Animal Testing?

Boston · 17-08-2008 1:39am

Jimdw wrote: »

Would you let another human die to save your own (life)?

You didn't answer my question.

Jimdw · 18-08-2008 8:24am

Boston wrote: »

Would you let humans die to save the life's of animals?

You didn't answer my question.

I would not test on animals.

Boston · 18-08-2008 9:38am

sorry but thats still not an answer to my question. Would you let a human die to save the life of an animal ?

Polarity · 18-08-2008 9:44am

Sorry I haven't had a chance to reply to this thread in a couple of days. I'll make a post a bit later - a lot of good points have come up.

rosiec · 18-08-2008 3:33pm

Hey Polarity,

You still planning on demonstating outside the side entrance of TCD tomorrow? I'll have to go see ye, instead of hearing ye through my window!

(although obviously not in support

)

pH · 18-08-2008 3:52pm

One thing that I've never gotten clear in my head is an answer to the question "For an animal is it better to live a healthy pain-free life and end up being killed by us or not to live at all".

Because that's in effect what the choice is, these animals only have lives because they're useful to us, the countryside of Ireland would not be full of cows living free until they die in their ripe old age, having had vet visits to keep them healthy every few months, simply put if we weren't using them for milk and beef then there would be no cows living in Ireland.

I have to say that on the whole, I think that having a relatively free and painless life, and ending up as food, is better than having no life at all, though this is in no way an argument for cruel treatment of animals, I think most would agree at some level of inhumane treatment, no life would be preferable to a life of misery.

Jimdw · 18-08-2008 4:25pm

Boston wrote: »

sorry but thats still not an answer to my question. Would you let a human die to save the life of an animal ?

I don't think I would let humans die. On the other hand I don't believe that you will die if animals to stop killing. Also human society kills more animals for meat rather than scientists for tests in labs. If we to start saving animals I think green protesters should start from the butcher shops. Some people argue that torturing animals in labs is more cruel that just quickly killing them by electric shock i presume. I will wait and see what other people think.
Either way I don't like the idea of killing/cruelly treating animals.

Fratton Fred · 18-08-2008 4:35pm

I remember larsson, the "Far Side" creator talking about two versions he did of the same cartoon. One went out in Chicago the other, I think, in Washington. both newspapers had similar size circulations so he thought he would do an experiment.

in one he did a cartoon of alligators bobbing for babies at their 4th july party, complete with pictures of new born babies in nappies and bonnets being plucked out of a barrel by alligators.

in the other he did bobbing for Poodles at the alligators 4th july party.

he had three times more complaints about the poodle one than the babies.

Sums up society nicely to me.

it's an animal for ****s sake, who cares as long as they are not needlessly tirtured.

AtomicHorror · 18-08-2008 9:19pm

Polarity wrote: »

Actually this is false. If you do biology then you must be aware of how vastly different human anatomy is from that of other animals. Many chemicals which are fatal to us have no effect on non-humans, while many of our best medicines would kill a dog or rat.

Which is why specific animal models for various conditions are constantly being assessed for their validity and similarity to the condition in humans. A lot of time, money and research goes into this. Were there a cheaper way that did not involve animals, you can bet the big corps would be all over it.

Polarity wrote: »

Time and time again, products shown to be safe on non-humans have proved disastrous when applied to humans. As an example, in the early days of lung cancer research, a particular type of primate was exposed to massive amounts to tobacco smoke over a long period of time. None of them got lung cancer... and so for a long time it was believed that tobacco smoke did not cause lung cancer. How many thousands of people do you think died because of this one animal experiment?

Link or it didn't happen. Seriously though, for all you know that study could well have been poorly designed in many ways aside from the animal model used. More to the point, it may have been a study funded by a tobacco company. Details please.

Polarity wrote: »

There are numerous other examples of animal testing holding back medical progress, you can find them if you do a bit of research on it.

Show me one prescription drug, any drug, which did not undergo some manner of animal testing. I'd be dead aged two without animal testing. Several of my friends would too.

