Subscribe to Listverse
Before many drugs and cosmetics are tested on humans or released for human consumption, they are usually tested on animals. This is such a common occurrence that poison doses are measured in LD50 – median lethal dose required to kill half the members of a tested population (usually rats) – this involves intentionally killing large numbers of animals. Many people are opposed to testing on animals while many others are for it. This your view is an opportunity for people to debate the pros and cons. Remember, battle against arguments – not people – ad hominem attacks are a sign of a failed argument.
Is Animal Testing Necessary?
My answer: Yes. I believe that human safety must come first and that if it takes animal testing as a first step in ensuring human safety, that step must be taken.
August 17th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Even though animal testing can beneficial,
it can still be harmful,
which I don’t think is necessary.
With all the technology we have now,
can’t they find a safe way to test products,
without harming animals?
August 17th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
If its a horrible and cruel thing to kill a rat, is it horrible to kill a bee? A spider? An ant? Lice and mosquitos? And we’ve killed thousands of those in our lives, whether we intended to or not.
I don’t think its strictly necessary, but if it’s the best way then I don’t see why not.
August 17th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
I really don’t think using animals as test subjects isn’t necessary, but if it must be used, then it should be used as humanely ans painlessly as possible.
August 17th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Im all for it at all levels.There should be no arguement if its a human life that can be saved as opposed to an animal the point is moot.Im speaking as an animal lover {2 dogs,5 cats,1 goat}.
August 17th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
With such an emotive tagline it is easy to be swept up in sentiment and not fully consider the question.
The easy response would be “of course it is not acceptable to test on animals”
The underlying reality is that, without animal testing, the vast majority of medical advances simply would not have happened.
As a patient currently involved with a clinical trial, I for one am comforted by the fact that many of the adverse affects of a new medication are established in animals prior to being tested in a human trial.
With today’s litigious society, I think such medications would simply not make it to human trials.
It is an unfortunate and often unsettling reality that most of the drugs that you now take have been deemed safe through animal trials. If we were being totally honest, would we really want it otherwise?
August 17th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Animal testing is a prime example of the egotistical nature of man. We consider ourselves free to abuse the natural world. We don’t have a symbiotic relationship with the planet, we are obscenely parasitic. True, we have a higher state of consciousness than the trees or the mosquitoes, but should our awareness not make us MORE considerate of our beautiful planet and the rich life it supports? Is it really reasonable to cause a monkey, so very like a human, an unfathomable amount of pain so that we can have a new shade of lipstick?
August 17th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Hey all, Love the site and finally registered so I guess I’ll voice my first opinion on a controversial topic like this. I do not think animal testing is necessary and don’t find it to be very productive. Those that feel it is necessary to ensure our safety I believe are misled. I feel if you believe in testing so much you should volunteer to be tested on yourself, or better yet, let the testing be done on death row inmates. They’re going to be put to death anyway, might as well squeeze some kind of use out of them.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
burningskittles:
Why don’t you find it to be productive? Many human lives have been saved from drugs and medical procedures that have been extensively tested on animals to ensure their safety to humans. This is based on tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of documented, legitimate scientific experiments from experienced researchers and academics. How is this being misled? The whole point of animal testing is so that we don’t have to put valuable human lives at risk. And if you somehow think that the life of a lab rat holds more intrinsic value than the life of a human being, I’d say your priorities are a little screwed up.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
In terms of time, animal turnover is much faster to see long term genetic results. How many babies does/can a female rat produce to test for effects as opposed to a human female? And how fast? I don’t know the actual gestation, but their babies have babies much more quickly than we do.
I know you know this, BTW
August 17th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
I think that for medical purposes it is necessary, however for cosmetic testing, NO.
I also think that every effort should be made to make the testing as humane as possible.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
It’s very necessary for medical testing.
What are we supposed to do, experiment on humans!?
August 17th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
i think it is completely unnecesary and selfish.
August 17th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
In a perfect world, medicines would spring out from factories, fully tested without harming animals. However, in response to burningskittles’s remarks, the same kind of forces fighting for animal rights would also be fighting for the rights of those inmates on death row. Human test subjects that volunteer for clinical trials would be great and all, but what if an unnecessary amount of death is caused to try and find the right combination of chemicals to treat a disease instead of testing it on other living organisms beforehand? Personally, I think that they should use previous data on fatalities due to chemical imbalances caused by certain products (or if they’re indeed already employing this option). However animal testing is invaluable in the still unmapped territory of cancer-causing agents and how high of a risk certain substances cause in terms of cancer. Also as a side note, marmots were the original carriers of the black plague.
August 17th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
It depends entirely on the animal and the test. Primates are so similar to humans, it is both understandable why they make perfect test subjects as well as why it is cruel to subject them to painful tests. I honestly think most rational people agree that frivolous testing, such as cosmetics, is not justifiable if there are any other means of testing available, which there often is. There is no arguing medical advances have been made thru testing done on animals, but it is our responsibility as humans to ensure there is no agregous, unnecessary suffering or exploitation of animals.
August 17th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I still am VERY glad that thalidomide was not approved here in the states as it was abroad. The FDA felt further testing was necessary. The effects (birth defects) of that drug are heartbreaking, plain and simple. Test on animals? You bet.
August 17th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
I’m a 100% with you Stormy, I was just about to say that
August 17th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
I suffer a number of extremely rare, and excruciatingly painful diseases. If not for animal testing some of the early drugs I was briefly put on for pain control, would have remained on the market, killing untold millions by destroying their livers. Luckily, the testing *was* done, the drug pulled from the market, and I, along with millions of others, were given alternate drugs.
In many situations, like the one above, there is simply no other choice but animal testing. I wish there were. The sad fact is that, like it or not, we either test on animals, or send the drugs to market untested. Since my drug regime includes about 14 different drugs a day, I’m glad I know with confidence that they not only work as advertised in the literature, but work together without harm. Since more than one of the drugs are from the opiate class, and several are from the hydrocodone group, and others you wouldn’t have even heard of, I have to rely on the assurances of the drug companies that these substances work without undue harm. The drug companies, who are always working to improve their products, can only provide such assurances by constantly testing the newest configuration of ingredients. I benefit, directly, because as they improve the drugs, the drugs decrease my perception of pain. They not only decrease my perception of pain, they allow me to be more and more aware, less “drugged” in my thinking and my actions and reactions.
I owe this all to animal testing.
If there were another way, sure, I’d go for it, but I don’t have any problems with animal testing. I doubt that anyone in my situation would be.
Life is a series of compromises, some large, some small. If animal testing is a compromise, it’s one I gladly make.
August 17th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
of course it is necessary. where else are we going to learn the effect of new chemicals in our bodies?
burningskittles – of course i believe in animal testing alot, so that it isn’t necessary on human subjects. the argument you present doesn’t make any sense.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Yes it is awful that animals die for testing, but it is better than a human dying for the same cause.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
I believe that it is completely necessary. Unnecessary cruelty to animals is not something that I advocate, but I would rather give 30,000 lab rats cancer to find a cure than let people continue to die of because some people don’t like animal testing. In a perfect world, we would not have to do animal testing, but then again, a perfect world wouldn’t have any problems either.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
segue (17) As always, you said it best.
Just waiting for Anon
August 17th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
I think I’m with rushfan on this one. Yes, but it’s not a black and white issue. It depends on the type of test and the animal involved. For example, looking at the genetic effects of medicinal drugs by breeding 30 generations of Drosophila (fruit flies) = ok with me. Testing shampoo ingredients on rabbits/mice = not ok. Testing anything detrimental to their wellbeing on primates; animals that are capable of learning language and using tools = disgusting.
While I recognise that animal testing is carried out on many of the medicines and cosmetics I use (although I buy cosmetics with the label that says the maker hasn’t tested them on animals the ingredients may have been tested on animals by the supplier) I do find it quite abhorrent in general – the picture at the top of the page made me leave the computer thinking I was going to vomit initially.
I think that slapping down an international ban on animal testing though would be detrimental to far too many people’s health to justify it. Forcing pharmaceutical companies to develop and then implement comparably effective non-animal means of testing is a far better solution. That’s what I would like to see happen in my lifetime – new animal-free testing methods for medicines and cosmetics.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Segue, geez guy I hope you are doing ok right now. 14 diff. drugs, wow, i mean … wow what ever you are suffering from I hope and wish the best of luck for you. Too bad hoping and wishing doesn’t really help your situation though, but i am sure those drugs that were tested on animals do!
August 17th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Yeah, I know I’m not the first person to say it, and I probably won’t be the last, but I’d rather give a rat some sort of liver disease than somebody I know.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
chunkylover77(23)
Segue’s a woman. I admire her,too. Always have; always will. Amazing strength of character. She is my personal hero.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Vera, (21),
Thanks for the *puff* and the smiley. I’m by way of trying to take a bit of a rain check and attempting not to expand my LV envelope insofar as I can. It’s not only the olympics and a slipping work schedule. I’ve had a marathon and exhaustive run-in alongside Randall elsewhere. There is every reason to believe the opponent(s) is/are drawing breath for the next round, because silence would virtually concede to me/us. Also one or two other sites of interest are still just ticking over (although in some cases I only imagine I can still hear faint heart-beats).
However, as a one-shot I’ll back segue to the hilt. At the same time I remember the reverence certain native American indians are said to have expressed towards the animals they killed for the food that sustained them. I consider we owe animals which have inadvertently (for them) saved human lives the same debt of gratitude.
I have friends who wish they had lived a few hundred years ago, when some of the presently known world was unknown and being explored, the times seemed more exciting and swashbuckling, and there was more freedom from regulations (not freedom for much else for most though). Well, I would have died long since a few hundred years ago, thanks to medicine as it then was, even if I’d managed to get myself born in the first place. I’ve no wish to have my arm amputated by a surgeon’s saw whilst aneasthetised by a shot of brandy or rum, thank you very much. I still have at the very least some sustaining remnant of every tooth, which even my parents didn’t at my present age. The wisdoms that were extracted were done so painlessly, not by string-and-door-knob, or some fearsome carpenter’s tool. I have no idea how many of the advances that see in my present privileged state of health are owed to animals, but I don’t doubt a number are, and I’m grateful.
I agree with all who have declared that no animal should be experimented on for frivolous reasons, or where human choice is available, such as cosmetics or smoking. The sight of a creature forced to drag-on-a-fag is simply obscene and degrades our *civilised* humanity as much as the animal.
A medic on air once made an interesting observation during a discussion of this very topic. He reminded us that no animal is a human being (for example rabbits can consume Amanita phalloides, the death cap toadstool, without harm, which attacks our nervous system and close to invariably kills us in a most undelightful way). He therefore pointed out that the effects of any drug or medicine on people are only fully known and understood when one generation has tried it out for a lifetime.
Finally, I will call as witness one of the greatest and best known supporters and popularisers of natural history of our time, Sir David Attenborough. Asked the same question, David replied that if one of his treasured granchildren’s lives had been, or could be saved by the sacrifice of animals, how could he possibly say no. And if he could not deny for himself and his family, what right had he to deny for anyone else.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Jenova, (13),
P.S.
Nice one. Hadn’t thought of that. Mankind’s revenge. We ought therefore to experiment on unintentionally malevolent beasts that bestow deadly diseases on us. All those rabies bearers, mosquitoes, fleas, the Komodo dragon, the black rat, and so on. Rattus rattus, the main plague carrier: we have them around at times in our garden in Chile, sometimes they get into the roof for a day or two before we *discourage* them or a casual passing cat finds them out in the open at night. Boy, are we glad them lil’ ol’ bubos aren’t around here!
This comment would be accompanied by a big smiley if I knew how to do one.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
yes i think its necessary we need to make sure it will look safely ok certain things i worry bout like gene manipulation or testing diseases but for the most part they should be tested on animals… and hell even people…. death row inmates are wasting space use them for science same with lifetime inmates.. lower there sentence in the name of science
August 17th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Anon (27) You use the colon and the paranthesis to make a smiley.
A semi-colon and a parenthesis to make a winky 
August 17th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Well, it’s better than kidnapping immigrant kids and testing on them, now isn’t it?
August 17th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Now on to your comments (I was just waiting for you)I agree wholeheatedly about the native Americans respect for the entire animal. For the thanks they offered for the animal (and please people, let’s not get religious here And the wonderful quote that supports human life. Yes, we are papasites, as some one pointed out, but the testing is for the greater good. Look at polio. When a vaccine was available, people pulled up in their cars; injections administered thru windows, the demand and fear was so great. Do I need to describe what Iron Lungs were? Such a sad and awful life.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
“parasites”
August 17th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Yes, with restrictions and with heavy consequences when abuse is found (as in life destroying). I don’t understand why we test on some of the animals we do, because we can get all the results we need from rats and mice, why use a beagle or a cat or a chimp (except where concerns of the brain are, of course). The thing that bothers me most about animal testing is complete unwillingness to make the process more comfortable for the animal being stabbed. They aren’t gentle with the animals, but have a tendency to be brutal, which to me is unacceptable. These animals are being used to better our lives (being humans). Can’t the animals we’re using for such things be treated with a little more respect? Mice and rats might be low on the food chain, and generally hated creatures, but there’s no reason for violent treatment. We can at least be humane about all this.
Other than that, I do believe it is necessary at this point. If there are viable alternatives we should use them, but if there aren’t we need to keep testing on animals. I want cures for horrible diseases…end of story.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
I agree with what seems to be the overall trend so far here. Should my lipstick or shampoo be tested on a fluffy bunny? no! But when it comes to medical issues, it makes far more sense to test first on lab rats than to go straight to testing on humans. I certainly wouldn’t volunteer to be the first ever living creature that tried out some new medication, not having any clue what the effects may be, would you?
August 17th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
A great, yet paradoxical question.
There are many benefits to animal testing, and many laboratories do follow humane practices. However I’m also certain that there would be many practices (and practitioners) in the world, which would not be humane.
Most of the cures in the modern world have been brought about by animal testing, and we owe a lot to the millions of animals sacrificed, so that we and our loved ones can have a (better) life.
So yes, if any of my loved ones were dying, and the only possible way to save their lives was animal testing, then I would definitely vote for it.
On the other hand, why must I consider myself better than any of the animals? If tomorrow, a superior alien race (or an animal species) arrives, and dominates us. Would I like it, if they were to use me or my loved ones for testing, so that they can live?
Would I like being subjected to inhumane (or inalien) testing, so that some species somewhere can live? What if they put us in cages, and presume that we don’t have feelings, emotions, and our lives are expendable for their greater good?
But such is life, with no direct right or wrong answers. It’s all a matter of choice, and what we do in that particular moment.
If life, and many of its choices weren’t paradoxical, how boring would it be?
August 18th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Its not nice being a rat if you cant tell someone “hey I have a really bad headache and I feel like I want to throw up for the past two months”. And you thinking this while the men in white coats are saying “see rate #99 is still alive and eating, it must not have an effect of him because his organs are still functioning”. Kind of like when people say “don’t worry its cold blooded it doesn’t feel any pain, look I can cut its eyes out and put I back in the water” But in the flip side, I am thankful for the potent drugs I can use when I am sick.
August 18th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Peer reviewed and government controlled (hence in a democracy open to public input)animal trials are a necessary lesser evil.
Animal testing also improves the (greater) lot of animals, especially those of economic importance such as farmed animals and those on the endangered list. In NZ a deal of effort is spent on raising rare bird breads and keeping them healthy.
Animals are also increasingly used as sources of palliatives and cures, such as venoms.
Humans are tested on and some die and get ill – eg those in the English drug trial a year or so back. A few famous scientists have died through testing on them selves. We see documentaries on the way Chinese prisoners are tested on and parts recycled. And for those who would do that in the USA, lets hope that at least, you are not thinking of the Southern States…
In summary, as in all polls on ethics, it is going to depend on where you are standing. When it affects you personally it is entirely different to a dispassionate analysis. If cultural imperatives are considered then some will not consider doing it to cows, and some will do it to fellow humans.
If we extrapolate the argument to consider cloning and genetic research then what about streams of life manufactured just for testing and body parts harvesting?
Finally Ram Dass (aka Dr Richard Alpert) tells the story of physician Larry Brilliant trying to eradicate small pox in India. Every villager in every village had to be immunized or just one escapee could reinfect a thousand at a railway station. As they approached the head of each village they found that he would resist that plan with great vigour. Eventually they held him down and inoculated him and then the village would follow. Afterward the village feasted the interlopers and showed no animosity. In our view no child should suffer from a disease that causes blindness, disfigurement and brain damage. In their dharma all life is sacred, even small pox, and if you get ill from it, that is your dharma. Just as now suffering from a deliberating stroke, that is Ram Dass’.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:01 am
Does anyone know how many of the greatest medical advances WERE tested on animals? E.g. did Alexander Fleming test penicillin on animals at all?
I ask because I read somewhere recently (I wish I could remember where!) that over the last two or three decades none of the big pharmaceutical companies have come up with any new antibiotics – they’ve just been refining the one’s we already had and giving them new names.
If the scientists of the 19th and 20th centuries made their great contributions to medical science without using animal testing – why can’t we?
Bear in mind that I don’t personally know whether these earlier scientists were using animals for testing; I’m just guessing here.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:49 am
Interesting arguments from Rusty & Tempyra.
@Rusty (#37): Indians (mostly Hindus) do have a lot of belief on “dharma” & “karma”. If you do get inflicted by any misfortune, it is your “karma”. How you deal with it, is your “dharma”. That’s why many Indians (many generations ago, not the current breed) used to take everything in life in their stride, and used to live a life in balance with nature. I’m digressing here, but there is a religion called “Jainism”. (I’m sure it’s covered in one of the lists here.) The “Jains” are fanatical about not imbalancing nature. They don’t even eat anything that grows under the ground, for that is considered food for all the underground worms & life-forms. Jain monks, if they sleep on the ground, wont even change their posture throughout the night, for fear of crushing small ants and insects that might be moving around.
Just FYI.
@Tempyra (#38): I also wonder how many ancient discoveries, & medical advances were made without animal testing. Need to do some more reading on it.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:48 am
Okay, after a quick check of Wikipedia:
The diptheria antitoxin, insulin (for diabetics), streptomycin (the antibiotic used to treat tuberculosis), the polio vaccine, lithium (used to treat manic depression), non-volatile anesthetics, heart valve replacement surgery, the multi-drug antibiotic treatment for leprosy, organ transplant techniques, anti-transplant rejection medications, the heart-lung machine, and the whooping cough vaccine are all 19th/20th century medical advances that were tested on animals.
Penicillin was tested on mice in the late 1930s – not by Alexander Fleming, who had given up and thought that penicillin couldn’t be cultured in large enough quantities to be effective, but by a group of scientists at Oxford University.
Louis Pasteur used sheep to transfer anthrax and demonstrate his germ theory – one of the biggest advances in medicine ever, I think.
The ancient Greeks also utilised vivisection (Aristotle and Erasistratus were the first) and the physical Galen is even known as ‘the father of vivisection’.
So it appears that a LOT of medical knowledge throughout history was gathered from testing on animals.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:14 am
I think it’s totally wrong.
I think the people trying out whatever there making, should try it on themselves, or any other person willing to do it.
You can’t ask a dog if you can inject them with god only knows what. People could volunteer and get paid. Ya, animals have helped with a lot of discoveries, but i’m sure there has been plenty of cases were it didn’t work out so well.
August 18th, 2008 at 4:53 am
If it’s done humanly then yes continue to test on animals. To those who oppose it and think it’s so wrong you are probably the first ones to put out a mouse trap or call an exterminator if you find “vermin” in your house eating you food and destroying your property. And they do not use dogs, cats, monkeys, or elephants(dont know just threw it in) to test. They use animals who reproduce faster under controlled HUMANE conditions these days(government restrictions are a bitch huh)
August 18th, 2008 at 5:14 am
filipinoknight: Who is this ‘they’ of which you speak?
“To those who oppose it and think it’s so wrong you are probably the first ones to put out a mouse trap or call an exterminator if you find “vermin” in your house eating you food and destroying your property.”
Oh really? That’s quite a assumption you are making there.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:50 am
I’m afraid this one is a no-brainer. The answer quite simply is Yes, animal testing is necessary.
No argument made against it has ever risen above the most puerile kind of illogical moralizing, along with the occasional nonsense statement that goes “with all the technology today, we don’t need animal testing!” –clearly made by people who haven’t a clue. (If computer modeling technology were that great, medical science would almost certainly no longer be the guessing game it continues to be; obviously, however, modern medicine is still in large measure made up of stabs in the dark and lots of reliance on statistical trends. If technology was so advanced that we could use it to determine what effects various new drugs would have, we could probably use that same technology, or something akin to it, to *precisely* determine what is wrong with people and how to *precisely* fix it–and probably find potential maladies well in advance of their becoming actual afflictions. Clearly this ain’t the case however).
I am affiliated with a major top-class research university, as I’ve mentioned here before. I have many friends doing animal experimentation. (Not all of which is in any way harmful to the animals, by the way–we think of animal experimentation and we think injection of drugs and dissections and such, but it doesn’t always work that way). It’s not a frivolous matter to them; they’re developing technologies and procedures that can benefit mankind and science in general.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:57 am
Randall: So if it was a choice between testing something on an animal and testing something with a computer model, would you go with the animal?
August 18th, 2008 at 6:13 am
I can give you 100s of examples showing for a fact htat animal experiments do not work and kill more people than they help:
According to a report released in Washington in August 2002, the leading cause of death in the US is now recognised to be ADRs. No longer heart attacks, cardio-vascular accidents nor cancer, but animal-tested pharmaceutical products.
A report in the Telegraph paper on 12/5/06 said about Adverse Drug Reactions – ” Tens of thousands of patients are suffering adverse reactions to drugs with at least 250,000 needing to be admitted to hospital every year at a cost to the NHS of nearly £500MILLION. Serious reactions can kill or cause respiratory failure or heart attacks. Lesser reactions can cause rashes, muscle pain and dizziness and many other symptoms.But doctors are notoriously bad at reporting such problems, often because they feel that minor reactions are so well known there is no need to do so. Others are so rarely seen by individual doctors that they do not make the link.Dr Vivienne Nathanson, the head of science at the BMA, said yesterday that only about 10 per cent of adverse reactions are reported, according to research.”
The Toxicology Working Group of the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures in 2002 recommended that “the reliability and relevance of all existing animal tests should be reviewed as a matter of urgency.”
A 2004 paper in the British Medical Journal concluded that “the contribution of animal studies to clinical medicine requires urgent formal evaluation.”
The recent Health Committee inquiry into the influence of the pharmaceutical industry concluded that the regulatory standards for new drug approval require urgent review.
This Government came to power promising a Royal Commission on animal experimentation. Yet Home Office Minister Caroline Flint stated in 2004 that the Government “has not commissioned or evaluated any formal research on the efficacy of animal experiments and has no plans to do so.”
Penicillin , for example was nearly thrown away never to save human lives becuase in animal tests it gave misleading results in rabbits and later tests showed it killed guinea pigs. Fleming later admitted that misleading results from animal testing almost prevented discovery of the entire field of antibiotics.Sir Alexander Fleming himself said: ‘How fortunate we didn’t have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably never have been granted a licence, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realised.’
Thalidomide, the infamous cause of birth defects in more than 10,000 children in the early 1960s, induces birth defects in very few species. Dr James Schardein, the doyen of birth defect studies, says: ‘In approximately 10 strains of rats, 15 strains of mice, 11 breeds of rabbits, two breeds of dogs, three strains of hamsters, eight species of primates, and in other such varied species as cats, armadillos, guinea pigs, swine and ferrets in which thalidomide has been tested, teratogenic effects have been induced only occasionally.’ Ironically, if thalidomide, the drug whose side effects made animal testing obligatory, were assessed exclusively on its results in such tests it would still be passed today.
Hormone-replacement therapy (HRT), prescribed to many millions of women because it lowered monkeys’ risk of heart disease and stroke, increases women’s risks of these conditions significantly. The chairman of the German Commission on the Safety of Medicines described HRT as ‘the new thalidomide’. In August 2003 The Lancet estimated that HRT had caused 20,000 cases of breast cancer over the past decade in Britain, in addition to many thousands of heart attacks and strokes.
After a project using over 18′000 mice , Teropterin was used to treat acute childhood leukaemia ; but the children died more quickly than if they had not been treated.
Dr Albert Sabin, the inventor of the polio vaccine, swore under oath that the vaccine ‘was long delayed by the erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of [it] in monkeys’.
Asbestos is another example. The link between cancer and asbestos was made as long ago as 1907; but, after scientists failed to induce the disease in animals, it took more than 30 years before the human-model evidence became irrefutable.
Arsenic, a poison to humans is harmless to the sheep. Sheep, goats, horses and mice can also eat hemlock in huge quantities – whereas it is a poison to humans.
Morphine is an anaesthetic for humans, yet if it is given to cats, it produces a state of frenzied excitement.
Vitamin C is not needed at all by dogs, rats, hamsters and mice, as their bodies produce Vitamin C of their own accord. If humans, primates or guinea-pigs are deprived of Vitamin C, they can die of scurvy.
Former director of the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) Richard Klausner lamented: “The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn’t work in humans.”
UNSAFE FOR HUMANS
The following, taken from Dr Ray and Jean Greek’s book, are just some examples of pharmaceutical drugs which have been deemed safe for human use after extensive animal testing, but which were later found to cause serious side effects.
•Amrinone: Use of this drug for treating heart failure led to 20 per cent of patients developing thrombocytopenia (a lack of blood cells needed for clotting), despite a comprehensive program of animal studies in mice, rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, dogs and rhesus monkeys. Some of these patients died.
