Animal Testing - Right or Wrong?

[Dr. Dalek]

how can u treat an animal with no respect like that

 

We humans, just like any other animal, must put our interests befor the interest of other animals.

Does a wolf think about the interest or pain of a lamb that it needs to kill in order to eat? We need to test animals with drugs and medicines in order to make sure they are safe.

 

However I could care less for vivisection or cosmetics.

 

I would just like to say that animal testing is WRONG![/size']

So you have no good strong argument but you make up for it with a big font?

[mooeypoo]

Here's my take:

 

If there is any other way to conduct the experiment (yes, another way that costs more money IS another way) then animal testing is wrong, and should be avoided.

 

Pain and suffering to the animal should be avoided at all cost, but with the lack of any other option, and I mean with SERIOUSLY NO OTHER WAY -- it is in my opinion not wrong to conduct.

 

If you have no choice, and testing on an ape will save millions of people by giving a cure to Cancer or AIDS, it is not morally wrong to do in my opinion.

 

The trouble starts when beuty-salon companies use the experiments to find other types of hair color.. USING THAT experiment while either hurting, maming, or using chemicals on an animal IS wrong.

 

So in short: Anything that is not LIFE-AND-DEATH/No-Other-Option situation is morally wrong to conduct animal testing.

 

~moo

[Dr. Dalek]

If you have no choice' date=' and testing on an ape will save millions of people by giving a cure to Cancer or AIDS, it is not morally wrong to do in my opinion.

 

The trouble starts when beuty-salon companies use the experiments to find other types of hair color.. USING THAT experiment while either hurting, [/quote']

Okay I agree with that,

[Mokele]

What if it's not life-or-death, but is simply the pursuit of knowledge? That's what I do (zero real application value), and I do terminal experiments on animals. Now, granted, our N is usually around 5 or 6 (if you do multiple tests per animal, individual can be a factor in the ANOVA, preventing psuedoreplication effects), but still isn't pure knowledge worth it?

 

Mokele

[mooeypoo]

What if it's not life-or-death, but is simply the pursuit of knowledge?

Not in my opinion, no.

 

If the animal is not hurt or suffering in the process, then I don't see a bad thing if you call this 'experimentation' and run it.. but if the animal is suffering, or in pain, or if it dies; no, it's wrong.

 

If you can get this knowledge in other ways, without killing animals, then do it.

 

~moo

[scicop]

What if it's not life-or-death' date=' but is simply the pursuit of knowledge? That's what I do (zero real application value), and I do terminal experiments on animals. Now, granted, our N is usually around 5 or 6 (if you do multiple tests per animal, individual can be a factor in the ANOVA, preventing psuedoreplication effects), but still isn't pure knowledge worth it?

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

Oh hells yeah. you can never know when pure knowledge will be benefical to mankind.

 

As far as those who don't believe in animal experimentation, lets directly go to human experimentation, starting with those who oppose. Let's see if they're willing to step up the plate and take some injections of Avian Bird Flu for the sake of vaccine development

 

I know some principal investagtors who would love to have a human guinea pig (providing that you sign the necessary waivers for accidental death, financial obligations, associated medical treatments expeditures, and liability).

 

I don't see any PETA members volunteering themselves for research. I would have loved to test my recombinant constitive active p53 adenvovirus on humans.

[mooeypoo]

I do believe there are countries where it is legal to join an experimental group - often without quite knowing the rmaifications of the experiment, and for money...

 

Oh.. uhm.. I do belive it exists in the USA..

 

I would suggest sticking to the topic.. discussing the ethics of human experimentations is QUITE a different subject.

 

I understand you were writing in cynicism, hurray for your opinion, but .. I think it's taking the debate a bit off topic, and can create a bit of a havoc in here. Too bad to ruin such a nice debate, really..

 

Perhaps it should be discussed, really, in a new thread.. sounds interresting.. but anyways, it's not for this one

 

~moo

[Mokele]

Actually sciop *is* on topic. You have three choices: Animal experimentation, human experimentation on a huge scale (probably on the unwilling too, due to the numbers needed), and a total cessation of all medical and biological advances. There's no other option, period.