Polarity wrote: »

Generally cell cultures and computer modeling are a more effective method of testing, but ultimately the only way to know for sure whether something is safe is to conduct clinical trials.

I have worked on all three. The above is simply not true. Show me how you'd do a biodistribution study using current computer modelling or an in vitro system.

Polarity wrote: »

You honestly believe they have high levels of care? They cut open live animals, pour chemicals on their skin and in their eyes, perform the most intrusive operations imaginable and ultimately kill them. Much of this with little or no anesthetic.. You honestly believe it's possible to carry out "humane" animal experiments?

Have you ever been to a bio-resource unit? I don't doubt that such experiments have been conducted, but I would doubt very much that they are common today. I've certainly not seen the like of it in the primary literature, and what would be the point of such experiments if not to publish?

Never have I seen an experiment call for live, conscious vivisection. Anesthetic is used for all invasive procedures or surgeries that I have seen. There's a whole lot of regulation in place to ensure that this work is indeed "humane" and much of the information circulated by animal rights groups to the contrary is decades old or sourced in the developing world. There are notable exceptions of course (Huntingdon springs to mind), which have rightly been punished. Even for work on mice, the layers of licensing, ethical approval and general red tape is substantial, even prohibitive in some cases.

Polarity wrote: »

Of course it is not acceptable. How could you even attempt to argue that it is?

So, you'd be a vegan with absolutely no medical requirements, correct? A rare sort.

Don't get me wrong, animal work sucks. It's upsetting for many researchers and the animal handlers. It's expensive and awkward. It's time consuming and labour intensive. If there were a better way to do this work, we'd go for it in a heartbeat. But there just isn't.

AtomicHorror · 18-08-2008 10:05pm

Polarity wrote: »

If you ask any doctor, nutritionist, or even informed member of the public they will tell you that a completely vegan diet is as good as - and generally healthier than - a non-vegan diet.

It demands more of one's lifestyle to follow a vegan lifestyle. It's a noble cause, and one that I agree with even if I don't follow it. Maybe that's just laziness. Mind you, raising kids on a vegan diet can be quite a challenge when compared to a standard one. Depending on where one lives in the world, it may be entirely impractical.

Polarity wrote: »

You're completely right, and I agree with everything you have just said. Vivisection and animal farming are just as bad as each other. The problem is, many people still think killing animals for food is morally justified - it's not. It will never be okay to destroy everything an animal has, lock him up for life, treat him like an object and ultimately kill him to fulfill our most trivial pursuits. They did something similar with African slaves in the 18th century. Slavery was wrong then, and it's wrong today.

Animals and humans are not equal. You disagree, but that is the prevailing consensus amongst people at this time. There's a significant distinction based on the complexity of the animal too. Are you for example, opposed to experimentation on fruit flies?

Polarity wrote: »

Penicillen. The first anti-biotic, the drug that revolutionised medicine and got us to where we are today, is fatal to a lot of animal species. When they tested it on animals, and it killed them, they shelved it because they figured it was fatal. It was only 15 years later that Arthur Flemming, being an incredibly stubborn man, decided it was worth a try on human subjects. We all know where that led.

Incorrect, penicillin was shown safe and effective in mice 11 years after it's initial discovery. Alexander Fleming, was dubious about the drug's bioavailablity in humans (he thought it would be degraded too quickly) which caused him to suspend his investigations for a mere 3 years.

Polarity wrote: »

That's the problem with animal testing; the species difference is so huge that drugs fatal to humans slip through, while potential life-savers are deemed unsafe.

Animal studies are used to provide a safety and efficacy justification for the move to human trials. It's not the final word, though animal studies have allowed us to filter out countless toxic drugs before they hit human trials. All drugs must pass through trials involving thousands of people. Study design in clinical trials is what makes and breaks drug safety, at least the drugs that make it through the trials system.

Polarity wrote: »

If you do the research you can find many similar cases where animal testing has cost thousands of lives. I'm hardly going to list them all out here, but Vioxx and Thalidomide are two of the major examples here.