•Birth control pills: These are known to cause life-threatening blood clots in some women, yet scientists have still not been able to reproduce this finding in animals. In fact, dog testing predicted that the pill would decrease the likelihood of clotting.
•Chloramphenicol: This antibiotic caused life-threatening anaemia in humans. Chloramphenicol is an example of a drug whose effects vary from species to species: dogs do well with it, cats die from it, cows tolerate it but horses do not. It is so toxic to susceptible humans that its use has been outlawed in animals used for food. The tiny amount consumed from ingesting a hamburger made from a treated cow will cause death in such a person unless they receive a bone marrow transplant.
•Diethylstilbestrol: This synthetic oestrogen was designed to prevent miscarriage, but it did just the opposite by increasing the rate of spontaneous abortions, premature births and neo-natal deaths. No human trials were done; all the safety data were collected from animals.
•Eraldin: This heart drug was withdrawn in 1975 after causing serious side effects in an estimated 7,000 victims, 23 of whom died. It had been tested for six years in mice, rats, dogs and monkeys and when introduced on the market was “particularly notable for the thoroughness with which its toxicity was studied in animals, to the satisfaction of the authorities”. Even long after the drug was withdrawn, scientists failed to reproduce these results in animals.
•Floxin: This antibiotic progressed through animal testing, only to cause seizures and psychosis when used by humans.
•Isuprel: A medication used to treat asthma, it proved devastatingly toxic to humans in the amounts recommended based on animal studies. In Great Britain alone, 3,500 asthmatics died from using the medication.
•Manoplax: This heart drug, which had been tested on rats, mice, rabbits, cats and guinea-pigs, was withdrawn worldwide in 1993 after analysis of patients showed that those taking it were at increased risk of hospitalisation and/or death.
•Methysergide: This treatment for migraine led to severe scarring of the heart, kidneys and blood vessels in the abdomen, although scientists have been unable to reproduce these effects in animals.
•Opren: This treatment for rheumatism and arthritis killed 61 people and caused 3,500 adverse reactions. Withdrawn in 1982, the drug had been tested on monkeys and other animals for nine years with no adverse side effects.
•Phenylpropanolamine (PPA): This drug, found in many common cold and flu remedies, was banned by the FDA in the US after it was linked to causing between 200 and 500 strokes in young women a year.
•Primacor: This medication, given when the heart is not pumping enough blood, worked well in rats but increased deaths in humans by 30 per cent.
•Ritodrine: This drug, prescribed to avert premature labour, induced pulmonary oedema (fluid in the lungs, causing breathing difficulties and possibly death).
•Suprofen: This arthritis drug was withdrawn from the market when patients suffered kidney toxicity. Prior to its release, researchers said this about the animal tests: “…excellent safety profile. No.cardiac, renal [kidney] or central nervous system [side effects] in any species.”
•Tamoxifen: This drug, used to treat and prevent breast cancer in women, caused liver tumours in rats but not in mice or hamsters. The drug has been shown to be harmless to the developing foetus of rabbits and monkeys, but to cause bone abnormalities in rat foetuses. One of the side effects is nausea and vomiting, but this was not predicted in animal studies, even though high doses were tested in dogs — the species considered most predictive of vomiting in humans. The drug has also been implicated in uterine cancer, blood clots, memory loss, absence of periods, and eye damage such as cataracts.
•Zomax: This arthritis drug killed 14 people and caused many more to suffer.
A quote from http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/a … ction.html :
The vivisection industry has placed itself in an ivory tower above questioning. With our money it has created a system which is completely self-monitored and self-regulated. It is imperative that we take the vivisectors down from their ivory tower, expose their research as fraudulent, and replace it with valid research that will enable us to create a healthy society.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:38 am
Lleana: proof we need to test on humans
August 18th, 2008 at 6:40 am
Tempyra:
As I said, computer modeling is NOT up to the task. If you believe otherwise, I invite you to look into the matter yourself–I have a friend just two buildings over from me who is one of the top researchers in computer science in this country, and he could assure you that when it comes to the needs of medical testing, our computer modeling technology today is just no replacement for actual animal testing–and this is in part because medical science itself cannot give computer scientists the data they need to build better systems–because medicine is still in the dark as to how and why living things work on many levels–particularly on the cellular level.
This is just my own personal opinion–but the way I would put it is… despite the fact that we see many modern marvels of technology associated with medicine–CT scans, MRIs, new drugs, new procedures, etc. –the fact is that medicine is still relatively primitive as sciences go. It shoots in the dark as often as it goes in equipped with knowledge.
We think ourselves so advanced in so many ways, because of computers and the internet and space probes and cell phones and so on and on… but what we seem squeamish to admit is that our medical technology is only a few steps removed in advancement from the potions and practices of what passed for “medicine” 500+ years ago. We’ve learned a lot and invented a lot, but we still have a very long way to go.
So… the answer to your question is yes, I would choose animal testing over computer modeling, certainly for the present, until such time as our knowledge finally reaches the point where such testing become superfluous–if we *ever* get to that point.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:48 am
This is a toughie, though I guess I’m gonna have to say “Yes”. Measures should be made to minimise the hurt and the numbers of animals used- and alternatives for the future rather than an outright ban.
I don’t say “Yes” because I think it’s the moral thing to do, however- I completely don’t. It’s for purely selfish reasons- an ill human can plead and tug at your heart strings- and could be someone you know. These animals are out of sight and out of mind.
That may sound horrible- but to say it’s moral would be, for me, even more so.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:55 am
Lleana:
Clearly you are some PETA person or other with a nice big axe to grind, and you’ve come equipped with an equally nice, big set of propaganda talking points to slice us up with. In all such instances, of course, it’s easy to slant bits and pieces of the truth to support one’s view, but this requires leaving big chunks of the truth out in order to make your case.
You also, one notes, made absolutely no attempt to tell us what alternative we should take, instead of testing on animals. Testing on humans? Impractical and logistically difficult, for many reasons, as well as morally questionable to say the least. Also, hard to see how you’d find enough (willing) human test subjects. Computer modeling–I’ve debunked that one already. Praying to Ba’al for guidance? About your only remaining alternative, and would make about as much sense as you make in your long-winded diatribe.
“According to a report released in Washington in August 2002, the leading cause of death in the US is now recognised to be ADRs. No longer heart attacks, cardio-vascular accidents nor cancer, but animal-tested pharmaceutical products.”
Bullshit. Identify this “report” you’re citing.
In fact, your entire comment can be boiled down to an argument, in a logical sense, simply for *more rigorous* animal testing, if anything. But actually all it tells us is what I said above, to Tempyra–medical science is still relatively primitive and amounts as often as anything to stabs in the dark. You want to make it worse? Remove animal testing as a means for acquiring knowledge.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:06 am
Lleana~
you have made the exact same comments I was going to make, and used many of the same examples I was going to! Right-on, sister!
as a Veterinary Tecnician student, I have many conflicting ideas concerning this topic. But my logic is not flawed… perhaps it is my ethics that are.
You see, before any new vaccine or medication or even procedure is made available for animals, whether they be pet or livestock, there is extensive testing done ON THAT SPECIES. many individuals will die so that their bodies can be examined to deterimen exact physiological responses to the procedures/drugs/tests…and the humane death of many may resylt in the eradication of suffering for a great many more…
we don’t test a drug intended for a chicken on a cat. although many medications are used “off-label”, meaning that the drug is not FDA approved for usage in a species other than the one indicated, many studies and tests may have determined the drug may be safely ued in another species for specific conditions.
what pains me is the astonishing large business of “creating & supplying” animals for the medical field of research and development…
rats
mice
guinea pigs
rabbits
ferrets
beagles
(remember the first heart transplant was done in dogs!)
cats by the thousands
pigs
reptiles of all types
primates
and recently, farm animals.
not to sound cruel, but, casting ethics aside, a great source for human test subjects would be our penal system. those derelicts of society, that’s actions land them incarcerated for LIFE or death row, are a perfect source!
they are in a ‘colony’ like environment. it would not be difficult to oversee such an opperation. at least they could contribute something to society-after all, each & every one of us pay taxes that go to fund prisons and prison programs… why not make it benefit society medically?
ethically, that is an appauling idea – but one with merit…. because one does not find oneself incarerated in a mazimum security prison because one hit & killed a drunken homeless man with your car,(I did, and it was the singular worst expwerience of my life!) or got caught with a 1/4 oz of weed,(never) or even had 3 DUI’s(never had 1, although I should have!). you have got to really screw up monumentally, and repeatedly, to land yourself in such a place.
rtr
August 18th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Randall: – Thanks for the reply. I’m hoping technology gets to the point where we don’t need animal testing sooner rather than later
Lleana: Does the Washington report you quoted above include or exclude cases where the wrong drug was administered by accident? ‘cos that happens quite often.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:14 am
I love how any facts that disagree with Randall are “propaganda”. Randall- we get it, you disagree with Lleana- but from where I’m standing, you’re arguments are merely attacks alongside assurances that you know people who know things- we can’t just assume you know better than everyone else in the thread y’know. That’s not how things work.
And why should she talk of an alternative? If the PETA types have the facts that show animal testing to be inefficient or even harmful if this report says what Lleana claims, why should it be ignored if they lack an alternative?
I mean, if we start sacrificied people to volcanoes, and then people can prove it makes no difference, do we jut carry on doing it until those people think of an alternative?
I don’t necessarily agree with Lleana- mostly because I don’t know about this whatsoever- but there’s no reason to be a dick.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:20 am
Randall~
maybe Lleana, like myself, is NOT a PETA supporter. I despise PETA. I despise their methods… unfortunately, they have gotten legal reactions and responses due to their outlandish stunts, and therefore, because they get a response, they continue the behavior. it’s like rewarding a growling dog by petting it and saying “There, there, it’s okay”. then when the dog finally bites someone, the response is always “I don’t know what happened”.
I was not 100% clear on my stance… I oppose animal testing when it is done to test pharmacueticals and beauty products for humans. but I am not opposed to animal testing for animal’s health needs.
this ideal of mine may change-I have noticed that as I get older, many of the ideas I once had have fallen out of favor or been completely disproven…but for now, it’s what i think is correct.
I do support the Hmane Society of the United States and the United Fund for Animals… as well as many local breed rescues. I do not support such groups as the March of Dimes, but I do support The Population Connection.
I work in a field where ‘outsiders’ cannot understand how a family can spend $5,000 to repair their German Shepherd’s dysplastic hips, or charge $9,000 to save the life of their cat that was hit by a car…but I can, and do, understand.
Because I myself spent 3 grand to save my cat when she was hit by a car, and over 5 grand to help my beloved service dog when he was diagnosed with cancer.(he was my constant companion,going to retsuarants, movies, planes, even attending some classes on campus with me at a community college.) the community helped me, too-i had over $700 donated anonymously from different individuals to aid me in paying the vet bills…
rtr
August 18th, 2008 at 7:38 am
I dont think that animal testing is bad, it isn’t safe. My grandparents had there dog stolen for “scientific research”. He was one of two dogs out of over a hundred animals that lived through the experimentation.
And if they are going to test products for humans out on animals, why not test them on animals that at closer to our genetic makup? For example, why test rats and mice when pigs are closer to us (organs) and monkeys (DNA)??? A minute amount of chocolate can kill dogs but i’ve never heard of it killing a human. I wonder what kind of products that have been vetoed because they harm animals that would actually help us humans out have been canceled or destroyed. The cure for cancer probabally…..lolz
August 18th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Hobolad:
Must you *always* be an obnoxious little snot, Hobolad? Did you have some sort of religious vision that it was your mission in life or something?
A) I mentioned the friend of mine in computer science because HE knows more than I do about the topic. I personally don’t believe in running to authority every time one makes an argument, but then again I didn’t really do that if you read close. I stated what was wrong with the idea of using computer modeling, and my mention of the friend working in the field really had no bearing on my argument. The argument I made was sound and factual, and NOT “merely attacks alongside assurances” that I “know” people. YOU, Hobolad, are guilty of the same kind of crap that Lleana is guilty of, therefore–skewing the truth and making some selective deletions from it in order to help validate your point–which was invalid to start with. You can make your apology anytime. I prefer daffodils and a nice card.
B) As for the use of the word “propaganda,” what would YOU call it, Hobolad, in your infinite wisdom? A balanced presentation of the truth? Hmmm?
C) Why should she talk of an alternative? Well what’s the point of making her statement, otherwise? Let’s say it was true that animal testing was wildly inaccurate and inefficient (this has by no means been established simply because Lleana has thrown a pile of unsupported statistics out there, loosely into space, with no context). Okay. Whoopee. Now what? The question at hand is whether animal testing is necessary, not how well it works. CLEARLY Lleana, in posting here, has taken the stance that animal testing is unnecessary and wrong. But she’s done more than that–she’s presented a heap of (unsubstantiated and non-contextual) evidence to support her apparent view. A statement of such length and complexity, then, demands that one take the natural (and intellectually brave, one should add) step of fulfilling the argument to state what one thinks the alternative OUGHT to be.
Because see, a grown up recognizes that much, and probably most, of human endeavor is inefficient, wasteful, and/or improvable by a long shot. Do we stop what we’re doing because of this, however, or do we strive, within our best, to make things better? I pump for the latter, personally. Fossil fuels are wasteful and inefficient in many ways. But they give us the biggest bang for the buck for the present. I’d rather we found cleaner and better sources of energy and I think we should be working harder at doing so. But there’s obviously a cadre of people out there who think we shouldn’t use nuclear, for instance, as an alternative. Nice, and maybe I don’t entirely disagree with them. But it’s not enough to present the argument as to why we shouldn’t turn to nuclear. I want to hear–and I think it’s more important than anything else that we DO hear–what they think the alternatives should be–and those alternatives need to make sense and need to offer us the same (or better) benefits that nuclear would–or let’s face it, we’re probably screwed.
Same goes for this argument. Lleana goes out of her way to write a lengthy missive on this question–then she damn well ought to present us with her alternative. And the alternative better be as good as the option at hand–animal testing–else her argument is nullified.
D) Your volcano analogy is way off and silly. Clearly animal testing HAS made a difference. I would assume you’d recognize it’s a question of DEGREES of difference.
As for my being a “dick,” I’d expect you to be aware that the pot calling the kettle black is an old and tiresome, but worthy axiom to bring up here, Hobolad.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:49 am
I don’t think Lleana wrote all that herself; I think she ‘copied & pasted’ the majority of it actually.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:50 am
Word for word (right down to the typo in the first paragraph) copied from here:
http://www.animalrightsdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&p=44785
August 18th, 2008 at 7:53 am
ringtailroxy:
Some of my best buddies are in veterinary medicine, ringtail. In fact, again, it’s a field I’m professionally close to, without saying too much. I should make it clear that I’m an animal lover myself (’cept for possums. I don’t like possums… I’ve had several run-ins with them. I know they’re out to get me).
August 18th, 2008 at 7:57 am
I am not 100% sure but I think the information contained in Lleana’s comment (and the one made in the link in my previous comment) comes from this book:
Sacred Cows and Golden Geese: The Human Cost of Animal Experimentation, by C. Ray Greek, MD, and Jean Swingle Greek
August 18th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Lleana: This is from the CDC website…
Deaths-Leading Causes
(Data are for U.S. for year indicated)
Number of deaths for leading causes of death
Heart disease: 652,091
Cancer: 559,312
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 143,579
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 130,933
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 117,809
Diabetes: 75,119
Alzheimer’s disease: 71,599
Influenza/Pneumonia: 63,001
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 43,901
Septicemia: 34,136
If we can eradicate heart disease, cancer, and stroke by testing on animals, then test away.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Randall: possums are scary! The brushtail possums that are such a huge problem in New Zealand are incredibly vicious lil creatures but strangely, everyone in Australia seems to think they’re cute (they’re native to Australia and introduced to NZ).
August 18th, 2008 at 8:08 am
“Must you *always* be an obnoxious little snot, Hobolad? Did you have some sort of religious vision that it was your mission in life or something?”
You’re quite the hypocrite, every argument I’ve seen you in (and yes, as soon as you join in they become arguments- you can’t seem to let your posts be as small as their actual content, and the padding out of them with insults tends to turn amiable discussion into full blown arguments). Just because most seem to be tongue deep in your arse doesn’t mean everyone finds your insults to be signs of intellectual superiority or whatever else you fancy your posts to convey.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you on this occasion- but everytime you muscle into a topic you create a bad atmosphere. It’s not needed.
@A: You do it often. You often bring up professors at wherever you’re at, or whoever- you just never say anything of substance, just that “So-and-so supports me” and then you claim that to be sufficient debunking of whatever the subject it.
@B: I would say it’s as valid as any other evidence presented. It just seems that whenever you post evidence- then it’s TRUTH- whenever anyone posts any, it’s wrong. You don’t say why it’s wrong, but it disagrees with what you say so therefore it must be, right?
@C: You’re making no sense. “Is Animal Testing Necessary”- if it’s proven to be doing active harm compared to if it wasn’t carried out at all, then obviously that means it’s unnecessary. Not having an alternative ready doesn’t suddenly make it necessary again. Fittingly for the subject- you can diagnose an illness without having a cure ready, it doesn’t negate the diagnosis.
@D: It has made a difference. Positive and negative- if this report shows that side effects of the medication are bigger killers than the illnesses themselves…
“As for my being a “dick,” I’d expect you to be aware that the pot calling the kettle black is an old and tiresome, but worthy axiom to bring up here, Hobolad.”
I may be a nasty piece of work (on the internet at least
As are we all) but I’m never the one to weigh in with insults first, if you’ll notice. You expect people to not react when you join nice little discussions with posts full of insults?
August 18th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Tempyra:
They are VERY vicious, at least in my experience. I’ve had four separate encounters with the little bastards, and have thus removed them from my List of Nice Animals I’d Like to Be Reincarnated As.
On the other hand, we have what has been identified (apparently) as a mink hanging out on our beach. Cute isn’t the word for this little guy, (or perhaps mom?) and he/she doesn’t go out of his/her way to attack and/or otherwise scare the beejeezus out of me when I’m just innocently walking down to work on my boat. Unlike the hated possum, which in my experience lies in wait in order to pounce out at me, hissing and snarling like the creature of hell I in fact believe it to be.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Ringtail-
I’m not a medical professional, but from what I understand drugs, procedures, etc are tested on animals first, then humans in tightly controlled experiments. They don’t just test a cancer drug on a bunch of mice, then ship the drug to Walgreens.
“not to sound cruel, but, casting ethics aside, a great source for human test subjects would be our penal system. those derelicts of society, that’s actions land them incarcerated for LIFE or death row, are a perfect source!
they are in a ‘colony’ like environment. it would not be difficult to oversee such an opperation. at least they could contribute something to society-after all, each & every one of us pay taxes that go to fund prisons and prison programs… why not make it benefit society medically?
ethically, that is an appauling idea – but one with merit….”
Even mentioning experimentation on incarcerated human subjects is abhorrent, and no amount of reasoning can make it otherwise. “One with merit”??? Are you kidding me?
HOBOLAD-
Read Lleana’s post again. She (or whatever website she copy/pasted from)clearly cherry-picked examples that support her opinion, without any mention *at all* of the legions of examples that could refute her claim. Open your eyes. What’s your definition of propaganda?
Why should she produce an alternative? Well, if you blindly and unquestioningly believe every word she said, then she wouldn’t have to. If animal testing doesn’t work, then why would we need an alternative?
The problem here is that it DOES work in not all, but SOME cases. And until a viable alternative is produced that both alleviates the need for animal testing, and does not require risking HUMAN lives, then we should keep on doing what we’re doing.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Ringtail-
I’d like to temper my previous post. If you were just joking, I apologize.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Its totally necessary. Would you rather we test on humans? I can’t believe these PETA nuts! Get a life people. Caring about animals to the point that humans suffer is SICK and wrong. These people are complete morons driven by emotion and not logic.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Hobolad:
Okay, you’re in love with being a prick; I don’t respect that, but if you’re doing what you love, then I suppose you’ve found your way to happiness.
I find it amusing (and VERY telling) that the only people I ever hear this sort of criticism from (i.e. the one you’re leveling at me) are those with whom I’ve had strong disagreements in the past (as I believe you and I have had). Interesting, also, that you feel it SO important to chastise me that you’re taking this off-topic to this regard, EVEN THOUGH you and I evidently agree on the issue at hand!
Ridiculous.
“…Just because most seem to be tongue deep in your arse…”
Another one I ALWAYS hear from the resentful FEW here who have a bone to pick with me, such as you–that I’ve somehow fooled and cowed tons of other people here on this site into bowing and scraping to me as some kind of intellectual superior. A) I happen to believe most of the people here are way smarter than that, Hobolad, and B) I also believe that were I merely the gigantic asshole you portray me as, that I would have been found out long ago and laughed and mocked off this site and probably even barred from it by Jamie. You want to see me as nothing more than a gigantic blowhard because you’ve disliked what I’ve had to say at times. You don’t like my prose style and find me insulting. I say to each their own, but I DO note that we’ve disagreed in the past and I think it’s clear you have a personal beef against me. I ALSO NOTE THAT *YOU* ATTACKED *ME* FIRST HERE on this thread–a snide and TOTALLY UNNECESSARY commentary on what I’d written to *someone else.* If you feel you’re right about me, Hobolad, then why not just leave it allow others to see it for themselves? But it seems to me that you have some NEED to attack me and felt it necessary to call me out. Paints you in a worse picture here, in my opinion.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:31 am
You know what statistic I’d love to see: what proportion of PETA followers are fervent pro-choicers.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:32 am
“HOBOLAD-
Read Lleana’s post again. She (or whatever website she copy/pasted from)clearly cherry-picked examples that support her opinion, without any mention *at all* of the legions of examples that could refute her claim. Open your eyes. What’s your definition of propaganda?”
She has an argument- she has examples to back it up. It is then dismissed out of hand without any actual refutation- her (yeah, if they are hers) claims haven’t been countered with any kind of backed up argument thus far. I guess providing evidence for an argument is propaganda, but making unsupported claims are perfectly fine?
“Why should she produce an alternative? Well, if you blindly and unquestioningly believe every word she said, then she wouldn’t have to. If animal testing doesn’t work, then why would we need an alternative?”
I don’t, my current stance has been posted. We would need an alternative, sure- but you can’t discredit an argument that something is insufficient because no alternative is prepared.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Bob: What PETA nuts?
Randall: Whenever I’m in NZ my brother and I go possum shooting (an animal testing topic is probably not the best place to say something like this haha) and I’ve learnt that when there’s an angry possum on the ground – one should remove oneself to a safe distance quickly. IMO possums sound like evil little demons with their hissing and cackling noises.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Hobolad:
One other point… you refer to my “insulting” behavior here again—Well I would like you to point out just what was “insulting” about my comment to Lleana—(or to anyone else here, except you). What was it, Hobo? My referring to her post as “propaganda?” If that’s insulting in your book, I’d suggest your skin is a tad too thin to be lurking around on the internet, and you find yourself a new hobby.
In short, further proof that this is all a personal beef of yours, in my regard. And my suggestion to you, therefore, is to get lost.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Hobolad:
A) Lleana’s post does NOT constitute an “argument” because it offers nothing more than a series of non-contextual bits and pieces and unsubstantiated statistics, and says NOTHING more. You can CALL that an argument if you like, but all it amounts to is MAYBE “proof” (too strong a word in this context) that animal testing is inefficient. That is ALL.
B) What you’re basically saying is that postings which copy and paste a lot of skewed anecdotes and/or statistics are more valid to you than postings which present an actual viewpoint in someone’s own words.
If that’s all you respect, then here:
From the website of an Oxford-based group, Pro-Test:
Myth: Animal testing is unreliable, because drugs have different effects in people and animals. The result is that drugs passed as safe in animals are found to have serious side effects in people.
“Medical experiments on animals have caused enormous damage and killed thousands. In the past 20 years thousands of drugs, successfully tested on animals have been withdrawn because of dangerous side effects on humans.”1
The Facts
Animal research is important in understanding diseases and developing ways to prevent, treat or cure them. Animal testing of potential medicines is also vital. But the claim that animal testing is responsible for drug side effects is illogical and shows a basic misunderstanding of the safety testing process.
If drugs pass extensive screening by test tube methods, they are then tested on animals. These tests give valuable information about how the drug reacts in the living body, and often show up previously unpredicted side effects. For instance, the route of administration is important: a drug given by mouth may be altered by digestion, becoming less effective or more toxic. This is the sort of problem that will not be apparent from test tube results, but will show up in animal tests.
The animal tests are designed to reveal major undesirable effects such as liver damage, raised blood pressure, nerve damage, or damage to the foetus. The results of the animal studies will give a strong indication of what the effects in people are likely to be. It is obviously important, and is required by law, to find out about potential problems before drugs are given to human volunteers and patients in clinical trials.
Human clinical trials will involve testing a potential drug on 3-5,000 human volunteers and patients. If a side effect (affecting say 1 in 10,000 patients) shows up only after this stage, then it is difficult to see how it could have been spotted before. This was the case with Eraldin, which, in clinical trials in over 2,000 patients, produced only constipation in 44 patients – the most serious side effect found. It was only after it had been prescribed hundreds of thousands of times that this effect was discovered. It makes no sense to blame the animal tests for rare side effects, after a drug has been tested on cells and tissues, in animals, in people, and after it has been used by many thousands of patients.
