Your view on animal testing

[Greg Bernhardt]

There is a lot of controversy over the morality of testing new products and procedures on non-human species. I seek to find out what everyone believes concerning this issue, as well as how much everyone knows about alternatives.

[alphy]

I am against animal testing!! Here's a nice list of companies that participate in animal testing in one way or another.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/3717/List.html

[russ_watters]

For the most part I'm for it, but it does depend a little on the type of animal and nature of the tesing.

[Jikx]

I'm mostly for it as well, as per russ_watters.

There are simply things that can't be tested otherwise. Where would HIV research be without testing on the simian equivalent?

In-vitro experiments only go so far, I suppose if we really want to stop using animals we should just skip straight to the humans. I mean, how better to test the effect on humans, than to test it on humans! [:D]

[Monique]

Yeah, I'd never want to experiment on animals, cutting off their tails and feet.. my mother would disown me :P But I DO think that animals are a great resource for information and should be used appropriately.

For instance, I once isolated monoclonal antibodies from a mouse, but the mouse died without suffering (CO2) which justified it to me.

A former collegue used to tell me that there was a very heavy weight on his back, of all the dogs he experimented on in his past. At the time he was becoming a heart surgeon and was doing a thesis on developing some kind of new operation. For that he had to operate a healthy dog, open heart operation, but afterwards the dog needed to live in order to see the after effects. This is the point where it becomes inhuman, since the dog goes through tremendous suffering and when it finally heals the woods, it is opened up again, to check the organs and then sacrificed.

If testing like this needs to be done, it is my opinion to develop a testing animal which cannot feel pain or is not concious of the handlings. Like a chicken without a head.

But ofcourse, in vitro testing is a reasonable way of starting things, after all, skin can be grown in the lab.

[Zero]

Animal testing for medical reasons is acceptable to me, with the understanding that the experiments will be done as humanely as reasonably possible. On the other hand, screw cosmetics companies!

[Sting]

I'm surprised I saw Bausch & Lomb on the list.

Shoot, how on Earth do they put contact lenses on a lab rat?

Anyway, I'm against it to a certain extent. As long as the animal suffers no discomfort or harm (and as long as it's a reasonable neccessary product)...

But I'm with Zero: screw cosmetics companies!

[Beren]

Seriously, how much prettier is a mouse going to get with eye liner?

[liljediboi]

for those people against animal testing, would they change their mind if, for instance, they have a disease, lets say... some type of cancer, and the doctor says you will likely die in 3 years. but, if in those 3 years, animal testing would present a cure for this cancer, is animal testing good?

you will most likely say no, but there are people out who can be saved. and acording to nature, survival of the fittest.

i says its an unfair question

[Zero]

Originally posted by liljediboi
for those people against animal testing, would they change their mind if, for instance, they have a disease, lets say... some type of cancer, and the doctor says you will likely die in 3 years. but, if in those 3 years, animal testing would present a cure for this cancer, is animal testing good?

you will most likely say no, but there are people out who can be saved. and acording to nature, survival of the fittest.

i says its an unfair question Well, I think most of us are ok with it in order to save human lives...even if we aren't happy with it. I would eat my dog if it were me or him, but I wouldn't be happy with that choice either, you know?

[Monique]

Have you ever seen how animals are treated when they are going for slaughtery? Or are being raised for meat?

For someone who is against animal testing in any way, they should be vegetarian too.

So my motto: it may be done, in such a way that the animal doesn't suffer needlessly.. I think a lot of work remains to be done in order to achieve this.

[Another God]

I'm for it.

[Mentat]

I'm for animal testing, for the most part, too (though I agree with Monique, that, should the animal die, it should not suffer). However, I read an article recently about experimental mice, which are kept in cages for most (if not all) of their lives. There are scientists who believe that they may not be getting completely valid results from experimenting with these mice, since all animals behave differently in captivity than they do in the wild.

It's something to consider, anyway, unless the only people we are trying to help with our results are people who are serving a life sentence in prison. [;)]

[Mattius_]

Well im going out further and saying that at long as the pain of the animal is justified reasonably(which im sure almost all are) then it is acceptable. However, I do believe that anyone who eats meat regularly should be required to take a trip to the slaughterhouse. I eat meat, but I am conmfortable with the means to which i get that meat. Im sorry, but this world has never been beautiful in this respect, it has been survivalist; and any effects of cruelty towards animals are 'right' by the reasoning of a survivalist.

We are all survivalists.

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Zero
Animal testing for medical reasons is acceptable to me, with the understanding that the experiments will be done as humanely as reasonably possible. On the other hand, screw cosmetics companies!

Well said.

Seems like a "necessary evil" that would be good to minimize. Fortunately or unfortunately, it's mostly out-of-sight/out-of-mind.

[Greg Bernhardt]

Originally posted by Phobos
Well said.

Seems like a "necessary evil" that would be good to minimize. Fortunately or unfortunately, it's mostly out-of-sight/out-of-mind.

On the other hand, some cosmetics are medical based and use for any number of applications to help patients physically or mentally.

Does anyone have a link to animal testing laws in the US?

[FZ+]

There is a lot of controversy over the morality of testing new products and procedures on non-human species. I seek to find out what everyone believes concerning this issue, as well as how much everyone knows about alternatives.
Pro. It's hell of a lot more moral than procedures on human species.

Alternatives? Well, yes some exist, but most are extremely specialised, not very detailed, unreliable, and often demand additional animal tests to caibrate the models.

I assume that the researchers who do animal testing aren't crazy power-mad... etc. Animal testing is in general expensive, subject to heavy regulation (Ironically, the UK has the strongest regulations in the world, and simultaneously the most active animal rights groups.) and so not conducted except for an absolute requirement.

And if these researchers are crazy... then who the hell gave them their qualifications? Clearly some responsibility must be used in all such experiments, but animal testing as a whole is very important and useful.

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Quoting Dennis Leary:

"If hooking a racoon up to a car battery is going to cure AIDS five years from now, I've got two things to say about it- the red is positive and the black is negative."

[liljediboi]

mattius uses the words "justified reasonably"
my question is what is considered justified? saving human lives?

[Monique]

Originally posted by Mattius_
Well im going out further and saying that at long as the pain of the animal is justified reasonably(which im sure almost all are) then it is acceptable. However, I do believe that anyone who eats meat regularly should be required to take a trip to the slaughterhouse. I eat meat, but I am conmfortable with the means to which i get that meat. Im sorry, but this world has never been beautiful in this respect, it has been survivalist; and any effects of cruelty towards animals are 'right' by the reasoning of a survivalist.

We are all survivalists. I REALLY don't agree with this, and I think it is ignorant to say that we are suvivalists and that that justifies suffering of non-humanoid life.

We are humans, and our main trait is that we can survive under all cicumstances due to our adaptability. So your reasoning: "effects of cruelty towards animals are 'right' by the reasoning of a survivalist". Might hold true in the so called third world countries, but people who have an abundance of other options should think twice about these animal cruelties and their options of buying animal-friendly products.


You also say: "as long as the pain of the animal is justified reasonably (which im sure almost all are)" How can you be sure in any way that it is justified? The example I gave about the dogs and the heart operations, I think it is very very cruel and should be stopped. The person performing the procedures agreed. Dogs are very intelligent animals and form personal bonds to their caretaker, and the caretaker is abusing them by cutting them open, let them live and suffer a few months, cut them open again and sacrifice the dog. That is just not the right way to do things.

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Do you know how they test pain killers? The hot plate test. They stick a mouse on a hot plate and turn it on. They see how long it takes for the mouse start jumping up and down. They know they have an effective pain killer when the mouse just sits there and burns.

Cruel? Yup.

Have you got a better way for testing pain killers?

[Monique]

Yes! If it has been found not to have adverse effects, administer it to a human and ASK them if that helps them to relieve the pain.

That is just too cruel!

[Greg Bernhardt]

Originally posted by Monique
Yes! If it has been found not to have adverse effects

How do they test if it has adverse effects? Animals!

ASK them if that helps them to relieve the pain.
As they slip into a coma because of lack of prior animal testing

[Monique]

Originally posted by Greg Bernhardt
How do they test if it has adverse effects? Animals!

As they slip into a coma because of lack of prior animal testing You haven't read my previous posts, I agree with animal testing. So my motto: it may be done, in such a way that the animal doesn't suffer needlessly.. I think a lot of work remains to be done in order to achieve this.

I think putting an animal on a hot plate, to find out whether it relieves pain, it very cruel. Get a group of human volunteers, tell them that the drug has been tested to be safe. Ask them next time they get a headache to take the drug and see if it helps.

Ofcourse animal testing is still necessary to test if it is safe to administor and in what dose.. but that doesn't require the malicious act of torturing an animal for a simple thing as pain relievers.. we've got plenty of painrelievers already for the world to go around..

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Do you know how they test pain killers? The hot plate test. They stick a mouse on a hot plate and turn it on. They see how long it takes for the mouse start jumping up and down. They know they have an effective pain killer when the mouse just sits there and burns.

Cruel? Yup.

Have you got a better way for testing pain killers?

That may sound cruel to emotional beings like us, but it's really not. It would be cruel if the mouse felt pain, but if it never suffered at all, then it is just as "cruel" as killing it in its sleep.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Monique
You haven't read my previous posts, I agree with animal testing.

I think putting an animal on a hot plate, to find out whether it relieves pain, it very cruel. Get a group of human volunteers, tell them that the drug has been tested to be safe. Ask them next time they get a headache to take the drug and see if it helps.

Ofcourse animal testing is still necessary to test if it is safe to administor and in what dose.. but that doesn't require the malicious act of torturing an animal for a simple thing as pain relievers.. we've got plenty of painrelievers already for the world to go around..

Monique, the animal wasn't tortured, it didn't feel a thing...pain-killer worked, that is. I don't know what they do if it doesn't work, but I hope they save the little guy [b(].

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Monique
Yes! If it has been found not to have adverse effects, administer it to a human and ASK them if that helps them to relieve the pain.

That is just too cruel!

That wouldn't work. There's no control. No way to measure and quantify. And even if everybody told the truth, then you may have a drug that cures headaches. But you still wouldn't have something that would be applicable to, e.g., somebody getting their legs blown off by a landmine. The only way you could get it to work with humans is to commit injury. And any sane person won't volunteer to getting hurt. And nobody insane enough could give informed consent.

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Mentat
That may sound cruel to emotional beings like us, but it's really not. It would be cruel if the mouse felt pain, but if it never suffered at all, then it is just as "cruel" as killing it in its sleep.

