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

Animal Testing

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    ScumLord
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #33
    Red Hand
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #34
    Mr. Incognito
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #35
    humanji
    Registered Users 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!


  • Options
    #36
    Reku
    Registered Users 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
  • Options
    #37
    oneeyedsnake
    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.


  • Options
    #38
    oneeyedsnake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭oneeyedsnake


    Against
    danielle_door wrote: »
    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.


  • Options
    #39
    Aard
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #40
    oneeyedsnake
    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!!!


  • Options
    #41
    Nevyn
    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
  • Options
    #42
    Terry
    Registered Users Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    Against
    oneeyedsnake wrote: »
    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.
    oneeyedsnake wrote: »
    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.


  • Options
    #43
    faceman
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,584 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.


  • Options
    #44
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,215 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    oneeyedsnake wrote: »
    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.


  • Options
    #45
    bleg
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #46
    HammerHeadGym
    Registered Users 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?


  • Options
    #47
    HammerHeadGym
    Registered Users 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?


  • Options
    #48
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    danielle_door wrote: »
    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.


  • Options
    #49
    Sonnenblumen
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #50
    JC 2K3
    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.


  • Options
    #51
    MooseJam
    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
  • Options
    #52
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 16,720 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    If animals wish to sit the Junior and Leaving Certificates, who am I to stop them?


  • Options
    #53
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Against
    I'm all for testing on animals for medical research, even to the point of LD50 tests. Without animal research we wouldn't now be using insulin and many other important drugs.

    However, shampoos and makeup can be made without tests on animals.
    When I buy shampoos I check it for "No animal tests" labels. It's a small way not to support unnecessary cruelty.


  • Options
    #54
    JohnnyStones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 306 ✭✭JohnnyStones


    Dudess wrote: »
    You would have fit right in in 30s Berlin. Oh wait...
    • even the Nazis disagreed with cruelty to animals
    .

    Where you hear that?
    no they didn't!!:p

    and why are you sticking up for nazi's anyway?


  • Options
    #55
    MooseJam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,111 ✭✭✭MooseJam


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    Hitler loved his doggy


  • Options
    #56
    JohnnyStones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 306 ✭✭JohnnyStones


    MooseJam wrote: »
    Hitler loved his doggy

    Yeah he loved it doggy style as well i believe:)


  • Options
    #57
    Outer Bongolia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 258 ✭✭Outer Bongolia


    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.

    I think I saw that movie, was that the one with Steven Seagal? He had to break into the Russian compound to rescue the poor chimp but in his way was Rutger Hauer with a sub-machine gun? That was very sad alright.

    I don't agree with Cosmetic testing because it involves causing unnecessary pain to an innocent animal in the interests of superficiality and vanity. However, speaking about Russia again, they often subject bears to very rigorous heat resistance tests. These tests are valuable in enlightening us about the effects of extreme temperatures on the physical and mental state. These tests also contribute to the local economy, as bets can be placed and T-shirts sold of the Bear walking over the hot coals. The footage can then be copyrighted and mass-produced for sale to international television markets and entertainment shows such as 'Animals do the silliest things' and 'When Bears attack'. Reminds me of a test they did in China about twenty years ago to test the connection between animal cerebral response times and tomatoes. 120 Panda bears were given a three week course explaining the danger of following a moving tomato and subjected to electro-shock tests which tried to make them understand that if they followed a rolling tomato down a flight of stairs then they would suffer and if they held back, they would be rewarded. The final stage of the test involved placing a Panda Bear at the top of a flight of stairs and rolling a tomato down the stairs. If the panda followed the tomato to the bottom then it would be punished with two hollow point bullets to the brain. From what I remember, out of the 120 Panda bears tested, 119 of them followed the tomato and were dispatched accordingly. 1 Panda followed the tomato but had a heart attack halfway down the stairs. Subsequent investigations established that this panda bear died from a massive heart attack caused by a high cholesterol diet. It turned out that the night watchman of the panda compound, Chung Si Heu, was particularly enamoured with this particular Panda and treated him to a full pack of sausages every night. This was a mistake, as panda bears are not capable of handling such high-fat food.

    Anyway, I think that animal testing is valuable in the field of medical science.


  • Options
    #58
    Reku
    Registered Users Posts: 3,766 ✭✭✭Reku


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    Just to point out to all those who are praising animal testing in the cosmetics industry and how it lets you know you'll be safe: It doesn't, it only checks for short term issues, many cosmetics still result in a slow build up of toxins in and on the body. Even what type of deodorant you use can be tested for by checking Aluminium content of your hair, Aluminium is suspected to play a part in Alzheimers.


  • Options
    #59
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    Against
    Dudess wrote: »
    You would have fit right in in 30s Berlin. Oh wait... even the Nazis disagreed with cruelty to animals.

    From Animal testing to Nazis in 44 posts.. is this a new record?


  • Options
    #60
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,082 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    Against, I don't hold another animals life to be of any less value than yours. If I was in favour of animal testing I would be in favour of testing you.

    I love how so many of you are against animal testing for cosmetics etc and, of course, use them without a second thought.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    aidan24326
    Registered Users Posts: 5,925 ✭✭✭aidan24326


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    bleg wrote: »
    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.

    Perhaps the no-brainer here is your good self. Animals without a consciessness you say, really? Maybe you'd like to define consciousness for us. Whether or not an animal is 'conscious' in the same way as us in not the issue, what matters is said animal's capacity to suffer. That many animals used in labs around the world can and do suffer severe physical pain and mental distress is a fact, often for non-essential cosmetics and household chemicals.

    Adult chimps are known to have cognitive and emotional capacity not dissimilair to a young child. Thankfully use of chimps is banned in the EU but the US military still use them in research labs. Is it then ok to experiment on a young human? If not why not? Where do we draw the line, at dogs, mice, rats?

    Those who consider our torture of animals as acceptable due to us being the dominant species might want to reconsider that attitude. What if we weren't? What if some advanced aliens needed a bunch of lab rats and deciced that we humans would fit the bill? Those who dismiss the suffering of animals should then be first in line to volunteer themselves as lab specimens. I'm not saying there should be absolutely no testing done, but we can take measures to minimise any suffering involved, which doesn't happen in alot of places. Even in medical research some of the animal testing that goes on is of questionable value.


Advertisement