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.
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.
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.
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.
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)”
Bull*****. What shoddy, adolescent sci-fi book did you glean that one off of?
Granted we human beings are all too often *****ty 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.
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)?
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.
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.
Anon-
One can only hope!
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 8) 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
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.
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.
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.
“It was the wookie, probably. Does something to women, a man with a wookie that big… ”
Goddamn it, Randall
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!
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
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
WOuld those who oppose animal test voulnteer and be in the place of rats?
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.
from Randall (to Holobad):
B) I also believe that were I merely the gigantic ***** 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.
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.
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 gob*****e 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.
#139 Janus
Thanks for the laugh! You took great care to be absurd in every point- not everyone can do such a feat!
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.
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.
for the record – post #144 was directed at #142 (is it Iogar or Logar?)
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.
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.
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.
Now I’m #142. Geez, this really hurts my credibility.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 *****-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.”
BULL*****. 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.
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.”
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.
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.
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?
Anon: unfortunately nothing can be done about this – I would recommend reverting to spanner
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, *****yze it, and move on to closely genetically related animals to one day move the drug to humans.
#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.”
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.
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.
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.
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
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”.
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.
That’s good to hear.
dr. Hannibal Lecter: I thought household detergents (for washing dishes) were basic not acidic…
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..)
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.
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.
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?
I just don’t like the idea of animals being put through all that. So animals should not be mis treated in this way!!
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?