You are assuming that A. the pain killer worked, B. the correct dosage was given (also what the test is used to determine), and C. the drug never wears off. The only way mice are going to come out of the hot plate test without feeling pain is if the're ODed or if they catch fire and burn to death.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
You are assuming that A. the pain killer worked, B. the correct dosage was given (also what the test is used to determine), and C. the drug never wears off. The only way mice are going to come out of the hot plate test without feeling pain is if the're ODed or if they catch fire and burn to death.

Yeah, if they burn to death, then they never feel pain. I thought that was the point.

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yeah, if they burn to death, then they never feel pain. I thought that was the point.

The point is to determine what drug and in what dose is need to control pain. So you're going to end up with a lot more mice with burnt feet than dead ones. And, I believe, they stop the test when the heat are clearly burning and the mouse is trying to figure out where all the smoke is coming from.

[Monique]

Didn't we have all those unfortunate scientists finding out the effects of drugs by accident some odd centuries ago? I think, let's just stick with that stuff and stop burning animals alive.

I'd have to agree though, the line is thin.

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Thalidomide.

[Monique]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Thalidomide. I'm sorry?

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Monique
I'm sorry?

Thalidomide. Google it. It's the textbook example of why animal testing is so necessary.

[Monique]

Yeah, well, there are only so many things that can be found out by testing on animals.. mistakes can happen too.

*edit* I have another one: DDT.

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Monique
Yeah, well, there are only so many things that can be found out by testing on animals.. mistakes can happen too.

*edit* I have another one: DDT.

What does DDT have to due with testing drugs on animals?

[Greg Bernhardt]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
What does DDT have to due with testing drugs on animals?

DDT might ward off flies, but it's destructive to wildlife.

[Monique]

If you don't know why I said DDT, could you then explain why you said Thalidomide?

I said DDT, since for decennia people thought it was a very safe chemical, only harmfull to insect, not to humans. They used to shower themselves in that stuff and used it perfusely. Until they found out many years later that it in fact IS dangerous to humans, I believe it was causing some defect in fertility/developing embryo.

[Greg Bernhardt]

monique:


Animal rights proponents often cite the drug Thalidomide as an example of the failure of animal testing. (Thalidomide caused unforeseen birth defects in pregnant European women during the 1960s.) In fact, every test of the drug on pregnant animals, regardless of species, showed that it caused birth defects. The drug was sold over-the-counter in Europe, however, before adequate animal testing and without tests on pregnant animals -- despite the fact that it was sold for morning sickness during pregnancy! The drug was never approved for such use in the U.S. because of questions about its safety. (Thalidomide was approved for leprosy.) Subsequent research on animals also showed that Thalidomide inhibits the growth of blood vessels -- the action that caused birth defects but that also makes the drug effective against multiple myeloma, a type of cancer.

- Americans for Medical Progress

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Monique
If you don't know why I said DDT, could you then explain why you said Thalidomide?

I said DDT, since for decennia people thought it was a very safe chemical, only harmfull to insect, not to humans. They used to shower themselves in that stuff and used it perfusely. Until they found out many years later that it in fact IS dangerous to humans, I believe it was causing some defect in fertility/developing embryo.

First off, DDT was never tested in clinical trials for human consumption. Secondly, the harmful effects of DDT is what it does to the environment, i.e. it gets in the food chain, is fat soluble, and is particularly harmful to birds of prey because it weakens egg shells. Thirdly, if extensive animal testing of DDT had occured, the damage may have been preventable. Although DDT was invented in the early twentieth century, and there wasn't that kind of environmental awareness there is today.

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Monique
could you then explain why you said Thalidomide?


I'm serious. Go to google.com. Select images. Enter "thalidomide."

[Monique]

Greg: thank you for that little illumination :) So chemsuperfreak, we agree then that we should be carefull with drug safety. That still doesn't mean we are free to torture animals without any moral implications.

[Monique]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
I'm serious. Go to google.com. Select images. Enter "thalidomide." Yeah, I know.. I just had never heard of that drug before. There also used to be a birth control pill, about one generation ago, which had long lasting effects. Woman who had taken the pill and later decided to get children also were confronted with genetic defects in their children.


Well, wouldn't you find THIS interesting.. the FDA is still performing tests with thalidomide on males and females.. http://www.fda.gov/cder/news/thalidomide.htm

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Monique



Well, wouldn't you find THIS interesting.. the FDA is still performing tests with thalidomide on males and females.. http://www.fda.gov/cder/news/thalidomide.htm

Oh, I know. It's been used to treat leprosy in India for years. The right enantiomer is perfectly safe for human consumption.

[jimmy p]

I am for animal testing for certain reason. I am against animal testing for cosmetics and things like that but for medicine and the good of nature (woah hippy-boy!) then testing on animals is important. I mean what is a 20 mice to countless humans AND animals...lol ur cat would prob eat them 20 mice...not very nice n im sorry if i offend

[notal33t]

[s(]
I once was an anthropomorhic centralist, that viewed "animals" as an exploitable resource. Until the day a dolphin decided to give me a wake up call by tossing a beach ball at my face while I was taking a picture of it at a marine park! As for the human race being the "top dog" brainwise on this planet, get real! Or better yet expand your conciousness to include "none technical species" as candidates for that role!

[Hurkyl]

Just to chime in with a little Devil's Advocate...


A lot of people have been against against testing for cosmetic purposes... the purpose is the same when testing for cosmetic purposes and when testing for medicinal purposes; to make sure that the chemicals aren't harmful.

Are you suggesting that people should cross their fingers and hope they don't get cancer from wearing make-up, or are you suggesting the cosmetics industry be shut down? Or do you have some alternative for making sure the stuff isn't harmful that doesn't require animal testing (and why wouldn't this alternative work with medicinal testing)?

[notal33t]

[*(]
Cosmetic "research" indeed! For mercy sake realize that this "research" causes untold suffering in species unable to communicate their agony in a way we "intelligent humans" seem to be capable of understanding! Perhaps having OUR race treated the same way by some alien "grey" race might wake us up! As for medical research.. Please PLEASE make sure the research is at least monitored by people not interested in making the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR!

[Monique]

I agree very much, I have never done anything related to animal research, so I really don't know how these things are regulated.

Can anyone tell me which organizations look out for the welfare of these animals, do they give yearly (and unexpected) inspections?

[Monique]

I mean, I have worked with radiochemicals and the regulations are very strict and tight. I have to write down where I worked with it, when, how much, moniter after using, moniter weekly and monthy even when not using it. We got yearly training and inspection by OESH and can expect someone from the federal nuclear inspection to walk in and try to get to our radiochemicals to see how close he can get to it. Something similar for labanimals? Does animal sanity get monitored?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Just to chime in with a little Devil's Advocate...


A lot of people have been against against testing for cosmetic purposes... the purpose is the same when testing for cosmetic purposes and when testing for medicinal purposes; to make sure that the chemicals aren't harmful.

Are you suggesting that people should cross their fingers and hope they don't get cancer from wearing make-up, or are you suggesting the cosmetics industry be shut down? Or do you have some alternative for making sure the stuff isn't harmful that doesn't require animal testing (and why wouldn't this alternative work with medicinal testing)? I think what we are saying is that the animal testing done for cosmetic purposes ins't necessary or humane. We already know plenty of non-harmful ways to make cosmetics, and if they can'[t test new ways without mutilating animals, then that's their tough luck, isn't it?

[selfAdjoint]

Ah, the old that's just their tough luck argument. So people who don't want the cosmetics industry to stop dead (not all of whom are evil capitalists), are counted less than a bunch of lab animals. Suppose they were to say of the animals, "That's just their tough luck"?

[FZ+]

Originally posted by notal33t
As for the human race being the "top dog" brainwise on this planet, get real! Or better yet expand your conciousness to include "none technical species" as candidates for that role!

There is a danger here.... While of course it makes little sense to see humanity as top dogs in absolute terms, we are not below other species either. To ourselves, we most definitely are the most important species - while this does not justify, we need to remember that we are part of the world, before we start pleading for rights to rocks.

Of course medical researchers are interesting in making money - research is expensive, and money is a big motivator - that is part of the realistic way things happen. We can't just cut out the capitalism like that. But yes, we do need reasonable regulations, from reasonable people.

The can of worms lies in how we define reasonable, of course.

[Zero]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Ah, the old that's just their tough luck argument. So people who don't want the cosmetics industry to stop dead (not all of whom are evil capitalists), are counted less than a bunch of lab animals. Suppose they were to say of the animals, "That's just their tough luck"? I'd pick the bunny's side over some corporate profiteer or some vain woman anyday!

[selfAdjoint]

So now we're down to demonization. Are all the humble workers who will be thrown out of their jobs despicable too?

[lavalamp]

Well I'm torn in two. Not by whether we should test on animals or not, I know dead straight that animal testing should be banned. Would you like it if a 50 foot giant came up to you and applied make-up on your face or cut you open to do experiments on you? People have nightmares about alien abduction that pretty much amounts to the same thing as being tested on.

What I think we should do is get all the horrible, back stabbing, granny selling b*st*rds and use those for testing on or organ donation. This is why I'm torn, I can't decide which.
Whether we should throw them all in a pit to let them kill each other, hence organ donation.
Or cut them open and poke around with their insides, hence testing.

Ah, decisions decisions.

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by lavalamp
Well I'm torn in two. Not by whether we should test on animals or not, I know dead straight that animal testing should be banned. Would you like it if a 50 foot giant came up to you and applied make-up on your face or cut you open to do experiments on you? People have nightmares about alien abduction that pretty much amounts to the same thing as being tested on.

What I think we should do is get all the horrible, back stabbing, granny selling b*st*rds and use those for testing on or organ donation. This is why I'm torn, I can't decide which.
Whether we should throw them all in a pit to let them kill each other, hence organ donation.
Or cut them open and poke around with their insides, hence testing.

Ah, decisions decisions.

So then because you are against animal testing are you willing to forgoe any medication which has been tested on animals? Such as penicillin and tylenol?

[lavalamp]

If it's going to be used by humans it should be used on humans. I believe that some states have the death penalty in America. Maybe the prisoners should be offered the alternative to be tested on ina potentially fatal experiment. If they live they can go.
Of course testing could be imposed upon them, that would be a real deterent for gun crime.

I also didn't realise that penecillin was tested on animals, if it was then I don't think that it should have been. It may in fact be cheaper to offer money to people to be tested on, like I think they pay people over there to give blood.

I'm not very knowledgable on this subject, but I do have a view point on animal testing.
Maybe if they had tested penecillin on humans the research would have progressed slower and it wouldn't have been used so much and we would have any super bugs. I don't know, I'm just hypothesising so I could be wrong. If I am wrong then all I ask is that you don't come crashing down on top of me because of it.

