Animal testing = where do you stand?

[V Knid esq]

Some friends of mine have become heavily involved with campaigning against the Animal Liberation Front recently. The ALF has got so extreme that they now consider anyone involved with Oxford University - including staff, cleaners and all students - to be a valid target for death threats, boxes of shit through their doors and other really vicious intimidation. So a lot of scientists - and a friend of mine who has a child with a really extreme genetic illness who wouldn't be alive if it weren't for treatments developed through animal testing - are standing up and being counted. I think they're brave. OK, I know that a lot of testing and research is done in the name of Big Pharma profits, but I also know that so many scientists involved are moral people who are genuinely concerned with rationality and helping improve people's lives. There are all sorts of questions about how much 'progress' is actually desirable, but so many of the animal libbers are just misanthropic psychopaths who use their 'love' of animals to disguise the fact that their main motivation is actually hatred of humanity, and if you follow their arguments through they essentially want to return us to a medieval state of being ruled by superstition and mob law. It's all a bit confusing.

[spoon]

but so many of the animal libbers are just misanthropic psychopaths who use their 'love' of animals to disguise the fact that their main motivation is actually hatred of humanity,

i couldn't agree more with that description. good luck to your friends!

[gypsy_cream]

i agree with some animal testing... like the stuff you mentioned knid - testing that saves peoples lives and cures illnesses/etc. although testing which involves new hairsprays and cosmetic products and stuf shouldnt be tested on animals.. i reckon they should be tested on rapists and peados locked up in jail.

[Whuffle]

I have voted for "I don't like animal testing"

But there needs to be an option for "I don't like it but in some highly controlled situations it may be necessary"

Edit: ok, I am an idiot, I read the poll properly now. I guess I would have to reluctantly go for "its fine if well regulated"

[Roy Shaw]

I dont think anything should be tested on animals. you wouldnt like it if you were an animal getting tested on.

[gypsy_cream]

Originally Posted by Roy Shaw

I dont think anything should be tested on animals. you wouldnt like it if you were an animal getting tested on.

yeh test chemicals on people who are locked away for bad things.

[Roy Shaw]

And look at the choices in the poll. they look like they are steering you to what Vknid Esq Telegraphy writer wants you to think.

Basicly Knid how would u like to be injected with stuff to see what happens to you? How would you feel?

[gypsy_cream]

:-()

[Yer_Maw]

The fact of the matter is that no, as no scientist would ever do cosmetic research on animals. That is morally unjustifiable, and that view is is probably supported by the vast majority of people. the question is, how did they move the ethical goalposts again?

The protesters cannot get any more support because they have reached saturation point for people who are against all animal testing. So, in order to get their voices heard, they have to resort to these tactics because they dont have the manpower, which is indicitave of them not having a large proportion of people supporting their views. The reason i dispise them the most is because you never see them outside halal slaughterhouses, or butchers - why? because they would be, quite frankly, laughed at. They choose science, because its an easy target, something they think they can change. What is sad is that they have succeded in making us ashamed in what we do, even though we, and i think most people, dont think that at all. Therefore, i am glad that the beleif system that drives people to protest against, has been ignighted in people that beleive it to be necesery. It really stops our self loathing initiated by a very vocal minority, if people show how much they beleive it is required.

Their lies are also disgusting. They use pictures of primate research, which is extremely rare to frighten people (bit like pictures of late abortions) and say that scientists enjoy what they do. The last point really upsets me, as it is an out an out lie and distortion of the truth to justify their own twisted beleif system. Scientists do their work for etither prestige, or to benifit mankind. Either way the end result is a benifit, and the idea that animals are used for fun is, quite frankly, and all-out lie. The third lie is that information gained from the use of animals is not valid, which mainly an attack on the truthfulness of science itself. The information is going to be usefull 100% of the time, but due to the fact that we are truthful, by our very nature, we have to admit that it may not be the full story.

Home office license system here is probably the most strict in the world. The thing is if these people succeed, work will just go to japan, who although not 'torturing' for fun, have very little qualms about anything.

i am very glad this has happened. I read a recent blog entry by a scientist in oxford who pretty much got it spot on

http://scientificactivist.blogspot.c...al-rights.html

[V Knid esq]

Originally Posted by Yer_Maw

They use pictures of primate research, which is extremely rare

Yes!! I noticed that the other day, saw some 'animal rights' posters and they had the very same picture of the monkey with electrodes in its head they were using 10-15 years ago (i remembered it well because I made a collage using it for my Monkey's Lounge show - I attached a dancing body and wires attached to the mains). If that's the best they can come up with after all that time, they're full of crap.

