Animal testing = where do you stand?

[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

I wasn't arguing. And my own moralit vs. hypocracy is not open for debate here. I was adding a little bit of debate. Its often easy to say you'd refuse life changing drugs if you've never had to make that decision. I have so yes I understand and admit my lack of conviction in my actions.

[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.

[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.

[Martin23]

Originally Posted by Yer_Maw

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.

But just how useful would the data from mouse be to a human?

On point 2, this makes interesting reading:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/animalrigh...716797,00.html

[Yer_Maw]

The point is, it will be the same as a dog. Thats why they would be told to use it instead of a higher mammal.

as to how useful the data from the mouse will be, they have to fit into law on these counts:

* there is no validated alternative to animal tests
* there is a reasoned, sustainable justification for the generation of new test data

The mouse data has to be shown before the expiriment to adhere to these points, by law. The mouse data will be useful to humans as they would have had to demonstrate that before the fact. Moot point, but schizophrenia which you would think to be a human disease can be studied in mice - its just science requires that mouse data cannot be written as 100% the full story, even though it probably is. Thats where human trials come in.

I'm sure we could invent hundreds of drugs to save millions of lives by undertaking vivisection on humans - say the poor from Brazil or Eastern Europe. Perhaps any group of people we feel are untermention?

I doesn't stack up. All it says is that we feel our species is superior to all others and has the right to use other species to do abhorant things to them. But then again if you eat other animals it doesn't really matter if you cut them up for medical tests?

Would you eat your own dog? Would you let your own dog be used for animal testing and watch it first hand? If you would then I suppose you have every right to walk about protesting for the right to vivisection.

The kind of protest I like is where they get a companies product and spike it with poison to send it to their headquarters pretending they've also places similar packages in the retail chain. Pretend being the operative word.

[V Knid esq]

I would eat my cat if i was hungry enough. Yes, I *do* think that humans matter more than monkeys and that monkeys matter more than dogs and that dogs matter more than mice. I don't know if that's rational but it's how I feel.

[ckpqerjwrpwp]

To consider your own species more important than other species when faced with an extreme situation is completely natural and important for survival. There are only a tiny minority of people who don't have some sort of demonstrable hierarchy of lifeforms.

[Yer_Maw]

Well thats it really, i do place a higher value on human life than animal life. And any meat eater does so too, regardless of where they think they stand on this issue. For some, meat comes in a packet, that way people can dissassociate themselves from the harsh realities eating animals, and i think that is relevant here.

I think the problem is that in the modern world are so far removed from the issue of life (eg cancer) and death (animal testing), that they can afford to see a moral dialemma in it. Nobody was discussing this when people were starving and infant mortality was through the roof - people had other things to worry about. Nowadays, due to science, people arent faced with the life and death desicions associated with this issue every day, and if they were i think there would be less room for feeling so sentimental.

You either value the life of humans over animals, or you dont. And if you dont, then fair enough you are entitled to your opinion.

[Roy Shaw]

id sooner see drugs tested on yeemaw and V Knid esq thats for sure. No great loss

[Whuffle]

dolphin steak anyone?

[soulcheck]

Sorry for joining that late to the discussion (too late?) but just to make answer to martin23's question: data from mice could be very useful to human,considering that we have more than 70% of common genome (and i think proteome as well). This means that for example gene therapies can be tested on mice before they go to humans. When sthg goes wrong, then, in my opinion, it's better if it goues wrong with mice. Especially mice that are grown solely for this purpose.

I just hope comparative genomics will make some progress soon, so scientists could start experimenting on lower animals with the same effect.

After all who would miss a snail?

[wheezer]

In Finland a few years ago there was a group that broke into fur farms in and released all the animals into the wild.

A beautiful concept in theory, and of course fur farms have no real benefit to offer to humanity, unlike animal testing. Except the animals had never lived in the wild, and all died shortly thereafter.

This type of nearsightedness pisses me off, and is exactly what a lot of animal rights activists seem to be guilty of.

Animal testing is a grey area, and the best we can do is to put together a strict set of rules of conduct such as those quoted by yer_maw.

[Roy Shaw]

Originally Posted by soulcheck

After all who would miss a snail?

id miss a snail u cunt

[soulcheck]

Originally Posted by Roy Shaw

id miss a snail u cunt

even the big black ones with no shells on them ??

come on, there must be some kind of low level animal you wouldn't miss. Tapeworms maybe?

