How can the stopping of medical tests on animals POSSIBLY be justified by these people? Honestly, I haven’t the ability to fathom such proposterous thoughts. Test on animals are the very foundation of pretty much (if not) all drug research. Without lab mice, we would basically be in the dark ages of medicine, would we not?
Sure, I don’t want baby seals clubbed and left at the bottom of the ocean to rot (if they tasted good I would probably eat them though… oh no here comes a PETA picket group). There is no way that we can research on something aside from animals. Tell all of the diabetics out there that their insulin is tainted and shouldn’t be used because it was perfected “cruely” and “inhumanely” (are animals human? I didn’t think so) treated animals.
If anything, these animals should be thanking us for being used in such a noble way. If I were a cow, I would rather be the cow that proved there was a cure for cancer, then the beef sandwich the scientist who discovered the cure ate that day.
(This just might be more appropriate for the Pit, but I tried to tone it down a bit for great debates, I just have such a raging hatred for these hypocrites.)
I will say this though, if the scientists testing the animals cackle and cut off tails and stuff just to torture the animals, they are probably sick and shouldn’t be in this particular field of work (perhaps a psych ward?). But please, try and convince me that a mouse that is BRED for the purpose of dying from a failed vaccine has more rights then the human dying of the illness.
It is often claimed by the more extreme animal rights folks that not a single benefit has ever arisen from animal testing, at least, not any benefit that couldn’t have been otherwise gained. I don’t see how this claim can possibly be supportable, given the range of medicines and medical procedures currently available, but people really do make this claim - if they truly believe it, then I think their objection to animal testing is quite understandable (although still unsound, if based on such a false premise).
One claim I hear made by anti-animal testing people is that it can be replaced by computer simulations, which shows they know as little about computers as they do medicine. Not only can a simulation only simulate known substances/structures in the body ( because if it’s unknown, no one will know to put it in the simulation ), but simulatiing a whole body down to the level of molecules and chemical interactions is way, way beyond what we can do.
Well, I understand that animal research is important for medical knowledge but at the same time, I could see why people object. 1. It is cruel and 2. human and animal physiology are different so that is a big source of error.
I object to only a few forms of testing. The first being cosmetic testing in which chemicals are tested on animals to see if they burn the skin and eyes. There are other testing methods available for that, and the advances in mascara technology aren’t enough to justify a creature’s suffering, in my opinion.
I also have tentative objections to some of the more painful experiments* because I hate to see any creature suffer. One test that I heard rumors of** was that pigs were burned with blowtorches in order to study how burns effect appetite. If that was a real study and if it was done just for that reason alone, I’d have to say that it was wrong to do so when they could have simply measured the amount of food that human burn victims in hospitals consume.
Scientists and researchers are not cruel monsters doing this for the fun of it, I know. They want to help people, and I think most reasonable adults would say it’s better to test a drug or surgical procedure on animals before it’s tried on humans. My concern is that sometimes the parameters of the experiment itself calls for unecessary pain for the animals. My only wish would be that every effort is made to make sure the animals suffer as little as possible and are kept in humane conditions.
I haven’t done enough research to give a firm opinion on it.
** Not the most reliable method of gaining information, I know, but I’m just using it for purposes of a hypothetical example.
You’d actually be pretty surprised to know how closely related animal physiology and human physiology are. Many of the genes in mice, for instance, are almost completely conserved in humans. It’s really a matter of picking the right model species for what you’re trying to test.
Even though I support animal testing, I’ll play devil’s advocate until somebody else comes in with more knowledge.
So what is it exactly that differentiates us from animals we feel free to test on?
This error is not so destructive as to render animal testing useless though; not by any means, Indeed, in some cases, the differences between humans and the test animals are going to be an essential part of the test, because this will allow certain known side effects to be excised from the experimental picture, perhaps enabling subtler effects to be studied.
I love animals, I have a wuvley doggie of my own. But when it comes to medical research (pardon me) but fuck them, humans > animals. The pigs were either bred to be experimented on, or bred to be slaughtered for oh so yummy bacon, so whatever research is done on them, so what. If it takes 5000 seperate dogs to die from failed vaccine experiments to find the right “mixture” (I’m not a doctor), to save ONE human being, then screw the dogs, save that human.
ECVAM usually cites a 1985 test where paracetamol was tested in mice, hamsters and rats. All three animals are pretty physiologically similar and are often used as test subjects. The little guys were subjected to a test that determines what dosage of a substance will kill 50% of a test group - this is an extremely common test (or was, probably still is). Anyhow, the LD50 score for mice and hamsters given paracetamol was between 250-400 mg/kg and the usual cause of death was liver failure. The LD50 score for the rats was three to four times that number. Even more surprisingly, nothing happened to the rats’ livers.