[FZ+]

Maybe if they had tested penecillin on humans the research would have progressed slower and it wouldn't have been used so much and we would have any super bugs
And millions of animals, human or otherwise, would have died. Would you support the rights of bacteria as well? Protozoa? Sponges? Fish? Lizards? Rats? At what point does it begin?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
And millions of animals, human or otherwise, would have died. I'm not sure if people realize how truly revolutionary antibiotics are. Until their discovery, disease killed more soldiers (for example) than gunshots themselves by a wide margin.

And then there are vaccines - together, antibiotics and vaccines have likely saved closer to a BILLION lives.

[Monique]

Until their dicovery we didn't get much older than 50 right?

[lavalamp]

OK, fine. I'll trust you on that one, I just know that I'm against animal testing. I've made an attempt to try and justify me beliefs but I guess that I'm just irrational.

[Monique]

Lavalamp, if you are against animal testing of any kind.. are you against eating meat too? At least animal testing is regulated in some ways, animal farms are not in any way. Ever seen how chicks are processed in an animal food plant? They are transported along the line alive until the are finally ground up.. alive.

[Monique]

How do people think that piece of meat on their plates died? Not a natural death, not a peacefull death either.

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by Monique
How do people think that piece of meat on their plates died? Not a natural death, not a peacefull death either.

Of course there are a lot of vegan animal rights activists who aren't affected by this logic.

[lavalamp]

That's a horrible way to die. Are you sure that you've got all fo your facts straight? I can't imagine how anyone could allow that to go on.
If animals are used for food then they should at least die in the most humane way possible, quickly and painlessly. I also don't tend to eat much meat by the way, although it has been known on occasion.

[Monique]

I have seen documentaries on television and in magazines, where people go into a plant with a hidden camera. Yes, I saw the chick example on television. The workers sort the chicks, ones that are healthy (or maybe the females?) were kept alive, ones that were damaged would be pulled out and set on a different line, ending up in a grinder.

As for the meat, there are two ways to die: bullet through the head or hammer in the neck. Who says the animal dies instantly? It might still be concious while someone starts dismembering it. Many horor stories can be told.

How about veil, ever eat that? From birth they are put in a cage which doesn't allow them to move at all, not an inch, to keep the meat tender.

Eggs, ever seen how many thousand of chicken are in a several square meters? Stacked on top of each other.

Or do you know how animals are transported to the slaughery house? Noone cares if they get injured, dehydrate or die by heat exposure.

The problem is that I don't know how wide-spread these cruelties are and which organizations are there to monitor these activities. Neither for lab animals or farm animals.

[Monique]

I'd recommend taking 5-10 min of your time and view the flash presentation at www.animalcruelty.com just avoid using your browser back button, it will reset the presentation and you'll have to start from the beginning again.

I recommend to have your audio on, it really makes for a humbling feeling.

The site links to:

American Anti-Vivisection Society, very good website
http://www.aavs.org/home.html

and Factory Farming
http://www.factoryfarming.org/

For the ones with steady stomachs, some video footage of ongoing cruelties:
http://www.factoryfarming.org/gallery/photos_video.htm

[lavalamp]

So am I right in thinking that you think animal testing is OK because it's not as bad as it could be? If you were doing an experiment on an animal and someone said that it was wrong, would your justification be, "Well at least I'm not dismembering it."?

It seems as though you're trying to show that animal testing testing is OK by comparing it with something that is worse.

Anyway, I'm not here to argue my viewpoint, I just came in here to state it. It's quite obvious that neither one of us is going to change our minds about this subject so I suggest that we just drop it. I know that I'm going to.

[Monique]

That is fine, but the thing I am trying to do is create awareness about that both animal testing AND animal processing can be very cruel. Both need to improved. It is a very easy thing to turn away and not think about an opinion.

I wish I knew where to donate money or which product to buy to create an anti-force against cruelty and support cleaner practices. Apparently from this thread, noone knows.

[lavalamp]

I don't know about america but over here we have the RSPCA (Royal Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). If you can't find the american equivalent, you could always donate to that organisation.

[Monique]

I think they should be certifying animal products, if they go by certain standards, give them a sticker and that way people can make their own decisions in the store..

For eggs there is this for instance, I guess for meats it would be the biological section?

So everyone start eating biological meats! The best way to hit these people is in their wallet.

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by lavalamp
If it's going to be used by humans it should be used on humans. I believe that some states have the death penalty in America. Maybe the prisoners should be offered the alternative to be tested on ina potentially fatal experiment. If they live they can go.
Of course testing could be imposed upon them, that would be a real deterent for gun crime.


So let me get this straight. You don't want to let any mice get tested. But you would like human beings to be told "you can either have this weird substance injected into your body, quite possibly killing you, or you can spend the rest of your like in prison."

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by lavalamp
So am I right in thinking that you think animal testing is OK because it's not as bad as it could be? If you were doing an experiment on an animal and someone said that it was wrong, would your justification be, "Well at least I'm not dismembering it."?


Go to google.com. Select images. Enter "thalidomide" and see just one example of what happens when we don't test on animals. I think a few lab mice would have been worth it to prevent that. And in my opinion testing drugs on lab animals is a lot more morally justified than, say, eating a hamburger.

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by lavalamp
If it's going to be used by humans it should be used on humans. I believe that some states have the death penalty in America. Maybe the prisoners should be offered the alternative to be tested on ina potentially fatal experiment. If they live they can go.
Of course testing could be imposed upon them, that would be a real deterent for gun crime.


So let me get this straight. You don't want to let any mice get tested. But you would like human beings to be told "you can either have this weird substance injected into your body, quite possibly killing you, or you can spend the rest of your like in prison."

[lavalamp]

While I agree that in certain spcialised cases, a bit of foresight may have prevented a disaster. But if you tested it on mice, then surely they would have been caused great distress as well.
You seem to have picked up the premice that we are above them, and they are inferior to us, just because they are smaller and we keep them locked up in cages.

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by lavalamp
While I agree that in certain spcialised cases, a bit of foresight may have prevented a disaster. But if you tested it on mice, then surely they would have been caused great distress as well.
You seem to have picked up the premice that we are above them, and they are inferior to us, just because they are smaller and we keep them locked up in cages.

If I had to choose between a few hundred mice and hundreds to billions of human beings, than yes, I would side with the human beings.

[Monique]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
And in my opinion testing drugs on lab animals is a lot more morally justified than, say, eating a hamburger. Well said :)

[lavalamp]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
If I had to choose between a few hundred mice and hundreds to billions of human beings, than yes, I would side with the human beings.

No offence, but it isn't your decision to make. Did anyone ask the mice if they wanted to make that sacrifice, no. Just because they can't answer for themselves does not mean that they have fewer rights than humans.

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by lavalamp
No offence, but it isn't your decision to make. Did anyone ask the mice if they wanted to make that sacrifice, no. Just because they can't answer for themselves does not mean that they have fewer rights than humans.

No offense, but it isn't your decision to make on whether or not rodent should have the same rights as humans.

[lavalamp]

So you just assume that they don't have the same rights as us and are willing to just go ahead and experiment on them?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by lavalamp
You seem to have picked up the premice that we are above them, and they are inferior to us We are, and they are. No offence, but it isn't your decision to make. Did anyone ask the mice if they wanted to make that sacrifice, no. Just because they can't answer for themselves does not mean that they have fewer rights than humans. Try it, lavalamp. Ask one. See what it says. Seriously. Based on the answer you get, you can answer the question you posed above. So you just assume that they don't have the same rights as us and are willing to just go ahead and experiment on them? They don't, lavalamp. Human rights are human rights. They apply to humans.

Quick question, which is more humane, killing a cow by shoving an electrified metal rod up its rear (thats how its actually done - I think Monique's info is out of date) or having a mountain lion chase it down and bite its throat? Either way they die. The mountain lion probably takes a little longer to kill it.

The food chain can be a brutal thing, lavalamp. Thats the way it works with or without humans in it: it is not any more or less brutal due to our existence.

Now you can of course argue that humans are unique in that we are capable of choosing whether or not to kill other animals, but be careful - you may inadvertently answer the first question I quoted from you in a way you won't like.

Jeez, may I ask how old you are? You are incredibly naive and squeamish about this issue.

[lavalamp]

My age is in my profile.

I also don't remember mentioning anything about human rights.

Lat me ask you a question. If you could choose how you would die, would you want to die peacfefully, or by having an electrified metal rod up your arse?

Just because the food chain is a brutal thing, it doesn't mean that we have to be. If it is neccesary to kill animals, why does it have to be in such a cruel way?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by lavalamp
I also don't remember mentioning anything about human rights.
You suggested that they should have many of the same rights as humans. The rights of humans are called "human rights."Lat me ask you a question. If you could choose how you would die, would you want to die peacfefully, or by having an electrified metal rod up your arse? I would of course choose to die peacefully, but that really isn't relevant to this issue. A cow can't ask a mountain lion to make his death as quick and painless as possible.Just because the food chain is a brutal thing, it doesn't mean that we have to be. If it is neccesary to kill animals, why does it have to be in such a cruel way? How would you suggest we do it?

[lavalamp]

I did not mentin human rights as that would imply that they are species specific.

We aren't mountain lions, but for some reason you keep drawing the analogy between us and the lions.

I'm sorry, but I'm not skilled in the art of slaughter, therefore I can't think of many pleasant ways to die right now. I'm sure that there are people out there who can though.

[Monique]

Originally posted by russ_watters
How would you suggest we do it? with respect

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Monique
with respect
Some religions have rules on animal killing. Like Islam.

[Another God]

well, like it or not, rights are species specific, even if you desire otherwise or proclaim to thinik otherwise. At some point or another, you too cross the line where u differentiate that that lizard deservees to live, "because I like lizards" but "that damn mosquito must die now!"

The reason Human Rights have such a privledge over all other animal, plant, bacteria and archae life forms is because we are the only species with which we can safely enter into social bargains with. We have a reasonable basis upon which we know we can generally trust each other to behave certain ways, and do certain things to help each other out. Cows, sheep, Mice and Rats do not. They will not enter social constructs with any of us, and so are of no use to us, other than a use we force onto them (one of food, or of experimentation).

Dogs on the otherhand are generally treated differently. Why do you suppose that would be? Would it be because dogs do enter a form of social contract with us? We feed them, and in return they (origianlly hunted for us) protect our house from robbers, defend us, and enjoy our company.... Dogs are given special rights above other animals. Cats also recieve similar rights, for similar reasons.

