Animal Research: Right or Wrong?

[Morkeliph]

That's right, I'm calling out all those animal right's activists on the boards to "educate" us on why animal research is cruel and wrong. Don't forget to mention that all animal research done anymore are under strict federal regulations and the subjects are pampered beyond belief. Don't fail to mention how nearly all modern vaccinations, medications, behavioral therapies, and many technologies are the results of animal research. When you're taking your birth control, asprin, or go in for cancer or heart surgery, or when your cousin learns to cope with or overcome OCD, autism, or anorexia, don't forget to thank animal research for making it possible. Not to mention your cell phone, computer, GPS device, etcetera, that you wouldn't currently enjoy if dogs and monkeys didn't fly on rockets into space.

If you've got qualms against animal research, or anything you want to add about the right or wrong of animal research, post them here and we'll "discuss" them; or show you how wrong you really are.

[Mtank]

I've never really been squeamish about animal testing. I suppose I don't feel particularly sad for some nameless animal somewhere (allegedly) undergoing horrifying chemical tests. I'm not much of an animal lover anyway.

Also, whats the alternative? If you don't test them on animals, then either
1) you test them straightway on humans (as opposed to applying human testing after the animal tests are satisfactory),

or

2) don't test at all.

1) Is pretty much the same if you look at it from a humanitarian view, probably worse.
2) would have disastrous consequences, with inadequately tested vaccines and medications flooding the market.


Morally, many do believe it's wrong to subjugate animals to fulfill our own needs, but when have humans not subjugated animals for their own use? We slaughter chickens in the millions and process them into delicious (yet unhealthy) Mcdonalds burgers. Isn't that worse?

[GenocideAlive]

Speaking as someone who has done/seen the sacrifice, it's not easy to do. You're basically breeding them to torture and kill them. It's no different than what would happen in the wild, but in this sense there is a directly responsible party. I'll do it for science, but I don't have to like it.

[Morkeliph]

Heh, but if you chose to like it it'd be a lot more fun. ;)

[ScottieIWU]

Morally, many do believe it's wrong to subjugate animals to fulfill our own needs, but when have humans not subjugated animals for their own use? We slaughter chickens in the millions and process them into delicious (yet unhealthy) Mcdonalds burgers. Isn't that worse?
That's why to many animal rights activists and PETA those issues are so significantly tied together. However, the nature of using animals for food is a OT for this topic, so we can avoid that.

I personally am for animal testing, simply because there are no alternatives. Until someday comes when we can perhaps model on computers exactly how animal bodies work there is no means of safely testing on anything.

I just see testing on animals as the lesser moral evil. Testing on people is flat out wrong while testing on animals is, in my opinion, an area of moral ambiguity. When forced to choose between the two I say animals, and I hardly consider none at all an option.

[Morkeliph]

Using animals for food isn't completely OT really, and I think it wa a good connection. Speaking of PETA, it's ironic how there are members of PETA who are so extremist that while they have major ethical issues with using animals for research, they have no qualms about arson, or destruction of private property, etc. A few years ago, a local member of PETA was caught here in Logan for attempting to set fire to the biology building. What an idiot! Not only could this have hurt humans, it could have burned the many animals inside the building being used for research; the very animals he was trying to "save." This all goes to validate one of my personal prejudices: animal rights activitists are ignorant, simpletons who do not even comprehend what they are attempting to oppose. Many of them, IMO, do it just for attention or some source of "identity."

[GrimTerror]

Why not grow something else to test it on? You can grow skin samples, so why not test a facial cream on a grow skin sample instead? Wouldn't it spare animals from having to go through terrible conditions and also give a more accurate indication of the reaction it would have on human skin?

I'm totally against it because I am an animal lover and I know there's nothing wrong with that. I guess your view would be based on how much you value animals. I don't like the fact that humans believe that they are the most superior things alive and that gives them the right to use other animals for testing products/medicine on (Note that it is just animals, i'm not opposed to testing things on Bacteria or other basic lifeforms.)

