Animal experimentation

Great Debates
21

I’m sorry if my posts on the subject come across as very cold and clinical. I have had a long time to order my thoughts on this issue, and you are seeing the end result.

Working on animals is thoroughly unpleasant for everyone involved, I do however think that the outcome is worth the cost. Like I have said I can see how it is entirely possible to take an informed moral stance against animal experimentation and I respect that opinion. What I object to is that this is not what most of the people campaigning against this issue seem to have done.

22

I don’t believe in animal testing for cosmetics, shampoos… things of this nature. I’m not really sure about some drug testing, but, my understanding is that a cancer cell is a cancer cell, and curing it in a rat is no different than a human. how the drug effects the human vs. the rat is something I don’t trust in the testing phase. but, i feel better knowing that it at least didn’t kill the rat, before it’s given to humans.

You’re on a road, it’s a beautiful day. You’ve spent the noon at a small cafe in the mountians and now you are heading back home, to get ready for the work week. A rabbit comes from nowhere, a car shares the road to the left, you have no where to go but over the cliff to avoid the rabbit…

who’s more valuable?

23

Scientist who does animal research checking in here.

Okay, I do a lot of research involving animals (mice, entirely), and the proof that it is necessary is that it continutes. Because animal experimentation is a huge pain in the ass. It takes forever to generate data in mice, as compared to in vitro experiments. ANYTHING that I can do without using a mouse, I will do. So, when I do turn to a mouse, it is absolutely necessary. I use the minimum number (and often I use mice that are being sacrificed anyway, from other peoples experiments), and the sterotype of these mice being mistreated is an illusion. I am stringently regulated (five mice per cage, food and water checked daily. If anything looks amiss, I am contacted immediately, and told to remedy it. These mice are living a life better, and probably longer, than mice in the wild).

Moving up in the food chain, and it certainly gets cloudier. It is occaisionally necessary to use a higher organism, for reasons that are often not thought about by people protesting such things. Transplantation experiments in mice are just not logistically feasible. Believe me though, by the time you want to say, use a monkey in an experiment, you had better have a DAMN good reason to do it, or the review boards involved won’t let you do it. And regulations on using monkeys are REALLY strict. Anyone want a job as a monkey entertainer? Once a day, someone has to come in and play with the monkeys, to keep them happy.

If you take as much as an aspirin you are benefiting from animal experiments. If you turn around and protest such experiments, you are a hypocrite.

24

The issue of applying research in animals directly into humans is a complex one and an issue often raised by antivivisectionists. Animals do differ significantly from humans in many respects, and it is certainly true that data gathered from animals cannot always be directly applied to humans. In fact it is often not possible to apply data gathered from humans directly to other humans.

This is not to say however that no useful data can be obtained from animals and their relative expendability gives them many advantages over humans. You are almost always better off investigating a particular tissue in-situ within an animal than studying isolated human cells or small fragments of tissue. The human body is an insanely complicated machine; each organ or fragment thereof interacts with the rest of the organism in ways that we cannot begin to fully understand yet. This means that studying small parts of it in isolation (which is the most that can usually be done with humans) results in us only seeing part of the picture.

Even the work that I am currently doing which involves individual cells requires animal work to be performed first. I have access to human tissue and will eventually use it, but the tissue I can get hold of is removed as part of necessary surgical procedures and is highly variable in composition, most likely diseased, and comes from different areas within the body. Therefore before I can study this I need to reach a basic understanding of the healthy tissue, which requires a supply of healthy homogenous tissue, this can only be obtained from animals.

We also have a much better understanding of the many of the differences between humans and animals than we once did.

For example, one of the key issues in toxicity is that of metabolism. The body metabolises any substance it takes up into a variety of different forms, this can result in a toxic substance being made safe or a safe substance being rendered dangerous, many of these pathways exist and they interact with each other in unpredictable ways. These pathways vary significantly between species (and even individuals) and form much of the basis of the differences in response of different animals to a potentially toxic compound. We now have a much better understanding of how these pathways operate and in which species they occur, this enables us to design studies in order to better cover all the bases and demonstrate any risk to humans.

This is of course not the only factor at work and trials on humans and human tissue must always still occur but the risk of making a catastrophic mistake has been decreased massively.

25

Every single species on earth values its own kind above all else, and behaves accordingly. I don’t see why we should act any differently. It’s as simple as that.

Even testing of cosmetics and other frivolous products is perfectly justified, in my opinion. If you put some new cosmetics on the market without animal testing, it may end up causing harm to humans. It’s not worth this risk to spare the life of a few lab animals.