So, is experimentation on animals OK? Absolutely, becauase in the end, Humans are the only species which we are actually concerned with (at least, immediately concerned with...Secondarily we do desire safety for all species, otherwise we would feel bad for no longer being able to see lions, and tigers etc in the zoos of the future)

[Another God]

Originally posted by Monique
with respect
With respect for what exactly?

What is respect all about anyway? Respect for the fact that a lion can kill you: That I understand. Respect for someones intelligence over you... etc I understand those uses of the word respect. But having respect, while killing a cow... what does that mean? Respecting the cow as a docile creature, specifically bred over 5000 or more years to be perfect for human consumption? I'll bet there is a lot of respect for that.

[Monique]

If you don't know what I mean with handling an animal with respect then, well..

Slaughtering animals or experimenting on them without any respect, without acknowledging that they too have the right to live a decent life, is plain unethical and wrong.

How about animals in a zoo, we keep them there solely for our pleasure. Does that mean we put them alone into wired cages, or do we respect the animal and try to recreate their natural habitat as closely as possible? That is having respect for the living. We put them into a cage, but better make that cage as pleasant as possible.

[FZ+]

Ultimately, it boils down to this. We are humans. If we have to make the choice, we protect our own kind's interests.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Monique
with respect I don't know what that means either.

To an American indian, respect meant praying over the animal after you kill it. For a Jew it means certian ritualistic methods of killing it (and prayer). So is it strictly a religious thing?
Slaughtering animals or experimenting on them without any respect, without acknowledging that they too have the right to live a decent life, is plain unethical and wrong. What rights do animals have and where do they come from?

[Another God]

Originally posted by russ_watters
What rights do animals have and where do they come from?
This question precisely gets to the heart of what i was trying to spell out earlier. Human rights are different from any other rights out there, because human rights come from humans, for humans. All other rights are from humans, for other things. Without humans in the first place, there would be no concept of rights.

Our rights are special because we create them as a way to maintain our society. We have an interpersonal agreement that we won't hurt each other and that we will infact help each other.

This agreement has not be partaken by any animals (some act as if they have, and so we treat them as such (EG Dogs), but if they for a split second act otherwise (Say by biting someone) then we kill them. ('Put them to sleep')). The only rights that are truley attributable to any animals are the rights we ascribe them, as objects of our desire to see/touch/experience.

The only right a mouse has to life, is in fact the right that we, individually or as a society, ascribe to it based on our desire to have it fulfill some purpose.

Like it or not, Rights are a social construct, not an Absolute fact that exists as a contingent truth.

[Monique]

Russ, respect has nothing to do with rituals or religion, silly idea.

Could you people at least acknowledge the fact that we should respect animals and avoid needless suffering?

You people seem to think that we are humans and as such we can do anything we want. How about people who live like animals? They don't have human rights? How about mentally retarded? What in us humans makes us so special that another animal is so much lower?

Yes, if a dog poses a danger to society we kill it, does that mean it is ok to stone it to death or let it dehydrate or just starve it to death? No, it isn't, and why?

[Monique]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I don't know what that means either.

To an American indian, respect meant praying over the animal after you kill it. For a Jew it means certian ritualistic methods of killing it (and prayer). So is it strictly a religious thing? btw, there is a difference between having respect and paying respect.

[Zero]

I think respecting the suffering of animals is important, in order to be able to respect ourselves. Empathy is part of what makes us human, and I think it is a valuable thing.

[Monique]

Thank you Zero, I am starting to like already :P

[Another God]

Its not that I have ascribed something more to humans, claiming humans to have special rights, or higher morality, or priveledges over animals etc, but rather that I am human, and as an Animal, I will do whatever I want to further my own needs. You too are an animal and you too will do whatever you want to further your own needs. Combined, we are a society of animals, working together to further the needs of the community.

Animals which are not like us, are treated as outsiders because they are precisely that. Outsiders.

So when it comes to killing an animal quickly or slowly, painlessly or painfully, we don't "have" to do either, its just that we have nothing to gain from doing it slowly and painfully, and the fact is, because we are social organisms we have empathetic feelings in us, the ability to understand (to some extent) the feelings etc of other organisms. We have this ability so we can interact with each other, but as a side effect, if we recognise 'suffering' or 'pleasure' behaviours in other organisms, then we associate them to human behaviours and so empathise with them.

So why do we not like the idea of killing a cow slowly by torturing it to death? Because there is no real advantage to be gained in doing this (normally) and when we do it, 99% of us will feel terrible about it because we can empathise with the actions and noises it makes, understanding the pain. There is no inherent moral obligation to be 'Humane' in killing it, but it makes us feeler better about ourselves if we do so.

Because of this fact though, this concept of being Humane has snowballed somewhat to the point where we beleieve that every instance of recognising suffering in an animal is bad, and so must be avoided (because it makes us feel bad), and so people complain about practices which cause pain like behaviour in animals as they are only seeing the negatives.

I'll leave it at that for now, I should get back to work, since that's where I am....[6)]

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Monique
Russ, respect has nothing to do with rituals or religion, silly idea....
btw, there is a difference between having respect and paying respect. Fair enough, but the Indian who prayed over the deer will also say to have respect you have to show (pay) respect. Could you people at least acknowledge the fact that we should respect animals and avoid needless suffering? Sure. As soon as you tell me what that means, how to do that, what animals it applies to, and why. Is it simply a matter of avoiding needless suffering? To me, that has nothing to do with respect and that certainly doesn't apply universally - not to mention its also kinda vague.

I have my own ideas on the subject, but I'd like to know yours. I seriously, honestly, do not know what you mean by respecting animals. I'm not trying to be coy or mean (except maybe in trying to convey its not as simple as just saying "have respect"). The dictionary has a pretty broad and vague definition for example: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=respect

Having been in the military I know what it means in that context. I know what it means with regard to my parents. But people even have different ideas about those things.

A.G., you're describing the situation pretty well and in line with the way I see it, but that type of answer is what I was (still am) trying to elicit from Monique.

[Monique]

Combined, we are a society of animals, working together to further the needs of the community. I thought we were here for the sake of the planet, not the human race. Funny that views like this don't fall under racism..

There is no inherent moral obligation to be 'Humane' in killing it, but it makes us feeler better about ourselves if we do so. The paradox.. what is moral? A moral is something that is socially accepted and makes us feel good, therefore it is a moral obligation to be humane in killing it.

I want to ask both of you: do you live with pets? At the moment we have got 4 large dogs and 4 cats, and some other animals. Once you understand the psychology of these 'lower' animals, you'll realize we are not all that. And no, I am not projecting my feelings upon them.

Yes, I understand the need of experimentation on animals, but if you don't know how to have respect for living organisms, you are not entirely human.

Sure. As soon as you tell me what that means, how to do that, what animals it applies to, and why. Is it simply a matter of avoiding needless suffering? To me, that has nothing to do with respect and that certainly doesn't apply universally - not to mention its also kinda vague. Hypothetical situation: if were to go out in a space ship and found a world with a life form, we can just whipe it out without blinking? No, you'll say, we have to bring out our scalpels and cut them open, put the remaining ones in observation and take over the planet, since we are humans and we need to advance. You must've seen startrek.. what is their policy and is it wrong?

[Another God]

Originally posted by Monique
I thought we were here for the sake of the planet, not the human race. Funny that views like this don't fall under racism..
And what made you think that?

Monique, think about this for a while, just about what we are saying completely out of context, as an abstract idea. Think about the basis for it, and why we are saying it. Neither Russ nor I are saying that we shouldn't 'be humane' nor that we shouldn't try to avoid torturing animals, and killing relentlessly, nor that we should plunder the earth no matter what. Neither of us are that stupid.

What russ and I are talking about, is the very basis for every moral that we have constructed for ourselves. The way I see it, the ethics that our society has come to hold have been constructed over countless millenia from evolution initially, and then social constructs finally, and now we have fooled ourselves into believing certain absolutes about our actions, forgetting the reasons for them. I actually find this a major problem with laws these days too: People get so caught up in following the rules, they often forget why they are following the rules, to what ends the rule was actually created for in the first place, and eventually act in ways which contradict the purpose of the rule by following it to such a strict degree that they have imposed upon themselves.

Why do we have a moral imperitive? What is morality? Morality is a set of rules that enable us to work together as a community to make each and everyone of our respective lives easier. Thats all it is.

And so every action we make needs to be made with that ends in mind.

Are we here for the sake of the planet? In a way, absolutely we are: We need to be, because we need this planet. Without this planet, there would be no where for our community to exist. We would die. We need this planet: We need the plants and the animals with it to maintain a viable ecosystem.

but being here 'for the planet' is only a means to the ends of sustaining our society, and in the end, sustaining our own lives.

The paradox.. what is moral? A moral is something that is socially accepted and makes us feel good, therefore it is a moral obligation to be humane in killing it. All things considered equal: Should we kill painfully or painlessly? It would be a moral obligation to kill humanly assuming other people knew of it, otherwise it would be apersonal decision based on whether u 'enjoyed' killing it inhumanely or not. Moral obligation only comes into the picture when other people are present/implicated in the picture.

A moral is something that helps to maintain the stability of our society. (my personal definition. I will soon re-write my treatise on ethics if you want, and we can get right down into ethics (My current favourite topic)(Again))


I want to ask both of you: do you live with pets? And no, I am not projecting my feelings upon them.What makes u think either of us are accusing them of being 'lower' and not able to be compared to humans? I called humans animals, because we are somewhat equal. The only difference, is that Humans can express their desire to be part of our functional community, and can express their understandings of the rules.

outside of that, as far as I am concerned, humans are no different to animals, and as unpopular as this view will be, I don't much see the point of treating humans who can't interact practically with our society as something so special. (PS: Before you go and accuse me of all sorts of socially unaceptable things because of the historic reputation of Nazis and various other ideas of killing off the 'unfit' etc, don't think I am closed to other points of view, I am just as yet unable to justify any other stance. Everything I am presenting here, is a theoretical principle which makes absolute logical sense to me. I am mearly awaiting reasoned arguments to show me the error in my ideas.)


Yes, I understand the need of experimentation on animals, but if you don't know how to have respect for living organisms, you are not entirely human.I'm sure we know how to 'have respect', its just that we don't like the use of the word respect. I don't think it conveys the real relationship at all well. Empathy is a much better word, and we all tend to feel that. As such, we don't like killing animals. It makes us feel terrible. But we only get that feeling when we run over cats, or hit kangaroos, or kill other cute animals. We would hate to kill a dolphin because we can see ourselves in them... etc.