If products are made today that have not used vivisection as a means of testing, then why do people still use it if they haven't (supposedly) been tested beforehand?

[GenocideAlive]

Why not grow something else to test it on? You can grow skin samples, so why not test a facial cream on a grow skin sample instead? Wouldn't it spare animals from having to go through terrible conditions and also give a more accurate indication of the reaction it would have on human skin?
No. You are severely misinformed. Testing these things on skin would be not unlike building something to work on a bulldozer and testing it on a Tonka toy. Organisms are infinitely more complex than the sum of their parts.
products are made today that have not used vivisection as a means of testing, then why do people still use it if they haven't (supposedly) been tested beforehand?
...again, this reflects your ignorance. Please point out the products which you are discussing. Your inability to do so speaks volumes.

[ScottieIWU]

This all goes to validate one of my personal prejudices: animal rights activitists are ignorant, simpletons who do not even comprehend what they are attempting to oppose. Many of them, IMO, do it just for attention or some source of "identity."

While I enjoy avoiding generalizations, when they prove to be true I laugh at that person for sucking. In one case of what you said, Mork, I was in my psych class and my professor talked about how she ran a rat lab over at Illinois State University earlier in her career. The second she said "rat" this girl in front row jumped on her about animal rights. This girl immediately asked what happens when the rats get too old, then without giving my professor the chance to answer accused her of euthanasia.

Of course, my professor, being badass and wanting to have none of that immediately shut her down saying that they gave rats beyond their years away to students who worked in the lab, and thus, had often formed associations with them. Plus, she pointed out, the rats were treated well and usually lived well beyond their natural expected lifespan.

Makes me laugh, seeing dumb people get shut down by badass professors.

[GrimTerror]

Please point out the products which you are discussing.
I've not seen them too often, but I did manage to find one that said...
We are against animal testing and fund research into alternatives
I've noticed things like that a couple of times before on various other haircare products and some body/facial treatments. Not that I go around the house looking for these things mind;)

[SuiCidAl-KiSmEt]

I love animals they so tasty :P

It's going to be a long long time for science to advance without using them. Technology today can't predict any weird or unknown side effects that it will cause - to whatever they're doing to the animals. Since humans and animals are related to each other, its good idea to test on them before ruining a human life. Animals aren’t really important since all they do is eat and kill each other.

[Neo]

Heh, but if you chose to like it it'd be a lot more fun. ;)
I find this to be a very disturbing comment.

I will say this;

I could be termed as an animal lover -- I love them cuddly little things. Up to a point. Mice and rats? I will kill them myself if I have to.

The point i am getting at is this...

I feel that animal testing is alright, at least for certain 'animals' -- ie: testing on mice is alright in my mind... But going up and testing on rabbits? Ok, I suppose I can see that as being ok (people eat rabbits anyways right? used to a lot in the old days). But furthur up? I draw the line at animals like Dogs, Cats, etc...

I might also draw the line on Guinea Pigs -- I once had one, and while I can claim for certain that mice are evil little bastards with very little purpose other then to shit and reproduce en masse, Guinea Pigs are quite cuddly and affectionate. But then again, so are bunnys.

Personally, I don't mind testing on animals as long as certain regulations are upheld, and a certain decency observed. Testing things that you KNOW are going to harm, torture, and cause pain to an animal is a bit much, but if testing on that animal might save a million lives? Go for it.

I also think that animal testing such as for medical products run into barriers as well -- afterall, how well can you tell if something is going to help cure a person if it cures a rodent? I believe that people should be given the option to help test experimental or new drugs out there if they are in terminal conditions, opening the way for "human testing" but would help bring a potentially life saving drug/product out into the world much faster then having it tested for 5 years on animals, then another 10 on humans, etc... and another 2 or 3 years to get through the FDA.