Figures are often quoted by animal rights sympathisers on drug induced deaths or hospitalisation due to drug side effects. These are highly exaggerated and misleading. Most of these deaths are not caused by normal doses of drugs, but are in fact due to accidental or deliberate overdose.2
The number of drugs withdrawn from the market is also consistently overstated by animal rights activists, who often refer glibly to “an endless list”. In fact, of the 2,000 types of drugs on the market, since 1961 less than 40 have been withdrawn in the UK, US, France or Germany due to serious side effects. This indicates a success rate of at least 98% for drug testing procedures. In fact, only 10 of these drugs have been withdrawn in all four countries.3
One of the longest lists of drugs withdrawn, allegedly due to side effects somehow caused by animal testing, has been drawn up by Vernon Coleman in his book Betrayal of Trust. A columnist for The People, Coleman is well-known for his opposition to animal experiments. He claims to list the names of 85 “thoroughly tested drugs which had to be withdrawn”.4 In fact 84 drugs are listed as withdrawn between 1961 and 1993. This should be revised to 83, since both Ticrinafen and Tienilic acid are included although they are the same drug.
Creating a list of drugs withdrawn is no easy task. Of the 83 on Coleman’s list only 46 were withdrawn from the UK market. The others were either never marketed here or were not in fact withdrawn. If a drug is withdrawn in one country then other authorities do not necessarily follow suit. It is not surprising that medical opinion in different countries varies as to the need for withdrawal. For example, France, but not the UK and USA, withdrew the powerful antibiotic chloramphenicol from the market in 1978 (after 28 years) because of its action in causing death due to aplastic anaemia in a few, susceptible individuals.
Ignoring the problems of creating a single list of drugs withdrawn from any country, Coleman’s list certainly does not provide evidence that animal experimentation is responsible for toxicity observed in clinical use. Fourteen drugs on the list were withdrawn at least partly because of adverse results from ongoing animal toxicity tests (usually long-term carcinogenic tests, occasionally teratogenic studies). Sixteen drugs included had been in long-term use (15-103 years) and were marketed before animal toxicity tests became a routine requirement. A further 19 were withdrawn due to factors not relevant to the basic investigation of possible toxicity in animals. These factors include a toxic interaction with other drugs or a constituent of the diet (for example the monoamineoxidase inhibitors), or because they were produced in a novel formulation that was not retested (Indomethacin-R or Osmosin for example). Finally, some drugs were withdrawn as a result of fraudulent research or suppression of data (apparently the case for Doxylamine succinate – Debendox).
Making allowances for overlap, ie some drugs falling in to two or more categories, 37 drugs out of the original 83 were withdrawn because of unforeseen toxicity during clinical use. An average of 1.2 per year throughout the US, UK, France and Germany.
The commonest myths about so called species differences and drug side effects relate to penicillin and thalidomide. Other myths in circulation relate to the effects of acetylcholine, chloroform, clioquinol (Enterovioform), corticosteroids, digitalis, fialuridine, Flosint (indoprofen), isoprenaline, methotrexate, morphine, triparanol.
References
Braim M (1994) Letter to Redditch Observer June 24th
Jick H (1974) Drugs – Remarkably Nontoxic New England J Med, 291,824-828
Spriet-Pourra C & Auriche M (1994) Drug Withdrawal from Sale. 2nd edition. PJB Publications Ltd (Scrip Report)
Coleman V (1994) Betrayal of Trust. European Medical Journal
August 18th, 2008 at 8:49 am
“I find it amusing (and VERY telling) that the only people I ever hear this sort of criticism from (i.e. the one you’re leveling at me) are those with whom I’ve had strong disagreements in the past (as I believe you and I have had). Interesting, also, that you feel it SO important to chastise me that you’re taking this off-topic to this regard, EVEN THOUGH you and I evidently agree on the issue at hand!”
I’ve been on the recieving end of your insulting posting style and sense of superiority in the past, sure. Who hasn’t that disagrees with you on even the most minor thing? As far as I’m concerned, the people who have been on the recieving end have as much right to call you up on it as anyone else.
It is off-topic- but I’m not sure when a list would come up where it’s on topic. This is an issue that’s almost come up and a lot of lists, this is just me saying what I think so I won’t have to for every list you consider yourself an expert on in the future. On big lump of off-topicness now in exchange for less in the future.
“Another one I ALWAYS hear from the resentful FEW here who have a bone to pick with me, such as you–that I’ve somehow fooled and cowed tons of other people here on this site into bowing and scraping to me as some kind of intellectual superior. A) I happen to believe most of the people here are way smarter than that, Hobolad, and B) I also believe that were I merely the gigantic asshole you portray me as, that I would have been found out long ago and laughed and mocked off this site and probably even barred from it by Jamie. You want to see me as nothing more than a gigantic blowhard because you’ve disliked what I’ve had to say at times. You don’t like my prose style and find me insulting. I say to each their own, but I DO note that we’ve disagreed in the past and I think it’s clear you have a personal beef against me. I ALSO NOTE THAT *YOU* ATTACKED *ME* FIRST HERE on this thread–a snide and TOTALLY UNNECESSARY commentary on what I’d written to *someone else.* If you feel you’re right about me, Hobolad, then why not just leave it allow others to see it for themselves? But it seems to me that you have some NEED to attack me and felt it necessary to call me out. Paints you in a worse picture here, in my opinion.”
If I’d have made that comment based on this topic alone- then yes, I’d be more in the wrong. I just got sick of your bullying posting style, I guess- and this topic is a minor example of the behaviour you’ve displayed over many lists. You feel the need to react to disagreeing opinions with disrespectful, bullying comments and I felt the need to comment on it, finally. What more can I say.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Hobolad:
The point to the above is that it’s EASY to go around cutting and pasting crap on this site or any other. I try to refrain from doing so usually; Lleana did not. But in any case it does NOT constitute an argument–at least not a superior one. (Superior, that is, to simply stating one’s beliefs openly, with one’s reasons for having those beliefs–which I did).
August 18th, 2008 at 8:58 am
HOBOLAD:
Here you go. http://www.amprogress.org/site/c.jrLUK0PDLoF/b.1086431/k.ACC8/EVERYDAY_WONDERS.htm
Just as one sided as Lleana’s wouldn’t you say? And just as researched (it took me a minute to find it, copy it, and paste it here). But a complete refutation of her point. Happy?
Of course, I’m a little biased on this subject. My 3 week old niece is struggling to recover from an open heart surgery that was first tested on animals. I’d smash the heads of a thousand fucking rats with a roofing hammer if it meant giving her a 1% better chance of making it to see her 1 month birthday.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Randall:
You’re always frigging 5 minutes ahead of me. And probably better looking.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:05 am
From Randall’s ‘cut and paste’ information:
“Most of these deaths are not caused by normal doses of drugs, but are in fact due to accidental or deliberate overdose.”
Interesting no? Your doctor’s competence in prescribing drugs (and the administration of them by the pharmacist or nurse) is probably a bigger influence on whether you are going to live or die than whether the drug was tested on an animal.
Are those facts you (Randall I mean) quoted current? The references are all pre-1995.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Thanks for the link Logar and I hope your little niece makes it!
August 18th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Hobolad:
“I’ve been on the recieving end of your insulting posting style and sense of superiority in the past, sure. Who hasn’t that disagrees with you on even the most minor thing?”
More bullshit hyperbole. I’ve argued with a few people here, yes. But it’s YOUR individual perception that I conduct myself in some kind of unseemly fashion–not everyone’s. No doubt you’d find three or four people who’d agree with you–but I’d bet the house and the car and the boat that I’d find many times MORE people who’d DISAGREE with you and who feel I’ve contributed a lot to this site–in information, intellectual debate, and if nothing else, flat-out entertainment. Again, if I were the huge asshole you paint me as, I’d have been long-gone from here, as this site has, in the past, made a point of ejecting the truly obnoxious.
“As far as I’m concerned, the people who have been on the recieving end have as much right to call you up on it as anyone else.”
The point is that no one ever does, except the very rare disgruntled few, such as yourself–who clearly has a personal bone to pick with me. And to such an extent that you felt it worthy to cause this protracted argument between us–*by attacking me FIRST*–and to continue it, taking things more and more off-topic.
“It is off-topic- but I’m not sure when a list would come up where it’s on topic.”
How about addressing it in the forums? Or taking your complaint to Jamie? Either or both would be more appropriate. I suspect you have done neither because, again, this is simply a personal thing with you and you know that in REAL terms you haven’t a leg to stand on.
“This is an issue that’s almost come up and a lot of lists, this is just me saying what I think so I won’t have to for every list you consider yourself an expert on in the future. On big lump of off-topicness now in exchange for less in the future.”
Well you’ve lost your bargain, then, because I can assure you that no amount of harassment by the likes of you is going to change my attitude or the way I conduct myself on this site. Again, if it were a generally-held attitude towards me, I wouldn’t be here. The fact is that a small minority who don’t like me and don’t like what I have to say–you among them–aren’t going to scare me off. If the day comes when I’m asked to leave, I’ll go quietly–but at present I’m pretty confident that day isn’t coming.
“If I’d have made that comment based on this topic alone- then yes, I’d be more in the wrong. I just got sick of your bullying posting style, I guess- and this topic is a minor example of the behaviour you’ve displayed over many lists. You feel the need to react to disagreeing opinions with disrespectful, bullying comments and I felt the need to comment on it, finally. What more can I say.”
Well you’ve said your piece on this issue… several times now. How about shutting up about it and moving on? That’s my suggestion. This isn’t the place for your personal griping about me. If collective opinion here agrees with you, I’m sure I’ll hear about it. If it doesn’t, then you’ve said what you had to say and can shut up now.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:12 am
“How about addressing it in the forums?”
What a good idea – why don’t one of you (Randall/Holobad) take the initiative and make any subsequent comments (that aren’t related to the topic) somewhere else? It’s a bit of a pain having such enormous blocks of text on the page that aren’t relevant to the topic. Thanks guys
August 18th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Logar:
“You’re always frigging 5 minutes ahead of me. And probably better looking.”
Modesty should forbid me answering this, but yes, I’m a handsome son of a bitch.
No no, Logar–forgive me jumping ahead of you. I was simply riled up and had to make a quick point. Do go on with what you were doing. My original intention was simply to come in here, say what I had to say, respond to Lleana quickly, and move on with the peaceful enjoyment of my life as a citizen. Sadly some people–as ever–gotta f**k that up and get me mad. I’m sorry if, in my mad rush to defend myself, I knocked you aside. If anything was damaged or needs dry cleaning as a result, I’ll pay for it.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Tempyra:
“Are those facts you (Randall I mean) quoted current? The references are all pre-1995.”
The site in question is here:
http://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/home.asp?i_PageID=94&i_ToolbarID=8
I simply picked it at random (somewhat–I’ve heard of this group before but it popped up first when I did a search, and knowing them to be reputable–at least from what I know–I selected them).
August 18th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Thank you to everyone who responded with such kindness to my post. To those of you who are against animal testing under all conditions, reread, or read, my original post to see why some of us owe our lives to animal testing.
Vera, you’re too kind, but I thank you.
Anon, thank you as well; I need some clarification on a couple of off-topic comments.
Randall, as usual, you come in with a common sense argument and get immediately attacked. I’m sorry.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Logar:
I’m sorry, I hadn’t read your previous post, about your niece. Didn’t mean to be flippant in light of this… I do hope your niece is okay and everything comes out well.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Nah, Randall. I don’t feel knocked aside. I’ve just been “scooped” is all. A little slow on the draw. My computer keeps crashing, and work keeps getting in my way, the bastards.
I think we both agree that idiocy should never go unconfronted. Fire away.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Hell yes it is necessary. As a scientist myself I know it is ABSOLUTELY necessary. Many people counter with silly sentimental nonquestions such as, well if we really need to test on animals then that means we don’t know enough about the subject matter and shouldn’t be prescribing it to humans or animals… come on, we have barely touched the tip of the gargantuan iceberg which is undiscovered scientific knowledge. This is whereby we derive our knowledge, through trial and error. How else do simpletons expect us to approach the truth without scientific experimentation?? Should millions die so a few imbeciles can feel better about themselves and mice? Ridiculous and contrary to a true humanist spirit.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:38 am
I think that animal testing should be evaluated purely on the scientific merits.
If, and only if, the testing is required, cannot be done any other way, and produces valid results that are critical to human welfare, then I can see a good reason.
Unfortunately in many cases, the results aren’t all that valid. Differences in physiology, differences in exposure vectors, in testing protocol can all mean that the results don’t accurately translate to humans.
To top that off, for drug testing animal tests don’t turn up psychological or chronic use issues: It’s hard to tell if a rat has gotten suicidal or is experiencing sexual side effects, or what the effects might be of using the drug over the years.
On the other hand, however, there are some things that they do translate well to, and have had a definite positive effect on our understanding of the world and the quality of human life. While it wasn’t destructive testing that lead to it, don’t forget that entire fields of psychology have come from animal experiments.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Anne O’Nemus:
“How else do simpletons expect us to approach the truth without scientific experimentation?? Should millions die so a few imbeciles can feel better about themselves and mice?”
Isn’t that being a bit melodramatic for a scientist?
August 18th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Dan: The Milgram experiment with the puppy springs to mind.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Thanks guys. Every prayer/kind thought counts. I only bring it up to explain my bias… Kind of hard for me the think objectively on the subject. It likely shaded my posts on the abortion page as well.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Gotta love her name though. I’ve considered using “Dick O’Normus” as my internet handle, but that’s too close to my real name…
August 18th, 2008 at 9:56 am
If anyone’s interested, here’s the list of myths and facts about animal testing, from the previously mentioned website which I quoted:
http://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/page.asp?i_ToolbarID=2&i_PageID=48
Note that this is just one site of many.
The fact is that in scientific terms, the weight of evidence is heavily on the side of continued animal testing. There are no viable alternatives, and there is scant objective evidence to support the view that such testing is ineffective or pointless.
This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be vigilant about animal testing, ensuring that rules and laws are followed and that animals are properly cared for and respected.
But it also does bring us, again, into a situation where we must face another of life’s unpleasant facts–that to further our knowledge and our own survivability, we *must* do this (experiment on animals).
August 18th, 2008 at 9:57 am
sticks & stones
August 18th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Lleana: Of the many things that piss me off (and as the regular LVers around here know, thats a many with a capital “M”), plaigirism is among the more arrogant and reprehensible. It means you are too dumb to do the research on your own, or too lazy to credit the person who wasn’t too dumb. I expect we will not be seeing you around here anymore, and I hope you will have the good sense to act more appropriately when you undoubtedly come back with a different screenname.
That being said, that nice little piece you posted (which, as Randall said, is nothing but propaganda) is both intentionally misleading and narrow-sighted. A blanket statement like “…animal experiments do not work and kill more people than they help…” is grossly negligent of the facts and unacceptably irresponsible.
The fact of the matter is, it would be nice for people like you who echo the sentiments of the article you stole if animal testing were as cut-and-dried as pharamceuticals and comestics. The bigger picture is far more wide-spread and complicated as you make it out to be. Animal testing falls into two categories: pure research and applied research. Pharmaceuticals and comestics fall under the latter category but by no means constitute it, and you fail to mention the former entirely.
Pure research is an umbrella term that covers experimentation that focuses largely on developmental biology, study of genetics, and studies of evolutionary mechanisms. It is because of genetic research on rats, mice and guinea pigs that we have a fuller understanding of how genes and DNA relates to a broad range of topics, from developmental retardation (that is, how mutations in certain genes can cause crippling phenotypic defects) to the physiology of behavior to the principles of genetic evolution. Studies in pure research have contributed as much to human medical science as pharmaceutical testing and other applied areas, if not more.
Applied research includes pharmaceutical testing, but does not end with it. Borrowing from principles learned in pure research, applied research also includes a focus on genetic modification to study the genetic basis of all manner of mental and physical disorders and diseases. To that point, applied research also included the study of naturally occuring diseases in order to formulate a diagnosis for the way in which the disease interacts with organic tissues. Functionally, there is very little physically different between humans and animals in the way the organs, tissues, hormones and neurotransmitters interact to produce certain effects. Thus, applied research focusing on natural and genetically-induced disease can greatly inform medical science about pathologies and prognoses relating to such ailments in human beings. Furthermore, applied research also emcompasses metabolic trials. Drug testing does not simply involve toxicology. Metabolic testing is extremely important in that it informs medical science about how a particular kind of chemical is absorbed and utilized by the body, which areas it affects and how, and how the chemical is dispensed with by the body. As I stated, functionally, there is not a huge difference between how animals function and how humans function. Metabolic testing allows researchers to create better and more effective treatments for painful, crippling, and life-threatening disorders and diseases.
Were it as simple as cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, it would be fairly black-and-white. For those of us that know better, the subject of animal testing is a much more complex – and ultimately gainful – issue.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:08 am
hmmm… always wondered what Randall looked like… I have pics of me in the forum… my only claim to fame physically is nice tits…
aside from that, this entire topic is getting a bit crazy… I love a good debate as much as the next person, but the accusations of “arrogance” and “hyperbole” is getting stale.
as far as possums go, I forget that some of you are in Oz & En-Zay and have the cutest possums! Our possums here in the states are scraggly looking… but as a wildlife rehabber, I have many years of experience with them, and the Virginia opossum is quite a gentle soul… sure, they can be very odoriferous. they have 50 pointy teeth. they go catatonic when frightened. and they have ugly, bare tails… but the cutest crossed eyes and little fingers!
As for you, Randall, I’ll put in a good word to the marsupial minions to stop harassing you…
rtr
p.s. I do think that animal testing is necessary, but it MUST be conducted in such a manner as to not be torturous, cruel, or painful to the living beings tested on. after all, Descartes’ statement that the bodies of animals are nothing more than complex machines, and that a kicked dog yelping is no different than a dropped watch clattering is outdated and inhumane. time and again undercover investigations have found that a few facilities do not adhere to the strict, humane guidleines that are suggested, but not required, by the FDA.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:09 am
SlickWilly: Such a level-headed comment
Not many people have talked about testing of cosmetics on animals so far – I’d like to know if anyone thinks it’s ‘ok’ to try out cosmetics (i.e. the stuff we use for ‘looks’) and their ingredients on animals? Is that justifiable?
August 18th, 2008 at 10:11 am
ringtailroxy: It’s En-Zed, not En-Zay ‘cos us Antipodeans stick with the British pronunciation of the letter ‘Z’
August 18th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Possums are evil, more 1080 required.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Phil: Only in NZ (as far as I know).
August 18th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Randall, (64),
I’ve got that far (64) and come straight down to comment. I don’t whether the point I’m about to make has already been covered.
Accidentally introduced mink (escaped, or liberated by appallingly misled Animal Libbers) are terrible little killers of native wildlife. They’ll attack and eat almost anything, and are particularly notorious for destruction of eggs in nests. I pray yours will die a lonely bachelor.
Animals and plants which have developed in their own ecosystems (environment) have reached an equilibrium which may be occasionally fundamentally disturbed by *newcomers*, natural immigrants, or natural disasters. Over time equilibrium will be re-established as the ecosystem readjusts to the new circumstances. Many factors are involved in the equilibrium (disease, competition, mutual adaptation of predators and prey, etc.) Therefore the Australian possum is fine and cute in Australia and a tragic natural disaster in Kiwiland.
The greatest promoter of this tragedy is Bambi’s dreaded *MAN*. Any suffering we have inflicted on our fellow creatures by medical experimentation pales into utter, yes utter, insignificance beside the breathtakingly disastrous damage caused by our deliberate and accidental introductions of plants, animals (including inverbertebrates and fishes – intended plural form ) and pathogens. There are over 2 million feral cats in the UK alone. They are to a greater or lesser extent living of the natural environment, taking out creatures on the verge of local extinction and songbirds we love along with our *vermin*. Many and various are the ways in which organisms out of control eliminate those that belong naturally in the environment. *Dominance of the strongest* perhaps sums up best.
In particular our record for destruction of unique wildlife on islands would qualify us as war criminals in the eyes of any objective visiting aliens.
The number of these ecocides and their unknowing (animal or plant) perpetrators is teen and legion, their population counts astronomical. Books have been largely written around the subject (try ‘Song of the Dodo’ by David Quammen for starters). Goats, dogs, cats, rats, wasps of many kinds, ants of many kinds, snails, slugs, cichlids, brambles, sparrows, gorse, opuntias, rabbits, mice, water hyacinth, grey squirrels, snakes, Canadiam pondweed, coypu are a tiny fraction of commoner ones. Many, many more are those you will never have heard of. Some introduced plant species are such devastating chokers that they have created monospecific deserts of themselves, eliminating all other plants and the complex web of life that depends on them. The list is endless, as is the list of places affected.
Off subject, perhaps, but I thought it might add a bit of different *animal cruelty perspective* to the debate.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:21 am
sorry-I was trying to write the phonetical pronunciation of NZ… one of my clients at the clinic I work at is from Dunedin and she sounds like she’s saying “En ZAY”. which was very cute when my dog was still alive, because his name was Y Z and she would say “WHY-Cease” which was a source of many smiles…
rtr
August 18th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Anon: That’s an interesting point you make there. Not all of the animal testing carried out is directly for our own benefit. I know of researchers in Auckland (NZ) who are trying to find a biological solution to the possum problem, which undoubtedly involves testing efficacy and transferability on possums in the lab.
Also, the rabbit calicivirus was tested on an entire island of rabbits (off the coast of South Australia) before it accidentally jumped to the mainland.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:29 am
tempyra, (81),
hope I haven’t overly violated you off-subject plea. Not the intention.
segue, (84),
Gracious and civilized as ever. Thanks for that alone.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Destructive little bastards but make good gloves, use to enjoy testing them with lead.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:37 am
A quick illumination of a point in my recent longer post.
A ton of mink were released into the wild from a fur farm or something pf the kind in the UK by kind-hearted Animal Libbers. How nice. Lots of free. happy mink, fewer, if any, kingfishers, snipe, water-rats, trout, frogs, newts, reed warblers, etc., etc. Hope they’re happy with their charitable action. MY pleasure would be to release a ton of endangered Bengal tigers into their environment!
August 18th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Anon: Not at all
Phil: Good scarves too
August 18th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Necessary? Absolutely. In fact, just the other day I bought my wife some cosmetics from BodyShop, and they said “Not tested on animals” on the packaging. So, as soon as I got home I tested them on the dog…
(Sorry…an old – and silly – joke)
Seriously, so long as the purpose is non-trivial and there is no gratuitous suffering, I think animal testing is necessary (more’s the pity…)
August 18th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Tempyra: Sorry, plaigirism is considered a mortal sin in the academic world, and it burns me up. I never claimed to be the mark of self-control.
In answer to your comment, I believe comestic testing on animals is reprehensible. It serves no good purpose for medicine and science, and its aim is not to help people in need. Instead, cosmetic testing is a way to save money by testing cheaper, unstable chemicals on cheap laboratory animals. The animals are caused a significant amount of pain and prolonged suffering without any particular ethos behind it, beyond the maximization of profits. Animal testing for medicine and science is justified. Animal testing for the purpose of saving a few bucks is morally bankrupt.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:50 am
SlickWilly: Actually I was being quite serious – that was levelheaded (IMO). I do understand how plagiarism can make one quite angry though.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:53 am
ringtailroxy:
“hmmm… always wondered what Randall looked like… I have pics of me in the forum… my only claim to fame physically is nice tits…”
“only” claim to fame? I, for one, applaud that accomplishment.
I’ve never seen your pics in the forum. I’ll have to go see, out of curiosity, now.
To satisfy your own curiosity (I’m flattered, if only for that): I’ve mentioned before on the site (I can’t remember why it came up–for some reason we were all telling what celebrity we supposedly look like) that I’ve been *told* I look like A) Harrison Ford and/or B) Dennis Quaid. Take that as you like; I refuse to comment on the accuracy.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Don’t be fooled, ringtail. Randall actually *is* Harrison Ford.
By the way, “Randy” that last Indiana Jones movie sucked. I can’t believe you needed the money that bad. For shame.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Hey, that’s TWO accomplishments not one
rtr: I dunno why your friend’s pronunciation of ‘z’ and mine are different, maybe she is saying it the American way (’zee’) but it sounds different to you because she has an NZ accent?
August 18th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Anon:
But…. can’t mink simply exist in the wild? I was told they were indigenous. (?) (I confess I haven’t looked into it–I couldn’t identify the critter–at first I thought it was a martin or a fisher, but was contradicted). (I live in upstate New York, by the way).
We also have otters. They’re more elusive. And they smoke and curse and borrow your stuff and then never return it. Cute animals, otters, but some are ill-mannered.
Again I must reiterate my dislike, however, for the possum.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Slick:
When you’re a sixty-something former heartthrob, you’re forced to continually make the bux in order to keep the young women you crave happy. Hence one last time with the hat and the whip.
(actually I liked the latest one better than The Temple of Doom…)
August 18th, 2008 at 11:04 am
and Slick:
It’s nice to see you back here. I haven’t heard from you in a while. You were missed.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:23 am
It’s completely necessary. It’s one of the few safe ways to find cures and run experiments and tests necessary to improve health.
They’re using lab mice to figure out how to grow hearts, HEARTS!!! Growing a brand new heart for someone!! That’s a great advancement.
I do believe that there should be limits, but I do think it is a necessary practice. The only other option I could honestly come up with is to test stuff on criminals, but then that violates human rights. That’s why surgery is china is so cheap, they harvest parts from their prisoners.