But how many times have you regretted killing a mosquito? Have u ever been fishing? Dragging a fish out of its habitat, by its cheek, only to let it slowly suffocate to death. I get the impression that snail pellets aren't very nice to snails... etc. its the animals which we empathise less with, that we feel more able to kill at will, and possiby even enjoy killing.


Hypothetical situation: if were to go out in a space ship and found a world with a life form, we can just whipe it out without blinking? No, you'll say, we have to bring out our scalpels and cut them open, put the remaining ones in observation and take over the planet, since we are humans and we need to advance. You must've seen startrek.. what is their policy and is it wrong?

What are the organisms like?

Are they like: Bacteria? (Yes, we would cut them open etc) Dogs? ( We would treat them like we treat dogs) etc

We would treat alien life forms very much the way we treat our own planets life forms.

If they were intelligent, then we would try to amalgamate them into our larger community in some way, hoping they would be our friends, and help us to live better lives. If they didn't, then we would either try to live without them, or we would exploit them. (I'm jsut saying what would happen, not what I advocate). From there, there is a potential of going to war and killing etc.

In any of the above situations, I guarantee that first chance we have, someone would cut them open and see how they work.

Human nature, and I am sure you understand this already, u just need to let yourself see it through all of the social programming that we have been spoonfed from birth as to what is 'right' and 'wrong' in the absolute sense.

[Monique]

Ok, I am starting to get the point now. What makes a moral justifiable: if it serves us a purpose in surviving.

Why is it morally forbidden to kill or cause suffering to other humans? Because they have the power to get back at us and return the service. Why don't we have any moral obligations to the ones who are not of the human race? What will they do, kill us in our sleep?

But since humans show empathy for other life forms, we actually cause pain and suffering to humans by mistreating animals. Those humans will feel offended and get back at the offender. Thus leading me to believe it IS morally unjustifiable to cause needless suffering to animals.

[selfAdjoint]

So in your view, the basis of morality is fear of revenge?

[Monique]

No, but AG suggested that moral behaviour needs to have an evolutionary advantage. I was trying to get his point. The only way would be fear for our own being. Revenge is not the right word.. just fear of losing our own well-being.

Empathy surely is the point of the discussion, people rather donate to Greenpeace to save sealions than crockadiles. Why don't we generally show empathy towards crockadiles? They are dangerous. We still feel scientific importance though, for maintaining such an identifyable species alive and we also empathice with such a creature with four legs and two eyes.

When we come to insect though, I guess empathy is totally lost, six legged critters.. people don't identify with them. I still wouldn't pull out their legs one by one, I don't kill annoying flies either and I feel bad when vacuuming up spiders, although I hate spiders very much.. I'd rather keep them in their little corner.

[Loren Booda]

Definition of a pet: an animal one wouldn't eat unless to survive.[:((]

That makes most animals (including humans) pets.[o)]

[Another God]

Ok, I am starting to get the point now. What makes a moral justifiable: if it serves us a purpose in surviving.
I think I can agree with everything said in this post Monique. Causing needless suffering is morally reprehensible. Bringing it back ontopic: Causing suffering for scientific experiments is not needless, although it needs to be balanced so that it is at least more beneficial than it is negative. In my opinion, the potential benefits far outweigh the typical amount of suffering a lab animal my go through, and so yes scientific experimentation is completely justified. Of course though, people that go to extremes and do stupid things: "I wonder how this animal will react if we start cutting off one limb at a time" sort of stupidity, are completely unjustified. The suffering they are causing, and the disgust that that would cause anyone looking on etc is far greater than anything they could really learn from doing it.


Self Adjoint, I do think that Fear is a very large part of morality. Most of the rules set up in an ethical system (PS: In case u haven't noticed, i use ethics and morals interchangebly. They mean the same thing) are to do with limiting the risk of you suffering. They are a protective layer of rules, making you feel safer. Allowing you to stop fearing for your life.

[Monique]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Definition of a pet: an animal one wouldn't eat unless to survive.[:((]

That makes most animals (including humans) pets.[o)] How about six- and eight-legged critters?? I wouldn't eat them and I don't consider them as pets.. at all :P

[lavalamp]

Another God, have you seen the film Phenomenon? It has John Travolta in it, he develops a brain tumour and it "unlocks" part of his brain and allow's him to become telekinetic and really smart etc.
The tumour is slowly killing him, the doctors say that if they operate on him, it will shorten his life (ie: the operation will kill him but he would only have a couple of days left at the most anyway), but that they could gain all kinds of scientific insight into how the brain works, how to help cure cancer and perhaps "unlock" these abilities in other people.

Well he doesn't go in for any of that and tuns off, but I'm interested to know whether you would have undergone the operation? It will benefit the human species tremendously in many different ways, but it will kill you. So what do you do?

[Another God]

Originally posted by lavalamp
It will benefit the human species tremendously in many different ways, but it will kill you. So what do you do? take care of myself. I don't give a crap about the human species. I am only interested in them in so far as they keep me alive and make my life pleasurable. Why else would we have communities? For the sake of the community? Thats circular.

We ahve communities for ourselves. And without ourselves, the community is meaningless.

[lavalamp]

So you wouldn't feel bad about not helping all of those other people with brain tumours? You'd rather that all of those poeple that you COULD have saved just died, so long as you are alive?

Or would you feel bad about it, but still prefer to live those extra couple of days? If you did feel bad about it, then wouldn't that make it morally wrong? Think of the people that would realise how selfish you had been before you answer this.

Two other related points, do you give blood? And when you die, would you like your organs to be donated to others so that they may live?

I know that as soon as I am old enough I will start giving blood and get myself a donor card (I think the age limit is 18).

[Another God]

Well, if I only had a couple of days to live, then i probably would let them experiment. But the chances of me ever giving in, and accepting that I only have a few days left to live is pretty unlikely. I am a fighter, i never give in, and death is not an option for me.

As for donating organs after death, sure, my name is down for that. This goes in line with the unnecessary suffering of animals. If I am dead, then I have no need for my organs. So by donating I am in no way helping myself, and as far as society is concerned, I am doing a good thing. If I chose not to give them though, then I am just an *******. In my opinion, society should be able to take organs from a dead body readily, without needing the permission of the dead person or their family. But I say that from my ethical point of view, with no faith in afterlife/god etc. Since some people do have these beliefs, they would disagree with me.

whatever, this gets complicated when u start talking about real people. [6)]

I have given blood, but I don't do it often. Mostly because its a pain in the arse to go out of my way and do it. I also have reservations about it: This will sound silly, but I am unsure how donating blood regularly may affect my longevity [:D]. See, I actually want to live as long as I possibly can (forever if I can), and if donating blood is limiting my immediate life span, then I won't do it. There is no evidence yet to say that it does, but its not something that anyone could really study. Its just a hypothesis i thought up based on the replicative senesence of our cells: if our cells can only replace themselve so many times: then won't taking several billions cells out of our body regularly mean that more cells need to be made to replace them... etc

[lavalamp]

Don't worry about it affecting your life span, I have a General Studies teacher (he also teaches Business Studies and Economics), he gives blood once every 3 weeks for over 30 years and he's ancient.

There are also millions of people who suffer horrific injuries, lose pints of blood and go on to lead reasonably happy, mentally scarred, lives.

I would hate to live forever, after the first 90 or so years you wouldn't able to look after yourself properly, then comes the humiliation of depending on others and all kinds of other problems.
If you're talking about staying young and living for ever, then I would not want to do that either. Times would move on, fashions would change etc. and you'd be left behind.

Maybe that's why we only live for a finite time, unlike trees which, given the right environment, can live forever.

[Another God]

you'd only get left behind if you stayed behind.

Staying with the times is up to ourselves.

[Loren Booda]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Loren Booda
Definition of a pet: an animal one wouldn't eat unless to survive.[:((]

That makes most animals (including humans) pets.[o)]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Monique,
How about six- and eight-legged critters?? I wouldn't eat them and I don't consider them as pets.. at all :P


You're missing some great lobster, soft-shelled crabs (and chocolate covered insects)! Have you ingested your maximum USDA allowed detritus today? Remember the banana bunch you buy may have housed a tarantula last week.[6)]

[Oblivion]

I am very against animal testing. I believe all life forms on earth are equal and deserve the same respect. I am however, for human testing.

[Another God]

Understandably, i assume you haven't spent the time reading the last few pages worth of posts huh?

Why do you believe all life forms on earth are equal? Where do you draw the line (or the grey area) that seperates life form from not a life form?

(You must do it somewhere. Either that or you are a lithotroph (able to make energy from inorganic materials))

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Monique
I want to ask both of you: do you live with pets? At the moment we have got 4 large dogs and 4 cats, and some other animals. Once you understand the psychology of these 'lower' animals, you'll realize we are not all that. And no, I am not projecting my feelings upon them. I don't own any pets. It wouldn't work well in my apartment. This past weekend, I house-sat for my parents and fed their cats - one didn't want me to be out of sight the entire time. He slept on my chest. I like cats.

Now a question for you - have you read any of the theory of rights? Hobbes and Locke?

Rights/morals are a really neat but sometimes difficult concept. The vast majority of people just accept them as something handed down by God when in fact you can derive them by logical proofs and experimentation very much like math and science.

[Monique]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Now a question for you - have you read any of the theory of rights? Hobbes and Locke? No, I haven't.. maybe I should. I read the world of Sofie (or whatever the english translation is) and it really made me want to read more philosofie..

[Another God]

I think its called Sophies World here. I haven't read that yet, but I don't think I should bother now, I believe it for entry level philosophy sort of people?

Philosophy is neat. Everyone should do philosophy in primary and high school. Our education system is stuffed up.

[Hurkyl]

(You must do it somewhere. Either that or you are a lithotroph (able to make energy from inorganic materials))

No! Don't eat my pet rock! [*(]

[Monique]

Originally posted by Another God
I think its called Sophies World here. I haven't read that yet, but I don't think I should bother now, I believe it for entry level philosophy sort of people?

Philosophy is neat. Everyone should do philosophy in primary and high school. Our education system is stuffed up. Yes, the book is very basic. It introduces the ideas of different philosophers in a novel style book. At the time I read the book I had no idea! what philosophy was and couldn't come up with a single philosopher. After reading the book I found out that I had known more about it than I thought, the concept was just completely unknown to me :P

Yes, I too think Philosophy should take a better position in society. There was once a Dutch television production, where an interviewer went to 26 accomplished professionals and asked them: what makes your life worth living? The series was called of Beauty and Consolation. Every interview lasted a day and they cut it into an hour. These people were so inspiring, talking about moral and purpose etc... the only show of its kind I have seen..

