Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Animal Testing

  • 17-10-2007 11:32pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,814 ✭✭✭


    In general, are you for or against animal testing? I'm in the middle of some fairly heated debates about this at the minute.

    From where I'm standing, millions upon millions of people have been saved by the medical breakthroughs made possible by animal testing, so its worth experimenting upon and then killing however many rats/monkeys.

    What's your view? Do you weigh an animals life above a humans?

    Let the debate commence.

    Animal testing - For or Against? 113 votes

    For
    0%
    Against
    64%
    c0rk3rsuper_furryBottle_of_SmokeAngryBadgerRabiesWackerStargalBlistermanGuy:IncognitoeirebhoySean^DCT4andrewBig Earsmise_me_feinthelordofcheeseHydroquinoneCathyMoranolaolaPadraig MorTerry 73 votes
    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    35%
    impChad ghostaltwandapretty-in-pinkcormiecenter15logicSuaimhneachUser45701RekuPurpleFistMixermeekaGlowingTar.AldarionNightwishtallusxzantiroberta cEndurance ManMawg 40 votes


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 44,029 ✭✭✭✭Basq


    Heh.. the thread title reminds me of a Stephen Fry quote:

    "I think animal testing is a terrible idea; they get all nervous and give the wrong answers"

    Stephen Fry is a legend... a man who has gotten wiser and funnier as he's gotten older. Just watch QI.

    Have no real opinion on the actual topic.. but probably cos i'm not too knowledgable on it. I could say i'm against it just for the sake of it but i truly don't know if the pros outweight the cons.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,814 ✭✭✭TPD


    Against
    I'd say one pro would be all the people that are alive today because they were either saved by antibiotics, or their parents were.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 848 ✭✭✭MayMay


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    Whatever about testing for medical reasons, what about testing for cosmetics? Now that's wrong!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,154 ✭✭✭Oriel


    basquille wrote: »
    Heh.. the thread title reminds me of a Stephen Fry quote:

    "I think animal testing is a terrible idea; they get all nervous and give the wrong answers"

    I was going to post that exact quote. I couldn't agree more about him.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,238 ✭✭✭humbert


    Against
    MayMay wrote: »
    Whatever about testing for medical reasons, what about testing for cosmetics? Now that's wrong!

    I'd agree with that. Nobody wants to see a monkey all dolled up with makeup.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,100 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    humbert wrote: »
    Nobody wants to see a monkey all dolled up with makeup.

    Speak for yourself.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,575 ✭✭✭junkyard


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    I'm against it, as far as I'm concerned we're all in the same boat and shouldn't subject any animal to suffering. There are plenty humans out there that, if you paid them enough, you could do all the testing you'll ever need.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,834 ✭✭✭Sonnenblumen


    junkyard wrote: »
    I'm against it, as far as I'm concerned we're all in the same boat and shouldn't subject any animal to suffering. There are plenty humans out there that, if you paid them enough, you could do all the testing you'll ever need.


    Yeah, lets start with the ones with the small brains.


  • Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,100 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    Yeah, lets start with the ones with the small brains.

    Animals have small brains, lets start with them.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Despite advances in other types of testing it's still essential for medical tests.

    Non-essential for cosmetics especially eye tests and LD50 tests.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,814 ✭✭✭TPD


    Against
    I said animal testing in general, you have to weigh the cosmetic tests against the medical tests.

    Personally I'm against cosmetic testing, but if it's all or nothing then I'm voting for all.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,959 ✭✭✭Nala


    For animal medicines: yes, but only if the animal has a decent standard of life.

    For cosmetics: absolutely not.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,983 ✭✭✭leninbenjamin


    i'm not against as long as there are certain conditions attached. sure don't other species "toy" with other animals in their learning how to hunt activities. i just think we should treat them better while they are alive, don't keep a monkey in a 3x3x3feet enclosure all it's life.

    Edit: on second thought, my original post could be badly misconstrued.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,005 ✭✭✭Creature


    Pharmaceutical - Yes it's a necessary evil.