Point is that you can’t make medical advances without testing them on something, might as well be a mouse, or a gerbil or whatever. But I do not believe animals should be tested for commercial gain, only for medicine and health.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Randall:
Nice to be back, for the moment. I fell into the pit of the forums and IRC. Now I’m slowly starting to crawl my way back towards the sunlight. It’s just a lot of the lists lately, while fairly good, are lacking a lot of interest from me. And the ones that did capture my attention, I didn’t really have much to say about that hadn’t already been said.
And I have to say, I thought Temple of Doom was better. Somewhere along the line, George Lucas decided that grand special effects and visual imagery can make up for shoddy story-telling and plot turns. Mutt swinging through vines in the forest with an army of monkeys and catching up to a speeding caravan? Steven must have lost a pissing contest on that one. Oh, and the movie spawned a new phrase: “Nuking the fridge.” A movie “nukes the fridge” when it presents a plot turn so unbelivable it actually removes you from the story. All I could think throughout that movie was “Steven, you’re better than this. Steve, aw, Steven…why, oh, why did you listen to George?” And…come on….aliens? Seriously? Anyhow, this is grossly off topic. I’m just always willing to talk Indiana Jones, as its one of my fav. movie franchises of all time. And even the new Indy film is better than most of the drivel coming out of Hollywood lately.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Anon: good post about introducing new species into foreign areas…talk to me about kudzu (wretched vine of satan).
August 18th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Slick:
Not that I disagree with you about the current film. I thought it was fun but very *dumb* fun, and I just never liked Temple of Doom.
You give, perhaps, too much credit to Spielberg, but yes, I’d largely agree this kind of thing is more *likely* to be Lucas’ fault. What we’re seeing, now, is the reality about George Lucas–that while Spielberg is very shallow (in my opinion), Lucas makes him look like a multi-dimensional sage by comparison. Where Spielberg has shown occasional moments of brilliance (bits and pieces here and there) Lucas made only two decent movies in his life–American Graffiti and the original Star Wars–but neither was a *great* movie by ANY means, (except historically) and both were filled with problems and indications of his utter shallowness and overgrown adolescence. And nothing he’s made since has been worth a pittance, to me. He’s a hack–which is odd to say about one of the most successful men in Hollywood–but he truly is a hack.
And I gotta agree about the fridge scene. I had to turn to my 14 year old daughter at that moment in the film and whisper, “you know of course that that could never work…” and she made me proud by answering, “of course, it’s impossible!”
Spielberg can get us to suspend disbelief sometimes. Lucas fails at it, and his errors then just stand there, naked to the world, making it all too clear that he’s as cinematically shallow as one can get.
There, that’s me pontificating again.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Randall,
Everything indigenous is O.K. unless its ecosystem gets unbalanced, causing it to explode out of control. For instance, we currently have ten constantly topped-up humming bird feeders which are artificially maintaining about 60-100 birds. We feel deeply guilty for our responsibility in loosing these wretched little native varmints onto the world. In fact, although many introductions and escapes are directly harmful, by no means all do damage. I, for example, am a recent introduction to Chile, and totally irreproachable. Not only that, I’m extremely, exceedingly beneficial. Ask Anita. We also have wonderful, shimmering orange carpets of introduced Californian poppies covering our otherwise virtually barren central stonefields and waysides. Purists consider them a botanical californication. Well, let them eat stones, says I. Some deliberate introductions even control or eliminate earlier malignant ones (biological control). But sometimes the controlers themselves get out of control. Cane toads rule O.K.
Presumably you’re descended from self-introduced stock which has run wild and done untold damage to the natural environment in which you find yourself, including to tribes of your own species. Think of what you did to the poor passenger pigeon as well, for example. Still, we’ll forgive you, as none was intentional (well, very little), and you personally were/are not directly involved (possums aside!).
You’re quite correct. The American mink is not only native to your land, but is also the one farmed elsewhere and liberated in the UK, as above. I’d forgotten that and just looked it up again. It always reminds me of that splendid Martin Cruz Smith thriller ‘Gorky Park’, except the protagonist there was the even more highly-prized sable.
August 18th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
first of all animals have an entirely different DNA structure and sequence to homo sapiens, so injecting a viral disease in an animal such as a mouse would have drastically different reactions to that virus thus you could not determine what reaction if any their would be on a human being. second we humans (homo sapiens or should i say homo erectus) seem to thrive on this pre-destined pre-determined popensity towards violence and suffering, we think that we are at the fore front of higher cognitive function yet we inflict immerserable cruelty not only on ourselves but on each other and on the planet, we still live with cave man tendancies the the nature of who we are, think about it, every day we comb out hair, pick our noses, pick our nails, scratch our heads, eat meat, fight, procreate and attract a mate, i dont see how testing on small innocent animals or to that fact bigger ones can and would justify helping the human race, it simply does not, i think some people have a tendancy to like pain and suffering and the only way that they can do that is by calling it and justifying it as animal research and testing in the name of human advance. i think if you look at the state of the world we ought to be ashamed of ourselves for what we do to this planet and beaufiful equilibrium that we so readidly disrupt and destroy, human behavious is an interesting facett of human biology, the why we do the thing we do, i just simply dont understand it, again we still pocess the primitive aspects of fucntion within society, the only mammal that would show any kind of possible reaction to a study would be a chimpanze you know since their DNA is what 98.9% like our own, yet they are not the animals we humans are, ive seen the different side of human behaviour and its disgusting we simply are a virus on this planet (ironic isnt it) a cancer and once we die and everyone else we know dies it will be although we never even existed, and possibly then but only then might we realise that we should become one with ourselves and nature and show love not resentment and pain and suffering. I only hope.
August 18th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
At some point many years ago there was no animal testing. For that matter there were no clinical trials, FDA, AMA or any other checks and balances to determine what was safe for humans and what was not. Any new procedure or medicine was simply tried on the person that was sick or injured and everyone waited to see if it worked. It was in an attempt to prevent more harm than good to humans that animal testing was first done. Now it looks like the pendulum has swung the other way. The first space missions used animals. Canaries were used in mines to detect for poisonous gasses. Now I love animals but I love humans more. If 100 dogs, guinea pigs, monkeys or rats have to be sacrificed to save 1 human life then I’m for it. That’s not my ego talking, it’s common sense. If someone comes up with a better idea I’d be the first one to embrace it.
August 18th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
victor kruger:
Every hear of the full-stop? The period? Handy little punctuation device. Helps in getting your idea across, even if it still makes zero sense.
“first of all animals have an entirely different DNA structure and sequence to homo sapiens,”
Well first of all, this is not so–there is a variance in DNA sequence of course, from species to species, but actually we’re all surprisingly alike. More alike than unalike, as it happens.
Second of all, DNA sequence has little or nothing to do with the efficacy of animal drug testing–the overall reaction and reaction to organ systems and such is what’s tested.
“so injecting a viral disease in an animal such as a mouse would have drastically different reactions to that virus thus you could not determine what reaction if any their would be on a human being.”
Wrong, and a myth—this was addressed above in the web site I cited.
“second we humans (homo sapiens or should i say homo erectus)”
Uh, speak for yourself, Victor. Reading up on your anthropology were you? Read further down the page, pal. We’re all Homo Sapiens in this current model of humanity. Homo Erectus is a direct forebear, but a distinct species that is no longer with us.
“seem to thrive on this pre-destined pre-determined popensity towards violence and suffering, we think that we are at the fore front of higher cognitive function yet we inflict immerserable cruelty not only on ourselves but on each other and on the planet,”
What has any of this to do with animal testing? It doesn’t done for the sake of cruelty, it’s done for the sake of making human life better. Again, it’s a myth that test animals are made to suffer cruelly. And again, this myth covered at the site I mentioned (and others).
“we still live with cave man tendancies the the nature of who we are, think about it, every day we comb out hair, pick our noses, pick our nails, scratch our heads,”
Victor, you’re grossing me out. Are you this fun in person?
“eat meat, fight, procreate and attract a mate,”
Again–what has ANY of this to do with animal testing?
“i dont see how testing on small innocent animals or to that fact bigger ones can and would justify helping the human race, it simply does not,”
It simply DOES, Victor. Have you read a SINGLE comment on this thread? It’s been laid out clearly and succinctly for you how it DOES benefit the human race. If you want more proof, see the site I’ve mentioned now three or four times, or look elsewhere. OR, just open up your medicine cabinet.
“i think some people have a tendancy to like pain and suffering and the only way that they can do that is by calling it and justifying it as animal research and testing in the name of human advance.”
OH PLEASE! So now any of us who are in favor of animal testing are just sadists? Get off it, Victor–this is absurd.
“i think if you look at the state of the world we ought to be ashamed of ourselves for what we do to this planet and beaufiful equilibrium that we so readidly disrupt and destroy,”
Tell you what, then, Victor–you go ahead and resign from the human race. Go find an island or some god-forsaken isolated mountain or backwoods to live on or in, and enjoy your moral supremacy. And best hope you don’t get sick while you’re out there. No meds for you.
But failing to do so, and just sitting here griping about it, simply makes you an ill-informed and ignorant hypocrite.
“…the only mammal that would show any kind of possible reaction to a study would be a chimpanze you know since their DNA is what 98.9% like our own,”
again, this is irrelevant to animal testing for the most part–for the reason already given above.
Get a clue as to what you’re talking about Victor, then come back to us.
“yet they are not the animals we humans are, ive seen the different side of human behaviour and its disgusting we simply are a virus on this planet (ironic isnt it)”
Bullshit. What shoddy, adolescent sci-fi book did you glean that one off of?
Granted we human beings are all too often shitty in our outlook toward nature–but we are, in fact, part of nature–part of the biosphere of this planet. We’re not a virus or any other silly, melodramatic, self-despising bit of hack philosophy.
Really Victor—we need to look into matters before we comment on the web about them. Just because you CAN doesn’t always mean you MUST.
August 18th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Randall, since you’re here.
Silence on THAT other topic for several (4-5) days. Is it ominous, the lull before the storm? Or did I manage to filibuster the opposition out of sight with 100 leagues of straight waffle (dodgy tactic for LV)?
August 18th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Victor kruger:
First of all, we share up to 60% of our DNA with every living organism on earth, including plants and trees. The discrepnacies between our DNA and a common lab rat’s is no more than about 6 percent (and thats being charitable). While infecting lab animals with viruses and diseases will not give us the exact effects the same ailments would have on human beings, it gives enough of reasonable facsimile to guide us in our search for information and solutions. The effects are not as “drastically” different as anti-animal testing folks would want you to believe. They are certainly significant enough to base an entire field of research on it.
“i dont see how testing on small innocent animals or to that fact bigger ones can and would justify helping the human race, it simply does not, i think some people have a tendancy to like pain and suffering and the only way that they can do that is by calling it and justifying it as animal research and testing in the name of human advance.”
You’re wrong. Animal testing has created many new avenues of research that have led to a vast number of treatments for an immeasurable number of diseases and disorders, not to mention the information we have garned about genetic inheritance and the genotype/phenotype relationship that has greatly increased the sophistication of our understanding of genetic disease. Somehow you think that most researchers are simply sadists who engage in animal researcher because they simply “like to cause pain and suffering.” That is a puerile and ignorant statement, one that sounds like the person who made it lacks the initiative to actually dig around for a few minutes and do some research. That is quite lazy of you. As has been stated numerous times in the course of these comments, animal testing is a necessary evil, the goal of which is to improve the health of society and increase our knowledge and understanding of organic systems.
And you make it sound like human beings are the only creatures on the planet prone to violence and suffering. I feel that only a moment’s thought to a rational person can expose the weakness of this argument. Nature is supremely violent, and violence is the essence of natural selection. Some live, most die. That’s the way the world works. Its a nice, hippy-dippy pipedream to say that someday we might be “one with nature” but the reality is that we cannot escape our instinctual roots; we can only hope to curb them. Stopping animal testing is not the way to accomplish that.
August 18th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
victor kruger,
“yet they are not the animals we humans are, ive seen the different side of human behaviour and its disgusting we simply are a virus on this planet (ironic isnt it)”
I’m reminded of a comment I’ve posted elsewhere in LV. A friend of mine once complained to his father that the problem with this planet was too many human beings, and it needed fewer. His father succinctly asked him to prove his sincerity by being the first to remove himself from the scene. Viruses aren’t at all easy to eliminate, but we’ll applaud your attempt anyway.
August 18th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Anon-
One can only hope!
August 18th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Randall (comment 124)~
Oh My God! I actually laughed so hard I just chocked on my Nature Valley Granola Bar! Your response to comment 122 is classic!
Hmm… Quaid… Ford… sounds like you’re one of those men with chiseled features & a prominent bulge in your pleated slacks… my, oh my, dear…
Just to let you in on a little secret… when I was a child & in my early teens, I thought that Hans Solo was the HOTTEST man. Ever.(at the age of
And when I rewatched “The Empire Strikes Back”, (which was most fortunately viewed before “The Phantom Menace” was in theaters), I found that now, as a 30-something adult woman, he’s even hotter than he was before! maybe it’s because now men with greying temples, laugh-lines, and dimples appeal to me more as well…
(wink-wink)
thanks for the daily dose of education, intellectual banter, and laughter. in that order.
rtr
August 18th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Anon:
You got me. I simply didn’t have the time to keep up with Arek. And it would take too much effort and arguing to break that unbelievably thick veneer of self-righteousness of his. There is, after all, nothing more assured and concrete than the self-righteousness of a 22 year old who KNOWS he’s right. Oh so sickening, but oh so true.
As for Lecter–well, I feel even less charitable towards him.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
ringtailroxy:
“Oh My God! I actually laughed so hard I just chocked on my Nature Valley Granola Bar! Your response to comment 122 is classic!”
Thank you oh so much. Granola on your computer screen can be removed with some Windex and a soft chamois. “Hints From Heloise,” circa 1997.
“Hmm… Quaid… Ford… sounds like you’re one of those men with chiseled features & a prominent bulge in your pleated slacks… my, oh my, dear…”
My slacks *are* pleated, yes…. I’ll bet you’re even *more* excited now….
“Just to let you in on a little secret… when I was a child & in my early teens, I thought that Hans Solo was the HOTTEST man.”
It was the wookie, probably. Does something to women, a man with a wookie that big…
Modesty, again, prevents me from commenting on my *own* wookie, or what he’d be doing in my trousers. At this time.
“Ever.(at the age of And when I rewatched “The Empire Strikes Back”, (which was most fortunately viewed before “The Phantom Menace” was in theaters), I found that now, as a 30-something adult woman, he’s even hotter than he was before! maybe it’s because now men with greying temples, laugh-lines, and dimples appeal to me more as well…”
I feel, sometimes, as though I’m *approaching* that level of HarrisonFord-dom, the greying temples, etc. I don’t own a whip, but I DO have an old fedora somewhere in my hall closet. And uh…. the wookie, yes.
“(wink-wink)”
and in return.
“thanks for the daily dose of education, intellectual banter, and laughter. in that order.”
all in a day’s work for me. It’s why the students love me.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
It is completely selfish to even think it is okay to test on animals. They do not have a choice whatsoever in what is happening to them, and that is NOT fair.
No animal, whether it be a spider or an antelope should ever have to endure pain or suffering for the sake of humans. If humans want to test something, they should test it on themselves.
It’s not about whether animals or humans are ‘better’. It’s just that animals can’t sign an agreement or even know what is going to happen to them before it happens, which is NOT fair.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
“It was the wookie, probably. Does something to women, a man with a wookie that big… ”
Goddamn it, Randall
August 18th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Randall~
yes! i absolutely vcan see why your students love you! I wish some of my professors would be half as charming…
ringtailroxy
p.s. look on page 45 of the ‘Listverse Pics Thread’ and you will see pics of me ! hey-ain’t a DAMN thing wrong with matching faces, and boobs, with names!
August 18th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
victor kruger,
After a round of the garden looking at the odd virus-sticken plant, I can’t help thinking how tickled Shakespeare, Einstein, Bach and Leonardo, to name but four, might be to have heard themselves described as viruses (which three of them wouldn’t have known about anyway). But I guess the guy who’d really be splitting his sides to hear himself described thus would be Martinus Beijerinck (nothing to do with the present olympics!). He actually coined the word *virus*. or its base.
Happy landings
August 18th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Animal testing is, unfortunately, and nessisary evil. Lets face it, if the cure for cancer, or AIDS, or a biological weapon requires the use of animal testing, there should be NO hesitation. I am STRONGLY opposed to animal testing for non-medical uses. Cosmetics and the like should never be tested on animals
August 18th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
WOuld those who oppose animal test voulnteer and be in the place of rats?
August 18th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
URGENT.
Jfrater or other managers of LV. Someone else is using my nom de over in the latest Body list (Entry 61). The only difference appears to be a lower case initial ‘a’. Do you know about this? Is it O.K.? Who came first? I feel it must be confusing for *the membership* and I certainly don’t like it at all myself. If nothing can be done, I’d prefer to change to a new, clearly unique style, or even revert to Spanner-etc.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
from Randall (to Holobad):
B) I also believe that were I merely the gigantic asshole you portray me as, that I would have been found out long ago and laughed and mocked off this site and probably even barred from it by Jamie.
if only Jaime would…
Holobad’s basic premise is correct – your first post into any subject is mainly insults to the post-creator. yes, there’s arguments mixed in, and usually well thought out, but the insults are not necessary.
also from Randall (to Anon):
There is, after all, nothing more assured and concrete than the self-righteousness of a 22 year old who KNOWS he’s right. Oh so sickening, but oh so true.
substitute “22″ for Randall’s age – and there’s the pot calling the kettle black.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
as for the topic at hand…
it seems the only time people get upset about animal testing, is when the testing is done on “cute” animals.
if our genetic makeup is not as different than animals (as Randall points out), then why not test on the “ugly”, “fast-reproducing”, “non-edible” animals out there, like rats or mice or rabbits (though I hear rabbit is good-eatin’).
As for testing on humans (at the risk of sounding insensitive) why not test on criminals (death row types) and the homeless? Might be a fine crime-deterrant. You committed murder? you get 10 years in a labratory.
August 18th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Randall,
Thanks for the bounce-back, buddy. In essence entirely agreed. Except I’d reverse your judgement. Lecter has had bad real-life experience, perhaps personally, certainly at family level. That seems a fair reason for his coloured views. The other (fill in your own preferred description) has totally revised the recent history of Chile by asserted statement, with no qualifications or expressed doubts. Breathtaking arrogance and affrontery before people who live in the country and have experienced the events in question. That drove me to such a fury I ended up wirting our own Chilean history book in reply. I’m not letting that sort of gobshite stand publicly for all to read.
Apologies everyone. That’s my last word on the subject here, I haven’t been able to catch up with Randall elsewhere.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
#139 Janus
Thanks for the laugh! You took great care to be absurd in every point- not everyone can do such a feat!
August 18th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
I can’t say I really know enough about the whole subject and the other alternatives that are available, but let’s think about something here, hypothetically a new type of medication, let’s say one that can cure cancer comes out on the market, obviously it can potentially save millions of lives and has not been tested on animals, the drug is quickly delivered to the masses, all jumping at the chance to save their loved ones. Turns out that the medication has an unexpected side effect. a third of the people who receive this medication begin bleeding from their pores, their eyes and every other orifice of their body. They are in agonizing pain and die in a couple of hours. Turns out that the doctor’s would have known this if they had tested it on animals.
Now, that hypothetical situation might be a little bit ridiculous because I don’t know what kind of other tests they use on medications to prevent such a scenario, but the point is that we can potentially stop a medical disaster, and unfortunately kill some animals in a controlled setting.
So I would say, in the interest of keeping us all safe, animal testing is indeed a neccesary evil.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
wow – i didn’t know randall had offspring!
talk about polluting the gene pool.
do you have any interest in the medical (testing) field?
you’d be perfect.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
for the record – post #144 was directed at #142 (is it Iogar or Logar?)
August 18th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Anon 106…A ton of mink were released into the wild from a fur farm or something pf the kind in the UK by kind-hearted Animal Libbers.
****
Isn’t it astonishing how these people can’t foresee the consequences of their actions, when it should be obvious to any educated
11 year-old?
Mink are carnivores. If no one is there to feed them Mink Chow, they’ll eat what mink eat in the wild; kingfishers, snipe, water-rats, trout, frogs, newts, reed warblers, etc., etc.
So, who wins? The Libbers, who didn’t, or couldn’t, think beyond opening a lock? The mink, who are used to being fed, housed, inoculated against disease, and pretty much kept in comfort, but now, on their own, must protect themselves against unknown predators, find food or die of starvation, find shelter against the elements instead of heated and cooled pens? Or the woodland creatures, who now have a new predator, one they haven’t had before, and so haven’t learned to fear and flee?
Sounds like a lose – lose situation to me.
Oh! Except for the Libbers, who get to feel good about themselves, because they don’t think of the consequences…and even if they learned that lo! kingfishers are disappearing in abnormal numbers wouldn’t connect it to their action.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Do you mean post #143 was directed at #141? It’s “Logar”.
And, to be fair, I was 25% thinking you were joking and 75% hoping you were joking.
As for the Randall thing… if you’re implying that I have common sense and a large, hairy Wookie, then I welcome the comparison.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Looking at the posts, my #141 was directed at your #140, you know, the post where you advocated experimentation on human prisoners?
I think a post got inserted somewhere along the way, specifically #139… I never saw that one.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Now I’m #142. Geez, this really hurts my credibility.
August 18th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Hey, victor kruger, (122),
“pick our noses”
Throw your weight around all you will, squire, but when you *pick* on my favourite hobby, that really is going one step too far.
segue, (146),
Thanks for your build-up response. Correction of my shameful grammatical error. Make that “A ton of mink was released”, not “were released”.
And logar, (148),
Stop hijacking my (140), I never did, and never would, advocate experimenting on human prisoners. Discuss the subject yes, but not straight advocate.
Apropos, and still on the subject of medical testing, although you can add food as well. Has anyone thought how our mobile ancestors first differentiated between what was edible or medical, and what was lethally poisonous or truly nasty when they arroved somewhere new? I’ve often wondered whether they tested out on their anti-socials or slaves, promising freedom to the survivors. This practice obviously later became refined into the royal art of tasting the ruler’s nosh and booze for poison.
Having gout myself, I can tell you how the discovery of colchicine was originally made back in the time of the Greek empire. Celts are genetically prone to gout, and I have a fair dose of celtic genes for my sins. Apparently peoples with similar genetic susceptibility were slaves of the ancient Greeks. Now Colchicum, or autumn crocus, is a genus of some 65 species, mainly centred on the Mediterranean. Many have large, attractive usually pink-toned flowers and are popular in gardening. The corms (bulbs), however, contain the alkaloid colchicine. In large enough doses it’s fatal. Short of that it makes a person ill for two or three days. Overworked slaves discovered at some point that by taking a sublethal dose they got really sick could skive off work for a day or four. But over time and with accumulating case evidence, they discovered it also by sheer chance alleviated the pain of their gout. This knowledge was preserved by the arabs during our European Dark Ages and on, and was rediscovered by *us* in the 19th century. I now take a small dose each day as a preventative and buy the tablets very cheaply over the counter.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
150. Anon
segue, (146),
Thanks for your build-up response. Correction of my shameful grammatical error. Make that “A ton of mink was released”, not “were released”.
****
Oh, Anon, you know me better than that! I would never correct you. If you phrase something someway, my assumption is that you are doing so for a reason.
My 11 year-old comment referred to the Animal Libbers, not your grammar.
My God! You’re so much more intelligent and educated than I.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
I dont know if anyone mentioned it (too many comments to read) but these people who protest against using animal testing have been known to send death threats to scientists to stop them from testing. Oh the irony haha. Would you kill a million rats to save as many or maybe even more humans? Im guessing these people are religious. Is it just me or does anyone else think that religion has played in killing many more humans than scientists. Infact dont scientists save humans? I cant remember the last time I heard of an astronomer suicide bombing himself in a pharmacy lol.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I’m not religious at all, having said that, I think the only time animal testing is acceptable is if the product being tested is specifically for animals. if a product is being marketed towards people then why not test it on people from day one? if it kills a few people here and there, I say who cares. The human population is rapidly approaching 7 billion, and we could use a thinning of the herd. I’d go far enough to say that we desperately need to reduce our numbers for the sake of our species.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
I’m an animal nut, and the proud owner of a rescued former bait dog, and a baby hedgehog. I volunteer at an animal shelter and at some point in my life have owned and loved dogs,cats, birds, gerbils, rats, and one ornery hamster.
At this point in my life, my dog means the world to me. I’m in MD, my parents and sisters are in TX and Chicago respectively , and I just graduated school and had a number of friends move away or back home. However, would I give up my dog if it meant eventually finding a cure for breast cancer? You betcha. Would I give up my dog so someone could rub new shampoo in her eyes to see if it hurt? They’d have a hard time, what with my foot up their ass. (And some of you may know I’m not prone or a fan of cursing unless the situation merits it…)
I’m passionate about animals, but I believe medical testing is necessary. Seems to be the consensus but y’all know I like to add my two cents
August 18th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Janus, (139),
“also from Randall (to Anon):
There is, after all, nothing more assured and concrete than the self-righteousness of a 22 year old who KNOWS he’s right. Oh so sickening, but oh so true.”
That comment resulted from my *private* conversation with Randall. It was something I guiltily know I ought not to have done, but hoped I might be able to slip in quickly and unnoticed and get away with.
You therefore do not know the context. Everybody in that spat had declared their ages. If somebody therefore wished to call mine the views of a passé old fart, they would be quite welcome, because that’s exactly what they are (as for exactly the same reason and age, are Jack Nicholson’s). If that somebody were to add *silly*, *stupid*, *pompous* or any other perjorative adjective, I should be perfectly happy for the *webvisitorship* at large to judge for itself.