BUT we were talking about animal testing [6)]

[Monique]

Originally posted by Another God
I have given blood, but I don't do it often. Mostly because its a pain in the arse to go out of my way and do it. I also have reservations about it: This will sound silly, but I am unsure how donating blood regularly may affect my longevity [:D]. See, I actually want to live as long as I possibly can (forever if I can), and if donating blood is limiting my immediate life span, then I won't do it. There is no evidence yet to say that it does, but its not something that anyone could really study. Its just a hypothesis i thought up based on the replicative senesence of our cells: if our cells can only replace themselve so many times: then won't taking several billions cells out of our body regularly mean that more cells need to be made to replace them... etc Don't worry about that Another God, blood cells are made from stem cells in your bone marrow. Stem cells have active telomerase, the don't senece [:D] you should have know that [6)] or are you trying to talk your way out of something? [;)]

[Another God]

actually, i did not know that stem cells had active telomerase. Are you certain about that?

[Monique]

100% sure, hematopoetic cells have telomerase activity.. let me look it up.. I can't find the assay I once wrote about it (things got misplaced when I moved).

I had a graph from a publication which shows telomere shortening in different cell types. Stem cells and hematopoetic cells have low levels of telomerase activity which slows down the shortening on telomeres, it doesn't completely cancel it though.

[Monique]

I quickly looked up a publication which touches upon the subject:


Review article in Differentiation
Telomerase and differentiation in multicellular organisms:
Turn it off, turn it on, and turn it off again

http://www.swmed.edu/home_pages/cellbio/shay-wright/publications/differentiation%202002.pdf

There must be better, more recent papers on it..

[Monique]

Well, before you trust my words too much, go look at the following paper, it was written in 2003 and my assay probably in 99.. you might actually have a point not donating blood too much.

I briefly read the abstract and it seems that mouse have no problem regenerating blood cells in great amounts, in humans it is in fact different, the little telomerase activity doesn't seem to make much difference, decide for yourself:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12799281&dopt=Abstract

[Another God]

hmmm...yeah, well, I sorta thought that. Until you said anything I was pretty sure that in Humans at least Telomerase only works in the germ cells.... But as soon as you said anything I realised that I had no real knowledge on the topic. I probably should actually read these articles.

Give me a couple of weeks though. 4 weeks left now until I have finished my undergrad degree (except honours....still to come.)

[Greg Bernhardt]

Question, is there really an arugment about animal cruelty with animal testing? I mean there is the animal welfare act of 1985 which specificly states how animals should be treated. Obviously there are a few labs that do not follow the acts guidelines, but is that animal testings fault? That like saysing driving is bad and we should ban it because some people fail to obey speed limits.

[Loren Booda]

Some would say that testing children is cruel, too.

[notal33t]

What I had intended as being a comment on cruelty and blindness within the human race seems to have gotten out of all proportion in a discussion vis a vis animal rights and human greed. The moral highground I was attempting to define was IMHO the use of the natural resources of nature in a manner that causes the least disruption to the biosphere! I site precolombian amerindians as an example of such a culture. I believe that "science" in it's true calling is something that should further THAT end!

AN END TO THE SCIENCE OF DESTRUCTION AND WASTE!

[Moonbear]

I hope this hasn't already been brought up in this topic. I haven't read through all the posts and have debated the need for animal research so many times that I'm just too tired to do it again. Instead, there's another site that is dedicated to this topic that explains quite well the stance of researchers and status of regulations (in the US) for conducting animal research.

For anyone who wants more information about animal research and animal welfare, see the Foundation for Biomedical Research's website. http://www.fbresearch.org

In particular, there is an FAQ section that explains a number of things, including the difference between animal welfare and animal rights and why researchers are committed to promoting animal welfare. Note the emphasis that it is a priviledge of researchers to be able to use animals for improving human life, and that we have the utmost respect for those animals we use, and do everything we can to ensure their welfare.

[noratmedicine]

Hi, ive just been discussing this at 'cherub forums: animal testing good or bad?"

please see www.curedisease.net www.curedisease.com www.navs.org www.speakcampaigns.org www.mrmcmed.org www.dlrm.org www.caare.org.uk www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr www.pcrm.org www.buav.org www.nzavs.org.nz

these are mostly created by and contributed to by doctors and scientists. an important difference between medical based anti animal experimentation (vivisection) sites and pro a.e. sites is that the anti viv sites give evidence for the fact that medicine for one species cannot be reliable based on any other species and therefore human medicine cannot be based on animals

"92% of new drugs fail in clinical trials, after they have passed all the safety tests in animals" US FDA (2004) "Innovation or Stagnation, Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to new Medical Products" (36).

"A drug that is tested in animals will have a completely different effect in man. There are uncounted examples that could be cited." (Dr. med. Karlheinz Blank) Lord Platt, President of the Royal College of Physicians said "No amount of animal testing can make a drug safe because humans react differently from animals." The report of the british pharmaceutical industries expert committee on drug toxicity said "Information from one animal species cannot be taken as valid for any other. It is not a matter of balancing the cruelty and suffering of animals against the gain of humanity spared from the suffering, because that is not the choice. Animals die to enable hundreds of new drugs to be marketed annually, but the gain is to industry, not mankind." Dr Herbert Gundersheimer, "Results from animal tests are not transferable between species, and therefore cannot guarantee product safety for humans…In reality these tests do not provide protection for consumers from unsafe products, but rather are used to protect corporations from legal liability." Report of the Medical Research Council "It must be emphasized that it is impossible to extrapolate quantitatively from one species to any other species." The Lancet, "We know from drug toxicity studies that animals are very imperfect indicators of human toxicity: only clinical experience and careful control of the introduction of new drugs can tell us about their real dangers." Dr Ralph Heywood, former scientific director of huntington life sciences, one of the largest contract research laboratories in the world speaking to the CIBA Foundation said "The best guess for the correlation of adverse toxic reactions between human and animal data is somewhere between 5% and 25%" and "90% of our work is done for legal and not for scientific reasons."
So the USFDA, from drug co's own data on millions of animals over decades indicates that animals are incorrect in determining drug toxicity for humans 92% of the time. It is a legal device, not a scientific one.

Microdosing Pharmagene of Asterand are making genetically engineered drugs made for individuals as drug effects vary between humans

CANCER from Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr

"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling PhD (Two-time Nobel Prize winner). Dr A. Sabin, creator of the vaccine of his name said, "It is time to end cancer research on animals because it is not related to humans." And Dr Irwin Bross in Fundamental and Applied Toxicology "The moral is that animal model systems not only kill animals they also kill humans. There is no good factual evidence to show that the use of animals in cancer research has led to the prevention or cure of a single human cancer." And Dr J F Brailsford "During the past fifty years scientists experimenting with thousands of animals have found 700 ways of causing cancer. But they had not discovered one way of curing the disease."


Have you ever wondered why, despite the billions of dollars spent on cancer research over many decades, and the constant promise of a cure which is forever "just around the corner", cancer continues to increase?
Cancer Is Increasing

Once quite rare, cancer is now the second major cause of death in Western countries such as Australia, the U.S.A. and the United Kingdom. In the early 1940s cancer accounted for 12% of Australian deaths. (1)ref # d'Espaignet, E.T. et al., Trends in Australian Mortality 1921-1988, Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS), Canberra, 1991, p. 33

By 1992 this figure had climbed to 25.9% of Australian deaths. (2)ref # Australian Bureau of Statistics, Causes of Death, Australia 1992, ABS, Canberra, 1993, p.1

and from safer med. campaign,
Given substances are not necessarily carcinogenic to all species. Studies show that 46% of chemicals found to be carcinogenic in rats were not carcinogenic in mice. [23] If species as closely related as mice to rats do not even contract cancer similarly, it's not surprising that 19 out of 20 compounds that are safe for humans caused cancer in animals. [24]


The US National Cancer Institute treated mice growing 48 different "human" cancers with a dozen different drugs proven successful in humans, and in 30 of the cases, the drugs were useless in mice. Almost two-thirds of the mouse models were wrong. Animal experimentation is not scientific because it is not predictive.

The US National Cancer Institute also undertook a 25 year screening programme, testing 40,000 plant species on animals for anti-tumour activity. Out of the outrageously expensive research, many positive results surfaced in animal models, but not a single benefit emerged for humans. As a result, the NCI now uses human cancer cells for cytotoxic screening.[25]

Dr. Richard Klausner, as director of the US National Cancer Institute, plainly states:

"The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse... We have cured mice of cancer for decades - and it simply didn't work in humans."
refs 23# DiCarlo DrugMet Rev,15; p409-131984.
24# Mutagenesis1987;2:73-78.
25# Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science, Volume II Animal Models Svendensen and Hau (Eds.) CRC Press 1994 p4.

you are certainly correct in saying that animal tests do not identify human carcionogens, even warnings on cigarette packets were delayed for 10 years due to animal 'tests' and 180 years for arsenic, also asbestos, literally thousands of human carcinogens. legal not scientific

Re insulin/diabetes as so little funds are put into human based research compared to animal we are unlikely to learn more about it.

i agree that animal res. isn't undertaken on a whim, getting published, qualifications, income and legal protection are major motives. even noble motives though do not lead to worthwhile results ie cures or protecting humans.

AIDS. from dr ray greek http://www.navs.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7753
"According to the February 20, 2009 issue of Science:

SIVcpz, the chimpanzee virus that infected humans and triggered the AIDS epidemic, caused no harm to apes. But new data reveal that wild chimps infected with SIVcpz are more likely to die than are uninfected chimps . . . Captive chimps experimentally infected with HIV-1 typically suffer no harm, which led several researchers to propose that chimps had lived with SIVcpz for centuries and that their immune systems had evolved to coexist with the virus. But few SIVcpz- infected chimps in the wild were identified until about a decade ago . . .

We hear all the time about a new breakthrough using animals. What often goes unreported in the news is that a vast majority of these fail to translate to humans. Since HIV was isolated researchers have been experimenting with nonhuman primates seeking a vaccine or cure. Neither have been found; for humans. Many vaccines and preventive measures have been found for monkeys. Yet the NIH continues to fund experiments on a different species suffering from a different virus.

Animals are not going to be predictive for humans because:

1.
animals and humans have different genes;
2.
animals and humans control and express the same genes differently;
3.
animals and humans live in different external environments (notice that wild chimpanzees are apparently susceptible to SIVcpz while captive chimps were not);
4.
animals and humans live in different internal environments (even if we all had the same gene, how all those genes and proteins interact would be different);
5.
even if animals and humans suffered from exactly the same virus in exactly the same fashion it does not follow they will respond similarly to the same treatment because different biochemical pathways may be involved.

The above differences highlight why monkeys are no better predictors for humans than are our more distant relatives, mice. A percentage of genetic similarity does not imply predictive ability...."