[Yer_Maw]

Originally Posted by V Knid esq

If that's the best they can come up with after all that time, they're full of crap.

yeah well i doubt that a picture of a mouse finding a food reward would really have the same effect.

Originally Posted by Yer_Maw

I read a recent blog entry by a scientist in oxford who pretty much got it spot on

http://scientificactivist.blogspot.co m/2006/01/caught-in-line-of-fire-animal-rights.html

I've just read this and think it is extremely bias its laughable. The scientists only want to find a compromise that means that everybody turns round and go 'ok you were right all along'. They condem activists for being 'extreme' and pretend they are the voice of reason. this is little more than a well written version of The Sun's approach of saying little children die if you don't test on animals. The quotes from "students" are so obviously middle-class and tory. There is not one element of this blog is balanced. They fundamentally beleave animals are there for them to eat and use for testing - and can not admit that it may be wrong to kill another living thing just because it tastes nice or might forward their species. Pathetic and laughable propoganda based on profitability and their careers not the morality of animal research.

[Martin23]

Jesus, almost right-wing, if not, all you have to is change ALF...

[Roy Shaw]

Animals are used in toxicological studies to help test the safety of a range of substances that could be harmful to animals, humans or the environment. These include household and industrial chemicals, herbicides, fertilisers, and food additives.
Toxicology tests are conducted by pharmaceutical companies testing drugs, or by animal-testing facilities like Huntingdon Life Sciences and Inveresk Research International on behalf of a wide variety of customers, including manufacturers such as Procter & Gamble, Unilever, Reckitt Benckiser, Colgate-Palmolive, SC Johnson, Union Carbide, and Ciba-Geigy. [80]
During these tests, which are conducted without pain relief in part to ensure no interference with the test results, finished products such as pesticides, medications, food additives such as artificial sweeteners,

Yeah lush.

[Martin23]

Just sounds like a Daily Mail rant Joe, in which you are not asking a question at all and if you understood how the ALF worked you'd understand that anyone can call themselves ALF, you did mention So Many, how many is that? For once I agree with Phil, dark day indeed

[V Knid esq]

I should have been more clear in the original post. The issue that my friend was marching for yesterday, and what I am talking about here, is MEDICAL testing. Toxicity tests for industrial / domestic chemicals is a separate matter with a whole other set of questions.

As to how many 'so many' is - it's enough to make a lot of ordinary people who do important work's life hell and put them in fear of their lives. What proportion of people who call themselves ALF that is I have no idea, but there are plenty of psychopaths who use the movement to justify some truly hideous acts...

The ALF isn't an organisation as such. Its more of an ethos. Anybody can take an action in the name of animal liberation. Archangel is a good read if you want to understand more.

Morally, I find animal testing as abortant as forced human testing of the Jews. In many ways I feel that we do not deserve the medical knowledge we have because we have gain it through so much suffering. On a personal level, I hypocritically still consume these product if it will make me or a loved one's quality of life better.

Fundamentally the whole area is a profit driven one because we are not willing to fund drug research from taxation so private companies have to do it - therefore they have to minimise risk of side effects - which virtually enforces animal testing.

[Yer_Maw]

Originally Posted by JonnySpeed

The ALF isn't an organisation as such. Its more of an ethos. Anybody can take an action in the name of animal liberation. Archangel is a good read if you want to understand more.

Morally, I find animal testing as abortant as forced human testing of the Jews. In many ways I feel that we do not deserve the medical knowledge we have because we have gain it through so much suffering. On a personal level, I hypocritically still consume these product if it will make me or a loved one's quality of life better.

Fundamentally the whole area is a profit driven one because we are not willing to fund drug research from taxation so private companies have to do it - therefore they have to minimise risk of side effects - which virtually enforces animal testing.

Tell that to a thalidomide baby. Thats where all this safety buisness comes from. Most funding actually comes from charities and the government through the university sector. Its only when a candidate drug is found that the private sector come in and develop it. The reason is that only the private sector can afford large scale HUMAN studies to test effectiveness. you admit your own hypocrisy. How do you even argue with an opninion like that.

Its interesting that you bring up megale and the jews, because most protestors say that testing should be done on humans instead of animals.

[Martin23]

You are correct, there are some nutters who claim to be ALF but I know some who are nothing like the people you describe, in fact I'm more put off by their "tree hugging" ways than anything else - but that is probably true of most things (ALF etc etc), isn't it? I read your post and thought it was a little unbalanced, if you wanted what people really thought...

