Experimenting on Animals

[jindojim]

Animal experimentation. It's a highly contested subject. Animal rights group like to make a lot of protest against it. I won't deny that the animals used for experimentation are treated quite poorly. But the scientific knowledge gained from experimenting on animals have definitely helped prolong the human life span and have progressed our understanding of the human body.

Is cruelty to animals an unavoidable sacrifice to benefit humans? In other words, do the ends justify the means?

[Beowulf]

When the animal rights activists volunteer to be test subjects (with 0 liability to the testers of course) then they can bitch all they want.

[Kwiz]

Is cruelty to animals an unavoidable sacrifice to benefit humans? In other words, do the ends justify the means?
Researchers aren't mutilating animals just to be sadistic, they're doing their jobs by subjecting the animals to substances and forces in a controlled environment, and then observing the results.

If a few thousand mice have to be used in order to find a cure for some debilitating nerve disorder, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

[Morel]

For real sicknesses like AIDS, or Cancer, or something like that.. And as long as every measure is taken to keep them from feeling pain, It's a nessesary evil.

Now the makeup industry, or for stupid made up shit (do we really need another toenail fungus remover?). That shits gotta stop.

[NERD]

Essentially, altering the life of any organism by giving them disease, manipulating their body, DNA, or even causing death is not right. However, we give ourselves the justification of 'greater good' and do it. I can live with that.

Animal rights groups have double standards though. They don't go with the idea of all lives are precious, but rather some lifeforms are more valuable than others. Because, you rarely see any animal rights groups protesting against millions of bacterias that were grown and promptly killed in labs. Nay, they want to get your sympathy on cuddly, friendly critters like lab rats, guinea pigs and chimps. It works though since people are more sympathetic for rats and chimps than some horrible bacteria.

[fa11en87]

As long as it's for the greater good, I'm all for it. Better then testing on humans in my opinion.

[shimanotaka]

I agree that testing on animals is the better of two evils. What is worse is that we breed and eat them even though we can survive fine without animal products. Not that I'm above that, or anything. I'm not the one to say no to a tender pepper steak or a nice leather jacket. Still, it's not right, and I would probably try to change if I had a backbone. Sadly, I'm born with bad character. :gloomy:

[setrict]

The end does justify the means. Well over half of the animals used in lab testing are mice. Those same critters that people routinely kill in their home without much thought. Do you know how rat/mouse poison generally works? Most of them cause the rodent to die from internal bleeding over a periods as long as a week, by preventing their blood from clotting.

People won't think twice about killing a household pest by the millions each year in an incredibly cruel fashion, but self-righteously cry about them being used in tests that will eventually save human lives.

I do think scientists have an obligation treat the test animals in as humane a way as the test permits, and to minimize their use if there are other viable testing methods (simulation, cell cultures, etc). Save the animals for the final rounds of testing if reasonably possible.

[jindojim]

http://www.buav.org/medicalresearch/images/primates1.jpg

Here is a picture of electrodes stuck in a monkey's exposed brain. One can interpret this as an extremely cruel experiment. But from a scientific point of view, it's a very logical way to study the workings of the human brain, such as which regions are responsible for various functions. And the results of placing electrodes directly in the brain would garner more valuable research than other more indirect methods of mapping the brain's functions through human participants. Plus the brain itself doesn't feel pain.

[Kaji]

Considering my shoes, belt, hat, and coat are leather, and my favorite meal is a fillet mingon wrapped in bacon with scallops, I say better them than me.

[Unknown]

I know its for the better good, but I feel guilty every time I take medicine.

[conners]

I'd prefer we use politicians, but a girl can't have everything.

I'll second Morel's point that for science it is fine, but for makeup it is wrong and the scum that do it should be shot.

[MoosecatcherPrime]

If we were to stop animal research completely, as noted before, scientific research as we know it would virtually grind to a halt. So yeah, I'm pro-experimentation. Some life is more valid than others, I have to admit.

