Animal Expermenting

[Infinis]

Ever heard of a simulator? I would rather kill a human to save 100 animals,than kill an animal to save 100 humans.

Source: PETA, HSUS,etc. Yes I eat ,meat btw

PETA is a snake's den of hypocrisy. It's an organization that preys on the often legitimate kindness of animal lovers who really do want to help.

PETA is the last organization you should be supporting if you actually care about and want to help animals.

 

Just from some quick googling, I found these damning things:

 

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/downloads/...illsAnimals.pdf - PDF of compiled Virginia records showing how many animals PETA takes in yearly and what happens to them. Pay attention to the "euthanized," "adopted," and "total" numbers.

 

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/linked/killpits.PDF - PETA supports pitbull legislation.

 

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/linked/petamiami.PDF - PETA support of euthanasia instead of trap/neuter/release programs for a feral cat colony in Florida, and they support euthanasia over TNR programs in general.

 

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=9382 - PETA tries to silence the people who speak out about what PETA actually stands for and does.

 

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/wp-content/u...petainspect.pdf - Inspection of PETA facility.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/art...ays-2626614.php - Twenty million dollars in annual revenue and they can't afford to care for animals they "rescue" while local shelters that are significantly less well funded manage to hold on to and adopt out more than 50% of their animals? Something is very wrong here.

 

http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/20...-in-peta-trial/ - News article on a PETA trial (related to the article directly above) regarding employee animal cruelty.

 

I don't know much about HSUS, so I'll refrain from commenting on them.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To be more on topic:

 

Until we have a simulator that can mimic the human system in all its minute complexity, animal testing will be a necessary evil.

 

People are unsuited for lab testing. It is not just ethics that prevent us from being unsuited for lab testing, but we take a long time to reach maturity (18 years) and we have a long gestation period with few offspring (9 months with normally one offspring, with each extra offspring per litter being increasingly rare). Rats (a common lab animal) by contrast can reproduce very quickly with large litters (gestation period of less than 30 days with as many as 12 offspring in a litter).

 

Unless people, of course, start volunteering instead. Let's face it, though, most people aren't willing to subject themselves to lab testing, with or without consent, informed or otherwise.

[Tazzay]

I don't even want to acknowledge the fact that PETA exists. They are such a horrible organization, and kill so many more animals than they save.

 

 

[Melomancer]

Peta is overall just horrible. And although animal testing makes me feel uncomfortable, I agree that it IS necessary.

[TheGrox]

Animal testing for medical purposes is necessary, but not so much for things like cosmetics. At least over here, animal testing is so regulated now that it's not as bad as it's perceived to be or once was.

Edited March 6, 2014 by TheGrox

[Obscure_Trash]

PETA is where the suffering animals end up. If you had a pet that was suffering, you would put it down too. I had to put my ferret to sleep three months ago and I did it because I knew he was suffering.

Did you look at any of the links Infinis gave? They support tons of legislation harmful to animals. They also fake most (all?) of the videos they make "exposing" companies.

[Melomancer]

Did you look at any of the links Infinis gave? They support tons of legislation harmful to animals. They also fake most (all?) of the videos they make "exposing" companies.

Yeah, PETA is terrible. I didn't know about them faking videos though. That just makes them all the worse in my eyes. If my pet ferret was dying and suffering, I would have him put down too. But what PETA does is this:

Oh, a perfectly happy and healthy animal! We're going to Inhumanely put down this fine, healthy and strong specimen if nobody gives us money for it.

[Infinis]

PETA is where the suffering animals end up. If you had a pet that was suffering, you would put it down too. I had to put my ferret to sleep three months ago and I did it because I knew he was suffering.

PETA takes in and puts down perfectly healthy and adoptable animals.

 

Most people who need animals put down take them to their vet, or attempt to get the vet to come to them for a home euthanization.

 

PETA lauds itself as a humane organization, but really it's not. It's not even an animal shelter. PETA supports humane euthanization, not care and adoption. You are better off sending animals to a local shelter that is much more likely to have a 50%+ adoption rate.

