Vivisection

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Regarding your concluding paragraph - you suggest the end justifies the means. This is a fundamental difference of opinion I have with you. I think it devalues the person doing the morally wrong deed as well as the victim. Yeah, we are highly evolved and have great medicine - animals have suffered for it (as have people - science wasn't always as tightly regulated). We have achieved much. Was it right? Was it ethical. I don't beleive so.

But we are the exception of nature. Nature is not the nice cosey little tree-hugging scenario that common conceptions of hippy love would have you believe. Nature is vicious, nasty, ruthless and doesn't care about you, me, the mice or what we're up to. The only common language all species have is the drive for survival and we either do it at theirs or our own expense.

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

The question of the mice not being born except for the grant money is infantile (to be frank) - have they a lesser right to life free from sufferring than other mice? Did they sign for this life. Sure I have no emotional ties with these animals... but I respect them. All of them.

How is it infantile? You are applying human moral judgement which is not only specific to humans, but not really applicable to nature as a whole, to animals. From natures point of view, nothing has a "right" to life. The only thing that thinks anything has a right to life is the human. Everything else knows far better.

The mice are bred specifically for experimentation. They didn't sign for this life but nor did anything else. All types of creatures die needlessly in their millions every second, often at the hands (or teeth or claws) of other creatures that die a few seconds after. Did any of them ask for it?

What you are suggesting is admirable in notion but its just not a valid concept for the world we live in and its against the principles of how this world works. If anything, yours suggestion is the "unatural"one.

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Yes I can see it know, down at the supermarket, struggling for your survival.

<snip>

... not needlessly... ACTUAL survival.

Humans are unlike any other animal thatis true, however all species need to proliferate and survive. Humans, by their nature proliferate rapidly and diversely and as a result are at risk to a larger range of diseases than most other species.
What you seem to be missing is that the mortality rate for our species was huge before the advent of modern medicine. Even pre 1930 and the advent of antibiotics conditions that are now trivial could be fatal. Modern medicine is and more importantly in its infancy was driven by animal experimentation. Thus animal experimentation has led to the the survival of our species.

So yes, ACTUAL survival.

Because you now live in a happy little first world environment where you have running water, sanitation and national health schemes and can afford to was lyrical about the rights of lab mice to a better life, doesn't mean that the couple of million children in developing countries that die every year from malaria can do without. Nor does it mean that that the millions of african HIV sufferers are all morally more worried about the poor mice.

The fact of the matter is, in order to prevent millions of these deaths in the future, like the disease that troubled our countries have been prevented, we need animal experimentation. No, humans won't do, because of the vast range of treatments being examined and mainly because we need to perform post-mortem examination on therapeutic effects. The reason we don't do this on humans is something you have answered in your own posts, humans have the ability to choose, mice don't have that ability, even if we granted them it.

So the question you need to ask is if you're given the power to effect the lives of a few hundred mice or a few million suffering children, which do you condemn to death?

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

You failed to answer my two point proposition. You also fail to see my point, the end does not justify the means. Its all well and good weighing up human sufferring thorugh disease and mice sufferring through humans - you make it sound like there's a kind of global collective sufferring taking place. Humans and other animals suffer as individuals. We experience our own pain - I cannot feel your pain and vice versa. I firmly beleive modern man can survive without using animals for experimentation, therefore as I described previously, it can only be deemed morally wrong. There are few alternatives to animal experimentation because no effort has been made to find those. Animal experimentation is easy, so why bother looking for alternatives. There are plenty or brilliant minds out there, I have no doubt modern science/medicine would only get stronger given the impetous to find alternatives and abandon what is essentially a flawed model for a human being.

Mice can feel pain. Whether we would have survived without animal research is debatable. I would personally say that we would not have evolved into the technologically advanced society of today had we not first conquered our major diseases.

However, its not just humans that benefit from animal research, other animals do too. So what about the dogs and cats who have suffering and disease eleviated through medicines borne of animal research.