    Cosmetics - Hell no.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Yes! It's one of the perks of being the dominant species on the planet :cool:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 149 ✭✭ryanairzer


    My brain says yes but my heart "How could you a bunny wabbit? YOU MONSTER!!!"

    Bunny wabbits. :(

    Maybe only the ugly animals should be used??


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,391 ✭✭✭arbeitsscheuer


    Creature wrote: »
    Pharmaceutical - Yes it's a necessary evil.

    Cosmetics - Hell no.
    This reflects my sentiments also.

    BBC2 reflected on this moral dilemma of animal rights v medical progress in their documentary called "Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing". Think it aired sometime last year.

    Just did a search on it, here's a linkyMonkeys, Rats and Me


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,800 ✭✭✭Senna


    humbert wrote: »
    Nobody wants to see a monkey all dolled up with makeup.

    http://graphics.stanford.edu/~erang/Album/Other_Album/monkey_makeup.jpg

    I dont know, seen worse out on a Saturday night.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,243 ✭✭✭✭Jesus Wept


    humbert wrote: »
    I'd agree with that. Nobody wants to see a monkey all dolled up with makeup.
    Speak for yourself.

    I'd hit it.

    :eek:


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,335 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Was near one of those debates a few weeks ago in a javahouse near a university campus. One of the anti-testing advocates was eating a Big Mac while he drank his java. He also had a leather belt on, and parts of his trainers were made of leather. I was biting my lip trying not to say something about the cow that was raised for his beef, belt and shoes (And before someone pounces and calls me a vegie, I just finished eating my beef kung pow and chicken with mushrooms fast food and loved every bite). Grrrrrrr!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,814 ✭✭✭TPD


    Against
    Was near one of those debates a few weeks ago in a javahouse near a university campus. One of the anti-testing advocates was eating a Big Mac while he drank his java. He also had a leather belt on, and parts of his trainers were made of leather. I was biting my lip trying not to say something about the cow that was raised for his beef, belt and shoes (And before someone pounces and calls me a vegie, I just finished eating my beef kung pow and chicken with mushrooms fast food and loved every bite). Grrrrrrr!

    There was probably more than one cow in his burger and shoes.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,766 ✭✭✭Reku


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    Personally I'd actually be against it as:
    1. testing of cosmetics, perfumes and stuff such as viagra are not saving lives in a worthy sense, only in that people who CHOOSE to use them won't die.
    2. human testing is still required as there is no animal that is a perfect match in biochemistry to humans
    3. since human testing will be required regardless they could use this for all testing, the only reason that they don't is that the extra safety required for such tests would slow things down compared to doing as much of the testing as possible on animals, this is the real reason for animal testing, simple return on investment. The quicker they can get their product approved and on the shelves the quicker they can start earning from it and the more time they have before the patent on drug runs out and they have to tweak it just to keep people buying it as opposed to the cheaper but equally effective knock-off of it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,943 ✭✭✭Burning Eclipse


    Against
    TPD wrote: »
    Personally I'm against cosmetic testing, but if it's all or nothing then I'm voting for all.

    Sums up my thoughts on the matter perfectly.

    Crazy thing in, I think it was Cambridge... possibly Oxford, recently. The university was building a lab where testing on animals was going to be carried out. Obviously being a university it was for medical purposes, but the animal rights activists were sending death-threats to the builders... Sort of a twisted view on the value of human life.

    "Your building a place where animals may be hurt, I'm going to murder you for it"


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,335 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    farohar wrote: »
    Personally I'd actually be against it as:
    1. testing of cosmetics,
    Our current culture pressures women to use makeup. Glad I don't need much! But there does need to be some kind of testing, if not animal. There have been contaminants found in some imports that can be very harmful to one's overall health (not just the skin or looks).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭oneeyedsnake


    Against
    Senna wrote: »
    http://graphics.stanford.edu/~erang/Album/Other_Album/monkey_makeup.jpg

    I dont know, seen worse out on a Saturday night.

    So have I,it was your ma!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 988 ✭✭✭Prefect_1998


    all i want to know is, whats vivisection, see some pretty disturbing images, someone explain why it is needed today?


    thanks
    danielle


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 988 ✭✭✭Prefect_1998


    Vivisection is experimentation on living animals.