26

I believe that any experimentation that can be done without involving animals should be. I believe that when animal experimentation is conducted, it should be conducted as humanely as possible. I also believe that I would sacrifice the lives of untold numbers of cute, fuzzy animals if it meant that the life of one of my own children would be spared, or their pain lessened.

Paint with a broad brush much? I will concede that some animals are capable of grief, fear, love, etc. But all animals? I very much doubt that a goldfish has ever grieved the death of a parent. Do mice feel fear? Of course they do; it’s a self-preservation thing. Do they feel love? Maybe. The same way we feel love? I doubt it.

I don’t fear my own death, but I’m not ready to die. I have children, the youngest of whom is not quuite four years old. I think it would be horrible to leave them without a mother to raise them. Also, if you put aside the idea of my own death, what about my kids? I’m definitely not ready for them to die (well, concerning my 16-year-old, it depends on what day you ask me, but that’s a whole other thread:)). Putting aside the idea of death completely, what about quality of life? You might not fear death, but what about pain? Just about everyone fears pain, it’s why torture is such an effective device. Animal experimentation can make our lives more comfortable. I personally suffer from kidney stones. I know damn well that if a cure could be found by killing some lab mice, I’m up for it. Those damned things hurt!!

27

Then what is the downside to killing animals?

Regards,
Shodan

28

The argument “who’s more valuable, you/your relatives or an animal” portraing situations where a direct choice must be made are only brought up to mispresent the point of this debate.

It is the same as asking what your choice would be in a situation where your child is playing on a road together with an other one and you can choose which one is going to be killed by an approaching car.

What I argue against here is the reasoning that somehow “humans” are “better then animals”.

And I’m sorry but yes, I find this reasoning the summum of arrogance.

I don’t even want to start an argument with those who claim that animals have “no rights” and thus show they have not even a rudimental understanding of what they claim to be : The Best Of Creation.
The standard of civilisation of and within a society can be mesured by observing the way people treat animals.
Salaam. A

29

The wrong thing to do in this life is to harm others, humans, animals, the environment, etc. Man is the spoiler, he believes that only man is important, and everything else is his for exploitation.

Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. There is intelligent direction to this earth and the lives we live on it. What harm you do will be returned to you, guaranteed. You sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind. Make your choices now you will have to live with them in the future.

Love

30

I don’t see one thing in your post I agree with, but especially nasty is the thing about the puppy. No, no, no I would not skin a puppy alive to save children. Doing that would make me part and parcial of the ignorance that would kill children in the first place.

I gave up believing two wrongs make a right when I became a man.

Love

31

I don’t agree with that view. The standard of any species, civilized or not, is self-preservation. Any species that looks out for other animals when it isn’t in their own interest is wasting valuable resources, and will be quickly driven into extinction by other species. The only reason humans are dominant on this planet is that we value our own species above all else, and have been devoting all effort into preserving our own species.

Now, I do support measures to save endangered species and ecosystems because it is to our advantage. There is much we can learn from various species, and we need a functional ecosystem to sustain us. But animal experimentation doesn’t cause any harm to us; quite the opposite.

32

Unecessarily cruel behavior toward animals is not what I’m about to talk about.

I’m not clear how the use of animals in labs is any different than killing animals to eat. I have no problem with killing animals to eat. I’ve even done it myself.

To me, it’s sufficient to justify drawing a line between Man and other animals on the basis of aesthetics.

Humans are “better” than animals because I like them more. Why is any more justification necessary? Anyone care to explain ?

33

scr4

Your post is an excellent example to underscore my point. It reflects everything one should not find in a civilised human society.

Salaam. A

34

You’re correct that two wrongs don’t make a right, but sometimes we must choose between the lesser of two evils. Life does that to you sometimes. In the above choice, you’ve opted to let the children die, to save the puppy. As much as I love animals and abhor their suffering, I can’t agree with that.

Which would I chose to save from my burning house: my husband or my dog? I love my dog intensely. She’s my only child. Such a choice would cause me terrible agony, but I would choose my husband.

Hell, call it pragmatism. My husband has the potential to make the world a better place, as could one of those children in the question above. The puppy doesn’t.

35

Those opposing animal experimentation here should note the fact that every single drug or medicine sold in your local pharmacy has been tested on animals, resulting in animal deaths solely for the eventual production of that pharmaceutical.

For you to ingest any medicine whatsoever is to become an arch hypocrite, from the lowliest headache tablet to the cancer treatment which saves the life of you or your child.