[Neon Pink Shoehorn]

If we were to stop animal research completely, as noted before, scientific research as we know it would virtually grind to a halt. So yeah, I'm pro-experimentation. Some life is more valid than others, I have to admit.
*laughs*
One of the people that works with me is in biotech. She has the ability to isolate genes and grow insentient tissue for what she wants to test on. Really. She's growing stomachs, which will eventually get cancer, for research, rather than breeding a stain of rats/mice that has a 90ish percent chance of getting the same cancer. There are some things that we don't need enimal testing for anymore.
I can understand using animals for things that are more complex, like the chimps with the electrodes, but eventually we'll figure out how to grow reactive brains in labs, and we won't need them, either.
And there have been medicines that work in animals, but don't work in humans, and ones that have been harmful to animals, but are quite beneficial to humans. If we were able to grow an insentient human system in a lab and test on that, I think that would be the best way to test drugs.
So, yeah, I think that animal testing is becoming more outmoded as biotech advances.

[Unknown]

*laughs*
One of the people that works with me is in biotech. She has the ability to isolate genes and grow insentient tissue for what she wants to test on. Really. She's growing stomachs, which will eventually get cancer, for research, rather than breeding a stain of rats/mice that has a 90ish percent chance of getting the same cancer. There are some things that we don't need enimal testing for anymore.
I can understand using animals for things that are more complex, like the chimps with the electrodes, but eventually we'll figure out how to grow reactive brains in labs, and we won't need them, either.
And there have been medicines that work in animals, but don't work in humans, and ones that have been harmful to animals, but are quite beneficial to humans. If we were able to grow an insentient human system in a lab and test on that, I think that would be the best way to test drugs.
So, yeah, I think that animal testing is becoming more outmoded as biotech advances.

That's great to hear. :clap:

[Morel]

[QUOTE=tactical grace If we were able to grow an insentient human system in a lab and test on that, I think that would be the best way to test drugs.
[/QUOTE]

Omg, could you imagine the screaming from the religious right about that?


Hopefully we will be able grow new organs for people, and basically like you said grow "meat farms" with no heads or brains for us to use to take over the wor...

err..

I mean help humanity.. yaa.. thats it....

;)

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Essentially, altering the life of any organism by giving them disease, manipulating their body, DNA, or even causing death is not right. However, we give ourselves the justification of 'greater good' and do it. I can live with that.

Animal rights groups have double standards though. They don't go with the idea of all lives are precious, but rather some lifeforms are more valuable than others. Because, you rarely see any animal rights groups protesting against millions of bacterias that were grown and promptly killed in labs. Nay, they want to get your sympathy on cuddly, friendly critters like lab rats, guinea pigs and chimps. It works though since people are more sympathetic for rats and chimps than some horrible bacteria.
Actually, bacteria aren't animals, as they aren't in the biological kingdom Animalia. Also, even if they were, I'd consider this a poor argument.

The way I see it, experimenting on animals for the purpose of biomedical research is fine, more or less. I don't like the idea of vivisections, though. As for using experiments on animals for the purposes of cosmetics, etc., I am against it sternly.

Also, PETA can suck it.

[Komachi Angel]

Regardless of morals, it's nothing more than a case of 'you have it, we need it and we can take it, so we will'.

It's not too far removed from farming, although there are indeed some fundamental differences there.

Anyway, most conversations of this sort end up in "situational" morality, which usually backfires because for the most part, humans don't want to know about or think about things that don't concern them right here and now.

[jindojim]

*laughs*
One of the people that works with me is in biotech. She has the ability to isolate genes and grow insentient tissue for what she wants to test on. Really. She's growing stomachs, which will eventually get cancer, for research, rather than breeding a stain of rats/mice that has a 90ish percent chance of getting the same cancer. There are some things that we don't need enimal testing for anymore.
I can understand using animals for things that are more complex, like the chimps with the electrodes, but eventually we'll figure out how to grow reactive brains in labs, and we won't need them, either.
And there have been medicines that work in animals, but don't work in humans, and ones that have been harmful to animals, but are quite beneficial to humans. If we were able to grow an insentient human system in a lab and test on that, I think that would be the best way to test drugs.
So, yeah, I think that animal testing is becoming more outmoded as biotech advances.

