The Animal Rights protesters

Boston

So I was walking by lincoln place the other day and couldn't help but notice the animal rights protesters are young. Very young. So young I would have thought they'd be in primary school at that time of day. It's a disgrace that children are being brainwashed like this and taken out of school to get involved in matters they've no clue about.

ronivek

It's heartening to see our young people are so very concerned about matters of importance and relevance in this day and age. Luddism should be applauded.

I have to admit that in general obnoxious people shouting at me as I try to innocently walk by tend not to enamor me to their cause; most especially very young and obnoxious people. Funny how that works.

phlegms

I purposely punch cats in front of them. Disgraceful carry-on on their behalf.

Boston

phlegms wrote: »

I purposely punch cats in front of them. Disgraceful carry-on on their behalf.

It's one thing if people are fully aware of all the sides of an issue through debate and then decide to come down on one side over the other, but children are just been feed crap by manipulative adults. What type of sick **** has children standing on street corners handing out flyers.

Ron DMC

If they're that dillusional, it's a good thing they can't vote yet. And to think, some people want to lower the voting age. That would be disastrous.

Sid_Justice

Some of the those animal protesters are quite seriously bonkers. The genetics department has had a number of security issues with wackos.

Not sure where I stand on the 'brainwashing'. Should you bring your children to mass? Surely that's a subtle form of brain washing? Should you bring your children to the polling station? Not to instill a sense of civic duty but to encourage the support of a particular party? Should you bring your children to a soccer match? Surely that kind of behaviour influences which club they'll support.

Is it not some kind of term holiday anyway? Easter or mid term or something

Ron DMC

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Is it not some kind of term holiday anyway? Easter or mid term or something

Nah, mid-term was last week.

ronivek

Boston wrote: »

It's one thing if people are fully aware of all the sides of an issue through debate and then decide to come down on one side over the other, but children are just been feed crap by manipulative adults. What type of sick **** has children standing on street corners handing out flyers.

People like this Laura Broxson character:

She claimed animal testing "doesn't work" and said the NARA believes that even if it did, "living, breathing, sentient animals" should not be used for these purposes. She also claimed NARA has reports of cats, dogs and even horses being used at TCD. TCD could use other methods, such as those involving human material, cell cultures and computer modelling, if it chose to, she said.

Sell the image of a teenager's cat/dog/horse being cruelly tortured for extended periods by cackling evil mad Trinity scientists and you'll have a veritable gaggle of young protesters in no time.

Boston

Retards. There cries for human testing would carry more weight if they themselves volunteered.

Fo Real

I remember there used to be a bunch of lesbians that would hang outside the front gate in the mornings shouting about how the evil TCD scientists used animals for experiments. I was ashamed that passing tourists might think the college harboured "their type".

I'd prefer if they didn't exist at all but it's nice to learn that they've been brushed off to a less prominent part of the college around Lincoln Place.

Boston

I'm not involved in animal test at all, but I took the time to educate myself on how the process works in trinity. There is a massive amount of oversight, ever use of animals in testing has to be justified in detail to an ethics committee, every alternative has to be explored including simulation. Trinity college is one of the most conscientious animal testers in the country if not Europe. Do you think private animal testing is like this? Thats the alternative in reality to trinity doing it in house. Send if off to India or eastern Europe where there's no over sight.

Prof.Badass

rabble rabble legalise bestiality rabble rabble

Lame Lantern

I totally got loaded and fingered Jess from down the road at the live animal testing protest last Friday, politics is awesome.

Sid_Justice

Boston wrote: »

I'm not involved in animal test at all, but I took the time to educate myself on how the process works in trinity. There is a massive amount of oversight, ever use of animals in testing has to be justified in detail to an ethics committee, every alternative has to be explored including simulation. Trinity college is one of the most conscientious animal testers in the country if not Europe. Do you think private animal testing is like this? Thats the alternative in reality to trinity doing it in house. Send if off to India or eastern Europe where there's no over sight.

Just on a small technical point. The use of animals in experiments IS very carefully regulated when the animals are VERTEBRATES. This includes all mammals, birds, reptiles, frogs, etc. But it does not include insects, spiders, octopus, squid, snails etc.

Generally speaking, most animal testing is carried out on rats and mice, fruit flies, a certain species of frog and fish. Outside Ireland, there is considerably more testing on animals like Rhesus Monkeys, Dogs and cats and Chimpanzees. (open to correction on this)

I've flip-flopped on the ethics on animal testing. To further clarify, animal testing can mean either performing in vitro experiments on the cells harvested from lab animals (perhaps after other testing had been carried out) as well as performing experiments on live animals.

caffrey

I wonder if they would refuse antibiotics when really ill. What about the vaccinations that most have probably received as children. How about surgery? All tested on animals. The hair dye in their hair, the makeup on their face. not that I agree with those things and even if they say that their makeup etc wasn't tested, the previous products which these ones are based on were.