Unfortunately, your argument is based on emotion and an irrational viewpoint that we all live in a cuddly world where everything would, could and should live in harmony and respect. If you read outside the textbooks you will learn that the world is not like that. The fact that we have this amazing brain that can display a sense of being and rationalise is precisely because we use our surrounding creatures and environment to suit our needs.

As for equating the suffering of the world, I'm not, I'm equating the suffering of one child. Would you let one 5 year old child die rather than experiment on one hundred mice? Can you explain the reasoning behind your answer?

I don't expect an answer but I'm interested to know what research group you work in? Clynes and Newsholme weren't going down the mouse model road last time I talked to them, I know O'Brien in UCG did and the Collins and UCC group got an SFI grant.

As for equating the suffering of the world, I'm not, I'm equating the suffering of one child. Would you let one 5 year old child die rather than experiment on one hundred mice? Can you explain the reasoning behind your answer?

perhaps. Not being cruel..being reasonable.
like you said before 1930's the mortality rate was significanlty less than it is now, people were accustomed to death in the centuries before this one. It is mans fear of death (desire to survive) which has brought the global population to the highest it has ever been in the history of the planet. Mans illusion that he can cheat the forces of nature is exactly that..an illusion. It is man who is responsible for the blatant desctruction of this planet, so pollluted with crap that if the air doesn't kill you, the sh!t in the food will. (science tells us its for our own good, when really its literally poisoning us)
Sooner or later nature is going to find a way to minimise the damage. (in the same way as forest fires are natures way of controlling the species)

The fact of the matter is, in order to prevent millions of these deaths in the future, like the disease that troubled our countries have been prevented, we need animal experimentation.

did you ever think disease was natures way of controlling the species?

rtunately, your argument is based on emotion and an irrational viewpoint that we all live in a cuddly world where everything would, could and should live in harmony and respect.

I'm sure the treehuggers who live in the south american rainforests would disagree, they Do live in harmony with their surroundings and their respect for it results in their survival.

The reason we don't do this on humans is something you have answered in your own posts, humans have the ability to choose,

while I believe that science has the best of intentions..mankind has lost its ability to judge what is best for us. We choose to live in an overpopulated, poisoned polluted planet, which as science would have us believe, is in order to aid our survival. If you look at the bigger picture its more likely thats its aiding our extinction.

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Of course I would In that circumstance, i'd kill all the mice in Dublin to save this hypothetical child of mine. I'd also kill you though, and most of the people in Dublin to that aim. You are the one bringing emotion into this, with a blatantly emotive hypothetical question. What I'd do under such a circumstance, does not justify it.

I never said a child of yours. I said a 5 year old child. I ask because this is the age group (3-7) most likely to die from malaria at present. I would estimate roughly 100 mice die in malaria research every year per child in this age group. At present malaria work is progressing slowly (because noone will invest) but thats not to say that they aren't making progress. So its a simple question of worth not emotion. I'll rephrase the question, would you, given the choice, stop the malaria research on mice in favour of re-starting all the research projects on a different trial system, even though it would most likely set the current research back several years. And again I ask why.

Like smallpox? That was tested on humans if you remember the story. Its still a flawed model and testing is always done on humans anyway.

The original variola vaccine was tested on milk boys, however the vaccine that led to teh successful irradication of smallpox was a more advanced vaccine, which was, surprise surprise, developed progressively in a number of species, starting down at mice and working up to monkeys, before eventually being used on humans.

Again, you're using the end justifies the means arguement. I'm saying - the individual counts. As I said several times, sufferring is a personal experience, experienced by the individual. Its not shared among the collective of animals who may gain the benefit.

Yes and the suffering of one individual is much greater than the suffering of one individual mouse or even a hundred mice, because the human realises whats happening to him, the human understands he is probably about to die, the human can imagine a time without the suffering and wish it to stop.

A mouse in incapable of this awareness. Suffering is as much about perception as it is about pain.

I would suggest my arguement is based on logic, and morality. Your is based on emotion (see above).

