Vivisection

RE*AC*TOR

Ok will check it out. On reading the abstracts, ASPM appears to be more relevant to brain size than any other processes. Also, it is present in primates (a non-human animal). Unfortuantely I don't have access to Human Molecular Genetics. The Barlow Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 October 28; 100 (22): 13030–13035, merely identifies genes upregulated in humans compared to apes, most suggest increased brain activity (which is obvious - we are smarter), many suggest increased brain longevity (we have longer life-spans). The only interesting one seems to be CAMK2A, which is involved in, learning and memory - but I don't think there was ever a disagreement that we learn / remember better than other animals.

Do you know how common a name John Smith is?

*edit* why was falkorre banned? Seems absurd!

keu

Which industry is this? Do you actually know what you are talking about here? Science research happen at 3 major distinct levels. Commercial gain applies to one of them. You have just made a gross generalisation about something you know nothing about. Please try to avoid this in your future contributions.

Thats very patronising syke..I'm glad you think mankind is no longer at the mercy of nature, unfortunately I doubt it will be long before you see evidence which suggests it is.
And while I admire your messiah complex where science saves the world, I actually believe for the most part, prolonging life which in turn increases global population is having a detrimental effect on our species as a whole. I'm not against the advance of modern medicine, I question where it is taking us. Perhaps I take the line of John Titor on this one and believe that this planet could do without 50% of its population.

While I assume you're joking, I find that you can never be sure with you.

good stuff.

GuanYin

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Ok will check it out. On reading the abstracts, ASPM appears to be more relevant to brain size than any other processes. Also, it is present in primates (a non-human animal). Unfortuantely I don't have access to Human Molecular Genetics. The Barlow Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 October 28; 100 (22): 13030–13035, merely identifies genes upregulated in humans compared to apes, most suggest increased brain activity (which is obvious - we are smarter), many suggest increased brain longevity (we have longer life-spans). The only interesting one seems to be CAMK2A, which is involved in, learning and memory - but I don't think there was ever a disagreement that we learn / remember better than other animals.

Do you know how common a name John Smith is?

*edit* why was falkorre banned? Seems absurd!

ASPM is a developmental regulator that dictates the size of the cerebral and complexity of the cerebral cortex. If you remember your neurophysiology (I think you had O'Connor and if I his lectures are unforgetable ) that is the area where all the higher conciousness functions such as awareness and reasoning take place. Only primates have it (so far) and it is far more pronounced in humans (it rises in expression up the primate ladder). Mice don't have it, thus have an under-developed cortex. You'll be pleased to know that they soon will though, as I believe they are trying to put ASPM into the mouse brain (hence PETA).

The other refs were just for your own leisure.


/aside he's banned from the site, not here, and quite justly IMHO I might add.

GuanYin

keu wrote:

Thats very patronising syke..I'm glad you think mankind is no longer at the mercy of nature, unfortunately I doubt it will be long before you see evidence which suggests it is.
And while I admire your messiah complex where science saves the world, I actually believe for the most part, prolonging life which in turn increases global population is having a detrimental effect on our species as a whole. I'm not against the advance of modern medicine, I question where it is taking us. Perhaps I take the line of John Titor on this one and believe that this planet could do without 50% of its population.



good stuff.

How is correcting you and being insulted that you passed a grave phalacy about my profession as fact, patronising? You said something which is blatently untrue, which means you made a statement about something you didn't know about.

Now you have turned to personal insults telling me I have a messiah complex. Please don't resort to your usual level of debate on boards. While I defended your position previously I don't agree with your actions. If you are going to make an argument against science, please use facts and not opinion and refrain from making personal attacks.

RE*AC*TOR

Mice do have ASPM (as do flys)..
check out http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12355089

But its really off-topic.
We are almost assuming this gene/protein confers sentience / consciousness which is a huge leap.

GuanYin

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Mice do have ASPM (as do flys)..
check out http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12355089

But its really off-topic.
We are almost assuming this gene/protein confers sentience / consciousness which is a huge leap.

I knew you'd say that.