[V Knid esq]

Fair dos Martin... and I have no beef with people who believe that no animal testing is justified as long as they also are open to discussion and don't think that they can force their opinion onto others. In actual fact my real position is closer to what Johnnyspeed says - though I wouldn't go anywhere near comparing it to the Holocaust, I'm not really idealistic about it one way or another - I do think that a lot of life is needlessly wasted to chase profits, but I will reap the benefits of it too. However I still absolutely support those who are having the courage of their convictions to stick their heads above the parapet and challenge people who want to achieve their unpopular aims by violence and intimidation...

[Martin23]

Originally Posted by V Knid esq

Fair dos. In actual fact my real position is closer to what Johnnyspeed says - though I wouldn't go anywhere near comparing it to the Holocaust, I'm not really idealistic about it one way or another - I do think that a lot of life is needlessly wasted to chase profits, but I will reap the benefits of it too. However I still absolutely support those who are having the courage of their convictions to stick their heads above the parapet and challenge people who want to achieve their unpopular aims by violence and intimidation...

I don't think the views are unpopular, more that the way they are put over and by whom is not accepted, if you took some of the heat out of the debate and gave the facts in the cold light of the day, I think many would actually surprised.

I do love the Daily Mail approach. "SO YOU WOULD PUT THE LIFE OF A DUMB ANIMAL ABOVE THAT OF A CUTE ICKLE BABBY WIV CANCER???"

[Martin23]

Originally Posted by JonnySpeed

I do love the Daily Mail approach. "SO YOU WOULD PUT THE LIFE OF A DUMB ANIMAL ABOVE THAT OF A CUTE ICKLE BABBY WIV CANCER???"

Interesting, not even sure how that choice would ever come about tho, can you?

[Martin23]

Originally Posted by JonnySpeed

I do love the Daily Mail approach. "SO YOU WOULD PUT THE LIFE OF A DUMB ANIMAL ABOVE THAT OF A CUTE ICKLE BABBY WIV CANCER???"

Lets get Daily Mail Would you eat your cat?

[V Knid esq]

Originally Posted by JonnySpeed

I do love the Daily Mail approach. "SO YOU WOULD PUT THE LIFE OF A DUMB ANIMAL ABOVE THAT OF A CUTE ICKLE BABBY WIV CANCER???"

Well, my friend has been told more than once by animal rights campaigners - not violent extremists, just the common-or-garden high street stall with pictures of monkeys brigade - that her child ought to be dead. So those tactics are used on both sides.

Personally, rather than worry about the rights or wrongs of one cancer baby or whatever, I'm more interested in the fact that - in no small part thanks to testing on animals - we now have drugs that can ease the suffering of tens or hundreds of millions of the people with AIDS, malaria, TB etc etc. The fact that they don't get the drugs is another matter - now THAT is immoral.

[Roy Shaw]

people who want to test things on animals are horrible people.

[ckpqerjwrpwp]

I have very strong contradictory views about animal testing on both sides of the fence.. I really don't have one single position on it.

I think testing on animals for any products which don't save peoples lives or ease their pain is plain wrong.

Then it gets blurry. I don't trust the opinions of either extreme, the scientists who say there is no other way than testing on animals and the activists who claim no animal testing is necessary... the answer is clearly in the middle somewhere.

[Yer_Maw]

yes i think it is in the middle, and this viewpoint in my opninion is clearly covered by the law Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986:

* there is no validated alternative to animal tests
* there is a reasoned, sustainable justification for the generation of new test data
* the protocols proposed cannot be further refined
* the protocols will be likely to produce data which will meet the specified objective

All laboratories granted a license must adhere to a strict code of practice which stipulates minimum standards for:

* animal housing and environment
* animal care and health
* minimised breeding of surplus animals
* humane killing

[Martin23]

This can't be right tho, can it?

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=iams

[Yer_Maw]

Originally Posted by Martin23

This can't be right tho, can it?

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=iams

yep it isnt right. thats why itis illegal in this country for these reasons (from the guidelines posted above):

1. causes unecessary suffering for no scientific valid reason. they say its petfood company, would not be allowed. Would not get a licence to do this.

2. Kept in dirty procedures room, and bad single housing. Site would not get a home office licence.

3. uses large mammal, dog (handy for propaganda though). Very difficult to get licence for animal, would probably be denied and told to use mice.

This stuff in the video does not happen in the uk. It is wrong, and im glad there are laws to stop it in this country.