Thalidomide in its original form predated the modern clinical trails system and in fact was one of the primary driving forces behind the reform of clinical studies. Lessons were learned, and it had squat to do with animals. The biological differences between humans and animals are no mystery. Human trial size and design is the real key.

Vioxx is one of very few modern drugs to have slipped through the net, and to be fair it just can't be compared to thalidomide.

Polarity wrote: »

I have to admit, I have never been inside the TCD animal labs. For some reason they are extremely secretive, and I have never been allowed in.

Even TCD biologists would not be let in to the BRU without having first completed the LAST animal handling course and having gotten the ethical approval needed to order in and store animals there. Don't take it as some sort of conspiratorial attempt to block you, it's actually part of the animal welfare regulations.

Polarity wrote: »

You're right that insulin was derived from animal studies - that does not mean it couldn't have been acquired any other way.

Suggestions please? It is now produced in cell culture, an example of scientists not using animals unless they need to.

rosiec · 19-08-2008 10:35am

+1

Well said atomichorror

jw297 · 20-08-2008 3:23pm

+1

The areas where animals are housed are extremely tightly regulated, not to be secretive but because of the high level of hygeine required in such facilities. Reduction of the number of animals used in research is an enormous priority, and so it is necessary to avoid messing any tests up by people/bacteria/etc. coming in to areas where testing is done.
I won't get involved in the debate of the morality of animal testing here, as I dont think I'll change anyone's mind, but I would like to emphasise that people who are involved in research using animals must follow very strict standards and go through a long process involving university ethics committees to even get projects approved in the first place. There is enormous consideration placed on the usefulness of the research and the likelihood of obtaining valid and important results, and if there is the slightest doubt in this regard, the proposal will be refused.
Furthermore, as a previous poster mentioned, the simple cost and effort of housing and caring for animals is considerable, and may take more cost and time than the actual research, so even without considering the moral issues, it would be much more useful for all involved if animal testing is avoided.
Nobody in an accredited recognised institution does this kind of work for the fun or because they get a kick out of being cruel to animals. I would also add to previous posters comments that I would be long dead without the benefit of medical advances through animal testing, as would pretty much all of my family and most of my friends (and we dont even suffer from any particularly serious diseases).
The moral issues are much more complex, and I have not yet come to a conclusion after many years of thought on the issue, but I think it is very important to get the facts right about what goes on before making dramatic declarations one way or another.

nacho libre · 25-08-2008 12:30pm

Jimdw wrote: »

Would you let another human die to save your own (life)?

i hope in some circumstances i would not. i'd also have to say that if someone close to me was dying i'd have no objection to an animal being tested if it meant there life being saved. i guess that makes me a hypocrite because i do believe that some animals have a concept of death therefore it would be wrong to conduct tests on them.

Jimdw · 26-08-2008 12:11pm

nacho libre wrote: »

i hope in some circumstances i would not. i'd also have to say that if someone close to me was dying i'd have no objection to an animal being tested if it meant there life being saved. i guess that makes me a hypocrite because i do believe that some animals have a concept of death therefore it would be wrong to conduct tests on them.

You hope?

nacho libre · 27-08-2008 11:59am

Jimdw wrote: »

You hope?

well, you know kholberg's moral idealogy v moral reality.

ChocolateSauce · 27-08-2008 6:25pm

All colleges with science departments keep and kill rats. I've done it for pharmacology. It is justified, in my view, as without we could not train scientists or make new drugs.

If you have ever benefited from modern medicine, you can't complain.

Censorsh!t · 12-10-2008 10:16pm

It is amazing the amount of animals used for vivisection, but I can't remember the exact figures.
Although i know this is not a debate, somebody said something about vivisection being a crucial part of life, and that people against it are wrong. I can't see how people also don't take into consideration (especially when they rant on about "survival of the fittest"), that disease and death of humans and animals alike is a crucial part of life.