Boston

Well one of them had sever acne, I'm sure she was refusing treatment.

caffrey

What if it was LIFE THREATENING acne though??

El Siglo

They're idiots, simple as that.

cantankerous

Tbh one of the animal rights protesters is kinda hot .

Sid_Justice

Surely their point is that since the mid 20th century we've moved on from requiring extensive animal testing for all pharmacological research.

If there were no animal rights protesters there would be less transparency in animal testing research.

devinejay

There can never be enough pharmacological testing.

*cough* thalidomide *cough*


Don't quote this as gospel now, but at current testing standards something like 1/3 of new products on the market are dropped after six years, deemed unsuitable. And you want to reduce the level of pre-market exposure testing?!?!

Sid_Justice

I'm not sure if you're qualified to talk about this above the man at the bar level I'm certainly not. But if, using your argument, scores of pharmaceuticals are released on the market and then withdrawn, obviously using animals models of disease and treatment are rather lacking.

It's certainly isn't always the case that a drug that treats a rat disease in a rat is going to be effective on the human. Nor when a human disease is somehow inserted in rat.

Surely we need more human testing?

discus

You all seem to have your views on animal testing for pharma and cosmetics. What do you make of the use of live bioassays almost day in, day out for other more routine matters?

Just playing devils advocate, here.

devinejay

Oh I'm firmly at man-at-the-bar level here (I'm actually a barman!)

The trouble with human testing is finding willing subjects, and the financial rewards they demand.

*gingerly steps around the stem cell debate*

I guess you could sum my stance up as "I'm happy that they know far more than me, that they know what they're doing ,and that if they keep working away, they're less likely to get it wrong in future. If you start restricting their possible testing methods, it might bite us all in the ass."

And if Irish politics has taught me anything, it's that if something "might" happen, well sure you're better off leaving it as is and forgetting about it. :pac:

lucernarian

Sid_Justice wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're qualified to talk about this above the man at the bar level I'm certainly not. But if, using your argument, scores of pharmaceuticals are released on the market and then withdrawn, obviously using animals models of disease and treatment are rather lacking.

It's certainly isn't always the case that a drug that treats a rat disease in a rat is going to be effective on the human. Nor when a human disease is somehow inserted in rat.

Surely we need more human testing?

Certainly. The following article isn't exactly scientifically minded, but some of the points in it certainly rang true. The point it made about how scientists became good at curing cancer in mice rather than in humans summed it up, albeit somewhat sensationally.

Thalidomide is an interesting case. I can't remember where I read it, but no testing was carried out on pregnant mammals before its release I think. While that was obviously wrong, subsequent testing when the scandal broke wasn't too conclusive in showing the effects on mammalian offspring. Even on primates.

Having said that, some of the "arguments" that those people base their protests on are absurd, and they should bugger off to a place where animals are actually treated cruelly and with wanton regard.

Actually nevermind animal experimentation in the name of science, how about defending the rights of horses and ponies roaming some of the suburbs of Dublin?! They would be better off preventing actual incidences of cruelty from occurring, like what happened in Clondalkin recently.

Sid_Justice

Anyone interested in the area of conservation and animal rights may be interested in the Oscar winning documentary The Cove about dolphin hunting in a area in Japan. Very interesting subject matter put across in a very entertaining but serious way.

Boston

They do human testing in trinity. Theres an ethics commitee for it. I don't know if it's pharmaceutical testing though.

Sid_Justice

I'd imagine the majority is done by the Psychology department but that' s a guess.

Boston

Yea, no one knows, no one cares. I'm sure the only reason we have a human testing ethics committee is as a result of those human rights protesters at Lincoln place... hold on, wait a minute...

MilanPan!c

Boston wrote: »

So I was walking by lincoln place the other day and couldn't help but notice the animal rights protesters are young. Very young. So young I would have thought they'd be in primary school at that time of day. It's a disgrace that children are being brainwashed like this and taken out of school to get involved in matters they've no clue about.

As someone that lives in a country that's schools are run by churches, I'd think you wouldn't be so shocked by brainwashed kids.

shay_562

With regard to the arguments Sid_Justice and To_be_confirmed put forward about how effective animal testing is, I'd point out that those are just arguments for being more careful in testing procedures and not relying solely on animal testing. That a few drugs slip through isn't an argument against it; that a few drugs that might otherwise be quite harmful to human test subjects get stopped is a big argument for it. In general, human testing is clearly going to be necessary at some stage, but it seems reasonable to suggest that (a) by the time it reaches humans, a drug should have been tested for harmful effects in every other conceivable way possible and (b) that more layers of testing can only be a good thing.

