Animal testing - right or wrong?

[paigetheoracle]

Animal Rights activists I believe are prolonging the testing of animals in research laboratories and forcing it underground, when without resistance it might stop anyway as new methods are found to acheive the same aims in more humane ways. I base this belief on how someone as practically orientated as Temple Grandin, didn't try to stop the slaughter of animals but tried to make their passing more comfortable and less distressing than previous through trying to find out what actually upset them.

 

Idealists try to change what they don't like - realists try to understand causes and change them, which is why the first create chaos with their hatred of something but never change it for the better as they never comprehend it and the second do because they accept things as they are, learn from them and modify what is going on, leading to real progress within the subject (ergo as an experiencer, she discovered the truth and changed it, proving her humanity in a practical way for the animals as opposed to rebelling against what she found repugnant for her own gratification and changing nothing: War is resistance that prolongs agony/ peace is acceptance that speeds up evolution).

[Buffy]

Now, that's simple and clear! Great post, and I agree...

 

Animal testing is very much a Melvillian dilemma. There are clear benefits and costs and you can be well to this side of Mengele, and still think its a good thing. I'm for it myself, but we're very fond of cute critters around here too.

 

Maybe someday we won't need it any more, but if that something is going to be, for example, expert computer modelling, there's going to have to be more "data gathering" to get there. So if you limit it now, it will take longer to get to the day where we don't need it anymore....

 

Fur, Fashionable or Felonious,

Buffy

[Racoon]

There is a lot of unnecessary Animal testing. :phones:

I feel bad for the people who administer these tests. I wouldn't want that job :)

I'm not a vehement Animal Rights guy, but c'mon...

Medical testing is needed, but using Animals as opposed to humans still leaves effectiveness/ conclussions in doubt. what works for mice, doesn't mean it will work for homo sapiens. :phones:

 

Companies use animals for redundant irritancy and toxicity tests, which kill or seriously maim hundreds of thousands of animals, from many species. Many of these animals are bred specifically for this purpose, or are seized from pounds.

 

Alternatives exist to Animal Testing. In vitro tests use human or animal cells specimens which can be grown in a laboratory. Cell and tissue samples can measure irritancy and toxicity.

 

 

Link: top google search.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~rabbit/aniexp.htm

[Kayra]

I spent quite a bit of my teen years on my uncles farm.

 

Since I was no longer isolated from the "events" that created my food and clothing, one thing I learned very quickly is that practicality rules everything.

 

The animal is born.

You feed the animal.

You care for the animal if it is sick

You worry about the animal

You water the animal

You clean up after the animal.

You have pride in the animal.

You kill the animal

You dismember the animal

You eat or sell the animal.

 

The animal, from birth, is bound to mankind's purposes.

It is what nature created. (Anyone that speaks of natures "intentions" does not understand nature)

 

While every animal farmer I have ever met was a practical person, I have never met a successful farmer that did not have some measure of pride and concern for his animals. Torture was out of the question. (slaughter houses are a different issue)

 

With that in mind, I have no concern whatsoever for the use of animals in testing of almost any aspect of science, and even most commercial testing. I do, however, take issue with the torture of such animals.

 

To be humane is to be human. Only institutions and training can overcome this basic fact of humanity.

[EWright]

There is a lot of unnecessary Animal testing. :naughty:

I feel bad for the people who administer these tests. I wouldn't want that job :evil:

I'm not a vehement Animal Rights guy, but c'mon...

Medical testing is needed, but using Animals as opposed to humans still leaves effectiveness/ conclussions in doubt. what works for mice, doesn't mean it will work for homo sapiens. :shrug:

 

Companies use animals for redundant irritancy and toxicity tests, which kill or seriously maim hundreds of thousands of animals, from many species. Many of these animals are bred specifically for this purpose, or are seized from pounds.

 

Alternatives exist to Animal Testing. In vitro tests use human or animal cells specimens which can be grown in a laboratory. Cell and tissue samples can measure irritancy and toxicity.

 

 

Link: top google search.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~rabbit/aniexp.htm

 

In general a necessary evil... in many respects overused and unecessarilly cruel.

[Kayra]

In general a necessary evil... in many respects overused and unecessarilly cruel.

 

Evil implies an intent to do harm simply to enjoy the results of the harm.

[pgrmdave]

I'm often torn on this issue, I think that animal testing is necessary, and helps humans, but I think that there are some times when it is unnecessary, and could be performed equally well without harming anything. However, all these thoughts are based on absolutely no data. Does anybody know some good sources to go to where I could learn about what is tested, how it's tested, why it's tested, and the benefits of the testing?