    Rats, mice, frogs, cats, dogs, monkeys and many others are used for vivisection. Some animals are bred especially for laboratories, others are trapped in the wild. In some countries stolen pets and strays are used. As well as its use in 'pure' research, vivisection is used in developing new surgical procedures, testing new drugs, conducting psychological experiments, and in toxicity testing of innumerable household, cosmetic, agricultural and other products. Live animals are also used in testing weapons, in space research, in vehicle safety testing and for many other purposes.

    Often vivisection is very painful, both physically and mentally. Animals are locked away, often alone, in cages awaiting their turn to be poisoned, burned, blinded, injured, mutilated, starved, force-fed, sent mad, irradiated, given cancer, infected with diseases, turned into drug addicts and subjected to all kinds of painful procedures, often ending in death. Every hour 20,000 animals die in the world's laboratories.

    In Ireland, experiments, including painful ones, are allowed under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, administered by the Department of Health. Most animal experiments are done without anaesthetic. In Ireland and some other countries, the law requires that, in experiments involving surgery the animal must be anaesthetised but in most of these cases the animal is allowed to recover for observation, and there can be severe suffering at this stage. In Ireland, the UK and some other countries the law imposes some minimal restrictions on animal experiments but these can be easily circumvented. Experiments still cause appalling suffering and distress. In many countries there are no restrictions whatever, and anyone can do anything at all to animals in a laboratory.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,798 ✭✭✭Mr. Incognito


    Against
    Why ask the question if you're going to answer it? I think this thread has been infiltrated by an animal activist- Run, here comes the moral stick beating!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    Against
    Ok. I'm going to step in here now and state that AH will not be used as a platform for animal rights activists.
    If you want ot fight the good fight, then use Humanities.

    Yes. I do see the irony in the name.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,274 ✭✭✭Orlee


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    MayMay wrote: »
    Whatever about testing for medical reasons, what about testing for cosmetics? Now that's wrong!

    Agreed


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    I'm not against animal testing but I would like to see some rules put in place to improve the quality of life. It's not allot to ask really, give them nice spaces to live in.

    I seen a documentary years ago about a research chimp, I think he's name was bobo. It was raised to understand sign language in a nice research place where they didn't cut up animals it was more about researching chimp intelligence. That group lost it's funding and the chimp was sold onto a medical research place over the years he was infected with all sorts of stuff and then sold onto a traveling circus but because he was infected with hepC he couldn't mix with the other chimps. The saddest part was when the researcher that taught him sign language (was like a father to the chimp) came to visit him after 15 years. The chimp knew him and started signing straight away. When the researcher had to leave it was one of the saddest things I've ever seen on tv ever.

    That would turn anyone off animal research but it is a necessary evil, it just shouldn't have to be so evil.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,986 ✭✭✭Red Hand


    For medicines, yes, there should be testing, but I'm not sure how one can justify testing for cosmetics, other than saying you need FDA approval. They are totally non-essential in most cases.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,798 ✭✭✭Mr. Incognito


    Against
    I seen a documentary years ago about a research chimp, I think he's name was bobo. It was raised to understand sign language in a nice research place where they didn't cut up animals it was more about researching chimp intelligence. That group lost it's funding and the chimp was sold onto a medical research place over the years he was infected with all sorts of stuff and then sold onto a traveling circus but because he was infected with hepC he couldn't mix with the other chimps. The saddest part was when the researcher that taught him sign language (was like a father to the chimp) came to visit him after 15 years. The chimp knew him and started signing straight away. When the researcher had to leave it was one of the saddest things I've ever seen on tv ever.

    You have ruined my day. Thast is possibly the saddest thing I have ever heard. That's it, starting tomorrow no more chimp sandwiches.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    TPD wrote: »
    There was probably more than one cow in his burger and shoes.
    It was from MacDonalds, so I'd say nothing close to a cow has ever been near the burger!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,766 ✭✭✭Reku


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    SetantaL wrote: »
    You have ruined my day. Thast is possibly the saddest thing I have ever heard. That's it, starting tomorrow no more chimp sandwiches.