Now it just so happens Randall was describing the soul in question with flinty accuracy. Whether this lack of questing open-mindedness coupled with an inability to understand the real world has specifically to do with his relative youth and practical inexperience, as Randall proposes, time alone will tell. Otherwise, much worse, and sadly for him, he will be saddled with it permanently as part of his character and mindset.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
segue, (151),
Oh Lord no, I wasn’t calling you out at all. I just spotted and corrected my own mistake in your post. Sorry for the confusion.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
I don’t understand why these discussions keep popping up on List Universe. Has my RSS feed somehow been hijacked? Whatever the reason, animal testing is unnecessary and cruel. And animals have different biology which makes them react to different drugs in ways that are not the same as human. Extensive animal testing failed to predict any hazards to humans from the drug thalidomide, after all.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
paul
wtf. thats easy to say but who should decide who lives or dies. how would you have it done? maybe you or your family. you have gone very low in saying that.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Janus:
“if only Jaime would…”
Well good luck with that. Howzabout you write him a nice essay about it?
I respect Jamie immensely and would never do a thing to harm his site or ruin its integrity. I think he knows that, and I think he and I have some level of *mutual* admiration. But if the day ever comes when he feels I’ve crossed a line I shouldn’t have crossed, I know he’ll tell me and I’ll respect his wishes. And if he ever wanted me to leave this site, I’d do so. But I bet it wouldn’t be on YOUR word, or the word of the few other disgruntled little piss-ants here who A) have ZERO sense of humor and B) can’t cope with someone like moi. For whatever reason–be it that I’m too self-assured for their tastes or too confident or too much of a wise-ass. I really don’t care. It goes right back to A) zero sense of humor on your part.
“Holobad’s basic premise is correct – your first post into any subject is mainly insults to the post-creator.”
BULLSHIT. For every example you could find where I’ve been critical, I could find you at least four where I’ve been either complimentary or have simply contributed further information or in some other way *added* to the discussion positively.
When people say stupid, ignorant, ill-informed things, however, or pass off nonsense for truth, then yeah, you bet your ass I swing in with some pithy prose to make them look the fool they deserve looking like.
“yes, there’s arguments mixed in, and usually well thought out, but the insults are not necessary.”
Says you. I find it for the most part cathartic, amusing, and usually eminently called-for.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Janus:
“if our genetic makeup is not as different than animals (as Randall points out), then why not test on the “ugly”, “fast-reproducing”, “non-edible” animals out there, like rats or mice or rabbits”
Was this meant to be serious? If so, you truly are uninformed, aren’t you? MOST medical/science testing IS done on rats and mice (and to a lesser extent rabbits), pinhead.
And it’s “different from,” not “different than.”
August 18th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
ringtailroxy:
“yes! i absolutely vcan see why your students love you! I wish some of my professors would be half as charming…”
I found for the large part that profs are nerdy, even occasionally socially inept people (at least in certain fields, though this is totally untrue of others)… not all, but enough to make it a trend… sad, really.
But I agree, it’s more fun to be charming and witty and entertaining. As long as it doesn’t get me called before the dean and sentenced to “sensitivity training,” sure.
“p.s. look on page 45 of the ‘Listverse Pics Thread’ and you will see pics of me ! hey-ain’t a DAMN thing wrong with matching faces, and boobs, with names!”
Not at all. Very nice pics. For some reason I know think I may have over-inflated my tires, though… I don’t know why that should be.
At any rate surely you’re the cutest Ringtailed Roxy on the site… are they an endangered species, though? I hope not.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Now here’s an interesting thought.
Any of you saying that animal experimentation for human benefit is unacceptable are making a statement that directly affects people you are confronting right now in this topic.
You are effectively saying to all who might happen to be alive today as a result of medical advances due to such techniques that they they have no right to be here.
Think about that implication.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
victor kruger # 122. While reading (or, more appropriately, attempting to read through all all the misspellings and grammar mistakes), I kept wondering if you had bothered to read *ANY* of the other posts.
It was fairly obvious that the answer was “no”.
Not only did a scientist post, giving good, solid reasons to test new medications on animals, there are several posts by LVers, myself included, who might be dead if not for animal testing.
This certainly isn’t a subject most people come to without some sort of soul searching, but the plain, unvarnished truth is that human lives *are* of more value than the lives of rats.
I have to take 14 different medications a day. This doesn’t even include the machines which keep me breathing at night, because my brain doesn’t remember to do so. Without animal testing, some of the early drugs I was put on wouldn’t have been found to kill people’s liver after a 9 week period. I was lucky, they found out and withdrew the drug after I’d been on it for 7 weeks. A test found that I had missed disaster on that one, but what if the testing hadn’t continued? I’d certainly be long dead by now.
Just wait until you, or someone you love is in a situation that requires a new drug. A drug you have to hope has been adequately tested, because your life, or the life of your wife or child, depends on it.
Whose life will be more important then, Victor? Whose?
August 18th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Anon: unfortunately nothing can be done about this – I would recommend reverting to spanner
August 18th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
I myself am going into biomedical research. For all of those comments of animal testing doing more harm than good are severely misfocused. If drugs were not researched on animals, imagine the thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of more human deaths. And the way that research normally works is that a drug is tested in animals farther away from humans genetically and eventually work their way up to primates. That is the point of animal testing: get data, analyze it, and move on to closely genetically related animals to one day move the drug to humans.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
#150 Anon
Huh? I honestly think something got screwed with the numbering system here- Janus, not Anon, is #140 on my screen, and my comment was directed to him, not yours at #141. I’ve never even seen you mention that subject.
Am I the only one seeing this? If you think I was snarking your comment, I’m sorry. It was Janus’ post that I was referring to: “As for testing on humans (at the risk of sounding insensitive) why not test on criminals (death row types) and the homeless? Might be a fine crime-deterrant. You committed murder? you get 10 years in a labratory.”
August 18th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
logar: that is my fault – if a comment is in moderation and I publish it – it goes in to the position it would have if it hadn’t moderated – that can alter the numbering slightly. Sorry about that. I try to be as fast as I can.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Look, I’ve had pet rats. Anyone who has ever gotten to know a rat recognizes how incredibly intelligent they are and how rich their personalities can be. This is a large part of why testing on animals is so wrong.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
nerdlette, (168),
Most organisms above the evolutionary level of invertebrates have more capacity than most of us either realise or want to know. Some invertebrates such as the octopus and the squid are pretty bright too though. Just watch on TV some of the problem-solving animals of all kinds are capable of. Read up the comments in the Beautiful Fishes topic here too. Many creatures can be tamed to a degree and respond richly to our care and stimulation. Just see how many different species Amazonian indians keep.
But if you are going to be consistent, never eat or kill anything except insects and the like. If you care to be overrun by rats, start thinking about the Black Death, bubonic plague. If you want to be overrun by mice, rabbits, sparrows and pigeons, start to think about starvation, because plagues of those cuddly, intelligent beasts compete voraciously for the same foods as ourselves, or the same pasturage as our stock. When terrorists kill us, when an enemy declares war, when we are faced with threats from mafiosi, we don’t begin to think of the fine qualities people such as Sister Theresa and the Dalai Lama are possessed of, or all the dear friends and relations we know. Life doesn’t allow us to work that way.
August 19th, 2008 at 3:03 am
Well, I’m _mostly_ against testing on animals. And “mostly” because these test can be pretty useless. I seriously doubt it that modern drugs have the same effect on a rabbit/dog/cat and a human. And some pretty damn important drugs would never be invented and used if they were tested on animals first, simply because they would either seriously hurt them or kill them. It’s a fact that human is not a rabbit. So, what the hell??
Secondly, why the heck is the detergent for washing dishes being tested on animals?? OF COURSE if you pour the damn thing in the rabbits eye, IT WILL GO BLIND. IT’S ACID. I don’t see the point of doing that. Not to mention deodorant, shampoo, soap and other ridiculous products.
Even doctors agree that most of the tests are unnecessary.
I’m not saying that SOMEHOW, SOMEWHERE, a test might be pseudo-justified. It’s easy to say “we have no alternatives” when you don’t want to have them. Animal testing is cheap. That’s all the industry wants to know.
I also don’t like PETA and their methods. I love animals too, but I don’t think aggression is the best way.
Further info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_animal_testing
August 19th, 2008 at 3:48 am
I think that ultamately, animal testing is fairly immoral and cruel BUT sometimes necessary. However, amimal testing is used when not absolutely necessary and this is not unheard of and is unacceptable.
A good example is make up. This should never require animal testing yet, that’s exactly what happens. Fortunately, it is becoming popular to frown on animal testing so it’s reclining in used. But that’s still not enough.
The question of “Is animal testing necessary?” is unfortunately; yes.
I think that all animal testing needs to be proven necessary and policed. Maybe animal rights law already do that i’m not informed on such things
My view is “it is necessary but no where near the amount used today”.
August 19th, 2008 at 5:21 am
Doppelganger:
“I think that all animal testing needs to be proven necessary and policed. Maybe animal rights law already do that i’m not informed on such things”
It IS policed, yes. There are very strict rules and guidelines pertaining to it. In the labs I’ve known at the university, they are very careful, and take this stuff *seriously.* No one’s in this to make animals suffer, and in fact I’ve never seen or heard of an animal suffering in *any* of the labs I’ve known.
August 19th, 2008 at 5:25 am
That’s good to hear.
August 19th, 2008 at 5:33 am
dr. Hannibal Lecter: I thought household detergents (for washing dishes) were basic not acidic…
August 19th, 2008 at 5:39 am
Tempyra, I didn’t mean it in a literal chemical sense, but if you try to put some in your eye, you’ll get the point
(I find this especially cruel, in some labs, they just put stuff in their eyes until it [the eye] is all gone, they just observe the poor thing for days, no painkillers, nothing..)
August 19th, 2008 at 5:49 am
Lecter:
“…these test can be pretty useless. I seriously doubt it that modern drugs have the same effect on a rabbit/dog/cat and a human.”
Wrong. See above in the thread. If you don’t want to listen to me (I don’t expect that you will) there are many others here who’ve already corrected this error, including Slickwilly, who is a biologist. And there is a link to at least one site explaining why this idea of non-parity between humans and other mammals is an unscientific myth.
“And some pretty damn important drugs would never be invented and used if they were tested on animals first, simply because they would either seriously hurt them or kill them. It’s a fact that human is not a rabbit. So, what the hell??”
Again, exactly repeating the myth, which has no basis in science.
“Even doctors agree that most of the tests are unnecessary.”
This is simply entirely untrue. The majority of physicians in fact understand the scientific necessity of animal experimentation and study, and acknowledge that without it, we would not have most of the medicines or medical procedures we today enjoy the benefits of. Very few groups in the medical field are against testing. The groups cited in the wikipedia article are not, for the most part, what anyone would consider mainstream. At any rate for these few cited, there are dozens of other groups and institutions that support testing–and certainly not for any concern for “profit.”
“I’m not saying that SOMEHOW, SOMEWHERE, a test might be pseudo-justified. It’s easy to say “we have no alternatives” when you don’t want to have them. Animal testing is cheap. That’s all the industry wants to know.”
It’s simply wrong to suggest that this is some kind of plot to save money. Animal testing and experimentation is not only done in industry; it’s done in science labs across the world in universities and institutions where profit isn’t even a motive. In fact MOST animal testing is done in that environment, not industry.
Moreover, it is not the “cheapness” of animal testing that has anything to do with its use even in industry; the fact is that the alternatives suggested have not yet reached the technological level (for the most part) where they can effectively replace animal testing. I and others in this thread have already spoken to this as well. Should we continue to work on alternatives? Sure, if they can someday provide more accurate and efficient, and quick results, than animal testing. But only for those reasons–and resources should not be diverted from traditional testing to reach for unattainable goals in alternatives.
August 19th, 2008 at 6:17 am
I recently read a new book called The Animal Research War. It was really an eye-opener on some of the issues you are discussing above.
August 19th, 2008 at 6:28 am
Randall: I don’t think there should be a question of whether we should continue to work on alternatives. Wouldn’t it be wrong not to try and remove animals from the process?
August 19th, 2008 at 6:45 am
I just don’t like the idea of animals being put through all that. So animals should not be mis treated in this way!!
August 19th, 2008 at 6:46 am
Sorry, didn’t see the links there, don’t have the time today to read everything. I made a quick view now.
While I understand that pretty much everything alive has astounding DNA similarity, we are all quite different on an organism level. Is that why some drugs work on some people and not on other? (Same species!) So I wouldn’t say it’s that much of a myth. Being a biologist, SlickWilly knows better than me that 1% means a LOT when dealing with DNA.
I accept though, some drugs will indeed have the same effect. Just some. This means that if the drug is a complete success in curing the animal, it doesn’t mean anything until it’s been tested on humans.
“The groups cited in the wikipedia article are not, for the most part, what anyone would consider mainstream.”
I not as obsessed with the mainstream opinions as I probably should be, as mainstream opinions tend to change. Earth was flat for a long time, wasn’t it? Atoms were indivisible..
“It’s simply wrong to suggest that this is some kind of plot to save money.”
Right. You’re saying L’Oreal is not switching to alternatives because these alternatives are not good enough? Then how come there are hundreds, nay, thousands of companies that do use alternative methods of testing? Why are they wrong? I think it was SlickWilly above who said that animal research for cosmetics is morally bankrupt. This is what I’m against. You can’t compare this with cure for cancer type of research.
I’ve read stories, heard stories, seen videos and images of things so amoral and all I can think of is dr. Mengele. I know it’s just a mental association, but still..
Still, we want “people” like paris hilton to smell good, don’t we?
There was a scandal here in Croatia a few years back, coincidentally, in a university. For some reason, they were gathering dogs for years and breaking their legs, repeatedly. Just to monitor the healing process. Is that good for the advance of human kind? Doesn’t seem like that to me.
I can accept that animal testing *can be* a necessary evil. But everyone has to admit it a bit out of control.
@Amy J: Care to share some of the book with us?
August 19th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Dr Lecter,
If it MIGHT mean saving the life of someone you loved dearly, or hundreds or thousands or more of children, you would still say NO (as you would die rather than use nuclear weapons under any circumstances)? Note use of the word MIGHT here.
Clearly some people have not read the above comments carefully. I pointed out above as an example that rabbits are immune to the effects of the death cap, which is terribly lethal for us. That is undoubtedly due to a difference in genetical make-up from ourselves. However, they are not immune to strychnine or arsenic, for example, although clearly the lethal dosages would differ from those required to kill a human. But before anyone jumps all over that, just remember how lethal dosages to kill humans may vary from individual to individual, and certainly from child to adult.
My field is botany, not biology, but I imagine there must be a great deal of information already known about differences and similarities of reaction between animals commonly used in experimentation and ourselves. No doubt either Slickwilly or Randall could enlighten.
I understand and am pretty sure (haven’t checked for absolute or citation) that the rodenticide Warfarin, which dilutes the blood of these small mammals, leading to haemmorhage, was later discovered to be an extremely efficient counter to human blood-thickening problems. If that is so, no deliberate animal experimentation ws originally intended, but how many hundreds of thousands, probably millions of lives saved by this *backdoor test*?
I have also already pointed out it is acknowledged that the full and final effects of any new drug or medicine cannot be considered fully known until tested over a lifetime on human beings. That is by no means the same as saying that they are not known at all. Very far from it.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:18 am
I assume then that everyone on here who disagrees with animal testing, boycotts all the drugs that where created during that research.
Should it be a simple head ache tablet to more complex cancer drugs – I assume you will be refusing to take them.
After all, If you do take them your nothing but a bunch of hypocrites.
Unfortunately animal testing, wither you agree with it or not – is a necessary evil – and it’s not going to go away.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:20 am
Sorry about the misspelling, I’m in a rush. It doesn’t affect the sense.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:20 am
167 Jfrater
Thanks for clearing that up- I was beginning to think I was going crazy. Anon, I’m not a crazy hijacker after all!
August 19th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Lecter:
“While I understand that pretty much everything alive has astounding DNA similarity, we are all quite different on an organism level. Is that why some drugs work on some people and not on other? (Same species!) So I wouldn’t say it’s that much of a myth. Being a biologist, SlickWilly knows better than me that 1% means a LOT when dealing with DNA.”
And Slickwilly can correct you on your misapprehensions in this regard. It IS a myth, regardless of whether you choose to see it thus or not. DNA sequences have little or nothing to do with the efficacies of animal testing. It’s the larger-view similarities between mammalian species that matter, in terms of the overall as well as organ systems, etc.
All you’re managing to get across here is the fact that *nothing* is ever foolproof or certain. Even when we know a drug works, and works well, oftentimes it happens that it *doesn’t* work for some small percentage of the population. We don’t usually know WHY this is so. Our knowledge simply is not up to these questions yet.
But again all that proves is that *alternative* methods for testing are even *less* likely–at present–to be accurate, given the fact that they are still in developmental stages and are only partially proven, if that.
“I not as obsessed with the mainstream opinions as I probably should be, as mainstream opinions tend to change. Earth was flat for a long time, wasn’t it? Atoms were indivisible..”
That’s a specious and facetious attitude/argument. We’re talking about mainstream SCIENCE here, not simply “mainstream opinion.” And science is self-correcting. We quickly found out that atoms WERE divisible and the models were changed. But this isn’t a flippant, change-as-you-will system; science has empirical and solid reasons for revising itself, or it isn’t done. At present, the science is that alternative testing systems are *not yet* up to replacing the use of animals in terms of speed, efficiency, accuracy, or adaptability. When they can, that’ll be a different story. But until then, this is what we have, and science says that it works for a reason, not simply because we *want* to experiment on animals for the fun of it, or for reasons of cost.
““It’s simply wrong to suggest that this is some kind of plot to save money.”
Right. You’re saying L’Oreal is not switching to alternatives because these alternatives are not good enough?”
I’m not talking about or addressing the use of animals in cosmetic testing. My concern here is strictly for testing for medical and scientific reasons. Someone else, surely, can argue for cosmetic testing, if any argument CAN be made… I simply don’t know enough about THAT to speak authoritatively on it.
But note that *cosmetic* testing is a small percentage of what we’re talking about here. MOST animal experimentation is in the sciences, not industry.
“Then how come there are hundreds, nay, thousands of companies that do use alternative methods of testing?”
Where do you get this statistic?
Testing is a wide and varied system. Alternatives at present may be viable for certain limited uses, but they are not being used across the board as you are implying. Again, if you’re talking strictly about cosmetic companies, address that to someone else. I am NOT talking about that aspect of this question.
“I’ve read stories, heard stories, seen videos and images of things so amoral and all I can think of is dr. Mengele. I know it’s just a mental association, but still..”
Appeals to emotion through such means are always effective, but they are also not usually valid in terms of logical argument. You should know that.
Of course, as I say, I don’t speak in the slightest for cosmetic testing. I find it wrong, myself, but again, as I say, that’s only a small part of the overall.
“There was a scandal here in Croatia a few years back, coincidentally, in a university. For some reason, they were gathering dogs for years and breaking their legs, repeatedly. Just to monitor the healing process. Is that good for the advance of human kind? Doesn’t seem like that to me.”
I can’t speak to some single, anecdotal story you bring up. We don’t know the details or the facts. At any rate, a single anomaly does NOT speak for the entire practice or system. If this was the case we’d throw out ALL good and useful procedures entirely every time ONE person or group misused them. That would make no sense.
But for all you know, this test you’re referring to cold have been done for entirely legitimate reasons and could have been done humanely as possible. It makes us feel, emotionally, an instant negative reaction when we hear about scientists experimenting on cute and adorable animals that we love, but that is not logical nor is it intellectual. Get all the facts and then decide what’s right and wrong–relying strictly on emotion can make one just as prone to doing the wrong thing as *deliberately* committing wrongs.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:51 am
I don’t think the scientists who are testing medicines out are maniaclly shooting disease and poison into animals for the heck of it. They aren’t evil or bad people, they’re just doing their jobs. I admit I know very little about the process of medicine making, but aren’t there standards that have to be met before any testing can even begin? There have to be some perameters in place. And I’m just curious as to who or what we would test new medicines on if not animals. I, for one, could not live without the allergy medicine I have to take every day to be around my dog. Irony comes full circle on that one, I guess.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Dr Lecter,
“There was a scandal here in Croatia a few years back, coincidentally, in a university. For some reason, they were gathering dogs for years and breaking their legs, repeatedly. Just to monitor the healing process. Is that good for the advance of human kind? Doesn’t seem like that to me.”
It would be easy to bring up countless scandals and abuses in prisons, not least accidental false incarcerations. I doubt anyone would care to use that as an argument for loosing all those presently serving time onto the rest of us, and never depriving the *ungodly* of their liberty.
Your phrase “a scandal” (singular) speaks for itself. It goes without saying that individual cases should be addressed for what they are: individual cases. Institutionalised abuse (i.e. across the board, as Randall put it) would be a different matter.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Turn all of this shit around and ask yourself, is it just the fact that some animals are cute and cuddly that we want to save them from cruelty? I heard all this crap when dolphins were getting caught in tuna nets. I quote the great Dennis Leary on this one “THE DOLPHINS ARE GETTING CAUGHT IN THE NETS AND ARE DYING!! Well what about the tuna? Well fuck them they taste good.”
Animal auditions – “What are you? I’m an otter. And what do you do? I swim around on my back and do cute human things with my hands! . . . You’re free to go.”
My point simply is if a maggot held the cure for cancer, we’d have no problem swirling them around in a test tube until that secret substance came out of their oozing worm-like bodies. We’d have no scruples about that. It’s just that when it has a face and some sort of human like intelligence that WE attach to them that we get all worked up about it.
I’m not for cruelty – Michael Vick can rot in jail for all I care. But I want that rash on my ass to disappear and if the cream to cure it has to be applied on 1500 gorillas to test it then, sorry Koko, it’s been nice signing with you!
August 19th, 2008 at 8:07 am
logar, (184),
Of course not. I was sure it was so, and that there was some kind of temporary systems cock-up. besides, you were addressing a commentator by name, which everyone would have taken. My reaction was intended as tongue-in-cheek, and in fact I was grateful anyway, because the reply set off another train of thought.
General comment. I’d spell haemorrhage correctly if it was a ‘Who wants to be a millionaire’ question, never fear! I often do have trouble in accidentally leaving one out of double-consonants in English now though, as doubles scarcely exist in Spanish, my *replacement* everyday language.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:16 am
bucslim,
If you would threaten or send a precious element of the earth’s biodiversity into extinction in order to cure a non-life-threatening (I presume) disorder like a skin irritation on your fanny (US useage intended), then God save the planet from you and your kind. You went grossly beyond your *cuddly animals* argument there. How many pandas sacrificed to cure your ingrowing toenail, I wonder? Include me out of that philosophy. Right out.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:18 am
bucslim:
Funny shit, pal… I laughed out loud.
How IS that rash on your ass? You know, of course, where that came from… the wrong city, at the wrong time, with the wrong “Paid Love Professional”… pure bad luck. I sympathize, but better you than me.
Interesting thing about dolphins (serious now)…. though of course I DO think we should do all we can to prevent dolphin deaths by our hands, it was pointed out years ago by Jacques Cousteau that, while we recognize the deep (and somewhat mysterious) intelligence of dolphins, it is also very curious that they get caught in tuna nets at all. At any other time dolphins are capable of prodigious leaps, in excess of 12 feet into the air. But when the get surrounded by a tuna net–which is open at the top–they seem unable to formulate the realization that they can simply and easily leap to freedom without a bit of trouble and with little effort on their part. Rather, they sink into a torpor and drown, or get caught in the net and then drown. It’s necessary for people to physically force them out of the net.
It makes no sense; Cousteau could not understand why animals that are clearly intelligent could NOT simply comprehend their predicament and use their natural ability to free themselves from it. The only answer, Cousteau said, is that while dolphins are intelligent, they do not possess *human* intelligence.
We tend too much to anthropomorphize animals—to find cuteness in them and associate ourselves with them. But the fact is that even dolphins are more different than we realize.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Anon:
bucslim was kidding, I’m sure. Remember to see the humor. Of course there’s always the chance he really WAS serious… but then bucslim is also a sociopath, albeit a harmless one. Unless you’re his boss. Then I’d watch it.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:35 am
I have been so thoroughly entertained by the past 24 hours of comments here.
Sorry, don’t let me interrupt. Carry on. *Sneaks back into the corner to continue her fly on the wall pose*
August 19th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Randall – Working out in the hot Nebraska sun all day causes all kinds of skin irritations, the sweat has only one place to collect.
Anon – relax. Read my post again and enjoy a hearty laugh. If you can’t do that, then have a nice prime rib and lobster tail and wash it all down with a steroid laced glass of chocolate milk.
Randall part 2 – I left all that sociopath stuff behind me when I was fired from the post office. Too much stress. But the stress relief was sure fun when I went back to that office the next day dressed like Rambo!
August 19th, 2008 at 8:51 am
As far as the dolphin thing goes pal, I was quoting Leary only to point out a bit of hypocrisy in our supposed humane treatment of animals.
You probably have guessed that I’m all for human supremacy. What gets lost in my musings is that we all have a responsibility to be humane. Killing animals for the sole fact of making sure a shampoo lathers correctly is stupid and downright barbaric. Testing it on a few to make sure it doesn’t irritate the skin is ok in my book. Using a pig’s heart to keep grandpa around for a few more years is worthwhile and noble, in my opinion. And after the pig has given up it’s heart for gramps, then we can all have bacon to clog his new heart. Now that’s progress!
August 19th, 2008 at 9:18 am
What animal did they test Viagra on?