 

Maybe PETA did some good with truly cruel labs and helping with humane treatment awareness back in the day - but right now they do far less real good than what they'd have you believe.

[Fightandspawn]

Trolling is not acceptable on these boards. well, I only admitted it so I could stop trolling and start being a productive Forumite. I no longer troll Edited August 16, 2014 by Fightandspawn

[Melomancer]

I only said that to get you riled up. I don't really like peta. I support my local shelter, not peta. I just like shock value

You clever ***..You got us pretty good....

*Gives thumbs up.*

At least PETA doesn't experiment on animals. That would really be the only way for them to be any worse.

[Momo]

In my field, there is a LOT of product/vaccination/etc. testing in my future.

My step-brother helps run a very large research company in Indiana, and has promised me a place there ( or at least an all-expense paid visit and tryout! ) as one of the researchers and testers.

 

I do not like animal testing. at all.

But as with anything, if people can give us, scientists, some good alternatives, I'd LOVE to hear it. Good, reasonable alternatives.

Despite the fact that something is "bad," we have to be realistic and I know a lot of people hate doing that, but when it comes to this, there are usually two groups. The scientists who actually know the gravity of what's going on, and then the people who only know half of it/therefore just assume that we can go "poof! no more Cancer!" or "we instantly stopped animal testing around the world - yeah!" when neither of those things are easy. At all. Politics come into play as well - that is, even if America bans animal testing, Russia's policies may stand and, naturally, continue the usual order of business.

 

Politics and culture play a massive part. In most countries, animals are considered "sublevel life," for lack of a better term. As a result, a lot of higher-ups don't FEEL like it's wrong to use them for testing.

 

And as a result, scientist hands are tied. We're using the window that we have, and even then, we ALSO have to use the window that our BOSSES give us.

 

[King_Max_Cat]

Ah, animal testing/experimentation. I can smell the conflict.

 

1. I think this issue really gets a bad rap....not every single instance of animal testing is cruel and evil and dangerous. I mean, we have to test to see if healing technologies work too, right? Theoretically, are there say....monkeys who were born with no legs that are given some sort of newfangled wheelchair in order to test it? Or something like that.

 

2. We have to test technology somehow. If not animals, then what? Humans? I do believe animals deserve more respect than they're given, and that they do feel pain etc. but they're not on the same level as humans. Chimps are a tougher issue as they show self-recognition, thinking, etc. but they're really still not as developed as humans. Anyway, imagine you come out with a new drug. You need to see if it works. You have to run experiments to test it using the scientific method....you really have to. If you don't, how do we the public know if it works or if it even kills humans? I mean, imagine a scenerio; you have this drug, it is experimental and what you don't realize is that it will slowly give cancer to and kill anyone who takes it. Do you want to find that out through 100 monkeys or 100 humans dying?

 

It's a tough situation and it could certainly be improved, but at the end of the day if I have to choose between animal testing or NO animal testing at all....I'm going to pick animal testing.

*shrug* thoughts?

[Aprilis]

I remember reading about a case where a group of animal rights activists broke into a lab, and not only released all the lab animals, but destroyed all the lab notes and test results that were already completed. So, not only did they make the sacrifices of the previously tested animals pointless, they probably caused the experimentation of even more animals to get back all the data that was destroyed.

[Momo]

I remember reading about a case where a group of animal rights activists broke into a lab, and not only released all the lab animals, but destroyed all the lab notes and test results that were already completed. So, not only did they make the sacrifices of the previously tested animals pointless, they probably caused the experimentation of even more animals to get back all the data that was destroyed.

Of course they caused more animals to be tested on. That's how it works.

That was a pretty idiotic choice. They give activists - any type, really - a bad name in society. This is why they are not taken as seriously as they could or should be, because those of fame are typically acting without logic.