And I refuse to be associated with PETA, I may be an animal-lover and dislike cruel // any animal testing, but PETA is an assocation for moronic dumbasses.

-Neo

[ScottieIWU]

And I refuse to be associated with PETA, I may be an animal-lover and dislike cruel // any animal testing, but PETA is an assocation for moronic dumbasses.

It's good to hear somebody who might stand for animal rights say that.

On another note, I think the word "utilitarianism" is key in this discussion.

Oh, and Neo, I'm not the most reliable source but when you brought up animal testing, if I recall correctly humans are extremely similar to many other mammals in general genetic makeup, and it's the differences in only a rather small percentage of our DNA that makes us so different.

Somebody with greater knowledge of the issue please correct me on that if I am wrong or elaborate.

[GrimTerror]

On another note, I think the word "utilitarianism" is key in this discussion.
No I really don't think that is the case here. I've studied Utilitarianism very recently in my Theology class and I understand it and it's weaknesses very well. At first appearence, it seems to be a reasonable explanation for certain things (like animal testing here) but some of it's weaknesses greatly outweigh it's positive points. Greatest happiness of the greatest number is not as simple as it sounds. It does not take into consideration the minority, nor does it take into consideration the quality of the happiness gained. According to standard Utilitarianism, 20 bullies taking pleasure on picking on one child is acceptable. Because the greatest happiness is gained for the greater number (20 happy bullies to one miserable child) there is no injustice being caused. Quite clearly that is not the case. Utilitarianism is a very weak theory to go by, try to reframe from using it.

Sure you might say that the greatest number benefit and it is only a minority that have to suffer, but i'm pretty sure you wouldn't be all for it if YOU were one of the suffering minorities.

Getting back on track, I really don't understand why humans think are greater than every other animal. Compared to other mammals, our natural surviving skills (as in survival without your protective clothing, your stove or your first aid kit) are pretty pathetic. I know a lot of you will disagree with this point of view, but it is mine and I intend to stick by it.

[GenocideAlive]

I've noticed things like that a couple of times before on various other haircare products and some body/facial treatments. Not that I go around the house looking for these things mind
Sadly, you are the victim of sham marketing. They don't test their shampoos because:

1) The testing of shampoos on animals is by and large already done.
2) Their shampoo probably contains no novel ingredients.
3) There's nothing inherently lethal about something that sees 25s of lathering on your head.

Try doing something similar with, say, a cancer treatment. And good luck.
I could be termed as an animal lover -- I love them cuddly little things. Up to a point. Mice and rats? I will kill them myself if I have to.

The point i am getting at is this...

I feel that animal testing is alright, at least for certain 'animals' -- ie: testing on mice is alright in my mind... But going up and testing on rabbits? Ok, I suppose I can see that as being ok (people eat rabbits anyways right? I might also draw the line on Guinea Pigs
Rats: Rodentia
Mice: Rodentia
Guinea Pigs: Rodentia
Rabbits: Lagomorpha

If you don't mind rats and mice, you have no intellectual basis for a qualm with guinea pigs. Rabbits could be lumped into the same category, but are denoted for having a few distinct physiological differences that ultimately mean nothing (they can chew with their mouths closed, etc.).

I hate to say it, but thus far detractors are fitting right into Mork's stereotype. You're ignorant, uninformed, and have no intellectual basis for your qualms other than a personal bias.

C'mon, I know someone out there has a decent argument...:/

[ScottieIWU]

I know utilitarianism isn't perfect, and mostly I'm not a fan of ignoring minorities for any reason, but I have to say that in some cases that's the only way to get something done.

If we listen to the dissenting animal rights activists we may never learn treatments to cancer, HIV, or other diseases. Even the animal rights activists, who are the humans that would be hurt by this utilitarianism, will benefit from animal research/testing when it comes to diseases.

Then, you have to ask if the animals are the minority whose rights are being ignored. Personally I'm not a huge fan of animal testing but as has been pointed out most testing is done in the latter stages of development, not early, and expected side effects are usually minimal.