Alas, No, mice have Aspm, which is not ASPM and thats where the crux lies

Well no, we are inferring size and development of cortex infers sentience and conciousness and there is a very very large body of evidence to support this.

RE*AC*TOR

Ok, i still think its a leap.

But one more thought (for now), you seem to be precariously balancing two things to suit your (mankind's) desires. Mice are sufficiently similar to be valid for experiments, but sufficiently different, so its not an ethical problem....

keu

How is correcting you and being insulted that you passed a grave phalacy about my profession as fact, patronising?

while this is an issue in humanities, i do believe that the issue is one of morality, I apologise for not having a degree in science or some related subject, which i feel I shouldnt have to do and I dont appreciate the patronising statements which insinuates I dont know what im talking about because of that.

Now you have turned to personal insults telling me I have a messiah complex. Please don't resort to your usual level of debate

your hardly short of a few snide comments yourself syke. I don't believe that scientific fact equates to moral opinion. Something that is lacking within the scientific community.
In ten years time I feel you will have a very different opinion, but until then feel free to continue saving the world.

RE*AC*TOR

Good point keu, this is turning into a scientific debate, whereas that's not where I wanted it to go. Science and morals are two seperate fields. But I appreciate all the input here (from everyone). Now, c'mon, group-hug!

keu

reactor..if you think there is a way that these experiments can be done without the use of animals, why don't you spearhead that kind of development. (never know you might wina nobel prize for it)
in the meantime, if your career is dependant upon it, your going to have to compromise somehow..if it were me in the position if I thought it were for the best of intentions and could in some way jusitfy the reasons for it I would go ahead and do it. (remove the guilty conscience)

GuanYin

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Ok, i still think its a leap.

But one more thought (for now), you seem to be precariously balancing two things to suit your (mankind's) desires. Mice are sufficiently similar to be valid for experiments, but sufficiently different, so its not an ethical problem....

you can compare and contrast any two things to suit your needs.

While they offer a physiological vehicle to compare biological phenomenon by both being mammals, they don't have the same highly developed cognative ability we do.

Any mammal could be used for most experiments, mice are deemed most ethical (or least un-ethical).

GuanYin

keu wrote:

while this is an issue in humanities, i do believe that the issue is one of morality, I apologise for not having a degree in science or some related subject, which i feel I shouldnt have to do and I dont appreciate the patronising statements which insinuates I dont know what im talking about because of that.
your hardly short of a few snide comments yourself syke. I don't believe that scientific fact equates to moral opinion. Something that is lacking within the scientific community.
In ten years time I feel you will have a very different opinion, but until then feel free to continue saving the world.

No your making this about you and me.

You said animal research fuels a commerical industry. This is false. Hence you made a comment you didn't know anything about. Why can't you just accept this instead of resorting to making it about personal differences?

You do this alot, its probably why people post the posts that you feel are picking on you.

keu

no your making this between you and me, i'm not sure which "fact" i made, that you didnt agree with.
You do this alot, its probably why people post the posts that you feel are picking on you.
this is the second time you've done this, take it to pm syke. YOu were the one who upheld a motion in christianity last week,,,YOu were the one who complained about it..I didnt give a sh!t...understand?
and the other poster (there has been two..its not like its a regular thing, so stop trying to make out like it is) was also of a scientific background, valid reasoning and scientific reasoning are two different things are far as I am concerned, but try explaining that to those who hold science as a religion.

keu

You said animal research fuels a commerical industry.

no I didn't I said..

I'm making a point about the neccesity of it in order to support an industry which is driven by survival on a mainly commercial level.

I didn't state facts. I expressed an opinion.
If your killing mice so that people can put on face cream, or wash their hair, then I find that unessesary. If your killing mice in order to help find a cure cancer then it might be considered neccesary. The intentions are different. You interpreted it like this....

you passed a grave phalacy about my profession as fact,

It wasn't a personal thing, you made it that way.

GuanYin

keu wrote:

no I didn't I said..
I didn't state facts. I expressed an opinion.
If your killing mice so that people can put on face cream, or wash their hair, then I find that unessesary. If your killing mice in order to help find a cure cancer then it might be considered neccesary. The intentions are different. You interpreted it like this....

