Animal Testing

TPD

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

AlmightyCushion

humbert wrote: »

Nobody wants to see a monkey all dolled up with makeup.

Speak for yourself.

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.

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.

AlmightyCushion

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

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

Animals have small brains, lets start with them.

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.

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.

Nala

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

For cosmetics: absolutely not.

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.

Creature

Pharmaceutical - Yes it's a necessary evil.

Cosmetics - Hell no.

Dave!

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

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??

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

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.

Jesus Wept

humbert wrote: »

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

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Speak for yourself.

I'd hit it.

:eek:

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!

TPD

Against

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

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.

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.

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"

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).

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!

Prefect_1998

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


thanks
danielle

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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...

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.

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.

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.

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!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

JC 2K3

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

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