The Animal Rights protesters

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.

IzzyWizzy

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.

Tar.Aldarion

One must simply 'lol' and not reply to such a comment.

/tips cap

Sid_Justice

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/04/second_protest_rally_draws_hun.html

A rally in defense of scientists who use animals in research drew between 300-400 supporters to the campus of the University of California Los Angeles today.

http://speakingofresearch.com/2010/04/08/several-hundred-pro-test-for-science/

gearoidof

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/staffordshire/4176446.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/staffordshire/3725702.stm

Boston

I'm going to skin a fox in retaliation.

Sid_Justice

I don't know why georoid posted those stupid links they're ancient

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100413/full/464964a.html?s=news_rss

After more than a decade of pitched battles between research advocates and animal-rights campaigners, European Union (EU) legislators have finally agreed on a new legal framework to regulate the use of animals in research.

Kurtosis

The leaflet the protestors outside the dental hospital have been giving out are not exactly very convincing. The highlight had to be the suggestion that epidemiological studies were one substitute for animal testing...I really must get around to asking them about that one.

Sid_Justice

Continuing on the theme of the legality of animal research, here's a quote from new scientist about a university in the USA (Wisconsin).

The AFA and PETA filed charges, and on 2 June circuit judge Amy Smith backed the animal-rights groups' claim . She concluded that the researchers "intentionally or negligently violated Wisconsin law", and so should face criminal charges. Smith dismissed the university's defence that the research project was exempt from the law.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19040-us-animal-researchers-face-criminal-charges.html

Denerick

I think animal rights protestors are so deep in delusion that they don't seem to understand that most people are in principle opposed to the reckless mistreatment of animals. However, these protestors regularly have an air of superiority so sickening and laughable that they only invoke mild disdain and ridicule, not sympathy. Its no coincidence that most of them have never read a book in their lives, never mentioned thought about how ridiculous and extreme they look.

They are their worst enemies and I only hope that civilised men and women continue to mock them with impunity.

Degsy

Anybody who knows the first thing about animals will tell you they like being experimented on.