Thanks for the claification, just so you know, industry is accountable for about 40% of research money in Europe and of that about a quater of it is acadmemic or medical collaboration.

If you want to confirm this, think how many Irish biotech/pharma companies in Ireland employ researchers.

Cosmetic animal testing is few and far between these days (most use existing formulations that were tested on animals, but little testing is still done) and yes I am talking about animal experimentation for medical research.

Just another thing to consider. There are both local and national ethics commitees which examine each research project on a case by case basis and decide if the research is worthwhile enough to justify the experiment and also that the animal is always treated as humanely as possible. They also ensure all researchers have an animal handling licence.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

GuanYin

merc wrote:

Ill call syke a troll so.

As was said by him good self to fallkore..

Now was that easy cos the guy is in a wheel chair and suffers on a daily basis from his dilapidating illness???.. or easy cos he was "easy pickings" as he has a vested intresest in this all. All be it that its expressd in some what of an emotional manner?

Syke = "slight tip of a penis" Note the mild flamming.

Full flamming would have been calling him a dick head. Which I am glad I avoided. I'd be in deep sh1t other wise!

Jaysus, if thats your best attempt to wind me up your gonna sorely disappointed.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

GuanYin

merc wrote:

Nah.

I dont do disappointed.

Only lameness it seems

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

GuanYin

merc wrote:

True.

On the other hand i would not have liked to have been fallkore. Cos what you said would have cut tbh.
he didnt come here for a row. He came here to say his bit.

Hope it feels good.

Perhaps if he'd stuck to "saying his bit" then he wouldn't have felt cut.

Didn't feel good or bad to be honest, although it amuses me to think that perhaps if he's been smarter he wouldn't have sent me the abusive messages that got him banned from boards.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

RE*AC*TOR

syke wrote:

Perhaps if he'd stuck to "saying his bit" then he wouldn't have felt cut.

Didn't feel good or bad to be honest, although it amuses me to think that perhaps if he's been smarter he wouldn't have sent me the abusive messages that got him banned from boards.

Well I must say, I thought he was given a bit of provocation in fairness. Its fairly easy to tell that you (syke) and he (falkorre) don't get on. I don't know what he sent, so I can't really comment on it, all I can say is that if I was him I would've wanted to send you a bit of abuse (although I hope I would have resisted the urge in that scenario).

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

RE*AC*TOR

merc wrote:

Sorry by the way React/mods.

Was a good thread.

no probs, 'tis dead now anyway

GuanYin

merc wrote:

Perhaps his smartness was predisposed and he had no choice.

what yah gonna do?

Eradicate them all?

Pump them full of drugs to make "them keep up?"

Everyone has choice, always. Anyway merc, while I enjoy your posts, you're not going to wind me up so ya may as well try it at a time thats less obvious. And probably not over a sunject matter where I could pull up about 20 instances of you doing what you accuse me of to some poor blighter (the thread with the guy who had a petition for his wife to do washing was a good one).

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Well I must say, I thought he was given a bit of provocation in fairness. Its fairly easy to tell that you (syke) and he (falkorre) don't get on. I don't know what he sent, so I can't really comment on it, all I can say is that if I was him I would've wanted to send you a bit of abuse (although I hope I would have resisted the urge in that scenario).

I think anyone can argue their point without the need to resort to obscene messages, don't you?

I mean merc is trying to provoke me here and you don't see me going postal

merc wrote:

Sorry by the way React/mods.

Was a good thread.

I'm just riled

yeah, I'm sure you could picked a better place to troll me

Still, I'm sure merc the avenger, righter of wrongs and and guardian of the meek will be watching over me

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

RE*AC*TOR

syke wrote:

I think anyone can argue their point without the need to resort to obscene messages, don't you?

I mean merc is trying to provoke me here and you don't see me going postal

Absolutely, i agree. I'll just say from my point of view, you precipitated the agro, which led to him (foolishly) sending you some abuse (although he did propose to be leaving boardsie anyway so maybe not that foolishly), which led to him getting banned.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

amp

Back on topic