[Mkorr]

Pretty strange argument since non-human animals have been predicative for humans. Do you know how medicines are tested? If you think animal testing is inefficient, you should not dare to take any medicine whatsoever, neither antibiotics or antibiotics. If you think animal testing is inefficient, you must think that modern medicine is inefficient.

Non-human animals and humans do have the same genes. In fact, if you cut out an arbitrary gene from a chimp and one from a human, the probability that they will be identical on average is quite large, not just in structure (100%), but also sequence.

Also, there is a unity of life when it comes to basal metabolic processes. This is, in fact, a very strong piece of evidence for common ancestry. Furthermore, scientists can control and modify the external and internal environment in experiments.

Of course, there are limits to what we can gain from animal testing, but they are not what you present them to be. You could have learned this from some very basic reading on the subject.

http://www.animalresearch.info/en/quick

Does animal research work?

The combined weight of many different kinds of evidence from medical and scientific history shows that animal research has played a crucial role in basic and applied research, and in the development and testing of new therapies. It is often useful to look at the role of animals in many examples from history and ask whether the same progress could have been made any other way. There are many examples on this website.

Aren’t animals different to humans?

Obviously there are differences between animals and people. But under the skin, the biology of humans and other animals, particularly mammals, is remarkably similar. We have the same organs, controlled by the same nerves and hormones, as many other species. Where there are differences, researchers know about them, and such differences can actually help scientific understanding of a particular problem.

Many animals suffer quite naturally from the same diseases as humans, and can be used to study those diseases. In other cases, researchers can use an "animal model" of a disease which is close to the human condition.

Where do medicines come from?

Most medicines and treatments are only available as a result of extensive research, development and testing over many years - often decades. The study of animals throughout this process gives valuable insights into how the healthy and diseased body works. Targets for new medicines to act on need to be identified in the body, and any undesirable effects that they cause elsewhere need to be understood. Animal studies are also used to show how a medicine is taken into, distributed and processed by the body.

Let us take a look at the misconceptions section of that website. Look what I found:

Microdosing

"Microdosing can replace animal safety tests."

Microdosing is intended to study how very small doses of potential medicines behave in human volunteers (sometimes called Phase 0 human trials). It should make the drug discovery process more efficient by highlighting earlier whether a compound is suitable. New, urgently needed medicines could be available sooner and more cheaply as a result.

If microdosing shows that certain potential medicines are poorly suited for people, it should reduce the number of animals used by eliminating these compounds from further development and testing in animals. But compounds that look promising would need further development, including animal tests.Microdosing has limitations like any other method of testing. There is no guarantee that the body's reaction to a microdose will be the same as it is to a full dose. It is a relatively new method and has yet to be fully validated, although encouraging moves in this direction are being made by scientists and regulatory authorities.

Here is HIV/AIDS

HIV & AIDS research

"25 years of primate research has failed to find vaccines, cures or treatments for AIDS."

HIV and AIDS have been difficult to tackle because the virus targets the body’s immune system, and because it mutates rapidly. Leading researchers have recently recommended that more basic research should be done to help us understand the virus better, before further vaccine trials are carried out in volunteers. While we do not yet have an effective vaccine, animal studies have been crucial in identifying the virus, developing diagnostic tests, and for producing therapies that have prolonged millions of lives.

HIV was identified in the early 1980s as a retrovirus – the class of virus that had been studied in animals, but had only been found to infect humans a short time previously. The blood test (to test blood for transfusion as well as to diagnose the disease) was developed using animals. The first treatment for HIV was shown to have activity against retroviruses in animals, and once it was shown to also be active against HIV went directly into clinical trials.

By studying monkeys with a related virus, SIV, in the first few weeks after infection, scientists were able to understand more about the virus and develop better antiretroviral medicines for HIV patients. Many now take two or three pills a day to stop the virus from reproducing while helping the immune system to recover. Animal research also played a key role in the development of post-exposure prevention that has saved many victims of needlestick injuries and other exposures to HIV.

As for your cancer quackery, I find it hard to take it seriously. The reason cancer is getting more common may be because people are getting older, thus increasing the chance that something will go wrong on the cellular level. One of the reasons that progress is slow is that "cancer" is not one thing, but a general category of many different conditions.

[mazinse]

is noratmedicine a troll, where is he getting all this specious stuff from

[noratmedicine]

The unreferenced information given to counter my claims is I presume from a pro-vivisection site. Can you show a causal and not a casual relationship between vivisection and any advance in human health. Not simply a post hoc ergo propter hoc (after that therefore because of that) argument. The references I have given have been from diverse sources including the US FDA and even Huntington Life Sciences, none of them of an animal rights nature. It is hardly surprising that those who benefit from vivisection would speak positively about it. As Upton Sinclair said "It is difficult to get a man to understand the truth when his salary depends on him not understanding it."

I have not presented any 'specious' information and the sites referred to have all been listed. If the question about where it is from is sincere I would advise one look to those sites for an answer.

The information about why it is impossible to base human medicine reliably on any species of animal is valid. Humans and cabbages have 50% DNA in common. Would you say that 50% of human diseases would be cured by cabbage experiments?

[Frame Dragger]

I love animals to the point of weeping thinking about this issue. HOWEVER, I recognize the necessity, and am familiar with the issues surrounding this. The reality is that we have a choice between human and animal lives. There is a balance that is struck, and we do exploit and kill these animals. The alternative would be to do the same to people (a practice that is already too common) which is at LEAST as morally reprehensible. I also know people who test on animals (mice, rats, cats, monkeys) and they are not bloodthirsty... I couldn't tolerate that kind of person.

Perhaps a distinction needs to be drawn for people, that life is very GREY, and this is one of the murkiest issues. YES, some financial issues are at play, and in some cases it is (or was) greed, but more often it would cost SO much to achieve current results with computer models and human testing... that many would not HAVE their medication, medical devices, etc.

The wise person who loves animals, from mice to people, has to recognize that it is no longer possible to entirely separate the fact from fiction. Moreover, consider the benefit to society, the world, and the future. Smallpox is GONE... that is amazing. Human nature may change, but no time soon. People will contract disease, or need surgery, and they will want to live, more than they want the animals that died for that tech to live. It's not right, or wrong, it's apex predation taken to a new height.
It FEELS wrong, and I have deep reservations about some of this research (especially in the realm of psych and neurobiology with which I am most familiar, and where the experiments are arguably 'cruel'), but I see no alternative at this time. If we expect to reach the point where we can spare animals AND people, we need to pass through this point.

I would also add, that people who are OUTRAGED over this issue, often neglect animals for food, abandoned pets, etc. People need to consider how selective they are being in their outrage. When I was younger I felt the same way as much of the (old) PETA organization did. I still feel terrible about matters, but I, you, me, didn't make the world or the universe, or the laws of thermodynamics. Whatever the source, we do what we have to, like the animals we are.

EDIT: @ noratmedicine: "I have not presented any 'specious' information and the sites referred to have all been listed. If the question about where it is from is sincere I would advise one look to those sites for an answer." No, you're making an argument so the burden to make it is yours. That's very basic, unless you don't actually intend to do more than "drive-by" post.
"As Upton Sinclair said "It is difficult to get a man to understand the truth when his salary depends on him not understanding it."
Indeed. How much harder when your life may depend on it? If your argument is that human nature should change, you're not making a REAL argument. Argue from the science, or the morality... not a fictional plea that people accept death or disease in place of other animals. Right or wrong, that's not effective as debate, merely a "shock tactic".

[noratmedicine]

to frame dragger, thanks for your opinion. I apologise in advance for any typing errors. you say "I love animals to the point of weeping thinking about this issue. HOWEVER, I recognize the necessity, and am familiar with the issues surrounding this. The reality is that we have a choice between human and animal lives. There is a balance that is struck, and we do exploit and kill these animals. The alternative would be to do the same to people (a practice that is already too common) which is at LEAST as morally reprehensible. I also know people who test on animals (mice, rats, cats, monkeys) and they are not bloodthirsty... I couldn't tolerate that kind of person."



If you love animals to the point of tears then you should be very pleased to find that animal experimentation does not benefit humans, in fact has the opposite effect, and can therefore be eliminated completely. "Are there alternatives to vivisection? Of course not. There are no alternatives to vivisection because any method intended to replace it should have the same qualities; but it is hard to find anything in biomedical research that is; and always was; more deceptive and misleading than vivisection. So the methods we propose for medical research should be called ‘scientific methods’… they are not ‘alternatives’".; - Prof. Croce M.D; Fulbright Scholar; Vivisection or Science: A Choice To Make; page 21. may be avail at www.dlrm.org or www.nzavs.org.nz; Professor Colin Dollery stated:; "... for the great majority of disease entities; the animal models either do not exist or are really very poor. [We risk] overlooking useful drugs because they do not give a response to the animal models commonly used."(2) Dollery; C. in Risk-Benefit Analysis in Drug Research; ed. Cavalla; 1981; p87.;

"That kind" of person you refer to is very common behind the closed doors of the animal lab, hidden film shows that lack of anaesthetic and people deriving pleasure from causing pain are not uncommon. I will leave this to the side though as supporters of animal experiments need this argument to be based on animal rights as when faced with a scientific/human health argument they have no valid response.

you say "Perhaps a distinction needs to be drawn for people, that life is very GREY, and this is one of the murkiest issues. YES, some financial issues are at play, and in some cases it is (or was) greed, but more often it would cost SO much to achieve current results with computer models and human testing... that many would not HAVE their medication, medical devices, etc."

As I have provided independent and expert information showing animal experimentation to be fraudulent you now call it "murky and grey". It is worse than this but i have no doubt that such partial admissions would not ever have been made without the quotes i included.

What current results specifically? Tell me what advances you believe animal experiments have been essential for.

Computer models, human testing, micro dosing etc are cheaper than animal experiments. The problem with real scientific methods is that they would not convey legal protection to the manufacturer. Though animal experimentation is not a legal reuirement in most of the world, historically, jurys have been duped by these animal 'tests'. Worked for thalidomide (no payouts) and still works now. As any substance including strychnine, cyanide arsenic botulin asbestos HIV infected blood ddt benzene and cigarettes to name a few, PASS animal tests needless to say any pharmaceutical/chemical/pollutant can pass it. This is how these co's get legal protection. Most of their products would fail a valid test.