 

You also didn't adress sciop's point that pure knowledge and become beneficial later on; back when they discovered Taq polymerase, they had no idea what it could be used for, and now it's the basis of all modern biotech.

 

Furthermore, the converse occurs: many drug trials go nowhere, due to failure during the testing phase or too many side-effects.

 

So basically, in any animal test, we cannot predict the outcome. Cancer drug trials could fail, while some useless work like mine could have implications I've never dreamed of. Either way, it's a gamble, so the ends cannot justify the means, since we have no way of assessing the ends before the experiment.

 

Mokele

[blackhole123]

The human brain is the most elaborate device for wasting time ever, to the point where it generates means of wasting time (golf[/b'], the internet) while wasting time.

 

im going to pretend i didnt hear that.

[mooeypoo]

You also didn't adress sciop's point that pure knowledge and become beneficial later on; back when they discovered Taq polymerase, they had no idea what it could be used for, and now it's the basis of all modern biotech.

 

I am sorry, but in terms of ethics, I don't believe in either human or animal experminentation for the sole purpose of knowledge. The only reason I see this as ethical, is if an animal is not suffering over the experiment, or if a human being knows exactly what is going to happen to him, and signs up.

 

Those are the two sole cases that "solely-for-knowledge" experimentations are in my opinion ethical.

 

If you go to pure knowledge to justify experimentation of human beings or animals, you must then be confronted by the long and old question and debate about Nazi advancements; they have reached many advancements in medicine and science, but with the suffering of many many people.. are you really suggesting it was worth it?

 

I am under the opinion that there are often other ways to reach knowledge -- either NOT letting an animal suffer, or not killing it, for "just for pure knowledge" quests.

 

Again: Life and Death situations are different.. but simply for knowledge? No.. I still think it's unethical.

 

Specially, and mostly, since when a person declares it as being okay, it usually results in using it as an excuse to not even TRY to find other ways that don't involve experimentations, and that is bad..

 

 

~moo

[Mokele]

If you go to pure knowledge to justify experimentation of human beings or animals, you must then be confronted by the long and old question and debate about Nazi advancements; they have reached many advancements in medicine and science, but with the suffering of many many people.. are you really suggesting it was worth it?

 

I disagree; the question does *not* logically arise from the use of terminal experiments on animals for pure knowledge.

 

First, much of what the Nazis did was applied, not pure. They kept people in ice baths and re-warmed them to learn how to save their own fighter pilots when they had to bail over the sea. So there's no real special connection to research for pure knowledge here.

 

Second, in order for it to be a relevant issue, human and animal life would have to be of equal moral value. While a few people think this is the case, most would not consider it to be so, for both superficial and logical reasons.

 

You've also failed to address my key point from last post: Application doesn't guarantee results, and pure knowledge can general amazing application. Either way, it's a crapshoot, and so you cannot use an unknown end result to justify the actions. If pure knowledge isn't a valid reason, neither is application, since there's a very good chance that the drug all those mice died for will never reach market for various reasons.

 

Mokele

[penguin_love]

I worked with rats for a few semesters in a behavioral neuroscience lab doing drug testing, and I want to point out what I noticed.

 

I am willing to bet that those animals suffered less than the luckiest of rats living in the wild. We worked very closely with the animal welfare people, and the total comfort of the animals was ensured every step of the way. They were put down peacefully with gas so we could get to thier brains afterwards (and you just can't do that with humans). They generally had access to food, drink, and sex at a level unprecedented for wild rats. [What else do rats want, anyway?] We even managed to argue with each other a bit over which type of bedding was most comfortable for transport and such. There was some level of necessary suffering (like recieving injections), but I've seen humans put through far worse in experiments and walk away content.

 

Just my own personal experience... I wonder where all this "terrible suffering" supposedly is in animal testing.

 

So ur saying that useing drugs on the rats in the lab is alright! That is so not right what if u where a rat and u got drugs put into ur body!Dont think that u would like that to much! I know that rats arent doing much for our world but still they are a part of it!

