You obviously have done your research and have a strong belief in your convictions Robert and hats off to you for it but your arguments will NEVER sway me. Poisoning, shocking, burning and killing animals is all in a days work for vivisectors. If these atrocious acts were committed outside laboratories they would be criminal acts. But animals suffer and die every day in laboratories with little or no protection from cruelty. For what ends?
1. It's unethical to sentence 100 million thinking, feeling animals to life in a laboratry cage and intentionally cause them pain, loneliness and fear. 2. It's bad science. The Food and Drug Administration reports that 92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans. 3. It's wasteful! Animal experiments prolong the suffering of people waiting for effective cures by misleading experimenters and squandering precious money, time and resources that could have been spent on human-relevant research. 4. It's archaic. Forward thinking scientists have developed humane, modern, and effective non-animal research methods, including human-based microdosing, in vitro technology, human-patient simulators and sophisticated computer modeling that are cheaper, faster, and more accurate than animal tests. 5. The world doesn't need another eyeliner, handsoap, food ingredient, drug for erectile dysfunction or pesticide so badly that it comes at the expense of animals' lives.
To answer your earlier question, I recently refused to take an antibiotic course of meds because the capsules contained gelatine, I have never needed an operation and furthermore I challenged my workplace to provide me with vegetarian shoes when they introduced a new footwear policy so please don't assume I pick and choose what to turn a blind eye to when it suits my needs.
As Mark Twain wrote;
'I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn't. To know that the results are profitable to the race would not remove my hostility to it. The pains which it inflicts upon un-consenting animals is the basis of my enmity towards it and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further.'
I admire your stance AddickUpNorth, and providing you never take non herbal medication of any kind, don't have any fillings, and would allow your own child to die rather than compromise your values, I back you to the hilt.
Up North - I am always interested in three things about people against medical animal testing:
1. Have you have suffered yourself or had a family member suffer from a fatal illness and where did you ethics lie with the treatment of it? 2. Do you have an effective alternative for initial drug trials? 3. Do you believe in releasing animals from research laboratories into the wild?
I admire your stance AddickUpNorth, and providing you never take non herbal medication of any kind, don't have any fillings, and would allow your own child to die rather than compromise your values, I back you to the hilt.
There's a false logic here. Just because a product was tested in a way that some consider unethical/undesirable/inappropriate, does not mean that the product in itself somehow becomes unethical/undesirable/inappropriate. The medications themselves would still exist if they weren't tested. By its very nature, everything is invented/discovered before it is tested. A better argument might be how prepared AddickUpNorth (or anyone else) would be to use medications that had not been tested.
The medications themselves might exist, but surely they'd not be used unless they had been tested first? Unless you're advocating testing entirely on human subjects rather than animals first (a valid stance, but doesn't really hold much water in reality). Absolutely no question that testing on animals is essential for medical research. Pretty much every medical advance in the last fifty years has been extensively tested on animals first. It's not particularly palatable, but, to paraphrase Penn & Teller, I would personally kill every last chimp on Earth with my bare hands to save my wife, mother or brother's life.
Testing on animals for cosmetic purposes, on the other hand, is utterly abhorrent and should be completely banned.
Once again, I can't seen to quote you addickupnorth...
I'm actually a pharmacologist, so have quite a strong background in this subject and have taken part in seminars and debates about this at university.
1) this is actually a gripe of mine too, unfortunately however for scientific and logistical reasons, the majority of lab animals need to be in cages (although this is no different from keeping a hamster at home in a cage). Even in lab cages animals have tunnels etc to keep them mentally stimulated.
2) as for bad science...there is a very high attrition rate in drug development, a lot in part down to very high standards set by the drug licensing authorities. Would it not also be bad science to put drugs into humans that have only been tested in a dish?
3) incredibly weak point there.....yes drug development takes along time (12 years on average) but there is a reason for that....its to ensure the safety and efficacy of the compounds before it is released onto the open market. This would not change if drug testing was done in other ways, in fact would probably take much longer (that'd if you could develop a drug without using animals, which I think would be near on impossible.
4) name me one drug that has been developed by these methods? As a scientist, I know that these computer models cannot recreate what happens in the body, its ridiculous to suggest it can. When I do an experiment, I cannot predict the outcome....especially in vivo as there is so much we do not yet understand. So, how can a computer predict a result that it does not know about? Impossible to be accurate. A question...would you advocate the usr of animals to validate computer predictive models?
5) I agree with cosmetics, but ed is a big problem (although there are medications avalable)
So you only opposed taking the drugs because of the gelatin content? That would suggest that you would have taken them if they were gelatin free? Therefore surely that goes against your principles? As those antibiotics would have been extensively tested on animals.