[Kayra]

Want to bet that 99% of those sites are skewed towards animal rights?

[pgrmdave]

Sure, I'd be willing to bet it was only 98% :naughty:

[Kayra]

Sure, I'd be willing to bet it was only 98% :naughty:

 

Groan :shrug:

[Cedars]

I'm often torn on this issue, I think that animal testing is necessary, and helps humans, but I think that there are some times when it is unnecessary, and could be performed equally well without harming anything. However, all these thoughts are based on absolutely no data. Does anybody know some good sources to go to where I could learn about what is tested, how it's tested, why it's tested, and the benefits of the testing?

 

Australia:

http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/nrenfa.nsf/FID/-7EB3AD34077BF913CA256D780013EFFC?OpenDocument

 

UK:

http://scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk/animal-research/animal-testing-faqs/

 

USA (Humane Society FAQ)

http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/general_information_on_animal_research/frequently_asked_questions_about_animals_in_research.html

 

USA (linked from above HSUS)

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/publications.html

[Cedars]

I think there remains a need for some of the animal testing going on, but I am not convinced all that can be done to replace the use of animals, is being done.

 

The first time I heard of such an issue was in the 70s sometime and the things being done to research animals was horrible. One story (with graphic pictures) talked of burn research being done on pigs. The animals were not given any kind of relief as their skin was burned with torches (I cannot remember which kind of torch but I think it was propane). The animals had their vocal cords cut so they wouldnt make noise while being burned. It remains cheaper (the excuse used then) to cut the vocal cords rather than ensure the animals suffering is minimized.

 

It was examples such as this that got people involved in fighting for humane treatment of these animals. It needed to be brought into the open and remains an issue that needs oversight.

[EWright]

Evil implies an intent to do harm simply to enjoy the results of the harm.

 

DO NOT PRESUME TO TELL ME WHAT I IMPLY.

[paigetheoracle]

I'd like to know too what the results of the testing are. One problem is people holding onto old methods because they fear letting go and trying something new. I personally find cosmetic testing unnecessary and therefore cruel (vanity). Also the point has been raised in the past and was recently raised again when a medical test went wrong in the UK (sorry can't remember the details but it was headline stuff here because the volunteers nearly died) and that is , that they are not necessarily the same as us in resistance or tolerance of materials that would harm us, so may not be suitable as testing mechanisms for some of these kinds of experiments, if at all. As for the farm analogy - I agree to a point but not all animals fall to predators in old age and Temple Grandin has made sure that the human predator in this case, makes their demise more humane: I hope your statement on this didn't imply we have a right to kill them ('Dominion over the animals' in the Biblical sense doesn't imply that, although some people have taken that as authority to do what they want with them. Physically we have the ability to be cruel, morally it is not in our best interest to do so: Study which showed that those who torture and kill animals, can go on to do the same with humans: This as they say is another discussion in its own rights).:naughty:

[Buffy]

One problem is people holding onto old methods because they fear letting go and trying something new.

True! And quite often its government regulation and the evil insurance companies. There are probably better testing methods that the businesses that do the testing are even aware of, but getting government to change the regulations or getting the insurance companies to underwrite risk based on new (i.e. "unproven") testing methods, just ain't gonna happen. Takes pressure from folks like us, so we do have to keep up the pressure.

 

"Does the other ape talk?" "Only when she lets me," :naughty:

Buffy

[Kayra]

As for the farm analogy - I agree to a point but not all animals fall to predators in old age and Temple Grandin has made sure that the human predator in this case, makes their demise more humane: I hope your statement on this didn't imply we have a right to kill them ('Dominion over the animals' in the Biblical sense doesn't imply that, although some people have taken that as authority to do what they want with them. Physically we have the ability to be cruel, morally it is not in our best interest to do so: Study which showed that those who torture and kill animals, can go on to do the same with humans: This as they say is another discussion in its own rights).:eek2:

 

I did not mean to imply that we have the right. I meant to state outright that we have the right to kill or use animals as our needs dictate. Sorry if that was unclear.

 

I also believe that the "right" should be tied directly to our "Need" rather then our "Want", but that would be hoping for to much.

 

This is the same right that any hunter in nature has. Proof of the "Right" is that they do it. In nature, nothing else is required.

 

Torture on the other hand... is something I find completely unacceptable.

[Lancaster]

The lesser beings will always serve the sentient beings, once they can defend themselves. If you complain about animal testing, which usually leaves the animal alive, then you should complain about the slaughter of animals for food.