[penguin_love]

Also even thought u give them a lot dont u think u should have just let them go so that they can get what they relly want? SO tell me this is u have a family for say 2 chidren and a beautiful wife, and u got abbductied. When u got to the place that the kidnappers took u to, it was beautiful almost like a 5 star hotel. They gave u everything...Would u chose that over ur family, u see what im saying the rats dont want luxery they want FREEDOM!

[lucaspa]

I am sorry, but in terms of ethics, I don't believe in either human or animal experminentation for the sole purpose of knowledge.

 

As Mokele has been trying to point out, there is not a solid line between "sole purpose of knowledge" and "application". When scientists say "pure knowledge" what that really means is: "we don't know of any application right now and can't see any any application right now." It's a statement of about the state of the scientists' imagination and knowledge, not about whether there ever will be applications or not.

 

The only reason I see this as ethical, is if an animal is not suffering over the experiment, or if a human being knows exactly what is going to happen to him, and signs up.

 

We all agree on the last point: humans have to make a free and informed decision to participate in experiments. The Nazis obviously didn't do this, so they are outside the ethics. As Mokele said, they went for applied knowledge.

 

I am under the opinion that there are often other ways to reach knowledge -- either NOT letting an animal suffer, or not killing it, for "just for pure knowledge" quests.

 

1. Your opinion is not backed by the data. In my work, there is no other way to see if regeneration happens but to use animals.

 

2. You have to define "suffer". In our experiments, we treat the animals with the same analgesics as we would humans. Does this mean the animals "suffer". And yes, eventually the animals are euthanized. But then, eventually humans die. The protocols specified by the FDA as permissible for euthanasia are that they are as painless as possible for the animal.

 

Specially, and mostly, since when a person declares it as being okay, it usually results in using it as an excuse to not even TRY to find other ways that don't involve experimentations, and that is bad..

 

You've never been involved with and IACUC committee or had to submit a protocol for research involving animals, have you? Part of the submission is specifically demonstrating that there are NO alternatives to the use of animals.

[lucaspa]

So ur saying that useing drugs on the rats in the lab is alright! That is so not right what if u where a rat and u got drugs put into ur body!Dont think that u would like that to much! I know that rats arent doing much for our world but still they are a part of it!

 

Penguin, this goes back to Mokele's post:

 

"Second, in order for it to be a relevant issue, human and animal life would have to be of equal moral value. While a few people think this is the case, most would not consider it to be so, for both superficial and logical reasons."

 

You are equating rats and humans. Also, you are ascribing human feelings to rats:

 

" SO tell me this is u have a family for say 2 chidren and a beautiful wife, and u got abbductied. When u got to the place that the kidnappers took u to, it was beautiful almost like a 5 star hotel. They gave u everything...Would u chose that over ur family, u see what im saying the rats dont want luxery they want FREEDOM!"

 

This is pure projection: projecting human feelings and ideals onto rats. It's pure emotion on your part. Since this is a science forum, you need to demonstrate that rats even have a concept of "freedom" or a concept of the family attachment you ascribe to them.

 

I know from experience that the family attachment doesn't apply. No male rat takes any interest in the kids. In fact, you have to remove the male before the pups are born because the father will eat them. To a male rat, pups are simply a tasty snack.

 

With your premises in error, your logic falls apart.

[GammaMambo]

I think it is another tool we have in our hands.

I may be some kind of sociopath, but I don't so much disagree with testing on human subjects either.

I've often thought about people on death row or in prison for life....why not?

[mooeypoo]

I've often thought about people on death row or in prison for life....why not?

 

Well, "why not" is not a good response to ethics, is it?

 

I think that the question needs to be defined better. If animals are not suffering beyond what they should suffer, then the question of ethics as opposed to advancement is valid.

 

For instance, if experimentation on an ape will lead to a cure for AIDS, then the threshhold of ethics is - in my opinion - higher, which means that it's ethical to do the experiments wth the attempt to prevent NEEDLESS suffering.