Scarinae · 27-10-2008 3:52pm

Is it true that some researchers in Trinity have had death threats issued against them? Can anyone clarify this?
I read before about a professor of physiology in Oxford who was on a death list for his work on animals... Apparantly his daughter was sent a package disguised as a Christmas present which was full of explosives and needles. I would have thought that this defeats the point of animal rights protesting? How can animal life be so much more important to them that they would be willing to kill humans? Willing to not just attack and threaten the actual researchers, but attack their families who have nothing to do with the research?

Thirdfox · 27-10-2008 5:13pm

I suppose if you consider animal life to be of the same importance as human life then maybe you can justify killing one human to save thousands of animals etc.

Not my opinion though.

Polarity · 27-10-2008 8:21pm

Fishie wrote: »

Is it true that some researchers in Trinity have had death threats issued against them? Can anyone clarify this?
I read before about a professor of physiology in Oxford who was on a death list for his work on animals... Apparantly his daughter was sent a package disguised as a Christmas present which was full of explosives and needles. I would have thought that this defeats the point of animal rights protesting? How can animal life be so much more important to them that they would be willing to kill humans? Willing to not just attack and threaten the actual researchers, but attack their families who have nothing to do with the research?

You're right, this does go against the whole point of the movement. While I can understand why someone might go to such extremes, the ends do not justify the means.

Even the Animal Liberation Front, one of the more "controversial" parts of the movement, have a strict rule against harming any sentient creature - human or nonhuman.

elle_fant · 29-11-2008 2:46pm

i'm with polarity with this one. i have strong views on animal testing and i have read plenty of articles and seen the video's too, and they say that primates are the closest to humans in their biological make up. but when a group of monkeys were given asprin they had heart attacks, this is just one example but one of many examples that proves were are not the same as animals and therefore researchers should be finding new ways to find cures for diseases. of course there as been some great advances in medcine that researchers will say came from anilmal testing but a lot of the time this isnt the case. And i do not believe that anesthetics are always used, thats BS. if they were then the videos would not show animals squirming around. and an anesthetic will not prevent the rat or guinea pig wrpped in aluminium foil and put into an oven from being burnt alive, i understand that we all use some product or medicine that has been tested on animals even if you try hard to avoid it but there has to be alternatives. Cosmetic companies in particular hav no excuse if the body shop can produce products then all companys can its just laziness.

It wasn't me! · 29-11-2008 4:57pm

Animals and humans are very different, but also similar enough that, while a lot of the data gained from animal testing is not useful, a lot of the data has been incredibly important. If there are viable alternatives, they should be, and are, used, but where it can provide important information, then I think it should be used.

GirlInterrupted · 01-12-2008 5:28pm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I

Animals and humans are not equal. You disagree, but that is the prevailing consensus amongst people at this time. There's a significant distinction based on the complexity of the animal too. Are you for example, opposed to experimentation on fruit flies?

This is the crux of the matter to my mind. I simply can't understand how someone can consider the life of an animal to be equal to, or more important than the life of a human being. How can it be right to even weigh up the right to life of an animal to that of a child?

How can it be right to have the means to develop and test potentially life saving medicines and not do so, to the detriment of all mankind?

How can it ever be right to abandon research for fear of enraging those who believe the life of a rat or rabbit should be considered of greater import than the quality of life of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of people?

I'm an animal lover, I would never want to see an animal used for research where alternative and equally effective means were available, I would always want those experiments to be carried out as humanely as possible. But I would want them carried out. No doubt about that at all.

Personally, I think AtomicHorrors post is the last word in sense on the issue.

Shazbot · 01-12-2008 10:43pm

Polarity wrote: »

Even the Animal Liberation Front, one of the more "controversial" parts of the movement, have a strict rule against harming any sentient creature - human or nonhuman.