[Neo]

Rats: Rodentia
Mice: Rodentia
Guinea Pigs: Rodentia
Rabbits: Lagomorpha

If you don't mind rats and mice, you have no intellectual basis for a qualm with guinea pigs. Rabbits could be lumped into the same category, but are denoted for having a few distinct physiological differences that ultimately mean nothing (they can chew with their mouths closed, etc.).

I hate to say it, but thus far detractors are fitting right into Mork's stereotype. You're ignorant, uninformed, and have no intellectual basis for your qualms other than a personal bias.

C'mon, I know someone out there has a decent argument...:/

Was the "might draw the line on" or "because I had a guinea pig" not clear enough for you?

I was hinting at, becuase I had a guinea pig when I was younger, I don't like the thought of them being tested on, but I didn't say that they shouldn't be used for testing at all. In fact I believe somewhere in there I said that if the testing could lead to saving lives, then go for it.

Your post actually added nothing more onto this discussion except to try and make me look ignorant and uninformed, while offering nothing yourself. In fact in this whole thread you've only made a few comments that actually pertain to the topic on hand.

Instead of posting information relevant to the discussion, or discussing your own thoughts on the topic your just attacking those that do.

If this was all based on purely intellectual "qualms" then there would be none. Humans are superior to animals, therefore, we can/will use them for whatever we need them for to furthur our own health or looks, or whatever. I mean, wtf? Intellectually there is no arguement for not testing on animals, past something like "cosmetics have no need to be tested on animals as they are a luxury, not something that could save someones life"

...

I don't know, what the hell are you actually waiting for to be posted? What could someone possibly post on this subject that isn't colored by personal beliefs? Some people belief animals feel and think and dream, others think they all operate on basic instincts only. Some people believe animals have souls, etc... Others don't care one way or another. So unless there is some machine out there can read/translate what animals are thinking... What else do we have besides our personal beliefs?

I posted my thoughts on the subject, and your trying to shoot me down while offering none of your own thoughts or beliefs on the subject, or even factual information regarding the topic on hand, past your earlier comment about it being for science/you not having to like it.

-Neo

[GenocideAlive]

Your post actually added nothing more onto this discussion except to try and make me look ignorant and uninformed, while offering nothing yourself. In fact in this whole thread you've only made a few comments that actually pertain to the topic on hand.
This is the same strawman you pull out every time you and I disagree on something. I slam you for bullshit that you start pulling out of your ass, here comes the "GenocideAlive isn't contributing to this thread" accusation that you fall back on when you're flailing for something to discredit me.

I've been involved in animal testing, I have an advanced degree in a very technical field of science. I have offered information and my opinion of that information--which is the extent of what the IR is for. If we turn that magnifying glass over to you, your "contribution" to this discussion is suffering far more than mine.

The IR is for debates. I have every right to question your opinion, beliefs, and remarks here. If you don't like it, don't post.
If this was all based on purely intellectual "qualms" then there would be none. Humans are superior to animals, therefore, we can/will use them for whatever we need them for to furthur our own health or looks, or whatever. I mean, wtf? Intellectually there is no arguement for not testing on animals, past something like "cosmetics have no need to be tested on animals as they are a luxury, not something that could save someones life"
False. Many people do NOT believe that humans are superior to animals, others believe that animals shouldn't be used to test non-lifesaving items, others believe that animals are superior to humans, others believe that we should use humans as guinea pigs because they're far more targeted, this list goes on and on. You are uninformed as to this topic and the range of the debate, probably because you haven't discussed it in earnest or at length with others before.