As a side point, drugs developed using animals also benefit animals
I admire your stance AddickUpNorth, and providing you never take non herbal medication of any kind, don't have any fillings, and would allow your own child to die rather than compromise your values, I back you to the hilt.
There's a false logic here. Just because a product was tested in a way that some consider unethical/undesirable/inappropriate, does not mean that the product in itself somehow becomes unethical/undesirable/inappropriate. The medications themselves would still exist if they weren't tested. By its very nature, everything is invented/discovered before it is tested. A better argument might be how prepared AddickUpNorth (or anyone else) would be to use medications that had not been tested.
But it is all tested on animals, so therefore AUN would surely refuse to use any of it? Perfectly logical old chap.
Stig, that's silly....no drug would get to market unless it was tested on animals...therefore its very relevant whether someone against animal testing would take a drug that has been tested on animals
There were these two rabbits that escaped from a laboratory. Tired of being shut up and tested on drugs etc they loved their new found freedom. The first field they came to was full of lettuces, they munched away for hours. Then the next field had carrots, again they ate to their hearts content. The 3rd field was covered in lovely big cabbages. After filling themselves completely one of the rabbits turned to the other and said he wanted to go back to the lab. Why asked the other rabbit? Well, said the first rabbit, I'm dying for a fag!
To Leroy, Algarve & Robert. I am not actually advocating anything, let alone the non-testing of medicines. As it happens I think it's been a good discussion here with a lot of good points on both sides of the argument, but I am still uncertain of my position. I have a lot of sympathy for AUN's perspective, but do see the arguments on the other side.
All I was doing with my last post was pointing out the lack of coherent logic in one particular assertion made by Algarve, that AUN should refuse any medicine that has been tested on animals. One could just as easily construct the exact opposite argument that we should all try to get the maximum benefit from any medicines that have been tested on animals so that their suffering has not been in vain. Of course, neither argument is really valid because there is a disconnect between the starting point and the conclusion.
When I said that, "A better argument might be how prepared AddickUpNorth (or anyone else) would be to use medications that had not been tested." I was not saying that medicines should go untested, I was saying that if Algarve wants some sort of test of AUN's consistency/morality, this is a better way of going about it. Even then, it's a spurious argument though, as it doesn't focus on the rights or wrongs of animal testing but on the behaviour of one particular person making the argument. How valid is that?
I admire AddickUpNorth not only for his views, but seemingly the lengths he's prepared to go to to stick by his principles - it's a very admirable trait, and one that more people could do with today. That said, I don't agree with his views.
I think Robert has posted the best argument regarding Animal Testing - especially with regards to Drug Development etc. The truth is, products of animal testing are keeping millions of people alive around the world.
I'm personally on 2 medications, and will be for the rest of my life, and have another 3 to take as needed (PRN). Without these I would no doubt be dead, or very ill - yet these medications had to be tested on an animal; surely that isn't such a bad thing for keeping many people like myself around?
Or how about veterinary pharmaceuticals? This is probably the one thing I find flawed in a lot of debates regarding animal testing; the one neglected piece of information... Veterinary drugs are tested on animals. So, by not testing these drugs on animals - you are essentially denying other animals treatment, increasing the risk of having to put them to sleep, and increasing the suffering of other animals.
The biggest issue regarding animal testing iswas cosmetic products. The EU has pretty much put a stop to that now, as well as introducing mountains of legislation regarding how the animals must be treated. Whilst it's not perfect, keeping the animals as free of suffering as possible, and only testing essential substances on them - these are the only ways to really go forward.
All this said could I just put out there that the biggest factor causing global warming and threatening the very existance of the earth is the over-population by humans. Therefore if we did not test on animals and didn't use as many drugs to preserve life / breed more then the earth itself would survive longer. Classic short-termism!
Addickupnorth....are you watching sport relief....vaccinations could save millions of lives in the third world each....surely this is justification enough for laboratory animal redearch?
I think animal research is a necessity which many of us don't realise until we have a need for a potentially life saving medicine. Surely it's the better of two evils. It must be done as humanely as possible though.
Comments
booo no one is playing today
Poisoning, shocking, burning and killing animals is all in a days work for vivisectors. If these atrocious acts were committed outside laboratories they would be criminal acts. But animals suffer and die every day in laboratories with little or no protection from cruelty. For what ends?
1. It's unethical to sentence 100 million thinking, feeling animals to life in a laboratry cage and intentionally cause them pain, loneliness and fear.
2. It's bad science. The Food and Drug Administration reports that 92 out of every 100 drugs that pass animal tests fail in humans.
3. It's wasteful! Animal experiments prolong the suffering of people waiting for effective cures by misleading experimenters and squandering precious money, time and resources that could have been spent on human-relevant research.