August 19th, 2008 at 9:20 am
bucslim and Randall,
I have no sense of humour. If you haven’t twigged that by now you never will.
If only I could afford that lobster tail. The prime rib I can. Both of those would leave me painfully sleepless with gout, I fear. The chocolate milk will rack up my chloresterol. Is there nothing worthwhile in life left for me? Well, my friends in the Congo inform me that chimp steaks fried in civet oil are not only singularly tasty, but can hardly be bettered as an aphrodisiac. So maybe I’ll give that menu option a whirl as a treat from the usual insipid viagra.
Dolphins. Hmmmm. Of course, neither individually or collectively do we humans ever do things against our interests that utterly betray the capacity of our big brains and proven intelligence. Do we? Is that comment enough to provoke thought, or should I come up with a few glaring examples an alien from outer space might cite?
August 19th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Trojan_man,
Snap!
August 19th, 2008 at 9:22 am
buc:
“Working out in the hot Nebraska sun all day causes all kinds of skin irritations, the sweat has only one place to collect.”
A) NASA has made great strides in the science of sweat collection. You might wanna look into it. Of course, this usually involves reconstituting sweat for drinking purposes… gross, but better than that cheap firewater you quaff daily in order to “self medicate.”
B) Who are you kidding? Slaving in a five foot by five foot cell with a single grimy window on the other side of the suite does *not* constitute “working out in the hot Nebraska sun.” But you’re lucky you’ve got the job you have–prison work release programs usually place inmates in far more unpleasant surroundings.
C) If Nebraska is unpleasant, I suggest you try upstate New York. Our summer this year has been downright *English.* In other words, endlessly cloudy, unseasonably cool, with daily rain. I hate it.
“Randall part 2 – I left all that sociopath stuff behind me when I was fired from the post office. Too much stress. But the stress relief was sure fun when I went back to that office the next day dressed like Rambo!”
Precisely the reason why I have a private service monitoring your every move and reporting your whereabouts at all times. Never can tell when you’ll snap and decide that all your problems are “Randall’s fault and he *must* pay!”
So you make a single move towards the northeast and the FBI and Interpol will be all over your ass, sweat stain or no. And we don’t wanna be sent *back* to that Turkish prison, now, do we, buc? Hmmmm?
August 19th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Anon ~ That’s a great point. I work with a few people I’m pretty sure couldn’t find their way out of a fishing net.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:28 am
buc:
“As far as the dolphin thing goes pal, I was quoting Leary only to point out a bit of hypocrisy in our supposed humane treatment of animals.”
Oh I understood, and it was dead-on.
Cousteau and Leary, Salk and Carlin, Sagan and Lewis Black… just a small handful of the great minds of the past century.
“Using a pig’s heart to keep grandpa around for a few more years is worthwhile and noble, in my opinion. And after the pig has given up it’s heart for gramps, then we can all have bacon to clog his new heart. Now that’s progress!”
Marvelously ironic! So ironic it surely has God’s hand in it, because we KNOW He’s got a practical-joke streak in Him a mile wide. What else would explain MY life?
August 19th, 2008 at 9:29 am
bucslim,
I remember the (or a) top researcher on the African elephant was asked if a conflict of interest between elephants and African tribal people arose, would she put the elphants first? With a look of immeasurable sadness she replied that of course no other human being could, or at least should, put another organism before a fellow human. But if it led to the extinction of *her* African elephant species, a great deal of herself would die with it, and a lot of her reason and joy for being alive on this planet would become extinct as well. Summed the dilemma up nicely, I thought. An ever-growing dilemma.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:39 am
On the other hand, every time a species goes extinct there’s one less cause in future to attract the world’s tiresome Diane Fosseys. When all go extinct we can still watch them capering about as virtual reality on our screens. All they’ll need protection against will be computer viruses. Now that’s the perfect world. Not smelly. Not dangerous. No competition for space or food.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Anon, It’s my job here at the List Universe to poke, prod and otherwise piss on everything like a drunken yard cat. Most people know this.
I’m really not at odds with you. This planet’s headed for a very big problem with overpopulation – forget energy, Iraq and all of that, what the hell are these people going to eat and drink? And slowly but surely we’re going to be pushing Marlon Perkins and his Wild Kingdom into our own back yard.
I really am for conservation and against cruelty. But if you want me to choose, then there really isn’t a choice. I’m going to save my own ass (rash included) and the asses of my family over animals every time.
Besides, I heard otter tastes like chicken.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Randall – I have a feeling that New York state isn’t big enough for the both of us pal. And nobody wants to be represented by the ‘crazy ex-girlfriend’ of the Democratic party.
Don’t like the weather up there eh? Come on down here where it’s 103 in the shade with 95% humidity. Don’t like that? Wait a few months and it’ll be -20 one day, rainy the next, freezing overnight so you can slip your ass (now stained with rock salt) off to work in the morning.
And the endless miles of corn and the wonderful smells of feedlots wafting through the summer breeze. . .
August 19th, 2008 at 10:05 am
bucslim,
Agreed, but with my above reservations totally intact. I’d devote the rest of my life to scatching you arse continually, day and night, if it would save the panda (THE panda, note, not A panda). You alone would know the sacrifice that might involve for me. All those great minds Randall cited also knew biodiversity was one of the greatest treasures of the planet, and possibly at some point crucial for its (and our) survival.
Haven’t tried it. Is that sea otter or river otter? I could imagine that the former, apart from yielding more meat, might have an agreeably salty flavour. However, emotion rules, O.K.? I was married in a lovely traditional church in a little south Devonshire town called Ottery-St-Mary. It’s situated on the River Otter (where there used to be lots of those pests in the past). It was *only* my first marriage though, so I guess I can override that.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:10 am
bucslim and Randall,
No. Both of you come down here to Chile. Perfect weather, summer and winter. Agreeably low population. No stress. Gorgeous scenery. Women even more gorgeous. Fewer guns around. You’d have to promise to cut the crap before we’d have you though.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Anon: Why not NZ?
It has perfect weather, summer and winter. Agreeably low population. No stress. Gorgeous scenery. Women even more gorgeous. Fewer guns around (’cept for the possums). Haha
August 19th, 2008 at 10:23 am
bucslim:
“…and otherwise piss on everything like a drunken yard cat”
Now THAT was f**kin’ funny. I laughed.
…”drunken yard cat.”
“Besides, I heard otter tastes like chicken.”
Not that otter who lives near ME. He abuses himself *terribly.* Drinking, carousing, smoking, carrying on ’til all hours… drugs, partying, loud music, cheap cigars.. he’s a menace. I would think he’s probably as tough as old shoe leather that’s been left in the sun on top of a pile of half-melted tar for a couple of years. And he STILL hasn’t returned June’s copy of “The New Yorker” that he borrowed from me. Bastard.
“Don’t like the weather up there eh? Come on down here where it’s 103 in the shade with 95% humidity. Don’t like that? Wait a few months and it’ll be -20 one day, rainy the next, freezing overnight so you can slip your ass (now stained with rock salt) off to work in the morning.”
Well you might know that we in upstate New York are used to that very kind of winter you describe, PLUS we get the neck-deep snow that comes off those f**king Great Lakes. I still say we oughta put those inmates to work filling those damn things in with all the trash NYC and New Jersey sends our way.
But then the Canadians could just cross straight over without being bottlenecked at the Peace Bridge… it’s a trade off either way.
“And the endless miles of corn and the wonderful smells of feedlots wafting through the summer breeze. . .”
I’ll pass on being SURROUNDED on all sides by thousands of miles of Americans. I prefer to be near the coast for a quick getaway.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Anon:
I would gladly come to Chile…. Incas! I could go back into Archeology… sounds like fun.
And gorgeous women is always an enticement that works on me.
No more Shining Path there, huh? Wasn’t that the Chilean left wing terrorist group? And no more right wing oppression? Can I live on the coast on the beach in a cabana?
August 19th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Well, in light of the discussion earlier about dolphin intelligence, here’s a little something from today’s Science news that’s rather intriguing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7570097.stm
August 19th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Randall: You’re sounding more and more like Indiana Jones every time I visit Listverse
August 19th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Tempyra – hahahahaha sorry Randall, Indiana Jones? hahahahaha
August 19th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Mom:
What are YOU laughin’ at?
August 19th, 2008 at 10:55 am
jfrater:
I keep trying to post something here with a link, and it won’t let me do it. But I just posted that reply to Mom, and it went right through… what’s up here?
August 19th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Randall; Hemingway maybe, with your gin on the beach or maybe Gauguin with his nubile natives. But Indiana Jones? lol.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:07 am
I already made a comment on this subject( I’m number 3!…that’s nothing to be proud of) and have basically been reading every comment because,being the moron I am, I subscribed to having all comments sent to my email, and I had just had to mention it one more time,because after comment 120 I started feeling lonely and left out; Animal testing is to me a tad unnecessary and can be cruel,but if it is for the health of thousands of people in this wor then I say go ahead and test,but do it as painlessly as possible. And for the love of god, don’t test the pharmaceuticals and make-up on poor animals! When is a rabbit ever going to need lipstick? Although I can see how a lot of people can be against animal testing, it is a sacrifice we need to make. I have to speak out also as an animal lover and although it tears my heart out to even think of a little mouse being tested on, it is for the greater good. And that is all I have to say, and must now take my leave before certain people begin to attack me,again, for making this comment.Oh and Randall, I may have missed out whatever else comments you made,but you are so right, those possums are evil!
August 19th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Mom:
You *know* how I detest Hemingway… how COULD you?
but interesting you should mention him…. are you recalling something else I said about myself a long while back here, regarding a certain novel in the works?
Gaugin and the nubile natives sounds much better to me, and more fun.
But I still don’t see what’s so funny about Indiana Jones? Are you saying I couldn’t work a whip? Take a punch? Romance Karen Allen?
August 19th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Randall-
Tongue lashings, for sure. A real whip though? Plus running? While wearing a hat? And melting nazi’s? There can only be one Indiana Jones…
August 19th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Mom424: Indiana Jones is an academic, so is Randall. They also have archaeology in common. AND Randall even admitted somewhere that people tell him he looks like Harrison Ford. So there, it’s not THAT absurd
August 19th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Riya B. You too can now join the group of ‘People who aren’t deceived by the appearance of the evil possum’
August 19th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Mom424: I forgot – they share a liking for ‘gorgeous women’ too
August 19th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Ahhhh.. people leaping to my support. I’m touched.
But, okay…. I’ll cop to it…. I don’t know how to melt Nazis. Though I’d gladly do so, if somebody would show me the instruction manual…
I also gotta admit… not ONCE in my life did some girl bat her eyelashes at me in class, only to reveal that she’s got “I LOVE YOU” written on her eyelids. (Or whatever it was in that scene from the first movie…)
August 19th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Randall,
“I would gladly come to Chile…. Incas! I could go back into Archeology… sounds like fun.
And gorgeous women is always an enticement that works on me.
No more Shining Path there, huh? Wasn’t that the Chilean left wing terrorist group? And no more right wing oppression? Can I live on the coast on the beach in a cabana?”
I knew throwing the women in would be like blood to sharks, though more a breeding than feeding frenzy.
Actually your perceptions are of Peru, not Chile (Incas, though they did get down as far as where we live, and left mummies to prove it, though not pregnant ones) and (Sendero Luninoso, Shining Path. Right now they’re prosecuting poor old Fujimori for getting rid of that menace in a less than squeaky clean fashion. Well sorry, we were only able to visit his marvellous country and work there thanks to his operations). We have plenty of prehispanic archeology in Chile though. It’s easy to reach other South American nations from where we are and travel and living standards are still reasonable, though we’re beginning to lose out here in Chile. Beach cabañas would be better in the Caribbean sector or the Brazilian coast. Although we haven’t visited Brazil, it sounds as though it could be your paradise on earth. We get the Pacific Humboldt Current up from the Antarctic (except in El Niño years), and it’s brass monkey sea: freezes yer balls off. As one whose spent entire days in Turkish Mediterranean and Adriatic warm bathwater, I wouldn’t risk giving my toes frostbite here.
Pinochet’s dead as a doornail, and not being favoured by any religious deity is unlikely to be resurrected. He hasn’t left an interested heir either, so things look pretty safe there.
Our left-wing *armed revolutionaries*at the time of Allende were MIR and MAPU, but they never got off the ground except as later resistance to Pinochet, when joined by the newly-formed Frente Patriotica Manuel Rodriguez. All these are now totally inexistent as far as everyday life here is concerned.
Out of interest, this is also our local history that Arek was pontificating about from his judgement seat and warping to present as indisputable fact to those of us who have lived through the events and studied them.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:47 am
you also don’t have theme music. That’s a big part of being Indy. I suppose you could just tell one of you students to hit play every time you walked in the room. What would your theme song be? I’m thinking…something rebellious. Probably from before I was born.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:56 am
A handy logical picture is beginning to emerge.
That we practice animal experimentation on possums and only possoms. They are clearly totally unlovable and terminally uncuddly. Furthermore, obviously evil and deserving of everything they get. In fact the Nazis and psychopaths of the natural world. We might even test cosmetics on them, they’ve asked for it, haven’t they?
Q.E.D.
August 19th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Callie:
The music has to be in your *head.* In your head.
August 19th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Anon: Brilliant solution! I will ‘volunteer’ the millions of possums ruining New Zealand’s native forests for the joys of animal experimentation
August 19th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Randall: Damnit. Now that irritating Cranberries song is stuck in my head. Thanks a lot
August 19th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
zah-ombie, zah-ombie zah-om bie bie bie…
August 19th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I fear we’ve gone off topic.
August 19th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Anon:
I would rather try rehabilitating the humble-but-hateful possum. I was brought up to believe that most things have SOME kind of good in them, if only it can be rooted out. I would suggest some willing soul take the possum out to dinner and a movie, try to get him to lower his barriers… maybe convince the possum to read some Leo Buscaglia. And have the nasty tail made over–covered with some attractive fur. And in fact, a dye job would be helpful… and blunt down those nasty sharp teeth. Perhaps a funky haircut would help.
Get the possum feeling good about himself, and maybe we could all be happy! Peace and joy throughout the land, with free cable and chocolate cake for everyone!
Or we could just stamp on the f**king possum and use him to test bioweapons. Up to you guys. I’m good either way.
August 19th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Tempyra:
ah, sorry… I always preferred “Linger” myself…
it’s Delores Riordan’s voice that’s the problem… it’s not sweet and melodic like Sinead’s… just sort of Irish twangy… gets under our fingernails and *scrapes* there sometimes.
August 19th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Randall: Good description
That possum would need a mani/pedicure too if it were going to be rehabilitated.
August 19th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Anon:
Ah… I forgot Shining Path was Peruvian…
And good to know Pinochet is still dead. Thank goodness. The zombie Pinochet would be annoying, I’d bet.
Chile, if I’m not mistaken, is also home to an alleged far-ancient site of human habitation—one of these that blows the doors off the Clovis culture as the oldest example of human settlement in the Americas…. There’s one in Argentina but I think there’s one in Chile as well…
My focus of interest was in Near Eastern/Aegean archeology and ancient history, though, so maybe I’m off the mark.
August 19th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Anon:
Killing is far more merciful than the pain and suffering that animals endure in testing facilities.
Animals kill other animals. Eating animals is natural (although perhaps not in the way we go about it). Eating meat in itself is not cruel.
Cosmetic and drug testing on the other hand, is vastly different and you cannot begin to compare the two.
Personally, I think if given the choice I would rather be killed instantly and eaten in comparison to being tortured until my eventual death.
MAAAYBE that’s just me.
August 19th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
nerdlette:
Sorry, but it’s a myth that animals are “tortured” until death as a rule (or even usually or even occasionally) in medical or science testing. Cosmetic testing is another matter and as I’ve said earlier here, I don’t address that practice.
As I’ve said, I work at a university, and there are strict government guidelines and laws pertaining to the treatment of test and/or experimental animal subjects. They are certainly not “tortured,” whether to death or otherwise, and do not endure pain and suffering. They are treated as humanely as possible, and when necessary, done away with using humane and painless means.
Sorry, but these wild references to torture and cruelty are largely just that–wild references with no basis in fact.
Whether in pure or applied research, animals are treated as kindly as is possible, depending on the procedures or tests they have to undergo. I know lots of researchers who work with animals… none are sadists nor do they enjoy killing. But they are realists who know what they are doing involves important and necessary research.
It isn’t always pretty, no. But one of the unpleasant facts of life is that potential benefits have to be weighed against such matters.
August 19th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Temppyra, (208),
“Anon: Why not NZ?
It has perfect weather, summer and winter. Agreeably low population. No stress. Gorgeous scenery. Women even more gorgeous. Fewer guns around (’cept for the possums). Haha”
Yup, we’re on a par there. Trouble is,so many of your mountain flowers are white, and ours are pretty colours. You don’t have hummingbirds either, and we’ve about 100 round the house right now. Plus, if anybody ever does want to visit their roots from time to time, you’re a good bit further away. Now you go ahead and tell me all the advantages I know you’ve got and I haven’t listed here!
August 19th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Randall, (off-topic),
“My focus of interest was in Near Eastern/Aegean archeology and ancient history, though, so maybe I’m off the mark.”
That was an incidental but great *tourist* pleasure for us when career botanising. We’ve visited plenty of Turkey’s best.
August 19th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Randall: I have the perfect getaway for you. You’ll have a whole year to plan it…
http://www.wausaupossumfestival.com/
This is not too far from where I live. Ain’t I the lucky one.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
nerdlette,
“Anon:
Killing is far more merciful than the pain and suffering that animals endure in testing facilities.
Animals kill other animals.”
Wow. Have you ever seen how some animals kill others? Have you the faintest idea? Have you watched any of the cat family teaching their young how to hunt and kill, or learning themselves, using a terrified prey object or anything similar (a butterfly,as example, for the domestic cat) for as long as it remains alive? Or been near a hen-coop a fox has entered? Have you watched hyaenas chew the living innards out of their dinner? Have you picked up a mained bird a hawk misjudged on and lefy fluttering and helpless on the ground for some other predator to find and finish off? Or watched a goat dying slowly of infection caused by the bite of a Komodo Dragon, until the Dragon eventually tracks it and puts it out of its misery?
Natural history is full of examples of animals that hunt by disabling and running down their prey while it’s dying in mortal agony. I’m not being judgemental, my outlook is scientific, not anthropo-emotional. Foxes and cats aren’t cruel. Spare us such stupid waffle. These behaviour patterns have developed because they best suited the survival and adaptation of the species in question. Unlike ourselves, who really do kill for fun or pure sport rather than need, wild animals don’t have the luxury of time and energy to spare for something so irrelevant to their daily lives.
Spare me that rubbish about kinder in the wild though.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
trojan_man:
Nice. And they even have a beauty pageant. How’d you like to be named “Miss Possum Festival?” Sounds like some weird show at Bob Guccione’s place.
Does all that humidity make Floridians nuts? Is that it? Do the throngs of transplanted New Yorkers take part in this kind of thing, or does it only go on in inland swamp country?
August 19th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Anon:
Someday I *must* get to Turkey, and visit the site of Troy…
August 19th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Not Bob Guccione…it’s Joe Francis (our Panama City Beach friends love when he comes around).
Yes, the humidity makes us do irrational things. But we don’t get throngs of New Yorkers…we end up with those bastards from Michigan.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Hi Guys, first post…. thought I’d put something in as I was talking about this the other night…..
Although I love all animals and hate animal testing, I am not a hypocrite and would not want a member of my family to die because something wasn’t tested properly!!!!
That said, I do object to the way that the animals are treated and kept, even those who have not been tested on, but are kept as control only.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Nerdlette-
I know a lot of people have pounced on you but I have to as well…
“Killing is far more merciful than the pain and suffering that animals endure in testing facilities.
Animals kill other animals.”
I rescued my dog from a foster network in my state. She was a bait dog for fighting dogs. She had her mouth duct taped shut and her paws covered so she couldn’t fight back, and then was thrown to the wolves (or dogs, as the case may be)
In exchange for her troubles, her face is scarred, her teeth a chipped and some are missing (it makes it hard to guess her age, but the vet says somewhere around one and a half or two) and the outer, padding part of her nose is missing- likely bitten off. Show me a scientist trying to cure a disease who has hurt or made an animal suffer like the men who did that to my dog. Let them be to do their job, and hunt down truely cruel evil people like the people who run dog fighting rings.
By the way, my dog is half chesapeake bay retriever and half pit, and she is the most mild mannered, loving dog I’ve ever met. Everyone who meets her falls in love. She also completed her good canine citizenship and her therapy dog testing within the first month I had her, and now we go visit children’s hospitals and nursing homes twice a month. I know that’s off topic, but if I can change one person’s opinion of a pit, I don’t pass it up.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Logar:
i was 100% serious. everyone is clamoring for two things on this discussion – 1) an alternative to testing on animals and 2) opinion on testing on humans. It seems like a no-brainer to me. why should we (society, taxpayers) spend billions housing dangerous death-row inmates, when we could be “recycling” them (in a manner of speaking).
If they are so callous about taking a life, then turn the tables.
Randall:
your responses continually prove my (and others) point – you don’t have to insult to state your opinion or prove your point. Your points and opinion are more effective without them. And you were correct – I should have said 99% of your first posts on a subject are laced with insults to the list-creator. My apologies on depriving your 1%.
Also, you’re so busy correcting me, you didn’t even comment on my subject matter (see above to Logar), unless you didn’t deem it worthy of your superior opinion.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
interesting – Randall must be a moderator. every post i create with his name goes to “awaiting moderation”.
no wonder he feels like he can insult everyone.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Callie – I have known more nice Pitbulls than nasty. Unfortunately improper training and testosterone lacking (I’m assuming, why else would you need a mean dog to prove your manliness?) young males have ruined it for the whole breed. Damn Shame.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Janus; As far as I know Randall is not a moderator. If you use a number or number sign your comment will automatically be kicked into moderation. I’m not sure, but I do believe that included links may also get you a ticket to limbo.
If you think Randall is being insulting on this list I’d suggest that you haven’t been around too long. He rightfully corrected the plagiarist and defended himself from attack, and you think that to be insulting? He’s barely warmed up yet. Unless of course you are defending the possum? Evil, yellow, long legged, vicious rats. And thanks to climate change, they live in my neighborhood now too!
August 19th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
188. bucslim …I quote the great Dennis Leary on this one “THE DOLPHINS ARE GETTING CAUGHT IN THE NETS AND ARE DYING!! Well what about the tuna? Well fuck them they taste good.”
****
bucky, do you mean Timothy Leary? Or am I hopelessly out of date by not know who Dennis Leary is?
August 19th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Mom,
Good Lord, does it take something as extreme as possums to prove climate change, then? Repent ye. The end of the world is nigh.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Anon: Hmm I hadn’t thought of that – about the mountain flowers I mean. We do have Cotula atrata though, which has nearly black flowers, and lots of shrubs with pretty coloured berries (Hebes, Myrsines, Gaultheria). I think there are blue orchids somewhere, probably not alpine though! A Thelymitra spp?
No hummingbirds but there are kiwi, takahe, kokako, kakapo among other interesting birdies.
I haven’t been to Chile (yet) so I can’t really make any comparisons but the food in NZ is great
August 19th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Oh I messed up my italicisation.
Janus: Have you considered that maybe it’s YOUR username not Randall’s that get’s your comments stuck in moderation?
August 19th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Yes.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Randall, (235),
“And good to know Pinochet is still dead. Thank goodness. The zombie Pinochet would be annoying, I’d bet.”
Indeed yes, but continuing to protest he had no idea what was going on, and so all that butchery was the fault of his subordinates, you betcha. Considering the subject here, and with the animal experimentation of Dolly the sheep’s cloning now scientific history, I have this nightmare:
Pinochet has been cell-cloned by his fanatics. The babies were farmed out to unsuspecting families and are now growing up as small, militaristically-minded boys who love to pull wings off flies and swing kittens round by the tail. Been done? ‘The Boys from Brazil’, did you say?
August 19th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Um, I like possums. I’ve tried to pet the ones that I found in my laundry room, but they didn’t seem to want me to, so I didn’t. I picked up a baby one by the tail, they’re not so tough.
In fact, I found possums to be much friendlier than Randall.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
rushfan: Have you met Trichosurus vulpecula yet?
August 19th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
No (I just looked ‘em up) We don’t have “cute” possums in Texas, just the snarly bitey kind, but I still think they’re cute. I’ll try to pet anything. Remind me to tell you the story about the time I tried to save a baby bluejay that fell out of it’s nest but I ended up chasing it into traffic and it got run over by an SUV and I cried.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
You know, I sitting here, alive thanks to animal testing, knowing that millions and millions of others are also alive for the same reason, and wonder what the problem is?
Maybe cosmetics and some household products could be tested in other ways, but medications *MUST* be tested on animals. There simply is no other way.
Or would those LVers who argue against animal testing rather I be dead?
That’s not merely a rhetorical question, nor is it asked for the sake of shocking anyone. It is a real problem, real people face, every single day. I will face it every day for the rest of my life. A life I owe to animal testing.
All of the drugs I take, the ones that make it possible to exist without pain so severe I’d rather die than live with it; the ones that make it possible to exist knowing that the pain lives just under my conscious perception, that the pain is really there, but in disguise; the ones that make it possible for my thyroid, which had to be “nuked” 25 years ago, to operate at normal levels; the ones that make it possible for me to digest my food normally, which the drugs I take for pain make impossible; the ones that make it possible for me to sleep, the side-effects of several of my drugs, while making fatigue a constant in my life, make sleep almost impossible; the ones I take when my major pain pills are not enough, and the pain attacks me anyway…and there are many more.
