies? Nope. It's YOU. Right now your tax dollars are funding animal experiments that would shock and sicken you.

Meet the government's secretive $12 billion+/year animal experimentation budget. For example, Congress wasted $144,541 to study how cocaine affects addicted monkeys in North Carolina. The result? We "learned" that cocaine is bad for you.

Tech is powering 21st century scientific alternatives, the digital grassroots movement, and social entrepreneurism for change. In this session you'll meet a taxpayer-watchdog and political consultant; an attorney and animal advocate; a medical doctor and public health specialist; and a former animal experimenter who's ready to "blow the whistle" on the system's waste, fraud and abuse. You'll also meet several lucky Beagles who have been released from laboratories, rehabilitated and adopted into loving homes. Get ready for an eye-opening panel!

Share this idea

Related Media


  1. How did federal government become the largest "market maker" for animal experimentation in the United States?
  2. Is animal experimentation an effective way to prevent, treat, or cure public health problems?
  3. What does the American public really think about animal experimentation and what does the data say (e.g. latest polls and focus groups)?
  4. What is the proper role of public policy to address this problem?
  5. What can ordinary Americans do to fight back against this problem?



Anthony Bellotti, Executive Director, White Coat Waste Project

Meta Information:

  • Tags: activism, policy, science
  • Event: Interactive
  • Format: Panel
  • Track: Non-Profit and Activism
  • Level: Beginning
Show me another idea

Add Comments

comments powered by Disqus

SXSW reserves the right to restrict access to or availability of comments related to PanelPicker proposals that it considers objectionable.