You're joking right? The ALF are nothing more than terrorists. Numerous arson attacks on research centres to justify their 'cause'. I'd say they don't bother to check if anyone is in the buildings either.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jun/25/animalwelfare.world

I support animal testing, with the exception of some cosmetic testing. For all the bad press it get's there are hundreds of beneficial therapies generated. Not to mention a better understanding of the biological world.

i'm with polarity with this one. i have strong views on animal testing and i have read plenty of articles and seen the video's too, and they say that primates are the closest to humans in their biological make up. but when a group of monkeys were given asprin they had heart attacks, this is just one example but one of many examples that proves were are not the same as animals and therefore researchers should be finding new ways to find cures for diseases. of course there as been some great advances in medcine that researchers will say came from anilmal testing but a lot of the time this isnt the case. And i do not believe that anesthetics are always used, thats BS. if they were then the videos would not show animals squirming around. and an anesthetic will not prevent the rat or guinea pig wrpped in aluminium foil and put into an oven from being burnt alive, i understand that we all use some product or medicine that has been tested on animals even if you try hard to avoid it but there has to be alternatives. Cosmetic companies in particular hav no excuse if the body shop can produce products then all companys can its just laziness.

They're not always using primates because we have a similar genetic sequence. They use animal models that best represent the human physiology or pathology of a disease. So you could be using rats to examine brain disorders such a stroke/ischaemia and Alzhiemers Disease etc.

You single out these extreme videos used as a smear campaign for animal testing but fail to recognize that those experiments are done without ethics that most researchers abide by. All animals I've seen and used have been treated and killed as humanly as possible and sure get a better life than they would in the wild.

Maggie.23 · 04-12-2008 12:24am

Some people on this thread have said animals and humans are not equal. Humans do not allow animals equality, but that does not mean that animals are not in essence equal. Humans are animals. I believe that animals deserve and should be allowed respect equal to humans.

I walk past a science lab every day and I know that inside they are experimenting on animals. I'm concerned about the allegations on this thread as to anesthetics not being used. Also, noone has mentioned aftercare - are the animals given painkillers while recovering from operations? If you have inside knowledge and can put my mind at ease somewhat, please do.

Shazbot · 04-12-2008 9:50am

Maggie.23 wrote: »

Some people on this thread have said animals and humans are not equal. Humans do not allow animals equality, but that does not mean that animals are not in essence equal. Humans are animals. I believe that animals deserve and should be allowed respect equal to humans.

An all or nothing area really. Either you treat all animals equally (including humans) or you prioritise them. Where do you draw the line? Should we be allowed test on roundworms but not dogs, rabbits, mice, rats etc.

I walk past a science lab every day and I know that inside they are experimenting on animals. I'm concerned about the allegations on this thread as to anesthetics not being used. Also, noone has mentioned aftercare - are the animals given painkillers while recovering from operations? If you have inside knowledge and can put my mind at ease somewhat, please do.

The majority of modern labs follow strict ethical guidelines with regards to animal care. They are reared extremely well and kept healthy, unless of course the experiment requires some sort of input, ie depression animal models. They are also killed humanely, usually a quick cervical dislocation or depcapitation following an anaesthetic.

With regards to painkillers after a surgery, again, it depends on the experimental design. If the painkillers could interfere with the results then they wont be used. Animals will be anethesised before the surgery though.

Most research I've seen has been to kill the animals (humanely) and use the tissue straight after it. Each animal will be used by numberous people so that it's not wasted.

lizzyvera · 23-12-2008 1:12am

elle_fant wrote: »

Cosmetic companies in particular hav no excuse if the body shop can produce products then all companys can its just laziness.

Actually the Body Shop just outsource their animal testing. The founder had no interest in animal rights, it has always been a marketing ploy.

Cosmetic testing is illegal in the EU, and soon products which have been tested on animals won't be allowed.

We would be just as healthy as vegetarians(they actually live longer), but we would be less healthy without animal testing. It's fine when you're young and healthy, but when you're old you'll appreciate drugs that make it possible for you to walk and move and breathe etc.

I am pie · 23-12-2008 2:19pm

Is this OK:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5388914.ece

These tactics are utterly disgraceful. I don't know the details of the case but i notice today the 5 of the SHAC activists have been charged and found guilty. If i was on the receiving end of the treatment detailed above i'd be pretty happy about that.

Animal Testing?

Comments