These drugs have all been tested on animals first. They are tested to be sure they don’t cause more harm than good, to be sure they don’t kill rather than placate or cure.
I’m not getting into cosmetics or household cleaners. I’m just talking medicines; lifesaving medicines.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
segue,
I have already posed that question above with you in particular in mind, but others here as well. That makes it real: people they are actually communicating with, not a comfortabe impersonal hypothesis.
Result? Nobody, assuming I’ve read carefully, has faced the issue. Not Dr Lecter, not nerdlette, or any others. If anything at all, they duck the problem by claiming the same result could be obtained (could have been obtained?) as easily by alternative methods. So they know better than the medical profession then? They would listen to and prefer the opinions of a flight hostess who told them an airliner could fly with half the wing area, rather than believe an aeronautical engineer? And fly in that same ‘plane? (Relevant since I also posed the same question regarding themselves and their nearest and dearest.) Sadly I find this sort of inability to face real and actual situations all too prevalent in postings of this type. Nothing easier than a gut opinion without the reponsibility and consequences that go with it.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Tempyra,
I did only say many (not all) of your mountain flowers are white. But I love those too. All your ourisias (we have the rest, the coloured ones, here, apart from one in Tasmania) and celmisias. Cotula atrata is really special. The blue orchids are thelymitras. Don’t forget all those superb yellow mountain buttercups either (Ranunculus). And some really unusual forget-me-nots in remarkable colour shades too. Nor all the colourful berries on dwarf shrublets.
Believe it or not, we have an esteemed Kiwi lady botanist colleague living and working here whose speciality back home was Ourisia. She works on the Andean flora here.
I spent an all too short working visit in Christchurch. We were taken to Mt Hutt and Arthur’s Pass. Photos to prove it.
Dame Kiri for president of the United Nations!
(All the Latin epithets were in italics in the file, but the posting window here knocks them out when I copy and transfer!)
August 19th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
kiwiboi (108): hahah funniest comment all day
August 19th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Anon: Wow, that’s pretty cool about the Kiwi botanist in Chile. She’d (or you) probably know/know of some of my university lecturers from NZ – Len Gillman, Steve O’Shea (he’s a marine biologist, but quite well known in NZ scientific circles) come to mind.
segue (and Anon’s reply to): I think sometimes it’s important to set aside the personal aspects of ideas and concepts sometimes and just debate ‘objectively.’ I don’t forget that there are real people out there who depend on these medicines and that I’ve benefited from them in the past though – that would be hypocritical.
I guess most of us who wish animal testing wasn’t happening are doing so on the basis that there IS an alternative or we should be finding an equally effective alternative – not that scientists should just give up on testing medicines and procedures altogether.
Hopefully that made sense
August 19th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Tempyra, (264),
Speaking for myself, agreed absolutely. I could hardly wish differently, regarding the total replacement of animals by other methods and so it appears to me does everyone else reasonable, wherever they are coming from. A friend of mine similarly hopes we’ll soon be able to grow steaks and fish fillets as tissue cultures and scrap slaughter houses and piles of shining, flapping finny ones. (Although a French master at school argued for meat eating and bull-fighting, claiming with perfect logic that these animals are only bred for our benefit and would not exist otherwise. He consequently asked whether we boys would rather not have existed at all, or would prefer the life we’d already had perhaps plus more. Most were unhappy about the unhappy ending though! A bit like the basis of the LV abortion debate in a way.)
I think one can simultaneously be both objective but try to bear in mind all the practical effects of one’s debating stance. I would say not to do so makes any viewpoint pretty pointless, if you’ll pardon the oxymoron. Unfortunately, that’s what too many do.
I came to rigorous scientific practice very late. I was well into my 50s before I began serious researching and publishing peer-reviewed papers and the like, which I’ve been doing quite regularly ever since. I started out my career as a generalist, merely recording what I’d seen and done. The main requirement was to narrate something interesting at a moderately intelligent level, even though at times others used it as the basis of their *high* science. Hopefully this background allows me to make the following comment without seeming overly patronising and elitist. Well, if not, tough shit, as they say in the academic world.
I’d always considered myself open-minded, not short of curiosity and with a careful, logical turn of mind. However, I’m constantly astonished how much these faculties have been sharpened and tightened by the need to provide watertight and convincing scientific proof that is acceptable to other specialists who’ve devoted a lifetime to *the business*. I’m not particularly good either. Anyone who doesn’t realise how demanding this sort of discipline is should try it for themselves.
I’ve not failed to observe in LV the careful presentations by those who spend their lives under similar intellectual pressures. How they contrast with others who just issue woolly or absurd ideas originating from some portion of their anatomy that has little to do with that instrument of such wonderful potential: the human brain.
By the way, don’t for a moment think I’m setting up scientists as some kind of infallible deities. Far from it. I’ve run into shitty, cheating ones, mistaken ones and elitist snobs. Scientists are as human as the rest. But at least the truth will always out in science where facts can be challenged and proved. You’ll always tell good scientists anyway. They’re respected.
I commented earlier that LV is rather like a cross between a pub and a classy debating society. Too much pub sometimes, I fear. Several posters would never get their first assertion past a good debater, let alone a practiced scientist or legal counsel.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Anon: I wanna be a scientist when I grow up
“I think one can simultaneously be both objective but try to bear in mind all the practical effects of one’s debating stance.”
That’s what I aim for (when I am not playing the Devil’s advocate).
August 20th, 2008 at 1:36 am
Tempyra: I recognise Len Gillman, where does he lecture?
August 20th, 2008 at 1:50 am
Phil: As of 2005 (when I finished uni) he was lecturing at Auckland University of Technology.
You’re a kiwi aren’t you? Steve O’Shea is the giant squid guy who is often on TV whenever they find one of them. You’ve probably heard of him too.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:56 am
Yeah remember now, I did a few ecology papers with him, was AIT then though. Cheers.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:00 am
Phil: Did he call possums ‘pozzims’ back then?
August 20th, 2008 at 2:11 am
Dont recall, remember bush crashing in Pureora to measure the trunks of trees to calculate species density, was heaps of fun.
August 20th, 2008 at 2:17 am
Phil: Hah, I did that too! It was so much fun.
We went in the middle of winter when it was the off-season for hikers/walkers – coincidentally, the Department of Conservation decided to do an aerial drop of 1080 pellets that day. We got bombed with them
August 20th, 2008 at 5:21 am
Wooty you took the words right out of my mouth! Good one
August 20th, 2008 at 6:13 am
Janus:
*sigh*… okay, you wanna play, we can play, creep.
I’ll repeat one obvious thing about you—you have zero sense of humor. And you’ve got a piss-poor wit overall, but we’ll come to that in a second. Also, you’re morally reprehensible, but that’s a separate argument.
“your responses continually prove my (and others) point”
A pitifully TINY handful of others, Janus. You and MAYBE five or six others AT MOST. And that’s wracking my brain to think of the obviously obnoxious idiots I’ve tangled with on this site, in the entire time I’ve been here. So get over yourself already.
As for my responses proving your point–let’s have a poll, shall we? Let’s see how many people agree with you.
I’m frankly sick to death of having my heels snapped at by whiney little prima donnas such as yourself. NONE of this is about the substance of anything I ever say in terms of a particular topic. If you don’t like the way I comport myself on this site, then do one of two things: A) complain to the site manager or B) shut the hell up and ignore me. Because other than that I have absolutely NO idea whatsoever what you or anyone else like you hopes to accomplish by these snide little lectures and attacks directed my way. What is it, Janus? Do you think you’ll drive me away from here? Fat chance. Do you think you’ll swing public opinion against me? Good luck with that. Again as I suggested, ask around. Take a poll. Better yet, get a vote going to ask Jamie to remove me from the site. See how many members here you can get behind you on that.
I can’t imagine *what else* you could hope to accomplish by these constant little bitchy chastisements of me. You’re only serving to waste your time (and mine. And I have a sense mine’s more valuable than yours–in part because I choose not to go around hunting up the people I dislike here, just so I can gadfly them, as you do).
The harassment won’t work, so find a new hobby, Janus.
” – you don’t have to insult to state your opinion or prove your point. Your points and opinion are more effective without them.”
Janus, this is going to come as a shock to you–BUT I DON’T CARE ABOUT YOUR OPINION OF HOW I SHOULD CONDUCT MY ARGUMENTS. STOP giving me advice, therefore, because A) it wasn’t asked for and B) I don’t want it.
It’s funny–for someone preaching better manners to ME, you seem to have no grasp at all of the rudeness of continually offering advice that was unasked-for and is clearly not wanted. Didn’t mom teach you that one, Janus, in between telling you not to chew with your mouth full and to hold your fork and knife properly?
“And you were correct – I should have said 99% of your first posts on a subject are laced with insults to the list-creator. My apologies on depriving your 1%.”
And here we address the poor quality of your wit. THIS is the best you could come up with to slam me?
You didn’t have the wit or brains to come up with something better? Like, oh… say, “the percentage of insulting comments you make, Randall, is larger than the Gross National Product of most small Caribbean nations”… or “your percentage of insulting comments is greater than the percentage of lame Ben Affleck performances, which is saying a lot..”
No doubt because you are clearly the block of wood you appear to be, Janus.
“Also, you’re so busy correcting me, you didn’t even comment on my subject matter (see above to Logar), unless you didn’t deem it worthy of your superior opinion.”
You want my attention clearly. I’ll indulge you. But one last thought–you might want to look into this problem you have–snapping at me like a pekingnese and then clamoring for me to address you.
“It seems like a no-brainer to me. why should we (society, taxpayers) spend billions housing dangerous death-row inmates, when we could be “recycling” them (in a manner of speaking).”
Uh huh. So… a society that prides itself (as we somewhat hypocritically do) on being humane, on charity and kindness, on maintaining what we consider a civilized standard of decency and reason–something we’ve ever been striving for since, oh… at least the 18th century… we should now start experimenting on other human beings? Line up all the condemned inmates and inject this one with herpes virus, that one with AIDS, that one with tuberculosis, etc., etc., so we can test vaccines and procedures for treatment? That’s your great idea, huh, Janus? Nice one. You would have got along quite well at Dachau or Buchenwald. Those cats would have *loved* you.
Firstly, as I’ve just pointed out, your suggestion is morally reprehensible and disgusting. Amongst a dozen other reasons, it is so because the whole point to being civilized is that we are ever striving to maintain a standard of decency and propriety that offers a vision of what’s RIGHT and BETTER. So that in a moral sense we can say to the criminal, YOU have crossed the line–and HERE is that line. I suppose it never occurred to you that REMOVING that line by then experimenting on said criminals would be… kinda counterproductive and also *revolting.* Guess not. Thank god people like you aren’t in charge of our civilization… it wouldn’t BE “civilization” for long.
Secondly, your suggestion is inane and ignorant. As I and others have pointed out before this, trying to use humans for all the medical and scientific testing necessary in today’s world would be logistically impossible and grossly inefficient. Do you have ANY idea of the nature of the VAST BULK of medical/science testing that goes on, Janus, in labs across the country? Clearly not. It often involves the necessity of thousands of test subjects, and rollovers of generations, in as short a time frame as possible. Perhaps you’d like to start experimenting on unwanted babies next? Not to mention the fact that a great deal of testing is done on organ systems… hearts, brains, kidneys–easier by far to do this with an animal than with a human, who would be AWARE of what was being done to him/her—can you see the difficulties, the complications?
You’re not only a tiresome annoyance, Janus–you’re morally vapid and moronic to boot.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:38 am
segue (#251)
No I mean Denis Leary. The comedian. Denis’ main claims to fame are: stealing material from fellow comedian Bill Hicks, smoking, appearing in numerous films, (Demolition Man, The Sandlot, Ice Age etc, starring in his own sitcom/dramatic TV shows like “Rescue Me” and others and getting his start on MTV commercials.
The quote comes from his Showtime comedy special “No Cure for Cancer.” It’s quite funny.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:43 am
bucslim:
You forgot Denis’ “Traditional Irish Folk Song,” one of the funniest things in a thousand years, IMHO.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:48 am
Randall – not to get off topic, but I love Denis. No Cure for Cancer was just friggen brilliant. I like the Voices in my Head song too.
At least I thought it was until I saw Bill Hicks on HBO last week. I guess the rumors of Denis taking some material from Bill were true. Yikes!
What an A-SS-HO-LE!
August 20th, 2008 at 7:14 am
Well, bucslim, thanks for clearing up the Leary misunderstanding for me, but as for the rest of this this list…I’m outta here.
It’s a very serious issue, and it deserves more than popping-off opinions learned from the scandal rags sold at supermarket checkout lanes and PETA leaflets.
Since I owe my very existence to animal testing, I’ve had quite enough of the sheer idiocy displayed by those who have no idea about what they’re on about.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:15 am
buc:
Bill Hicks was great, yes… and a sad loss.
I don’t know what Denis stole from Bill… you’d have to point out what it was exactly. But I highly doubt it was Bill’s entire act. Stand-ups borrow from one another at times… and with Hicks no longer with us, it isn’t like he’s going to mind… plus, it isn’t like we saw him one night on Letterman and then a week later Leary did the same joke. My guess is, Leary unconsciously or maybe consciously grabbed a few of Bill Hicks’ jokes, recycled them, and in a sense we can say it’s out of respect–Bill Hicks is beloved amongst stand-up comics–though not well known in the mainstream world. He told great jokes, but we don’t get to hear them because he’s not around anymore. Leary is.
It’s not a great argument, but maybe that’s all there is to it.
Anyway, I love both these guys… they’re both funny as hell.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Anon: The look of the yellow buggers is almost enough to make me repent. They never used to be able to over-winter here, a few always came up with produce from the south but were unsuccessful at breeding. Months of sub-zero weather prevented their success; now we’re lucky if it stays that cold for longer than a couple weeks at a time. So I guess they’re here to stay. It isn’t all bad – we’re also seeing more species of birds as they venture further north.
Too bad baby harp seals didn’t look more like possums; it is a lot harder to personify a big rat than a giant-eyed furry mammal. The main reason why there is any debate in the first place.
August 20th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Mom,
Just to keep it off-topic! You’re surely imagining possum-attracting to your land has anything to do with the myth of climate change (see many LV global warming topic responses, etc.)? There must be some other reason. Ah yes, of course, I didn’t read carefully enough. If, and that’s a huge if, there is any, and that’s a tiny any, abnormal change, it’s due to natural causes, because instant major global climate changes have been happening for ever and always since the earth began. How silly of me.
Apparently the warmer waters around our Antarctic ice shelf have encouraged sharks to approach ever closer and look in and lick their lips (imagine?) at all the tasty defenseless morsels waiting to be eaten given another degree or so rise in temp. Do we do any medical experimentation on sharks, apart from mending the poor sods who get their toothy-peg-marks in the rib-cage and bits that thrash when you swim?
Your possums remind me of the great northward migratory surge of the armadillo, our South American giant mammalian woodlouse with the running capacity of a Felix. Now there’s an endearing, cuddly-looking beast, if ever there was one. Never fails to provoke a soft “Ahhhh” sigh from Anita. In Patagonia we have to keep rescuing them from sheep (rarely cattle) grids. They drop in and can’t escape, so soon die of hunger. Well, a few degrees more and you can look forward to those as a pleasant change from possums!
August 20th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Rand ‘n’ buc,
Haven’t had the pleasure of the comeeds of what you speak. However the late Benny Hill (and lamented everywhere except in his native Britain, being a prophet of that land) was famed for material theft. All the more irritating to the victims since he tended to do the larceny as well or better and over a far wider geographical range to a vaster audience.
Victims included at least one American. I can’t name the name offhand. I have a biography of Hill, ‘Funny, Peculiar’, but I’m too pressed to look it up. I do remember that he stole his *Chinese character* from that source.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:19 am
kiwiboi (108): hahah funniest comment all day
jfrater – nice of you to say, but it was a tired old joke.
Besides, when it comes to humour on LV, bucslim is the daddy! A genuinely funny guy
August 20th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
kiwiboi, (283),
Read directly above you here about comedians filching other’s material. No honour in that world. Keep mum (or mom) and take all the plaudits that come. If nobody latches on, you’re home and dry, squire.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
i say yes but only under certain conditions. its okay but not okay. if that makes sence. =D
August 21st, 2008 at 3:34 am
First of all, I think we should look at the many things we have learned about animals over the recent years, showing us just how incredibly similar they are to us, and regard that in our thoughts on animal testing.
I think that if the substance being tested may one day save a human life, then fine, test it on an animal first. At the same time, we should be actively looking for other ways to test these substances without using animals, and not just write off the issue as “oh sure, it’s fine, just keep testing.”
Finally, there are, obviously, substances that should not be tested on animals at all, like cosmetics. If there is any question that the synthetic (or organic) chemical used in a makeup might damage a person, then don’t use it. There’s plenty of formulas out there that work just fine.
August 21st, 2008 at 11:24 am
Hmm… I must admit, I would rather kill an animal than kill a human. Hell, I’d rather kill a thousand rats or rabbits; even a hundred chimps, to save the life of one human. Is not human life more precious to humans than any other species of creature on earth?
Oh sure, one could argue that testing humans exclusively gives the best possible accurate results, and that we could perform the tests on murderers and rapists (if they die, no great loss, right?!?) – it has happened before, and probably still does in some countries…
Something many people just don’t realize is that researchers don’t set out to kill the animals… they set out to perform the research. If they were intent on killing animals, what would be the point, except to prove they can kill?
Okay, so my answer to the question fo whether it’s “necessary” to test on animals: No, it’s not necessary, but it sure beats the alternatives!
August 21st, 2008 at 11:27 am
“Is not human life more precious to humans than any other species of creature on earth?”
Fuck no.
Someone make a logical argument for this. I’d love to hear it.
August 21st, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Penn and Teller did a great take on this issue in their TV programme, “Bullshit”. My particularly favourite part was the head of PETA being a type 2 diabetic, needing insulin and campaigning against animal testing while, of course, taking the drug which was discovered and tested on animals.
Insulin makes this an open and shut case. Positive drugs, many positive drugs come from animal testing. So we should test on them. Yes, we should make sure it doesn’t get out of hand or overly cruel but we should test.
August 21st, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Heh, Chris… though the question was effectively rhetorical, the truth of the matter is that we’re deeply in the realm of subjectivity. Values, needs and perceptions of the individual determine each person’s response/reaction to that question. Intrinsically, no life is any more or less precious than any other. Few species at all can even comprehend such a concept, at least as far as we humans can observe and/or deduce.
While all life has its value, I would propose that there are those lives which are of greater value to us than others… namely, our own.
August 21st, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Next questions along the line.
So the impersonal conclusion here that human lives are more important than all others. There I go with another oxymoron.
So, please answer me. Are some human lives more important than others? If so, on what basis or bases? I know my general reply, but would struggle with the particular. There are million and one moral dilemmas hanging on that one. So let’s say (I was going to put *hope*) you agree with me that they are. Shall we say Einstein, a Jew, is of more value than Hitler. Now. Which life would you consider more important, that of Hitler, a human being like you and me, or the last mountain gorilla in existence? And if you give the same answer as I would, start to think of the implications behind it.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Here’s a further thinking point.
Consider poaching by humans in African wildlife parks. This can lead to shoot-outs where our same human species is killed by ourselves (park rangers) in defence of other species. Now this only happens as a last unwanted resort. But it happens. And park rangers are civilised, greatly admired people sponsored by a reasonable, democratic state. We are not talking about emotional animal loons here. You may say that is unavoidable. That the poachers have walked into the situation and the rangers kill in self-defence. Well, if human life truly is to be valued over all other species, why not simply let the poachers kill every animal until none remain, like the passenger pigeon? That way there is absolutelty no possibility that one human will be killed by another protecting an animal.
However, if the violent anti-personnel reaction of a Dian Fossey at the *murder* of animals who were her friends, and whose confidence she had won so hardly strikes anyone as unbalanced, I would propose the following. I believe that even on LV you would find ordinary, decent dog-owners who, if their pet and friend was being tortured by some sadist, and that led to armed confrontation, would feel justified in killing that member of their own species in defence of another species.
August 21st, 2008 at 7:49 pm
@ everyone who rejected my post
There is nothing natural about animal testing. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not saying nature isn’t cruel, but nature is, well, NATURAL. Animal testing is inhumane. Animals in testing facilities, both cosmetic and medical, suffer for our benefit, somewhat needlessly, may I add. With current technology, they can essentially grow human skin. Instead of testing products on a live rabbit’s eye, they can test on donated corneas and achieve the same effect, even more accurately.
ESPECIALLY considering modern technology there is no logic or justification behind animal testing.
August 21st, 2008 at 7:58 pm
And Callie, how is it that a bunch of sick, sickening people harming your innocent dog justifies cruelty in testing facilities?
That’s like saying it’s ok that a kid is beaten by his parents just because another kid gets abused more severely.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:00 pm
nerdlette,
to test on one tissue is completely different from testing on an entire organism. you cannot just look at the tissue being tested but how it affects the entire animal. and while it might not be NORMAL, it is entirely necessary…millions of drugs have been developed and proved to be useful for humans and millions have been proved to be harmful. Without testing on animals, millions of humans would have died.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:29 pm
nedlette,
The question stands. You haven’t answered. You’d prefer someone you loved, YOU LOVED, died rather than have animal testing, if that was the alternative?
People on this site KNOW they are alive today because their life-saving medicaments were tested on animals and there was no alternative. They KNOW that. What is your answer to them? They are here ready to read it.
Nobody, but nobody disagrees with your wish for alternatives. When and if they exist they are and will be used.
Meanwhile?
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:39 am
nerdlette:
I detest having to repeat myself. Clearly you didn’t READ any of my posts (sounds like you didn’t read many of anyone else’s either). I suggest that you go back and do so. Now.
You are laboring under a terrible misconception if you think technology today can replace animal testing. It simply can’t.
Again, go up and read my comments and those of Slickwilly and some others.
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:40 am
Moreover, nerdlette, you’re laboring under a misconception if you think animals in labs are suffering. Again, go back and read my comments.
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:47 am
I am against animal testing. The animals are not created to be tortured and agony in our labs. Regarding to tests:
1- Some of these tests have no applicable results for humans; they are done only to satisfy the curiosity of some so called “scientists”.
2- Some of these tests are being done to calculate the toxicity of materials used in cosmetic and household products. Don’t we have enough raw materials to produce these products? And if someone says “No, I want a lipstick whose colour changes each 20 minutes or a hair colour which lasts 2 years”, why should not these materials be tested on herself/ himself? Why should it be tested on hundreds of rabbits and mice, who never use any cosmetic and household products?
3- Regarding to drugs production, it’s proven that animal testing is not a safety guarantee for drugs. As long as a drug is not tested on human beings, it cannot be considered as safe or not safe. There are many methods (like computer simulation and in-vitro tests) to estimate the safety and effectiveness of drugs and other materials in the first step. In clinical phase however the drugs should be tested on humans in very small doses. To response to people, who say “if not on animals, should the drugs be tested on humans?!!!!” I would say:
- Even with animal testing, all drugs are tested on humans and if you think, animal testing make them safer to be tested on humans, many experiences don’t prove this idea.
- What do you call really drug? ALONE IN GERMANY there are 370 different so called “drugs” whose effective material is Amoxicillin, for Ibuprofen, ALONE IN GERMANY there are 394 combinations… They are all the same but produced by different companies. Can you imagine how many companies in the world have produced the same drugs in different packages? Nevertheless, they all should be tested on animals! According to WHO (World Health Organisation) there are only 325 effective materials for curing diseases. What do you think? How many effective materials are discovered each year? 1? 2? How many of them are discovered using animal tests and more important: how many of them could not be discovered without animal testing? Do you know how many animals are tortured in labs annually? Alone in America, circa 100,000,000, alone in Germany 2,000,000, alone in England 3,000,000…
- If you would categorize Viagra and Botax and and and… in drugs, I’d again say, if a 40 year old woman wants to look like a 35 years old woman, why this material should not be tested on herself? If a man wants…, why should this not be tested on himself?
- If we are talking about discovering drugs to cure fatal diseases, suppose the people who have dangerous and fatal diseases would become volunteers to test the new drugs? What’s wrong with it? Why should we be so selfish to say: “I have a disease, so thousands or even hundreds of thousands of animals should suffer, be tortured and killed, so maybe they would find a relief or cure for my suffering? “ WHAT DOES GIVE US THIS RIGHT? WHAT ARE WE REALLY?
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:52 am
I think its incredibly cruel to perform test on animals, they cant say that they do not want to do it, its just expected of them to be unwilling participants. I mean, why test stuff on animals when you get so many weird people out there willing to try anything. At least they will have a choice in the matter if they hear what the outcome might be.
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:55 am
Why dont they perform testing on rapist, serial killer, murderers ex.
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:36 am
OHH!! Hey Talin(299), I seem to recall a list in the not-too-distant past that gave us scientists and researchers who died from their experiments (either directly or later due to various complications)… imagine a world where all the scientists did experiments on themselves only instead of on animals…
Humanity would not have much in the line of innovation, medical cures, etc., if/when the vast majority of our intellectual elite died off, now would we?
Oh, and on your #1 item, interesting opinion there.
According to the US Patent Office (a long time ago), everything that could be invented was… hmmm…. look how far we’ve come since then. The WHO certainly cannot know precise numbers of what ‘materials’ are now, and ever will be, curative.