    Would have been sadder if instead of Bobo they had Oliver IMO. Still, quite a sad story alright...


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭oneeyedsnake


    Against
    ScumLord wrote: »
    I seen a documentary years ago about a research chimp, I think he's name was bobo. It was raised to understand sign language in a nice research place where they didn't cut up animals it was more about researching chimp intelligence. That group lost it's funding and the chimp was sold onto a medical research place over the years he was infected with all sorts of stuff and then sold onto a traveling circus but because he was infected with hepC he couldn't mix with the other chimps. The saddest part was when the researcher that taught him sign language (was like a father to the chimp) came to visit him after 15 years. The chimp knew him and started signing straight away. When the researcher had to leave it was one of the saddest things I've ever seen on tv ever.

    ROFL, like anyone could give a fuc.I hope the chimp got his hep c from violent rape by a big buck gorilla. This thread reminds me of the animal rights activists that were sat out side my lecture building the other week, all they got were a load of sniggers and when they approached me with their propaganda I tore it up right in their face ,feicin hippies. For the record I think animal testing is great especially the stress test were they put a hamster on a hot plate and increase the temperature at a set rate till the little bugger dies. I fully support animal testing for both pharmaceuticals and cosmetics and don't mind a spot of fox hunting now and again either.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭oneeyedsnake


    Against
    In many countries there are no restrictions whatever, and anyone can do anything at all to animals in a laboratory.

    Good,as it should be.It saves peoples lives and increases our standard of living.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Against
    100% pro animal testing. For medicinal purposes - i couldn't give a rat's a$$ if some animals die for a cure for cancer (or other illness). And as far as cosmetics go, I don't feel bad if some animals die just so I can look/smell fabulous.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭oneeyedsnake


    Against
    Aard wrote: »
    100% pro animal testing. For medicinal purposes - i couldn't give a rat's a$$ if some animals die for a cure for cancer (or other illness). And as far as cosmetics go, I don't feel bad if some animals die just so I can look/smell fabulous.

    Damn straight,nuke the whales!!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    It depends on what type animal testing an what is being tested.

    I disagree with animal testing for cosmetics and shampoos ect
    but not for medical treatments.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    Against
    ROFL, like anyone could give a fuc.I hope the chimp got his hep c from violent rape by a big buck gorilla. This thread reminds me of the animal rights activists that were sat out side my lecture building the other week, all they got were a load of sniggers and when they approached me with their propaganda I tore it up right in their face ,feicin hippies. For the record I think animal testing is great especially the stress test were they put a hamster on a hot plate and increase the temperature at a set rate till the little bugger dies. I fully support animal testing for both pharmaceuticals and cosmetics and don't mind a spot of fox hunting now and again either.
    Aard wrote: »
    100% pro animal testing. For medicinal purposes - i couldn't give a rat's a$$ if some animals die for a cure for cancer (or other illness). And as far as cosmetics go, I don't feel bad if some animals die just so I can look/smell fabulous.
    Good,as it should be.It saves peoples lives and increases our standard of living.

    Just as I will not give a platform to animal rights activists, I will also not give a platform for this crap.
    Watch your wording.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,647 CMod ✭✭✭✭faceman


    Animal testing is permitted and legally required before medicienes can be tested on humans. There are laws and standards surrounding how its done but like anything they need to be reviewed and accurately audited to ensure that the testing is carried out in as humane a way as possible.

    I also disagree with animal testing on cosmetics but im not sure of how legal requirements work on this area. I do remember seeing some research done into a well known high street store who pride themselves on their products and cosmetics not being tested on animals. The researchers discovered that while the products were not tested on animals, some of the ingredients in them were. The high street store failed to comment on it. That was a few years ago and for obvious reasons i wont mention names.

    There is an animal activist group that is very active in ireland and the uk that go so far that they threaten the employees of pharmaceutical companies (in ireland and the UK) who work for companies that do business with the labs that do animal testing.

    What annoyed me those most was a local newspaper in the D15 region got wind of a protest one year and did a big front page spread on the event calling talking about the terrible testing that went on in the company that they were protesting outside. The thing was, that the company in question didnt do animal testing as they were a different part of the production side of pharamceutical products!