Nope, its quite simply logical. If we stopped animal research eventually a disease would take hold that eliminates a large and important area of our population. Cities are most likely to fall the hardest. At present, our species is living outside its means, mainly due to everything I've outlined about us before. Without the ability to quickly adapt, we would eventually be reduced to a much smaller population and as we, for the most part, no longer possess the ability to survive as a species without our technology, we would no longer control our environment.

As your were using an emotive argument regarding the mouse, I asked you an emotive question, I'm not basing an argument on it, I'm merely highlighting the flaw in yours.

Does that justify it? Does it sound something like, "We are stronger, therefore we can take advantage of the weak and use them to suit our needs".

This is how nature, through millions of years of evolution, works. It works quite well.

I'd prefer not post personal information about myself on the internet regarding such an inflamatory issue, given the political attidue to it currently. Actually I think the college might have objections too. If you'd like I can PM you. To be more specific its actually diabetic nephropathy I'm working on, not diabetes itself.

I was just curious as to who was using a mouse model, it wasn't a sinister question.

keu wrote:

perhaps. Not being cruel..being reasonable.
like you said before 1930's the mortality rate was significanlty less than it is now, people were accustomed to death in the centuries before this one. It is mans fear of death (desire to survive) which has brought the global population to the highest it has ever been in the history of the planet. Mans illusion that he can cheat the forces of nature is exactly that..an illusion. It is man who is responsible for the blatant desctruction of this planet, so pollluted with crap that if the air doesn't kill you, the sh!t in the food will. (science tells us its for our own good, when really its literally poisoning us)
Sooner or later nature is going to find a way to minimise the damage. (in the same way as forest fires are natures way of controlling the species)

Nope, you're missing the jist of what I am saying. Man can and has for the past 10 thousand years cheated nature. That has been the trait that has made him what he has today. We have plundered to achieve this, often to our own detriment and I do hope much of this can be worked around. Nature will eventually level man, probably through a mass extinction event, but the general everyday issues which dictate the population rates and mortality rates of other species no longer concern us. I'll give in example in a later point.

did you ever think disease was natures way of controlling the species?

I have considered this and although its not a concious effort by nature from an evolutionary point of view it is quite probably, yes. If you believe in the Gaian philosophy then thats exactly what it does, however mankind has long past this point and what makes us differ from any other species is an understanding of what is happening to us and the consequences of illness and pain. Animals do not have this.

I'm sure the treehuggers who live in the south american rainforests would disagree, they Do live in harmony with their surroundings and their respect for it results in their survival.

Yes these treehuggers who have a life span of about 40 years a huge mortality rate in childbirth and live in small isolated communities because the things they live in harmony with have a nasty habit of keeping their population in check by killing them off. They live that way because for the most part, they know nothing different. If you were to offer them an extra 30 years of life and quadruple the survival rate of their infants, do you think they would take it in return for the "loss of harmony"?

while I believe that science has the best of intentions..mankind has lost its ability to judge what is best for us. We choose to live in an overpopulated, poisoned polluted planet, which as science would have us believe, is in order to aid our survival. If you look at the bigger picture its more likely thats its aiding our extinction.

Again, it is quite simple in this day and age to shun science if you feel that strongly about it. Many vegans refuse medication and animal tested foods. Many religions do the same. You, as a human have choice and rationale, it has made you what you are today. Do you consume animal tested products? Do you use animal tested cosmetics? Do you avail of animal tested medicines?

Science has provided you with the right to choose, if you feel its out of place, then choose to forgo science's developments but don't preach one thing and practice another.

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Yeah malaria research is going slowly - why? Because it affects mostly third world countries. Research is primarily funded by who? Pharmaceutical companies. Their responsibility is to the shareholders not to mankind. This also happens to be the reason why little money is being invested in looking for alternatives to research on animals.

I agree 100% but its hardly the issue.

To answer your question - yes I would stop the research on mice. For a number of reasons - primarily... Its wrong. Also it is a flawed model, there are many agruements for this, the animals are sufficiently different so the results don't carry over is the major one.