My final argument on animal testing here, in response to those who would simply test directly on humans (willing ones or otherwise): A primary purpose in testing on animals is to provide the litmus-level analysis of a drug/chemical/product to determine the most likely effect on humans. Now, we all know that human trials even after the litmus tests on animals have returned serious, if not deadly results at times. But consider the number of deaths and serious injury we’d see if we DIDN’T at least start with the animals.
The use of certain species of animals is intended to make these tests more accurate/valid in relation to humans (genetically, physiologically, etc.). Granted, there is certainly a degree of trial-and-error in this process, but scientists learn fairly quickly which animals are the better test subjects for given experiments. The key to experimentation on ANY species is to NOT lose sight of our own humanity, and to be compassionate and humane to the highest degree possible when we use animals as the subjects of our tests.
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:52 am
matthewsej:
Read my post above, #274. It explains WHY we don’t test on “murderers, rapists,” and the like.
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:18 am
Talin:
You apparently chose not to read any of the previous posts here before commenting. Your arguments have already been repeatedly addressed and blasted here.
“I am against animal testing. The animals are not created to be tortured and agony in our labs.”
Firstly, Talin, it is a myth that animals in labs are “tortured” and are in “agony.” As I and other here have said ad nauseum, I work at a major university and around the very kind of labs we’re talking about. Animals there are NOT tortured and are treated with great respect and as much kindness as possible. Indeed, there are very strict laws and rules governing the treatment of lab animals in this country.
You clearly, therefore, don’t know what you’re talking about and are thinking propagandistically. Get the truth before you formulate opinions.
“1- Some of these tests have no applicable results for humans; they are done only to satisfy the curiosity of some so called “scientists”.”
Bullshit. Again, this nonsense has already been addressed here repeatedly. This statement of yours is simply and flatly untrue, and there’s no simpler way to put it.
I leave aside your comments regarding cosmetic testing, as that is a separate issue and not germane to what I’m talking about. I am addressing ONLY scientific and medical testing.
“3- Regarding to drugs production, it’s proven that animal testing is not a safety guarantee for drugs.”
WRONG. In fact most animal testing has PROVEN to be very helpful in determining the potential response of humans to these drugs. The mere fact that SOME tests have been inconclusive or even, rarely, in error, is NOT proof that animal testing doesn’t work. It only shows that NO form of testing is ever 100% ironclad conclusive. But statistically, animal testing works better than any alternative. Far better.
“As long as a drug is not tested on human beings, it cannot be considered as safe or not safe. There are many methods (like computer simulation and in-vitro tests)”
AGAIN, this has already been dismissed in this thread. You are repeating a statement which has already been dealt with… NO, computer simulations and other alternative test systems are not yet capable of replacing animal testing, not by a long shot. PERHAPS the day may come when they are–but at present the technology is nowhere near advanced enough. In regards to other forms, such as in vitro, this is NOT applicable to all test needs which are currently covered by animal testing.
You don’t have all your facts and do not have a grasp of the real issues here. And what few facts you do have are distorted.
“there are only 325 effective materials for curing diseases.”
combinations of materials cause different reactions, Talin. Your point is meaningless.
“Do you know how many animals are tortured in labs annually?”
again, Talin, animals in labs are not “tortured.” The use of that word is just pure cant.
“Alone in America, circa 100,000,000, alone in Germany 2,000,000, alone in England 3,000,000…”
We won’t even address the truth of these figures, they’re almost certainly exaggerated (insects can account for high numbers–much of the experimentation done in the labs I’m familiar with involves insects–clearly they exist in high numbers). But testing and experimentation involves *generations* of animals on many occasions. This also explains the numbers. It isn’t simply a matter animals being rounded up and done away with wholesale.
What do the numbers matter anyway? This is specious bit of emotional appeal.
“- If you would categorize Viagra and Botax and and and… in drugs, I’d again say, if a 40 year old woman wants to look like a 35 years old woman, why this material should not be tested on herself? If a man wants…, why should this not be tested on himself?”
A) these drugs were not originally created for the purpose they eventually served, so your point, again, is off the mark. And we do not experiment on humans for reasons already given above by myself and others.. particularly in comment # 274.
“- If we are talking about discovering drugs to cure fatal diseases, suppose the people who have dangerous and fatal diseases would become volunteers to test the new drugs? What’s wrong with it?”
Are you just downright insane, Talin? At any rate you clearly have no grasp of reality or the way science works in this regard. MOST of the time people do not stand around in labs going, “today let’s try to invent a new cure for cancer! We’ll throw some chemicals in a vat and see what they do!” No, rather, very small scale results for certain compounds and materials are studied over long periods of time and combinations of these are seen to cause certain responses. These are, again, over LONG periods of time, formulated into drugs eventually. But along the way there are many stages of experimentation and development. Many fail or lead nowhere.
What you’re suggesting is so off the wall in this regard that it almost doesn’t bear addressing. It’s ridiculous. Moreover, I’d love to hear you try it yourself Talin… let’s see how you’d feel if you or a loved one of yours had some potentially fatal disease, and we’ll see if you’d really be willing to swallow some compound of god knows what because it might help, when it’s never been tested before. You’re living in a fantasy world.
“WHAT DOES GIVE US THIS RIGHT? WHAT ARE WE REALLY?”
You, clearly, are emotionally and intellectually a child, regardless of your physical age. I suggest you grow up and join the rest of us in reality.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:45 am
Randall,
I couldn’t have put it more perfectly myself. All of these people that disagree with research only see the propaganda side of research; they only see what PETA and the likes put out to try to prove their point. If anyone against animal testing were to ACTUALLY do research on animal testing would see exactly what you have said: there are strict mandates on how animals are to be treated and “stored” in a facility. Also, before drugs are tested on ANY animal, there are tests done on computers and on tissues; hence they know that what they are testing does have some sort of probability that it will work…not throwing chemicals together! So again, thank you for stating so well what I have been thinking this whole time!
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:54 am
For God’s Sake. What’s going on here?
Animals are *unwilling participants* on our dinner tables. They don’t get the chance to say “No, I don’t want to be eaten” and don’t have that respected even though we know they don’t. Don’t we sacrifice animals to humans by eating them to keep alive? I’ll go further. How many animals are eaten for sheer pleasure, not because we are starving, or necessarily even particularly hungry. How does that stand in your books beside trying to find a cure for a lethal disease? Come on.
Get a sense of perspective. And to echo Randall, just grow up into the real world, some of you, wharever your physical ages.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:56 am
A *don’t* or two too far. Sorry, I’m tearing off comments, have to go out any time.
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:56 am
anna:
Thank you. Glad to be of help.
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:54 am
If any of you watch Sealab 2021, the stimutacs episode where Sparks gets everyone hooked on this pill he concocted without having it tested or approved by anyone, kind of reminds me of this. Dr. Quinn starts to challenge Sparks about the pill when he notices how messed up everyone is. Sparks then retorts (after Quinn says it hasn’t gone thru animal testing) back and says, “Why? Why does all the crap we consume have to be tested on animals first? A rat doesn’t wear lipstick, a rabbit doesn’t use hairspray, a monkey doesn’t need pills to get ramped up for hot monkey sex, it’s people, we’re miserable, so why shouldn’t we try it all first!?!?”
I think he proved a pretty good point.
August 23rd, 2008 at 11:05 am
They should test on nonces like gary glitter, better than putting them freaks on a stupid register. Make the c*nts suffer.
August 23rd, 2008 at 3:11 pm
look, i think if theres enough people out there with all these body modifications, theres got to be people willing enough to get tested on.
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Survival of the fittest
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:05 pm
I agree with you man.
But was the picture really necessesary?!
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:09 pm
But then again I might only be agreeing because I use to torture insects, and shoot birds. D:
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:22 pm
i think we should stop testing on animals and start testing on willing people, it fixes all problems, opens up new jobs, plus if we test on actual people, we might know what products actually do,…
“but wait, its dangerous people might die!”
who cares?,.. more people need to die, it can be one of the highest paying jobs, so what if its dangerous, we’re all going to die eventually, why not die on the name of science?
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Heymon, (315),
First volunteer then? Well done, very public spirited. If the cure works we’ll strike a medal in your name. If not …
August 24th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
I feel slightly betrayed, i normally agree with Jamie but this time…
Really what gives us the right to kill everything else on the planet. humans should be protecting not murdering animals.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:10 am
Sheldon Roy, (317)
“Really what gives us the right to kill everything else on the planet. humans should be protecting not murdering animals.”
Are you a vegan? Do you picket butcher’s shops and farms with a placard stating that? Do you stand between mosquitoes and flies and sprays to protect them from insecticide? Are you happy for dwellings and foodstores to be overrun by plagues of rodents and cockroaches? What exactly do you mean by *murdering* (my dictionary gives “kill (human being) unlawfully”. Have you studied animal testing thoroughly?
A little moderation and mature reflection, please.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:16 am
No i’m not vegan or vegetarian. I have nothing against eating animals. I do have something against pumping them full of poison. I do suppose “murder” isn’t the correct word to use in this situaton.
P.S. “my dictionary gives “kill (human being) unlawfully” so in your book decapitation, hangings, firering squad, leathal injection and the like AREN’T murder. What makes them so nice?
August 25th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Sheldon Roy, (319),
My dear friend. Learn to use words correctly and in the proper context. You may then argue and express yourself better.
Is *murder* the only word that works for you when faced by a form of induced death you don’t like? Have you never heard of the word *justified* in terms of legal executions? It so happens I’m strongly against the death penalty myself, but I would never ever refer to it as murder. For one very good reason – it would debase the word *murder*. Neither you or I invented that word. If the dictionary gives it as the unlawful killing of another human being(note the *UN*, by the way), then that is the correct definition and the one educated people will know and understand in a serious discussion, like it or not.
“I do have something against pumping them full of poison.”
Well, like so many of your kind here, you clearly haven’t bothered to read any of the careful and well-informed postings above. Maybe someone will come and disabuse you of that over-hyped cant. I certainly don’t have the time or inclination.
Meanwhile though, and think very carefully before you answer, here’s a question. So if it’s a choice between a rat and you living, or someone you love living, or someone who is reading this living, or countless children living, you would rather you or they all died and the rat lived? That’s where your point leads, and there’s no backing away from it.
August 25th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Your logic is undeniable, i would save a human before a rat, I guess i just wish there were a better way we could test these drugs. My only problem is that the rat never did anything to us. (how about we test on death row inmates from now on?)
August 25th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Sheldon Roy, (321),
We arew all agreed on wishing there was a better way. I recommend you read through this whole topic carefully. The comments really interesting, thoughtful, in many cases well-informed and humane virtually without exception.
Testing on humans has also been debated above. I’ve avoided the ethics, morality and practicality of that one. (I seem to remeber it actually has either happened or was proposed on a voluntary basis somewhere in the U.S.) There’s a limit as to how much one can post and I’m already well beyond it!
Thanks for your considered reply.
August 25th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Sorry the above was written off a bit carelessly
August 25th, 2008 at 8:59 am
I enjoyed this, we should do it again somtime
August 25th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
First off, I really like your website with the fun lists and facts, sound bits and pictures. You have lots of fun ideas and a creative outlet for them. You are way off on the fast food list by the way
)
On this subject, I couldn’t disagree with you more. Why is it that humans think they are so much more important than other species of life. It is sickening how quickly you say ‘yes’ we should test on animals, when you are an animal yourself. All I have to imagine is there being a superior race on the earth to human beings in strength and intelligence; would it be alright for them to poke and prod us any way they see fit in order to ensure their survival. The ego is an amazing thing. Get a clue and keep making fun lists.
Sincerely,
Eric M. Basser
August 25th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Eric Basser,
“On this subject, I couldn’t disagree with you more. Why is it that humans think they are so much more important than other species of life. It is sickening how quickly you say ‘yes’ we should test on animals, when you are an animal yourself. All I have to imagine is there being a superior race on the earth to human beings in strength and intelligence; would it be alright for them to poke and prod us any way they see fit in order to ensure their survival. The ego is an amazing thing. Get a clue and keep making fun lists.”
Every organism on the face of the earth *considers* itself more important than any other organism (it interacts with), unless symbiosis is involved. Even then its beneficial reaction with others has evolved as survival self-interest. Of course creatures and plants don’t tell us that. We observe it perfectly in their every action. That is a primary factor of biology, evolution and survival. Empathy, objective pleasurable interest based on curiosity, and mercy are almost uniquely evolved human qualities (the higher apes show some tendancies of the second at times), when we can afford them. They are far from common to every human, and very seldom present in any individual all the time. We are also beginning to develop a realisation of the importance of ecosystems and biodiversity, both for our own survival, for abstract scientific reasons, and for spiritual enrichment. All those could be attributed to self-interest in the widest sense. But perhaps our development in these directions may be *too little and too late*.
I wouldn’t doubt for a moment that if a species more technologically advanced than we are were to reach us, whether from here on earth or from some point in space, say, and found that using us in any way would foster its survival, it would unhesitatingly do so. Why on earth not? It would be up to us to resist if we were able (’War of the Worlds’, etc.) Our biggest hope would be a race of Diane Fosseys or David Attenboroughs, who might at least be inclined to do their sympathetic best for us. Or an entity that found our technical abilities of value and formed a partnership with us or treated us as slaves, but benignly (both are froms of symbiosis).
Any organism that parasitices or otherwise benefits from harming human beings doesn’t have the slightest hesitation in doing so.
The very diversity of views and opinions, and the conflicts here prove the value of this sort of list, Mr Basser. Or should we all accept your opinion without question and run off to fun sites (to die, if our medicines depended on animal testing)?
By the way, when you say “how quickly”. have you read carefully through all the soul-searching that has gone on ahead of you here? I don’t think you’ve read a word, or if you have you haven’t understood. Who are you to tell others to “get a clue”?????
August 25th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Rather late auto-correction:
Third para from end, 4th word:
parasitizes
August 26th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Why can’t we all just get along
First off mr scientist, this is a moral question. . .not just a question of biology and survival. The mere fact that your dumb ass has the ability to make conscious decisions shows that you can understand the difference between right and wrong. And to be even more clear, when I say right and wrong, I don’t mean it is wrong to lie and right to tell the truth. I mean right and wrong on a spiritual level. It goes against the grain of what is good to kill these innocent animals. It is wrong to enslave and torture beautiful creatures that share the earth with us. You call this symbiosis. Biology?
In ‘your’ words “Empathy, objective pleasurable interest based on curiosity, and mercy are almost uniquely evolved human qualities” (Animals and Modern Cultures, right.) I say we should evolve to care about animals because we realize that all things on the earth have an equal value, and are not just here as resources for the strongest beings. I say hate is a uniquely evolved quality that we nurture through science. Building better bombs, guns and bullets– but lets test on animals. Its more of this lets kill to protect bs that seems to be so accepted by our society.
Are you a Christian, Atheist, or Agnostic? One of these I am sure. Please tell me you are a Christian because then we really need to talk.
The most important question, addressed very well by someone earlier in this chain, is Are we even testing on these animals for survival reasons? I think the overwhelming answer is no.
“Every year, millions of animals suffer and die in painful tests to determine the “safety” of cosmetics and household products. Substances ranging from eye shadow and soap to furniture polish and oven cleaner are tested on rabbits, rats, guinea pigs, dogs, and other animals, despite the fact that test results do not help prevent or treat human illness or injury.”
http://www.thenazareneway.com/vegetarian/animal_testing_toxic__tragic.htm
I suggest we start a list of people that volunteer to get tested in these labs for THE GOOD OF HUMAN SURVIVAL
1. You
2. Your family
3. Your dog
4. Your cat
We will make sure they do a test for cancer on your dog and cat and not for the safety of eyeliner, ok.
Why are we so much more valuable than a rat or a monkey or even a fly my friend. We are not. And did you say that slavery is a form of symbiosis. So we have adapted to have animals as our bitches, huh. It’s the natural order of things. What a joke. Does this world seem to be running very naturally now. Let’s create fish in captivity so we can eat them, lets heard all the animals of the earth up and eat them. Let’s dig up all the oil and build over everything beautiful. This starts with your belief that the ends justify the means.
NOTE: Unless you believe 100% in the survival of the fittest, then it is every thing for its-self, pure biology and it doesn’t really matter what we do to each other. Every thing for it’s self!
2nd Note: A heard of super smart super rats was spotted crossing into the u.s . from Canada early yesterday morning. It is unclear what their intentions are, but we can only hope they come in peace :_)
No hard feelings, love to argue. Have a good one!
August 26th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Yes.
August 27th, 2008 at 5:21 am
So I suppose I’m the only one that finds the rabbits extremely sexy when they’re all glammed up in their make-up..
Also, perhaps the beagles enjoy a good smoke now and then, perhaps they’re in flavour country..
August 27th, 2008 at 5:22 am
Plus.. You’ve got to test oven cleaner on only the cutest puppies, it’s nowhere near as funny on the ugly ones.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:26 am
My personal favourite is setting fire to puppies to make sure that my cute-little-baby-puppy-skin coat doesn’t catch fire when my beagle drops his cigarette.. Also, does anyone find that you have to wrap duct tape round those rabbits with make-up on? You know, so they don’t explode when you f*ck ‘em.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:52 am
animal testing is essiental to human advancment every single mouse in the world is worth less than one human and if a few mice have to die to further mankind so be it. and that goes for any animal
August 27th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Craig, what the fuck makes you worth more than any animal. What have you done for this planet?
August 27th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
craig and Sheldon Roy (333.334),
Worth? What’s worth got to do with it?, as Tina Turner might say.
I’m assuming you mean worth as a conscious valuation as in a cent is worth more than a dollar, or, if you want to get on dodgy moral ground, as it will depend on a whole heap of your personal and cultural values, Sister Theresa and Einstein are worth more than Hitler and Stalin (but at least the vast majority would agree).
A lion doesn’t say “I’m *worth* more than a gnu.” It makes the point by eating the gnu. The gnu, on the other hand, *feels* equally strongly it’s *worth* more than the lion and makes the point by dodging and running away from the lion. A new concept: survival of the worthiest?
O.K., so the worthiest people often don’t survive, you’re going to tell me. They get gassed in gas chambers, killed in accidents and wars, die of disease and God knows what else. Well (a) that just proves how random worth is and (b) worth is pretty worthless if you cannot express it.
And please. What have you done for this planet? What in the name of minimally intelligent argument does that question mean? Right at this moment in time, arguably the best thing you can have done for this planet if you really care so strongly for the other organisms that inhabit it is not to have existed at all. Or as the song has it, “Why was he born so beautiful …”
August 27th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Anon, you are 100% right. Mankind has does nothing to help the planet. I’m not religious but if I was I would say humanity was gods biggest mistake. Why do you think he drowned all of us in that there flood. As it stands we are the worst thing to have evolved. If I had 3 wishes the last one would be that humans never existed.
August 27th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Captain Supremo III~ could you please stop filling up this forum with your mindless comments? I know plenty of people who are here to want a serious “conversation” over wether animal testing is ethical or not, and your just making fun off a very serious subject of which a lot of people want to participate in. So if you have nothing ethical or remotely intelligent to say, then do NOT say anything at all!
August 27th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
I am a 2nd year med student who currently works in a research lab that does animal testing. We test new cardiac devices in an in vitro apparatus that allows us to visualize the inside of the heart while it is pumping, and take images on b. Pretty much any cardiac device produced by medtronic over the past 10 years was tested in our lab first.
In fact, if you plan on using anything medical or health related product produced in the last 30 years, including drugs, devices, basically anything that interacts with the human body, you should know that it was tested on an animal.
If anyone plans on boycotting animal testing by not using animal-tested products, don’t plan on getting any healthcare treatment. Like I said, EVERY medical device.
The way I see it, this is a necessary evil. If we value human life, be it our own, our families, friends, or the poor people in Africa that desperately need new cheap medical advances, then we must test on animals. There is simply no other way to do it. Medical science is advancing quickly, but there is no way to avoid animal testing in the foreseeable future. Computer modeling systems are getting more sophisticated, but the fact is that life forms are too variable and too complicated to ever be truly modeled with computers.
The only other option is to test on people, which they do in phase I trials, but only after extensive animal testing to make sure that the new drug/device does not kill the individual. 90% of devices and drugs that are developed in preliminary trials never reach phase I (human) trials due to data in animal testing suggesting adverse outcomes (IE death)
So if someone has a better idea, I’d love to hear it. I don’t like killing animals. I’m grateful we do work on swine instead of dogs. I don’t think I could kill a dog. At least pigs are annoying and uncooperative, so I don’t feel as bad after excising it’s heart.
One more thing. These animals do NOT suffer anywhere nearly as bad as PETA would have you believe. There are very strict IRB protocols preventing mistreatment of animals. The animals in our lab are given an intramuscular dose of Telazol, followed by IV fentanyl and inhalation isoflurane. The only pain they feel is a prick on the back of their neck. This is much less tortuous than any slaughterhouse in the world.
So like I said, if someone has a real solution to advancing medical technology without testing on animals, I’d love to hear it. Seriously.
August 27th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Mr Basser, (328)
“your dumb ass”.
Ad hominem, Mr Basser, ad hominem. Careful. The organisers of this site and those who post regularly will tell you that is a sure sign of a lack of confidence in you stance. Some will even tell you it’s lost you the dispute.
“mr scientist”
An assumption without foundation. Which you glibly make from the merest written glimpse of me, my long and complex life, my many concerns, interests and moral stances. In fact I happen to practice science from the viewpoint of ecology and the environment. In a nutshell that is based on a consideration that human life and civilization only has value (and probably the capacity for survival) when it relates to Gaia and realises itself as an integral part of the biosphere. The bulk of my education was in the humanities. My self-taught scientific activities evolved out of that base.
“The most important question, addressed very well by someone earlier in this chain, is Are we even testing on these animals for survival reasons? I think the overwhelming answer is no.”
““Every year, millions of animals suffer and die in painful tests to determine the “safety” of cosmetics and household products. Substances ranging from eye shadow and soap to furniture polish and oven cleaner are tested on rabbits, rats, guinea pigs, dogs, and other animals, despite the fact that test results do not help prevent or treat human illness or injury.””
And the most important conclusion from the above is that you totally, utterly and lazily failed to bother to read what led from that. If you had, you would know the clearly stated position (also repeated) of myself and everybody else here who reluctantly supports animal testing for as long as it remains necessary. Our support extends for no more than to save human life and suffering and REJECTS ANY OTHER FORM OF TESTING OUT OF HAND. And yes HUMAN LIFE AND SUFFERING. Please don’t waste my time by coming back with your heart-wrenching comments when you can’t even be bothered to check my basic opinions. That’s intellectual insolence.
“this is a moral question”
You bet your bippy it is. And you’ve given your answer. The people shall die that the innocent mice and flies may live. And you have addressed that to people here who are alive now, at this minute, because their life-saving drugs were so tested. In fact they depend on those drugs to get from one day to the next. One was so upset by your type of answer she could no longer continue particpating in this site. I hope that makes you feel squeaky good, mr moralist.
“I suggest we start a list of people that volunteer to get tested in these labs for THE GOOD OF HUMAN SURVIVAL
1. You
2. Your family
3. Your dog
4. Your cat”
You’ve gone OTT almost beyond bathos with that ridiculous hyperbole. I don’t know whether to laugh, cry or recommend you for treatment.
O.K. Here’s something for you to chew over. Sir David Attenbrough is one of the people on this planet who cares most about animals and wildlife, and has done most to foster concern and and protection for it. I presume you have heard of him? If not, Wikipedia awaits you. Sir David has said on air that if it was a choice between the life of one of his family and animal testing, he could not deny animal testing, however distasteful and distressing he finds it. So send along Sir David, his family and pets for testing to prove your consistency, my friend, and I’ll follow in the queue behind them.
It so happens we don’t have a cat or dog, although I have had many in the past and am selectively fond of animals. (In other words, like humans, they have to be likeable. I don’t simply feel obliged to think they are wonderful because they’re animals.) My wife is allergic to pets. However, right now we have four huge, fierce feral cats stalking in our garden and wiping out the things we really do care about: song birds and hummingbirds, beautiful rare lizards, butterflies and other sometimes scarce insects. One of them will shortly give birth to a litter of more homeless kittens, which you can’t even give away where we live. Well, now, there’s a real-life moral dilemma of animals for you to solve, Mr Basser. What should we do? Let the introduced and abandoned cats live and go on butchering the native wildlife? Or exterminate the cats?
If I had a pet cat or dog though, my answer would be yes. If it might contribute to saving a human life, say someone’s precious child, and there was no alternative, I would reluctantly and unhappily agree.
As for me and my family volunteering. Please don’t put forward such pathetically infantile hypotheses. Also read what has been written thoughtfully and carefully above about experimenting on human beings.
In fact it seems what you need is for jfrater to set you an exam on the the above aggregated comments to prove you have read and absorbed them all carefully. And don’t come back here yapping at me again until you have anyway. Unless you can pull your act together better I shall simply ignore you.
That will do for now. This evil scientist has work to do. You’ve opened so many cans of worms, I haven’t had time to check if I’ve addressed them all. I’ll look later, and if there’s anything critical missed I’ll be back.
I’ll share a beer with you or anyone who isn’t physically violent or verbally abusive, but I’ll not have some humbly arrogant moralist offering to straighten me out. Who the hell do you think you are? Do you go around knocking on people’s doors, Mt Basser? Are you a JW or something?
August 27th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Sheldon Roy, (338),
“Anon, you are 100% right. Mankind has does nothing to help the planet. I’m not religious but if I was I would say humanity was gods biggest mistake. Why do you think he drowned all of us in that there flood. As it stands we are the worst thing to have evolved. If I had 3 wishes the las