I'd be a lot more convinced by the anti-animal testing brigade if they didn't seem to be comprised of a whole bunch of people with little or no knowledge of how any of the testing procedures actually work, or how the animals are actually treated, or what checks and balances there are in place.

devinejay

Also if they stopped using shock tactics in their campaigns I'd have more respect.

They're forever using pictures of random animal cruelty on campaign posters and flyers, like some guy beating a dog. Not sure what that has to do with testing on lab rats, unless one of their policies is to stamp out general díckheadishness. Didn't know that.

Sid_Justice

Probably not the best idea to judge all animal rights activists on the behaviour of certain fundamentalist extremists.

With regard to the arguments Sid_Justice and To_be_confirmed put forward about how effective animal testing is, I'd point out that those are just arguments for being more careful in testing procedures and not relying solely on animal testing.

You seem to have inferred that my argument was animal testing is useless. It wasn't. Presently, it seems impossible for me to imagine a situation where Scientists could maintain their rate of development of drugs/treatment/products without using them.

My point is, and I believe it's a opinion shared by all rational people in this debate, is that animal testing needs to carefully considered and the alternatives need to be developed.

We're all fairly agreed that to the best of anyone's knowledge on this forum, the testing carried out by TCD meets the highest standards. But this isn't the case in China and other areas. The Chinese approach (to business, science etc.) is bigger, faster, cheaper and with these attitudes animal ethics are often compromised.

A ridiculous example? Would you authorize the use of Chimpanzees to develop Cycling helmets? The testing would involve putting the prototypes on the Chimps and bashing them with buses. Of course not. Why not?

1. The animal model is not appropriate. While Chimpanzees (the Bonobo specifically) are our closest relatives, they musculature and skulls are still an order of magnitude different. A Chimp can fall from a 50 foot tree and walk away.
2. The possible scientific gain - slightly improved Design is severely outweighed by the loss of animal life (many animals).
3. Chimps are a highly intelligent and endangered species, their use should be avoided purely for intrinsic reasons as well as ecological.

devinejay

On that point - anyone figure out what the hell is the point in the ad with the turtles with the bicycle helmets?

Pet

Lol at the idea of "ethics" ever being an issue in China.

Prof.Badass

Sid_Justice wrote: »

A ridiculous example? Would you authorize the use of Chimpanzees to develop Cycling helmets? The testing would involve putting the prototypes on the Chimps and bashing them with buses. Of course not. Why not?


1. The animal model is not appropriate. While Chimpanzees (the Bonobo specifically) are our closest relatives, they musculature and skulls are still an order of magnitude different. A Chimp can fall from a 50 foot tree and walk away.
2. The possible scientific gain - slightly improved Design is severely outweighed by the loss of animal life (many animals).
3. Chimps are a highly intelligent and endangered species, their use should be avoided purely for intrinsic reasons as well as ecological.

The costs and other factors associated with keeping breeding chimps (they're big and have quite long life cycles) make them unsuitable for widescale experimentation.

fyp.

lucernarian

Yes, my point on animal models being too relied upon really meant supplementing them with a more comprehensive human model based on volunteers. It wasn't an argument against animal testing, but a note of caution.

Having said that, animal tests do not prove a hypothesis on human biology correct in almost any circumstances. Animals are used for more than just human drug tests in TCD, if trinity even use them for that. They are used to experiment and research upon for genetics and cell biology in general. If I have an issue with it, it's is that quite a lot of this research on animals only benefits humanity's understanding of biology and would only indirectly benefit our knowledge of human diseases or cures, if it even was a benefit to curing human and animal disease at all.

[/My two pennies on this]

blagards

caffrey wrote: »

I wonder if they would refuse antibiotics when really ill. What about the vaccinations that most have probably received as children. How about surgery? All tested on animals. The hair dye in their hair, the makeup on their face. not that I agree with those things and even if they say that their makeup etc wasn't tested, the previous products which these ones are based on were.

Well anti-biotics are already made so it would be pointless to refuse them, would just make the animals suffering (not sure about this(suffering of the animal), just playing the devils advocate) even more pointless.

For example im sure you're against the nazis, concentration camps, and josef mengele and the likes, but if you were suffering from frostbite (or some such freezing related injury) im sure you wouldnt refuse treatment despite the fact that most of human knowledge of how the body reacts to freezing comes from nazi experimentation on jews.

fonpokno

They've got a petition they're thrusting at people now. I wish they'd leave me alone.

They're simple minded, uninformed morons. They have no idea what they're talking about. Once I was walking into Trinity to meet my then boyfriend and I got a load of abuse from that crowd, just for walking through the gate. I went up to them and asked them if they would be willing to sign up to human trials for medicines. Got a load of blank looks and stammering. I asked if they'd refuse drugs if they had a life-threatening condition, because those drugs had been tested on animals. More stammering and faltering. I told them that I'd pay attention to their cause when they weren't spouting pure bullsh*t about something they hadn't a clue about.