36

lekatt
“Your post is typical of a young person who has forgotten who they are and why they are here on planet earth.
Somehow I think you will feel differently after living 50 more years. Age has a way of bringing wisdom.”
Very condescending, and I would argue: inaccurate. But since you brought it up I would ask that you explain who you think I am and why I am here (as you indicate that I have forgotten). By any standard, I do not have 50 years left. At what age does one attain your level of wisdom: the level that leads you to know everyone and their purpose? I haven’t lived my life in a box and have known both despicable and quality people. I have plenty to say on what I believe the value of a human life is, but that would take this thread in another direction.
“Love”
Thank you. Love is good. Some say it’s all you need.
Lissa
“Can you guarantee that? That no innocent person, wrongfully convicted, could ever be experimented upon? Accidents do happen.”
Nope, no guarantees. Let’s discuss this.

“Secondly, forced experimentation would most definitly fall under the “cruel and unusual” category of forbidden punishments."
Cruelty is administration of agony with no beneficial end in mind—like lifetime incarceration. Unusual is relative—once a common practice, it is no longer unusual. Keep in mind, when “Cruel & Unusual Punishment” was officially addressed in this land, the smoking bodies of “witches” had barely cooled.

“Thirdly, just because you’re a criminal, it doesn’t mean that you surrender all of your human rights… That’s what seperates the Good from the Bad: the Good respect human rights, even when someone doesn’t “deserve” them.”
I simply disagree with both statements. The level of human rights surrendered should justly equate to those that the criminal violated. Free room, board and education is no way to treat a person who takes the life of someone who had planned on working for those same things. The “rights” belong to the productive members of our society. In the spirit of the OP, I suggest that those rights include accurate scientific data about human physiology when it can be obtained.

“Fourthly…How “bad” does a person have to be before it’s “okay” to experiment on them?”
There is an intensity of interpersonal crime that sickens most people. I think we can agree on that. Personally I don’t think drug users (in general, certain elements of the distribution department, however…) belong in jail. Violent criminals would be good candidates for brain research…again, this could become a doctoral thesis.

“Fifth, you cannot force an adult to accept medical treatment of any sort, because some people’s religious beliefs forbid it."
But by the same token, a Durable Power of Attorney exists that allows me to pull the plug on my atheist wife—without it she receives life support treatment…indefinitely, I guess.

“Sixth, a lot of medical experiments require an autopsy to see the effects. In a lot of cases, the subject has to die in order for scientists to be able to study the results.”
Yup. Sucks to be an axe murderer doesn’t it!

“Seventh, the death penalty is…”
A waste of a human test subject.

“Eighth, what if the inmate is granted clemency, or has a successful appeal? If he’s been infected with a lethal disease, his release from the death penalty really doesn’t mean that much, does it?”
Guess not…how often does this happen?

By the way, I oppose the death penalty—prefer high output, low overhead labor instead. Just in case our legal system fails someone. But when you have an admitted killer—let’s talk about Ted Bundy and his ilk, well, why not use them? It just seems like the data that you gather from a human would be more readily applied and more accurate.

37

Can you provide a more convincing argument against my opinions than “it’s just wrong”? Otherwise I’m not sure how to respond to you.

38

Sentient Meat,

You have a valid point.

But in that case the question is:

Would it make those animals resurrect if I didn’t take that medication or would I on the contrary respect their death.

In the first case, I wouldn’t take it.
In the second case I see no contradiction between my conscience and using the medicine.

Then you can argue that with buying the medicine I pay those who organise the experiments on animals or reward those who make profit of this research.
The counter argument would be that the research is done anyway and that profits made by those companies eventually can lead to abandon these tactics by providing the means for other forms of testing and research.

Salaam. A

39

I fail to see how this is different to respectfully witnessing an animal death today, in the knowledge that this death is making future medicines possible.

There is no substitute for animal experimentation today. By taking any medicine you are assenting to necessary animal experimentation. I, like you, wish that one day it becomes unnecessary. But by taking medicine I, like you, am proclaiming that animal experimentation is necessary.

40

First of all this is a wrong argument sinde the question here goes not about self-preservation of the human species. There are already far too much humans on this planet and the world population grows by the second.

The only reason humans are dominant on this planet is because they reached a level of intelligence and a way of using that intelligence that permits them to extinct and oppress other species and the whole environment.
The reason why one can talk about “human civilisation” lies in the fact that humans learned to control that same intellect and use it to develop moral standards in order to protect other species and the environment from extinction caused by the human species…
In short: humans are able to become aware of the responsibility that comes with having developped such an intellect.
People who don’t devellop such responsiblity live on the same level as creatures who react according their natural instincts without further thinking or without being even able to reflect on their actions.

I have a question:

What distincts a human from an animal?

Here you once again follow the egocentric reasoning that drips of your post. You find yourself better then any other lifeform and you only want to save certain lifeforms and kill others only for your own benifit.

That isn’t civilised thinking. That is reasoning like a barbarian.

Salaam. A