[sparkle10184]

I am against animal testing unless it brings no harm to the animal. (Like those tests to see how smart apes are) But I also believe that instead of pouring thousands of dollars into coming up with elaborate plans to burn down and destroy labs, we should use that money to come up with alternatives to testing on animals.

Hurting/killing one species to save another just doesn't seem right to me...

Yup, that's my opinion

[Silence2]

I am against animal testing unless it brings no harm to the animal. (Like those tests to see how smart apes are) But I also believe that instead of pouring thousands of dollars into coming up with elaborate plans to burn down and destroy labs, we should use that money to come up with alternatives to testing on animals.

Hurting/killing one species to save another just doesn't seem right to me...

Yup, that's my opinion

Does that mean you are also against testing medications for the animal's benefit? Several medications people take are also used in animals.

[7Deadly$ins]

I am against animal testing unless it brings no harm to the animal. (Like those tests to see how smart apes are) But I also believe that instead of pouring thousands of dollars into coming up with elaborate plans to burn down and destroy labs, we should use that money to come up with alternatives to testing on animals.

Hurting/killing one species to save another just doesn't seem right to me...

Yup, that's my opinion

The fact is, there really aren't any alternatives. I don't believe computer simulations will ever be able to 100% replicate the body of something well enough.

[grimace]

The fact is, there really aren't any alternatives. I don't believe computer simulations will ever be able to 100% replicate the body of something well enough.

That, and you'd likely have to test it on the animal to put it in the simulation in the first place.

If you don't know what a compound is going to do to an animal, you can't program it in.

[sparkle10184]

Just so y'all know, I am against animal testing because it is usually cruel, but that's not the only reason. It is also not a very effective way. The DNA, anatomy, and cell difference between humans and other animals such as rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, etc. is so great that it does not make a good comparison.

EpiSkin and SkinEthic are two synthetic skin materials that may be able to be used in testing.

Human blood from volunteers can be used to test for contaminants in intravenous medications.

How about the in vitro test method? Using living tissue, organs, cells, etc. stored in petri dishes and test tubes.

[Nectaris]

Just so y'all know, I am against animal testing because it is usually cruel, but that's not the only reason. It is also not a very effective way. The DNA, anatomy, and cell difference between humans and other animals such as rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, etc. is so great that it does not make a good comparison.

EpiSkin and SkinEthic are two synthetic skin materials that may be able to be used in testing.

Human blood from volunteers can be used to test for contaminants in intravenous medications.

How about the in vitro test method? Using living tissue, organs, cells, etc. stored in petri dishes and test tubes.

Because medicine doesn't just stay in one organ, and may affect future generations. Like causing miscarriages or birth defects. Drawn blood will only show so much, and quite bluntly, not that much. If you are talking about it in the context of actual human testing, then you have to factor in legal, cost, and the lifespan of people for the reasons I mentioned earlier. And in vitro brings up another moral question, some will be more against than animal testing, even if you are ok with it.

 

At MOST, all you have mentioned is maybe rule out some options before moving on to animal testing, not ruling it out completely.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Nectaris

[sparkle10184]

Why is in vitro a moral question? It isn't an actual full human, it's just an organ or cell. It's not fair to put a single organ over the rights of an animal.

[MasterWeavile898]

I would assume it's in moral question for the same reason abortion is,but this really isn't the place to debate that

 

I'm perfectly fine with animal testing. As long as the animals are kept healthy (which they need to be for proper tests), then it's not inhumane. Shore there's a chance of death or serious illness. But that risk exists for humans too, and they take much longer to replace and yield results much slower

 

If there was some method of computerizing it then I'd be all for it, but that's not realistic. You'd have to perform far more, and much more dangerous, tests on animals to get the data, which doesn't even guarantee a correct result

Or we could just do that on humans too /s

 

In the end, it's a necessary evil (Though really it's more of a moral grey) There to prevent the much greater evil of thousands, maybe millions, of human deaths due to unsafe medications (Hmm, then again...)