I disagree. While a very promising concept, the technology to produce insentient tissue on a scale enough to satisfy the needs of research is still decades away from actually becoming a viable means to replace experimentation on animals. And even so, I am sure obtaining such tissue would be much more expensive compared to laboratory mice, which would still be very cheap in comparison. While experimenting on mice is by no means the closest thing to experimenting on an actual human, tests on them do yield fairly reliable results on things like predicting how a particular drug may work or understanding the details of a life process.
Additionally, simply having the tissue or even organ is not always condusive to most experimentation, since organisms are more composed of systems of organs that interact with each other through various mechanisms and reactions. The only way to monitor somewhat accurately what may happen in drug testing is to use living organisms. Unless somehow cloning humans becomes very easy, and these cloned humans are not considered real beings, experimentation on animals will continue.

[Jon885]

It may be for the bettermant of mankind but I still don't feel comfortable with saying it's alright. i can't decide. and that picture of the monkey with the electrodes to it's brain saddens me. NERD makes a good point but I don't think bacteria has a nervous system so it doesn't feel pain. but then you might say is it right to kill something just because it doesn't feel pain? i'm kind of rambling, but those are my thoughts anyway.

[NERD]

I mentioned bacteria because it's a lifeform, more or less. Virus, maybe not, but I was going with the concept of all life if precious, thus causing harm in any way is not right, at least in concept.

I'm arguing if we were to ban animal testing, then it should be banned in any living organisms based on principles. And I'm being sarcastic since I know nobody gives a shit about bacterias.

[smokingmonkee]

I like to eat meat. I have plenty of leather clothing so I guess you know where I stand.

[Neon Pink Shoehorn]

I don't think that animal testing is going to go away overnight. But it will become outmoded, slowly or quickly.

[TrendSeven]

I completely support animal testing in all of its forms. Anything that is going to help me live a longer, healthier, and happier life is fine in my book.

[/|/@/|/@し]

See.. I'm find with small animals being bred and tested but things like that monkey picture make me sick. I mean I feel bad for all animals, but I try to look the other way knowing that because a rat is suffering can mean some little kid can live. You don't need to harm a large animal for that.

But even though I know that putting electrodes in the head of a monkey can medically help people I still think doing that to those animals is wrong. Something in me, and apparently other people, knows that somethings wrong with it. At the same time other people know something is not wrong with it. It's just a matter of opinion. And obviously the people who don't think it's wrong are a majority over the people who do or it would change by now.

[jindojim]

One of the best ads supporting animal research showed a picture of animal rights activists protesting with the caption saying something like "Thanks to the benefits of animal research, these people will live 20 longer. How they spend those extra years is up to them."

[Xephon]

The closer the animal is to resembling a human, the more sympathy it's going to garner so it's understandable that most people are disturbed when we experiments on chimps and apes(being close cousins ofcourse).

Me, I'm perfectly fine with experimenting on animals. It's for the advancement of science and unless we're willing to experiment on other humans, animals are always good substitutes.

[Ichisan]

For research on diseases I guess I'll come down in favour of it on a provisional basis. It doesn't make me comfortable but if it can save people's lives...

However the majority of 'experiments' on animals are not done for medical reasons but to test the safety of cosmetics or soaps or other products. For example, they drop shampoo into the eyes of a hundred rabbits and continue until half of them are dead. The number of doses it takes to kill 50% is used as a measure of the shampoo's potential harm. This insanely cruel treatment has no justification whatsoever and I believe arose out of the behaviourist notion that animals know nothing and are mere stimulus-response machines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LD50