I had a chick that sat next to me in my Bacterial Physiology class that truly believed that animals and world peace were the ultimate achievements.
I don't know, what the hell are you actually waiting for to be posted? What could someone possibly post on this subject that isn't colored by personal beliefs? What else do we have besides our personal beliefs?
We have information and facts to support those personal beliefs. You could state that humans aren't superior to animals and that no living creature with basic brain structure should be subjected to torture to save another creature's life. That's a very powerful argument, not as limp as "HEY KILL RATS KILL MICE BUT I DON'T LIKE IT WHEN YOU WANT TO EXPERIMENT ON GUINEA PIGS CAUSE I HAD ONE WHEN I WAS A KID IT WAS NICE".

If you want to disagree, GrimTerror and Neo, I have no problem. I'd probably ask questions and try to reconcile your beliefs with what I understand. However, if you're going to disagree on a flawed basis, don't expect me to sit there and pretend like your personal opinion should be validated by its own merit.

[Neo]

This is the same strawman you pull out every time you and I disagree on something. I slam you for bullshit that you start pulling out of your ass, here comes the "GenocideAlive isn't contributing to this thread" accusation that you fall back on when you're flailing for something to discredit me.
Wasn't trying to 'discredit' you at all. In fact, I was trying to push you into actually posting something like this. Though I realized it wouldn't happen unless you were prodded into doing so.

I've been involved in animal testing, I have an advanced degree in a very technical field of science. I have offered information and my opinion of that information--which is the extent of what the IR is for. If we turn that magnifying glass over to you, your "contribution" to this discussion is suffering far more than mine.

The IR is for debates. I have every right to question your opinion, beliefs, and remarks here. If you don't like it, don't post.
IR is also for discussion. You have every right to question others opinions or beliefs, but when you offer nothing more then what basically boils down to "your a moron and I am not telling you why" -- thats completely missing the entire point of this forum.

False. Many people do NOT believe that humans are superior to animals, others believe that animals shouldn't be used to test non-lifesaving items, others believe that animals are superior to humans, others believe that we should use humans as guinea pigs because they're far more targeted, this list goes on and on. You are uninformed as to this topic and the range of the debate, probably because you haven't discussed it in earnest or at length with others before.
Could've sworn I was one of those "don't want testing down unless its a potentially life-saving product" people. Odd. Did I not get that across?

I meant that, from a purely intellectual and logical stand point, there can be no arguement against animal testing. "I don't think its humane..." Pointless. Animals are not humans, therefore, they hold no rights. "I am an animal lover [emotionally attached, peta fanatics]" Pointless. Animals are animals. Personal feelings or beliefs don't matter.

The only real arguments one can make against Animal Testing is that it goes against thier beliefs, or opinions. The facts are that if said product might save lives in the future, then to hell with any animal lover, anti-animal-tester out there.

I had a chick that sat next to me in my Bacterial Physiology class that truly believed that animals and world peace were the ultimate achievements.
I'm confused, "animals" as in just animals? She seems like the perfect PETA member, or perhaps a contender for Miss USA.

We have information and facts to support those personal beliefs. You could state that humans aren't superior to animals and that no living creature with basic brain structure should be subjected to torture to save another creature's life. That's a very powerful argument, not as limp as "HEY KILL RATS KILL MICE BUT I DON'T LIKE IT WHEN YOU WANT TO EXPERIMENT ON GUINEA PIGS CAUSE I HAD ONE WHEN I WAS A KID IT WAS NICE".
I love how you focus on one little bit of my post. God forbid I allow myself to come across as human instead of an automaton. I was mostly trying to put across that testing on "lower species" should be allowed, regardless of whats being testing. But thier should be a line drawn at testing animals like Chimps or bigger qaudrapeds, or other apes, etc... Its one thing to test a vaccine on a mouse, and another to test a potentially painful drug on an animal whose species has shown signs of intelligence in one form or another.