But you miss the point of the mouse model then. If you develop a drug or therapy, you ideally do your initial studies in cell and rat/mouse models. The main reason for this is economy, physiology and ethics. If the therapy is reasonably marketable or beneficial (this is the less likely reason to develop) then you will see a movement to so called "higher animals" where applicable before humans. This is the FDA's modus operandi and they are quite rigid with it. The mouse paves the way for less and less reductionist models because, the attitude is, the closer you get to humans the more cost and less ethics there are involved.

And how exactly do you know this? This is impossible to tell and merely seems to be a convenient way of distancing ourselves from the animals, much in the same way that blacks were deemed to be savages, almost a sub-species, ...if you will.......... animals...

Its quite easy to tell using comparative physiology. There is no comparison between animals and people of different races. Such an analogy is racist and quite frankly offensive. I'd choose your analogies carefully here.

Racism overlooks the fact that all men are physiologically the same with the same capabilities. The difference between animals and humans is deemed on what they are physiologically capable of and if you kept abreast of the literature outside your own area you would see that the proteins and genes that have most recently been associated with sentience and awareness are not present in mice. There was quite a big fuss made of it when this data was presented to PETA too. Intelligence studies designed to test memory and intellect while differentiating instinct have also shown this while brain mass to body weight ratios also say an awful lot. As a potential PhD its worthy to remember to know the area you are trying to make an argument for.

please, don't insult both out intellects. You obviously have a reasonable amount of interest in science, therefore you know if the funding were there we would find alternatives. It is in our nature if you will, we are an adaptive and intelligent species. With that brings power. We should consider our responsibility, and how we use that power.

Funding is an issue for the reason I outlined. Any switch now would set all current projects back anywhere up to a decade (as was seen with the stem cell debacle in the US). While this sets the development back, money has to be found to fund the extra years all the while people continue to suffer the disease. I thought that was obvious from my staement.0

I realise that, however, turn on the news, its not exactly a good idea to jump up and down saying you experiment on animals.

The british news, there are no radical animal rights groups in Ireland at present. Its only a matter of time I'm sure but you're quite safe here.

Man can and has for the past 10 thousand years cheated nature. That has been the trait that has made him what he has today.

i disagree, man has lived at the mercy of nature for the last ten thousand years..I don't thinkits any differnt now. (we just think it is)

however mankind has long past this point

again I disagree, man is by no means past this point. I'll give in example in a later point.

If you were to offer them an extra 30 years of life and quadruple the survival rate of their infants, do you think they would take it in return for the "loss of harmony"?

they choose to live the way they do now, many have chosen to join civilisation.

Science has provided you with the right to choose, if you feel its out of place, then choose to forgo science's developments but don't preach one thing and practice another.

I don't feel like I'm preaching, just stating the obvious. I'm not vegan or part of any religion which prohibits eating particular foods, but as chemical preservatives and additives are common additions to pretty much all comercial food, I don't really have much choice about consuming it, this is just the thing. Science has dictated what is right in these instances, I just question at what cost.
The increase in global population is not a good thing, and is not sustainable, to preach about our quantity or quality of life in western civilisation is hypocritical when there are millions suffering from starvation and illness all over the world. I doubt that was a choice they made either.
For the most part modern science is supported in a capitalist society, where the economy is nire important than most lives, mass food production requires modern conveniences such as additives and preservatives..its not put there for the good of our health, as for modern medicine, I'm sure if you have enough money you can buy longevity.
Cancer and aids are still rife (and for the most part non curable) heart disease is still the biggest killer in this country, I suppose it is arguable that all of these diseases are lifestyle related and not found amongst "rainforest" tribes.

I'm not arguing the morality of killing animals for our survival,(in prehistroy mankind has always given thanks for the food it consumed, all animals were considered sacrifices and honnored at meals) 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.

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

I beleive modern man CAN and WOULD survive without living off other animals. In the past, I would have argued that the environment dictated we live off whatever we can get, but now an option exists. Da Vinci for example was a vegetarian thorughout his life and lived to nearly 70, which in the 1400s / 1500s was a long life.