    If activists want to change the law, they need to do it through TD's and the EU, not by threatening people the way some of them do.

    Also making the poll on this thread public was unnecessary.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    ROFL, like anyone could give a fuc.I hope the chimp got his hep c from violent rape by a big buck gorilla. This thread reminds me of the animal rights activists that were sat out side my lecture building the other week, all they got were a load of sniggers and when they approached me with their propaganda I tore it up right in their face ,feicin hippies. For the record I think animal testing is great especially the stress test were they put a hamster on a hot plate and increase the temperature at a set rate till the little bugger dies. I fully support animal testing for both pharmaceuticals and cosmetics and don't mind a spot of fox hunting now and again either.
    You would have fit right in in 30s Berlin. Oh wait... even the Nazis disagreed with cruelty to animals.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,848 ✭✭✭bleg


    Against
    it's pretty much a no brainer, do you want to put the lives of human beings at risk to test a highly experimental compound, people with friends and family who care deeply about them. on the other hand do you want to test it on animals without a consciousness?


    as i say, no brainer. anybody who thinks otherwise should put themselves forward for testing, that would strengthen up the gene pool.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭HammerHeadGym


    Against
    I'm all for it. Though I think there should be information sharing regarding new chemicals to prevent each cosmetics lab doing the same tests, which I always felt was kind of redundant. Apart from that though, fuck 'em. It's not like we have a shortage on rats is it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭HammerHeadGym


    Against
    Thaedydal wrote: »
    ...I disagree with animal testing for cosmetics and shampoos...

    Just out of intrest, do you wear make up? Use product in your hair, etc?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Vivisection is experimentation on living animals.

    Rats, mice, frogs, cats, dogs, monkeys and many others are used for vivisection. Some animals are bred especially for laboratories, others are trapped in the wild. In some countries stolen pets and strays are used. As well as its use in 'pure' research, vivisection is used in developing new surgical procedures, testing new drugs, conducting psychological experiments, and in toxicity testing of innumerable household, cosmetic, agricultural and other products. Live animals are also used in testing weapons, in space research, in vehicle safety testing and for many other purposes.

    Often vivisection is very painful, both physically and mentally. Animals are locked away, often alone, in cages awaiting their turn to be poisoned, burned, blinded, injured, mutilated, starved, force-fed, sent mad, irradiated, given cancer, infected with diseases, turned into drug addicts and subjected to all kinds of painful procedures, often ending in death. Every hour 20,000 animals die in the world's laboratories.

    In Ireland, experiments, including painful ones, are allowed under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, administered by the Department of Health. Most animal experiments are done without anaesthetic. In Ireland and some other countries, the law requires that, in experiments involving surgery the animal must be anaesthetised but in most of these cases the animal is allowed to recover for observation, and there can be severe suffering at this stage. In Ireland, the UK and some other countries the law imposes some minimal restrictions on animal experiments but these can be easily circumvented. Experiments still cause appalling suffering and distress. In many countries there are no restrictions whatever, and anyone can do anything at all to animals in a laboratory.


    Christ, that was HOT.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,834 ✭✭✭Sonnenblumen


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    It depends on what type animal testing an what is being tested.

    I disagree with animal testing for cosmetics and shampoos ect
    but not for medical treatments.

    Not really as simple as that, I mean there are many products that are not strictly medicinal or cosmetic, a few simple example would be:

    - anti-dandruff shampoos
    - extreme weather skin gels
    - deodorant (personal hygiene)

    Nobody supports gratuitious animal testing, but to deny we require it is to try and deny the hierarchial order that is intrinsically part of the evoltionary process. In the final analysis the beast serves man for the greater good.

    There's nobody more blind that a person who doesn't want to see.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Sure if they didn't test them, then they mightn't work and you'd have to send them back.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,111 ✭✭✭MooseJam


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    absolutely not, animals are soft and fluffy and cute, in contrast sick people are usually ugly and smelly, save the animals , sick people be damned


  • Advertisement
Advertisement