If you want to disagree, GrimTerror and Neo, I have no problem. I'd probably ask questions and try to reconcile your beliefs with what I understand. However, if you're going to disagree on a flawed basis, don't expect me to sit there and pretend like your personal opinion should be validated by its own merit.
OMG, The point of IR!!!! People post thier beliefs and opinions and wait for feedback, or people who disagree with them. Omg, and these people who might agree or disagree with them offer up more information. And then said people go back and forth and dicuss things, or even *gasp* start a debate!!!1

Its kind of hard to hold a dicussion when many of your posts amount to nothing more then "STRAWMEN....UNINFORMED....IF YOU DONT KNOW I WONT TELL YOU..."

I mean really, what do you expect to come from a discussion in which a majority of your posts are talking down to others, telling them they are wrong, etc... without explaining anything yourself?

I'm sorry, was I supposed to get a "read GA's mind package" in the mail the other day?

-Neo

[GenocideAlive]

Wasn't trying to 'discredit' you at all. In fact, I was trying to push you into actually posting something like this. Though I realized it wouldn't happen unless you were prodded into doing so.
Wow, so you're trolling me. Super. I'll remember that the next time you post something like "Gee Genocide, why is it that every thread you post in turns into a flame war?"
Could've sworn I was one of those "don't want testing down unless its a potentially life-saving product" people. Odd. Did I not get that across?
No, Neo. What you "got across" was yet another of your on-again, off-again rants that lacks direction, coherence, and a basic writing structure. Nice for posturing and letting people know you're not AFK, but otherwise worthless for establishing something to the topic.
I meant that, from a purely intellectual and logical stand point, there can be no arguement against animal testing. "I don't think its humane..." Pointless. Animals are not humans, therefore, they hold no rights. "I am an animal lover [emotionally attached, peta fanatics]" Pointless. Animals are animals. Personal feelings or beliefs don't matter.
While I immediately and readily agree, such is not the case. Some governments forbid animal testing because their religion prohibits the murder of any creature for any reason. They have a good basis for believing taking a life to potentially save a life isn't worth the risks. At best, an even exchange would be called for, and at worst, we are not creatures that should be able to trade lives or choose whom is to live and whom is to die.

I hardly think that kind of logic can be disagreed if they stay adherent to their policy.
OMG, The point of IR!!!! People post thier beliefs and opinions and wait for feedback, or people who disagree with them. Omg, and these people who might agree or disagree with them offer up more information. And then said people go back and forth and dicuss things, or even *gasp* start a debate!!!1

I mean really, what do you expect to come from a discussion in which a majority of your posts are talking down to others, telling them they are wrong, etc... without explaining anything yourself?

I'm sorry, was I supposed to get a "read GA's mind package" in the mail the other day?
Neo, grow up. Constantly making these dull hammer-blows at sarcasm doesn't make you look clever, it just grates nerves. You're taking two pages to put across a simple two-sentence concept--your tirades get old fast.

I avoid putting forth some of my ideas sometimes to simply spare myself and the second party the trouble. If we're discussing something straight-foward that I can wrap up quickly, I will do so. Otherwise I'm not going to type a three page dissertation on a graduate-level concept for a 17-year-old that isn't even in AP Biology.

Invariably they ignore the 75% they don't understand anyway, then take the 25% they do understand and immediately nab some tidbit and take it out of context for their quoted-website rejoinder. They may even pepper in some debatist catchphrases and insulting labels for "credibility", when they're simply plagerizing word-for-word what someone else wrote.

When I have spent years studying science and doing research, what would I have to gain by explaining the meaning and usefulness of sacrifices to someone that advises us to "grow skin and test it on that instead?"

Other than a six-page background in HS biology followed by a ten-page update on cancer, HIV, and genetic diseases as a preface to my reply, I have no recourse to simply saying "you are ignorant", and leaving it at that.

[Neo]

In the future would you be willing to just post "your a moron" instead of wasting my time?

It would be much easier on everyone. Becuase then I can reply with something like "you suck" and then we can start bitching at each other quicker.

Since no other discussion seems to be happening besides GA and I sniping at each other lets just close this. Apparently we are all to stupid to discuss this anyways.

-Neo