 

About humans.. well.. even death row prisoners.. there are diseases that are worse than death, and experimentations that are too. Again, look at the time of the Nazis. The little survivors of Doctor Mengale preferred death, and I doubt this can be called ethical by any standard, even if they were, in a sense, "death row" prisoners. After all, he took them from the furnace into experimentation.

 

I think that the question of ethics is extremely important to continue surfacing up. The debate on it - on both animals and humans - makes sure we don't FORGET that we deal with life here. If an experiment is unnecessarily painful for an animal, it should not be done. If it's the only way to achieve a solution to a life threatening disease, it should be done while trying to prevent suffering.

 

By the way, some animals have different senses than humans, obviously, which means that "cruelty" is different scale. Closing a human being in a small cage for his entire life is abuse. Closing a chicken is hardly that... animals and humans are both life forms, but the relation to ethics is different, at least the way i see it.

 

It doesn't mean we should ignore ethics, though.

 

~moo

[fattyjwoods]

I personally think it’s sick that people would put animals at the same level as humans. Even if they can suffer, they are ANIMALS. How could you possibly choose an animals life over a humans. I wouldn't mind slaughtering a thousand animals to save one human life.

 

Sometimes it seems like people think humans should be running through fields naked being chased by lions. Kill or be killed.

 

If a rabbit has to suffer puffy eyes so I don’t have to then so be it.

 

Animal testing has saved millions of lives and I think the people who would try to change that are sicker than the people doing the testing.

 

Of course I'm not talking about the useless testing, but you guys are making generalizations that animal testing is bad.

 

disgusting. how would you like it if i tested you. if you were a animal being tested how would you like it. put yourself in an animals's shoes.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

disgusting. how would you like it if i tested you. if you were a animal being tested how would you like it. put yourself in an animals's shoes.

 

That assumes that the animal is sentient.

[Sayonara]

The entire point of this thread is to rationally discuss the issue without the unhelpful overheads of anthropomorphism and arbitrary emotive reactions.

[fattyjwoods]

That assumes that the animal is sentient.

 

what do you mean by the animal is a scientist. what i mean is pretend you're an animal and then i come along and start making you eat weird and creepy things. how would you like it. i mean its wrong to treat animals in a way like that. just because they were born that way they shouldnt be treated that way.

[Sayonara]

what do you mean by the animal is a scientist.

He said sentient, not scientist.

 

what i mean is pretend you're an animal and then i come along and start making you eat weird and creepy things. how would you like it.

What makes you think animals "like" anything?

 

i mean its wrong to treat animals in a way like that. just because they were born that way they shouldnt be treated that way.

Had you read this thread, you would understand that "wrong" is a highly subjective term.

Any more knee-jerk emotional outbursts are likely to just be deleted, because we've all been there and done that when this thread began over three years ago.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

what do you mean by the animal is a scientist. what i mean is pretend you're an animal and then i come along and start making you eat weird and creepy things. how would you like it. i mean its wrong to treat animals in a way like that. just because they were born that way they shouldnt be treated that way.

When I said "that assumes the animal is sentient," I meant, in summary, "that assumes that the animal is capable of liking or disliking things, feeling pain, and generally having feelings in the same way humans do."

[lucaspa]

I think it is another tool we have in our hands.

I may be some kind of sociopath, but I don't so much disagree with testing on human subjects either.

I've often thought about people on death row or in prison for life....why not?

 

Because "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" applies and using them as experimental subjects without their consent violates that.

 

What if someone would say "how about everyone who uses "GammaMambo" as their screen name", why not?

[lucaspa]

disgusting. how would you like it if i tested you. if you were a animal being tested how would you like it. put yourself in an animals's shoes.

 

But you can't, because they are another species snd not sentient. You are projecting human emotions and ideas onto another species -- saying that they "think" and "feel" the same as you. The Golden Rule applies among humans, not between species.

 

As I noted, male rats are quite capable of looking at newborn rat pups as a tasty snack. Should we put your projection in reverse? If a rat eats its newborn and likes it, why shouldn't you? Put yourself in their shoes and go out and eat babies!