I wasn't implying food alone, I meant animals as a general resource.

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

I take you are refferring to your earlier arguement, about a big nasty disease coming along and wiping us out? And if we don't use animals, we won't cure it? That's speculation at best.

Is it? Look at the HIV epidemiology projection world wide. At present its rising.
Do you think we've seen the last of killer diseases such as SARS and Avian Flu? Work on combating these disease all come from initial animal work. vCJD is another disease which may yet reach epidemic proportions, again current work involves peyers patches from animal models.

I completely understand your point, and think you argue it well. But, we have a fundamental difference of opinion on what is right and wrong. i think you beleive causing animals to suffer is wrong, but if it can be "outweighed" by eleviating sufferring in humans then it ceases to be wrong. I beleive it the act of causing animals harm remains to be wrong despite consequences.

I'm curious as to what you mean by suffering. This may be where I mis-took your arguement. Where an animal is killed without suffering, is that type of work objectional to you or is it any animal research?

The recent hurricanes are a prime example of how we are no longer at the mercy of nature. a mere thousand years ago such an act of nature would have destroyed the community,

i'm not sure thats appropriate, the hurricanes did succeed in destroying many communities on haiti and cuba, the loss of life in relative terms is proportionate to the population.

Back this up with examples if you can

aids cancer and heart disease.

When I have foods with chemicals or additives, its as a treat to myself but I can do quite happily without.

so..you don't eat processed foods unless you want to treat yourself..strange.
I do my best to not buy processed foods, but trying to explain it to a ten year old is different, especially when all her friends in school have processed packed lunches.
Still, trying to buy organic is extremely expensive, which tends to narrow the choice. Not great health promotion is it?

What is your point?

thought I already made it..but just to repeat..I'm not arguing the morality of killing animals for our survival,(in prehistroy mankind has always given thanks for the food it consumed, all animals were considered sacrifices and honnored at meals) 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.

All issues of morality are based on intent, if reactor finds his intentions are justified, by all means he should proceed.
I also suggest he buy a little alter for when he's sacrificing mice and maybe he could do a little worship type dance, giving thanks for the life of the mouse who is giving his life for the cause.
mwoudl certainly help lighten the mood in the lab

keu wrote:

i'm not sure thats appropriate, the hurricanes did succeed in destroying many communities on haiti and cuba, the loss of life in relative terms is proportionate to the population.

Its very appropriate. The issues that a group of animals and humans would normally suffer at the hands of such an act of nature (such as those I mentioned) do not apply to us anymore as a species.

aids cancer and heart disease.

All of which work towards curing is steadily progressing. Slightly different from the "we're at nature's mercy and always will be" which you implied.

so..you don't eat processed foods unless you want to treat yourself..strange.
I do my best to not buy processed foods, but trying to explain it to a ten year old is different, especially when all her friends in school have processed packed lunches.
Still, trying to buy organic is extremely expensive, which tends to narrow the choice. Not great health promotion is it?

I can't break down certian complexes well so I have to limit their intake. Processed foods such as pizza or sweets are therefore "treats" to me seeing as I enjoy the taste but can't have them often. Why is this strange?

But you said you had no choice. You do have a choice in the matter, you choose to consume these products. If you wished you could choose not to, but, for various reasons/excuses, you don't. This is the same as Falkorre's argument, he's all for something solong as it doesn't inconvenience him *he's banned now by the way, so I won't be expecting an answer).

thought I already made it..but just to repeat..I'm not arguing the morality of killing animals for our survival,(in prehistroy mankind has always given thanks for the food it consumed, all animals were considered sacrifices and honnored at meals) 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.

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.

All issues of morality are based on intent, if reactor finds his intentions are justified, by all means he should proceed.
I also suggest he buy a little alter for when he's sacrificing mice and maybe he could do a little worship type dance, giving thanks for the life of the mouse who is giving his life for the cause.
mwoudl certainly help lighten the mood in the lab

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