That is one of many examples that makes me sketchy of animal testing. However, I’m aware that there aren’t many comparable alternatives. Humans are always going to outweigh animals in the grand scale, and I am thankful to all the rabbits and rats that died so that I could have some Midol on my off days.
One last note? Just because animal testing is prevalent doesn’t mean that research should be halted on alternatives. Some alternatives (including artificial tissue cultures, computer models, neutral red assays and so on and so forth) are showing to be cheaper, more accurate and, of course, more humane than their animal counterparts in some aspects.
Before anyone jumps on me, let me reiterate: I am ** favour** of animal testing for medical purposes. I am also in favour of more research into scientifically valid alternatives.
You may think of it as a biological machine, soul-less & unfeeling - therefor it doesnt really feel pain so it doesnt matter what we do to it.
You may think of it as being less than a human and therefor our needs superceed it’s needs.
And so on.
As an atheist i accept that the difference between a human animal and any other animal is a matter of degree. I wouldn’t sacrifice another (innocent) human to save or improve my own life so neither would i be prepared to sacrifice any other kind of animal.
Or to turn the question around; if a third world country made it legal to conduct medical experiments on an unliked ethnic minority, would you accept the benefits of any treatment thus obtained?
Roll up Jumble, you are just the sort of person to test an AIDS vaccine
As an an-theist, I reckon being unnecessarily cruel to animals is not good for humans
However I’m quite happy to eat them, and appreciate medical advances
heck Pasteur experimented on sheep - something to do with Anthrax IIRC
As for experimenting on minorities, it has happened in the past (Germany and Japan in China for a start) and it is probably happening right now (although a Chinese convict might not be an ‘ethnic minority’.
My opinion of anti-animal testing, anti-nuclear energy, anti-gas powered vehicles, whatever people was that: “If you actually cared, you would become a scientist and get a grant to determine ways to get around the problems that you have with whatever. Standing out on the street with a sign yelling, ‘Death to the pig fuckers!’ only has anything to do with you wanting to feel all high and mighty in your uber-morality.”
One of the things about this debate that always amuses me is that people always hold up mammalian research as the epitome of cruelty (OMG look at the poor rats and bunnies!). What often gets lost in this debate are the flies, frogs, worms, and chickens who suffer similar treatment. Very few people care about the flies or the worms. Won’t someone please think of the worms?
So all life is equivalent? A mouse’s life is equal to a human’s? Is a fly’s life? How about yeast cells? They’re eukaryotic.
I don’t see how your hypothetical (actually not that hypothetical, consider Josef Mengele or the Tuskegee Experiment) illustrates anything. You’re trying to set up an equivalency that doesn’t exist. All humans, regardless of ethnic background, are members of the same species and exhibit the same degree of refined sentience. Other mammals, cute and fuzzy as they are, do not. Animal experimentation is necessarily unpleasant, but it is also necessary.
I am all for animal testing…as humanely as possible, of course. I agree that we shouldn’t be testing crap like makeup on animals. But cancer cures, AIDS cures, etc…hell yeah.
I also agree that every single PETA person is free to sign up and volunteer for these tests themselves.
My company suffers a good deal of bad publicity from animal testing. I’ve said the company’s name before, so I’ll go ahead and say it - it’s the March of Dimes. PETA has a webpage called the March of Crimes. It basically tells how since we save babies why can’t we save dogs, too? But as far as I know there is no research currently going on dogs…it’s all fruit flies and worms and whatnot. And I don’t think a puppy is anywhere near the same level as someone’s baby. And this is coming from someone who’s sworn off kids. But I’ve talked to enough mothers who don’t understand why their baby was born early, when they really did everything right, that I want this problem solved.
There was a movie floating around on the internet a few years ago that showed a very similar test. I think it was done in the early 50s, and they were testing the effects of severe burns by shaving pigs and then burning them with a blowtorch. It was quite horrifying even to me, and I’m no animal rights activist and I like bacon. The worst part was when they showed this pig with half his body scorched and peeling away from him drinking water that they were giving it, for some reason that was worse than the squeals as they were being burnt.
Hmmm… but it is impossible for a person to do everything; Suppose I am opposed to animal testing and nuclear energy; I can’t possibly qualify and become competent in the breadth of diverse knowledge that would be necessary for me to revolutionise both fields and eliminate that which I might consider wrong in both places.
Sorry, I just don’t think your argument here holds water; being anti-something does not necessarily morally oblige you to be actively pursuing alternatives; if, for example, you wanted to solve the problem of homeless people by setting fire to them, I don’t think my opposition would necessarily morally oblige me to provide lodgings.