Human experiments are certainly occuring, to quote Dr Moniem A Fadali MD of doctors and lawyers for responsible medicine www.dlrm.org "Animal exprimentation inevitably leads to human experimentation" Why? The animal experiment does not tell us what will happen to the human who may or may not react like the animal so the first time a drug or medical procedure is tried on a human that is a human experiment. We know the result of basing human medicine on animals; humans now have 30,000 diseases, cancer and other diseases continue a steady rise (carcinogens such as cigarettes and thousands of other substances pass animal 'tests' which only protect the financial health of the manufacturer/polluter and the animal based cancer research is an ongoing failure). "Animal studies are done for legal reasons and not for scientific reasons. The predictive value of such studies for man is meaningless."; - Dr James D. Gallagher; Director of Medical Research; Lederle Laboratories; Journal of the American Medical Association; March 14 1964.;

The public has been successfully duped into believing that this is an animal versus humans issue. It is in fact animal and humans and the environment and the economy versus profits of some very powerful industries mostly and also titles, careers, status, income, publish or perish, inertia, curiosity, easy availability of animals and convenience of using them and guilt to lesser degrees. I do not deny that there may be some (probably young) people who do animal experiments under the mistaken belief that they will cure a disease, something they have been spoonfed to believe since school and in universities, given 'donations' from drug/chem co's. They will not achieve this via animal experiments. As tens of millions of animals are killed in so called medical 'research' each year and humans have about 30,000 diseases and none are cured clearly they will not achieve this. Much money will continue to pour in to these 'charities' though and to the profits of drug co's.

you say "The wise person who loves animals, from mice to people, has to recognize that it is no longer possible to entirely separate the fact from fiction. Moreover, consider the benefit to society, the world, and the future." I agree, the fact that a human is not a rat, cat dog, monkey or any other animal and that human medicine cannot reliably be based on any ohter species would be a good fact to start with. Great beneft would come to humans and the environment when this is realised.

you say "Smallpox is GONE... that is amazing." Not really amazing though, it is the inevitable result of the elimination of disease causing conditions which comes about through epidemiology (observation of the human population), you can thank Bentham and Chadwick (and common sense) for that. Their observations of London prior to the fire enabled them to identify disease causing conditions. London and all other cities where these diseases are gone have been built in a hygenic way. Clean water, rubbish and sewage removal, clean food, asepsis.

The enforcement of vaccination laws in england and wales in 1867 lead to a 3 fold increase in smallpox deaths, peaking at 42,000 in 1872, the largest epidemic ever. Smallpox was in decline until then. The towns of Leicester and Dewsbury rejected the vaccine preferring hygeine and sanitation instead. Consequently these towns had the lowest death rates in the country.

To quote Hansard, February 1, 1964 "From 1936 to 1962, two-thirds of the children born in England and Wales were unvaccinated: of these, 4, under the age of 5, died of smallpox. Of the vaccinated group, 86, under the age of 5 were killed by the vaccination and many more seriously injured."

"Dr Charles Henry Kempe, University of Colorado, after a 20 year study Dr Kempe recommends abolishing smallpox vaccination. Since 1948 there have been no deaths from smallpox in the United States. In the same period more than 300 persons have died from smallpox vaccinations, including vaccine induced encephalitis." (The Evening Bulletin, Philadelphia, May 7, 1965) too much more for me to type.

from the campaign against fraudulent medical research www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr "Japan experienced yearly increases in small pox following the introduction of compulsory vaccines in 1872. By 1892, there were 29,979 deaths, and all had been vaccinated.[20] Early in this century, the Philippines experienced their worst smallpox epidemic ever after 8 million people received 24.5 million vaccine doses; the death rate quadrupled as a result."[21]
refs# 20 Trevor Gunn, Mass Immunization, A Point in Question, p 15 (E.D. Hume, Pasteur Exposed - The False Foundations of Modern Medicine, Bookreal, Australia, 1989.)

# 21 Physician William Howard Hay's address of June 25, 1937; printed in the Congressional Record.

"...smallpox vaccination has been followed by violent local and general reactions and by leukaemia." (Professors Aleksandrrowickz and Halileokowski, Medical Academy of Crakow, Poland, Lancet, May 6, 1967.)

"Even a procedure anchored in law, such as the smallpox vaccination, is now the subject of such strong doubts that Holland has abolished compulsory vaccination for an initial period of 2 years." (Dr Med Eckhard, Hanover, 1924)

"Dr Marmelzat, university of Southern California announced that smallpox vaccination causes cancer in the form of malignant tumours..." (front page of Medical News, 1962).

I can't be bothered typing more quotes on this. Though this one is very relevant to vivisection (animal experimentation) and vaccines, "Opinions on matters held by the public to be 'obvious', long considered natural and necessary, are only so because they are shared widely without question." Maria Chiara Giardini

you say "Human nature may change, but no time soon. People will contract disease, or need surgery, and they will want to live, more than they want the animals that died for that tech to live." Another statemnet which claims, without evidence, that we benefit from animal experiments. it is impossible to say exactly how many of the 30,000 diseases we have came from animal 'tested' substances but i certainly know that none have been cured by it. As regards surgery...
"I have never known a single good surgeon who has learned anything from vivisection." Dr Abel Desjardins, President of the Society of Surgeons of Paris, foremost surgeon of his time in France and Professor of Surgery, from Hans Ruesch's "One Thousand Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection." www.nzavs.org.nz or www.dlrm.org (vivisection is animal experimentation)

Dr Robert Lawson Tait (1845-1899) is recognised as the giant of surgical progress and the most innovative and succesful surgeon of all time. he said this, "Like every member of my profession I was bought up in teh belief that almost every important fact in physiology had been obtained by vivisection and that many of our most valued means of saving life and diminishing suffering had resulted from experiments on animals. I now know that nothing of the sort is true concerning the art of surgery; and not only do i not believe that vivisection has helped the surgeon one bit, but I know that it has often led him astray."

you say "It's not right, or wrong, it's apex predation taken to a new height." It is wrong. The predators at the top of the apex are very powerful industries predating the human and animal population and the environment for economic gain, not humans predating animals (via 'research') for the general good of humans as i presume you are implying.

"It FEELS wrong, and I have deep reservations about some of this research (especially in the realm of psych and neurobiology with which I am most familiar, and where the experiments are arguably 'cruel'), but I see no alternative at this time. If we expect to reach the point where we can spare animals AND people, we need to pass through this point."

No doubt you want to suggest, as your capital letters indicate, that opponents of animal experimentation only FEEL it to be wrong. The facts indicate that the conclusion that animal experiments are wrong is very well grounded in FACT. i.e It harms humans (and animals) on a grand scale. Prof Croce has already responded above to the use of the term 'alternative'. There are over 400 real scientific methods, ie ones which produce results which are valid for humans with consistency. see www.curedisease.net

So here are some real scientific methods; ie they are predictive for humans. for drug creation: Microdosing; ie human cell phase then micro dose in humans; ie v. small quantities given and patient monitored as dose increased; patient pref. suffers from problem to be remedied so efficacy can also be tested. makes healthier drugs as the animal testing phase is not indicative; it is a legal device.

Better again is genetically engineered drugs. a dna chip is created and drugs tailor made for individuals asterand or pharmagene are already doing this; Computers enable scientists to design and test new medicines. Though they may never be able to replicate a human patient completely; they will always reap more accurate findings than an entirely different species. Medical computers are now designing new drugs for AIDS; cancer and other diseases. There are many others. So; i am not suggesting that no tests be done; only valid ones.; re cancer; i agree there are many known causes unrelated to animal exp. such as sun; high fat diet; smoking however exposure to substances which pass animal tests such as cigarettes is certainly a cause of cancer. without epidemiological studies being done it is difficult to identify exactly which of the hundreds of thousands of artificial substances is causing cancer or other damage in humans. this type of valid research receives little funding.; These methods would decrease human mortlity as the misleading aspect is removed from drug creation. it would increase a drug companies chance of being sued as; if they chose to market a potentially harmful drug; they would not be able to rely on misleading animal data to claim that they did not know and when your product is the fourth biggest cause of death in the USA (and similar in other wealthy countries) you want legal protection.

"The only thing we have learned about human nature from 50 years of psychological research on animals is how depraved some humans will be in order to gain money, power and titles."

For the sake of brevity I would like to give you an opportunity to tell me the 5 or so greatest advances/benefits to humanity from animal experiments. After 100 years, over a billion dead animals and over a trillion dollars spent there should be some shouldn't there?

[zomgwtf]

I haven't read the entire posts put on here because they aren't very well laid out for reading on a forum lol.

I will say this though:
I think that if testing drugs on an organism whether it's a mouse, a fish, or a worm reduces the ill-effects during human trials then GO RIGHT AHEAD. As far as I know a lot of testing is done on flies, worms and rats. Most of which were bred for the single purpose of being used in the test.
I think saving a few humans from immense pains or discomfort... even death is much more important than trying to save a few other organisms.

[BoomBoom]

Computer models would be great if they were accurate and comprehensive enough to be trusted with a high level of confidence, but how do you think these computer models are to be developed? They are developed by animal testing of model organisms to determine what all the biochemical pathways are and how each effects one another (an immense undertaking, I might add). You seem to be under the impression that this already exists...and you are mistaken.

[zomgwtf]

Computer models would be great if they were accurate and comprehensive enough to be trusted with a high level of confidence, but how do you think these computer models are to be developed? They are developed by animal testing of model organisms to determine what all the biochemical pathways are and how each effects one another (an immense undertaking, I might add). You seem to be under the impression that this already exists...and you are mistaken.

Indeed computer models are no where near having the level of confidence to be depended on without testing on real living organisms.

[zomgwtf]

"That kind" of person you refer to is very common behind the closed doors of the animal lab, hidden film shows that lack of anaesthetic and people deriving pleasure from causing pain are not uncommon. I will leave this to the side though as supporters of animal experiments need this argument to be based on animal rights as when faced with a scientific/human health argument they have no valid response.

This was pretty much all I did happen to read that stood out at me and I'll just say that these forums are not the place to go around making these types of accusations. Go to a PETA forum or something, not here.

[dacruick]

Look, I don't mean to be insensitive but animals are not as important as humans. This is science, this is bettering drugs and medicines. This advancing technology and seeing what works. Plus, animal rights are an anti-evolutionary mechanism haha. But in all seriousness, and in a grand scheme of things, we are doing what we need to do to be a stronger race. Sure the little mouse is hurt when we shock it but so what. If that mouse was hungry and it could eat you, it would. Its just the way life is. Suck it up animal rights activists.

Edit: I realize I started off with "I don't mean to be insensitive" then ended it with "suck it up animal rights activists".

[iRaid]

I say why not, we learn and learning is good!

[Frame Dragger]

I say why not, we learn and learning is good!

Your response to pages of discourse, argument, and moral quandries is: "Why not?!"