4. It's archaic. Forward thinking scientists have developed humane, modern, and effective non-animal research methods, including human-based microdosing, in vitro technology, human-patient simulators and sophisticated computer modeling that are cheaper, faster, and more accurate than animal tests.
5. The world doesn't need another eyeliner, handsoap, food ingredient, drug for erectile dysfunction or pesticide so badly that it comes at the expense of animals' lives.
To answer your earlier question, I recently refused to take an antibiotic course of meds because the capsules contained gelatine, I have never needed an operation and furthermore I challenged my workplace to provide me with vegetarian shoes when they introduced a new footwear policy so please don't assume I pick and choose what to turn a blind eye to when it suits my needs.
As Mark Twain wrote;
'I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn't. To know that the results are profitable to the race would not remove my hostility to it. The pains which it inflicts upon un-consenting animals is the basis of my enmity towards it and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further.'
1. Have you have suffered yourself or had a family member suffer from a fatal illness and where did you ethics lie with the treatment of it?
2. Do you have an effective alternative for initial drug trials?
3. Do you believe in releasing animals from research laboratories into the wild?
Testing on animals for cosmetic purposes, on the other hand, is utterly abhorrent and should be completely banned.
I'm actually a pharmacologist, so have quite a strong background in this subject and have taken part in seminars and debates about this at university.
1) this is actually a gripe of mine too, unfortunately however for scientific and logistical reasons, the majority of lab animals need to be in cages (although this is no different from keeping a hamster at home in a cage). Even in lab cages animals have tunnels etc to keep them mentally stimulated.
2) as for bad science...there is a very high attrition rate in drug development, a lot in part down to very high standards set by the drug licensing authorities. Would it not also be bad science to put drugs into humans that have only been tested in a dish?
3) incredibly weak point there.....yes drug development takes along time (12 years on average) but there is a reason for that....its to ensure the safety and efficacy of the compounds before it is released onto the open market. This would not change if drug testing was done in other ways, in fact would probably take much longer (that'd if you could develop a drug without using animals, which I think would be near on impossible.
4) name me one drug that has been developed by these methods? As a scientist, I know that these computer models cannot recreate what happens in the body, its ridiculous to suggest it can. When I do an experiment, I cannot predict the outcome....especially in vivo as there is so much we do not yet understand. So, how can a computer predict a result that it does not know about? Impossible to be accurate. A question...would you advocate the usr of animals to validate computer predictive models?
5) I agree with cosmetics, but ed is a big problem (although there are medications avalable)
So you only opposed taking the drugs because of the gelatin content? That would suggest that you would have taken them if they were gelatin free? Therefore surely that goes against your principles? As those antibiotics would have been extensively tested on animals.
As a side point, drugs developed using animals also benefit animals
All I was doing with my last post was pointing out the lack of coherent logic in one particular assertion made by Algarve, that AUN should refuse any medicine that has been tested on animals. One could just as easily construct the exact opposite argument that we should all try to get the maximum benefit from any medicines that have been tested on animals so that their suffering has not been in vain. Of course, neither argument is really valid because there is a disconnect between the starting point and the conclusion.
When I said that, "A better argument might be how prepared AddickUpNorth (or anyone else) would be to use medications that had not been tested." I was not saying that medicines should go untested, I was saying that if Algarve wants some sort of test of AUN's consistency/morality, this is a better way of going about it. Even then, it's a spurious argument though, as it doesn't focus on the rights or wrongs of animal testing but on the behaviour of one particular person making the argument. How valid is that?
I think Robert has posted the best argument regarding Animal Testing - especially with regards to Drug Development etc. The truth is, products of animal testing are keeping millions of people alive around the world.
I'm personally on 2 medications, and will be for the rest of my life, and have another 3 to take as needed (PRN). Without these I would no doubt be dead, or very ill - yet these medications had to be tested on an animal; surely that isn't such a bad thing for keeping many people like myself around?
Or how about veterinary pharmaceuticals? This is probably the one thing I find flawed in a lot of debates regarding animal testing; the one neglected piece of information... Veterinary drugs are tested on animals. So, by not testing these drugs on animals - you are essentially denying other animals treatment, increasing the risk of having to put them to sleep, and increasing the suffering of other animals.
The biggest issue regarding animal testing
iswas cosmetic products. The EU has pretty much put a stop to that now, as well as introducing mountains of legislation regarding how the animals must be treated. Whilst it's not perfect, keeping the animals as free of suffering as possible, and only testing essential substances on them - these are the only ways to really go forward.If you would rather they tested "it" on your kids and save rabbits then you'll probably make a small fortune by allowing it to happen.
If you'd rather they didn't test "it" at all then there won't be much of "it" around.
Classic short-termism!
http://www.vegetarian-shoes.co.uk/