Groinshot

Next time someone asks you to talk about animal testing outside college- Ask them are they willing to be subjects instead of the animals?

Its natural selection.....

Tar.Aldarion

I don't think it's fair to make the kids do it, bad form. Just as parents make their kids engage in a lot of things they should not, whether I am for them or against. Am against it but wouldn't talk to my kids about it, like most things, in any biased way.
If they are going to do it, it's probably better that they don't outsource it to somewhere dodgy.

Sid_Justice

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/15/animal-rights-freedom-information-universities

Animal rights activists are writing to all universities in UK seeking information on their research under the UK freedom of information act (similar to ours afaik).

cypharius

I don't think it's fair to say that the kids don't have a clue what they're talking about(Although they don't), nobody at those protests have a clue what they're talking about.

Personally I think animal testing is fine once it's purely for medical research and not on any of the Great Apes.

amacachi

cypharius wrote: »

Personally I think animal testing is fine once it's purely for medical research and not on any of the Great Apes.

Or cute animals? Or furry animals?
What constitutes "medical" research?

coldwood92

Boston wrote: »

So I was walking by lincoln place the other day and couldn't help but notice the animal rights protesters are young. Very young. So young I would have thought they'd be in primary school at that time of day. It's a disgrace that children are being brainwashed like this and taken out of school to get involved in matters they've no clue about.

They could be 1st years

cypharius

amacachi wrote: »

Or cute animals? Or furry animals?

No need to miss my point of separating our species cousins from other animals or anything.

amacachi wrote: »

What constitutes "medical" research?

Er... I think you know what I mean by medical research.

Endymion

cypharius wrote: »

No need to miss my point of separating our species cousins from other animals or anything.

I don't understand how you can be OK with some mammals being used, but not all mammals.

Er... I think you know what I mean by medical research.

Not really.

Sid_Justice

Well the argument isn't simple or black and white but quite fuzzy. In fact, my argument is more against reckless killing of life rather than animal testing but I'm not deleting.

FACTS (mostly facts)

The question isn't just why should some mammals be exempt from animal testing but why should some animals?

If we ignore ecological and financial issues:

Why are plants open to plant testing? Possible explanation
plants don't have CNS
plants don't have a brain
plants don't 'feel pain' in a way human's conceptualise pain
plants don't have a consciouses in a way human's conceptualise consciousness
plants can't suffer, feel trauma

Why are Invertebrates such as Coral, sponges and starfish free reign for animal testing?
Similar to above, either lack of CNS or Brain

Why are Octopus?
They have a CNS and a brain and many studies on Cephalopoda suggest they have an 'intelligence' that is equivalent to many mammals if not more sophisticated.

So what makes 'higher animals' special? Animals like whales and Dolphins, great apes, dogs etc. have been shown to have very developed CNS and brains, equal sensitivity to pain and trauma as human beings. Anybody who has spent any amount of time around such animals will understand they have some kind of tangible 'consciousness' and 'intelligence' and the ability to perform complex behaviour.

So you think it's a double standard that rats are used for experiments but not Chimpanzees? Do you not think it's a double standard to use a Chimpanzee without its consent but not to use a Human? What if we invaded a new planet and found highly developed life who were in their equivalent of the stone age? Would it be ok to conduct behavioural and medical testing on them?

I don't understand how you can be OK with some mammals being used, but not all mammals.

OPINION:

Some animals are not of equal ecological significance. Rats can be bred easily in lab conditions and are not in danger of extinction. Great apes are in danger of extinction, any activity that reduces their number should not be allowed.

Some animals, Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Orangs, Gorillas, Dolphins, Whales, possibly squid/octopus plus others have a sophisticated nervous system and demonstrate complex behaviour. Thus, their ability to experience pain and trauma (not necessarily in a anthropomorphic way) is vast and this should not be trivialised. Rats living in a maze can be 'as happy as larry' Chimpanzees living in cages can suffer depression and other stress induced disorders.

Certain animals, in my opinion, have unique personalities. I am sure there may be certain charming rats and mice out there, but when dogs, dolphins and Chimps are killed there is a loss of a individual.
My argument isn't animal testing shouldn't take place, my argument is, those that don't even really understand what an animal is and isn't shouldn't voice their opinion on the subject.

Gordon Gecko

One of the animal rights protestors is in my class - they're fanatics and won't listen to reason. When they aren't hassling fur shop owners they're outside the science block trying to stop the "mass slaughter" of mice. They would prefer testing on humans to save animals which in my mind makes them no better that the Nazis.

Sid_Justice

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

They would prefer testing on humans to save animals which in my mind makes them no better that the Nazis.

And Godwin's law is evident again. Game over for this thread.