As soon as experiments on nice, furry animals will be stopped, animal rights activists will lose their support, mostly because people identify themselves much harder with ugly, slimy organisms with no eyes (yes, snails have eyes, but still they have quite uncomplicated nervous system and probably don't even care if somebody hurts them or not).

i love animals but i love people more, and some of them much more ...

[soulcheck]

And yes, i would eat my dog, given no other choice.

Would my dog think twice before eating me, given no other choice than death?

[nempsey]

i used to experiment on flies. you never saw anyone standing up for flies' rights. which i think is a shame. flies should be allowed to vote. and they should be able to claim the dole too.

[mdk]

i think the dog would be loyal and embrace the journey across the river with his master, unless of course he realised the deep betrayal inherent in the one he trusted then of course he would be right to eat you.

[Roy Shaw]

wot makes you better than a tapeworm? Nothing.

[soulcheck]

Originally Posted by Roy Shaw

wot makes you better than a tapeworm? Nothing.

Well i'm not dependant of any particular host for example. I think that makes me quite better. Humans are social, which is nice too. And they can exchange their thoughts, which is rarely done by tapeworms

[Roy Shaw]

how do you know. maybe tapeworms have Psychic abilities. what do u think about trees? think they are Maruta (that means Wood or logs) which is what the japanese called the Chinese when they were torturing them. do u think trees dont sense? well they do u know.

[nempsey]

thing is this is a bit of a muddy question, there's actually a lot of different things getting lumped together. people think of the very worst, most inhumane kinds of research when they make their judgements - eg, i am not morally opposed to getting a monkey in a zoo to play a game in the name of science. but i don't fancy torturing it.


'testing on animals' is a very different thing from experimenting on animals - hmm, i made that statement. no, it's wrong actually.

[mdk]

Originally Posted by soulcheck

Well i'm not dependant of any particular host for example. I think that makes me quite better. Humans are social, which is nice too. And they can exchange their thoughts, which is rarely done by tapeworms

its also rare for tapeworms to bomb the fuck out of each other. this argument leads nowhere.

we prefer humans because thats what we are.

I say test on politicians and business leaders. theyre not human.

[soulcheck]

Originally Posted by mdk

i think the dog would be loyal and embrace the journey across the river with his master, unless of course he realised the deep betrayal inherent in the one he trusted then of course he would be right to eat you.

A dog is loyal as long as he considers you as member of his pack, in which he has a lower status than you do. As soon as your dog becomes alpha male or female his loyality decreases to dangerously low level.

What is more these kind of reactions are not caused by hunger. And i think you can seldom meet "normal" people who would harm their dog for reasons other than hunger. If they do they're definitely not normal and should be treated.

[Roy Shaw]

i dont eat a chicken though. you just test drugs and things on animals. ur bad in my opinion

[nempsey]

i wouldn't fancy doing nasty things to mice - i used to do nasty things to flies, even that made me feel slightly ill.

[Roy Shaw]

Originally Posted by soulcheck

A dog is loyal as long as he considers you as member of his pack, in which he has a lower status than you do. As soon as your dog becomes alpha male or female his loyality decreases to dangerously low level.

What is more these kind of reactions are not caused by hunger. And i think you can seldom meet "normal" people who would harm their dog for reasons other than hunger. If they do they're definitely not normal and should be treated.

u aint got no bollox, u aint sturdy, ud compromise all over the shop. i never compromise..the dog would eat u. ur flawed .. so i wouldnt say to an animal., here u are animal have this test done on you. have this put in you rat. o ur small. what about u snail with no shell do u want to eat some Acd DMtriporamCitricdog. ok snail u dont have any eyes so u cant see the drug. o and u cant feel it can u because ur a worthless fucking robot with one mission in life. what about Bees? want to test on bees. ok, well without bees then most of ur food wouldn t be on the table cus of polluntaion.

[decadnids]

Originally Posted by soulcheck

A dog is loyal as long as he considers you as member of his pack, in which he has a lower status than you do. As soon as your dog becomes alpha male or female his loyality decreases to dangerously low level.

quite similiar to the general relationships with people then isn\t it.

i mean, most people are loyal to people they consider to be a member of their "pack"!