 

On things like makeup I'm a bit iffier, it's not like people need makeup to live :/

[AnanoKimi]

Honestly, if its a harmless test, one that will not risk the animal's life to a large degree, then ok. Such as when they trested growing body parts on rats likeears and such. I'm down for that. Or how we make the inections to help us combat viruses/bacteria from an early age. I'm ok with that.

 

But if you are making a drug or produc for humans and don't know how it will work on humans, test it on humans. Heck we are over populated as it is, a few that we loose along the way isn't gonna do much harm. Now I'm not saying just grab any person and test on them. Criteria such as having a family, in a current profession, making x amount of money, how many siblings you have, if you even have family left, things like that can be taken into account.

 

Regardless of how much testing we do on animals, in the end we still end up having to test it on humans for a short period, and if humans react worse that predicted, they are recalled. I mean in the end we still test on humans no matter what. We just hold our species on such a high pedistal that we feel it's 'wrong' to test on other humans. So we turn to things we think are less than us and use that.

 

All in all, harmless tests that could end poorly for the human race but doesn't affect the animal in the least I'm fine with. Other than that, really make up and certain drugs, just pay a human test subject. Get someone who is aware of the risks, the progress they will help create by allowing this, and giving them resources and help incase anything goes wrong.

[7Deadly$ins]

Just so y'all know, I am against animal testing because it is usually cruel, but that's not the only reason. It is also not a very effective way. The DNA, anatomy, and cell difference between humans and other animals such as rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, etc. is so great that it does not make a good comparison.

EpiSkin and SkinEthic are two synthetic skin materials that may be able to be used in testing.

Human blood from volunteers can be used to test for contaminants in intravenous medications.

How about the in vitro test method? Using living tissue, organs, cells, etc. stored in petri dishes and test tubes.

That's why you test on different animals. It isn't as if animal researchers have no idea how animals differ from humans. The tests are set up to account for those differences. You choose an animal based on that knowledge and what exactly you're testing for.

[Infinis]

Honestly, if its a harmless test, one that will not risk the animal's life to a large degree, then ok. Such as when they trested growing body parts on rats likeears and such. I'm down for that. Or how we make the inections to help us combat viruses/bacteria from an early age. I'm ok with that.

 

But if you are making a drug or produc for humans and don't know how it will work on humans, test it on humans. Heck we are over populated as it is, a few that we loose along the way isn't gonna do much harm. Now I'm not saying just grab any person and test on them. Criteria such as having a family, in a current profession, making x amount of money, how many siblings you have, if you even have family left, things like that can be taken into account.

 

Regardless of how much testing we do on animals, in the end we still end up having to test it on humans for a short period, and if humans react worse that predicted, they are recalled. I mean in the end we still test on humans no matter what. We just hold our species on such a high pedistal that we feel it's 'wrong' to test on other humans. So we turn to things we think are less than us and use that.

 

All in all, harmless tests that could end poorly for the human race but doesn't affect the animal in the least I'm fine with. Other than that, really make up and certain drugs, just pay a human test subject. Get someone who is aware of the risks, the progress they will help create by allowing this, and giving them resources and help incase anything goes wrong.

Say to hello to ethics. We cannot just take any person. In fact, we cannot take anyone without their informed consent. On top of that, subjects may need to fit certain parameters, and it's generally looked down on to just ask someone "hey do you have x condition?" (Also that raises suspicions.)

 

Human testing is reviled more than just because we ride high horses believing we're better than animals. The Holocaust and the Tuskegee Syphilis Study did a lot to damage the idea of human testing because the perpetrators of these experiments completely disregarded ethics and experimented on uninformed (or deceived) and/or unwilling people, often causing death or irreversible damages.

 

~~~~~~~

 

Humans make really bad test subjects. I explained this on the previous page, but:

 

-Rats, common lab animals, have a gestation period of less than 30 days and can have litters of up to twelve. Many of the other animals used for testing also have gestation periods that are relatively short, generally less than six months, and those also generally have multiple offspring.

 

-Humans, by contrast, have a gestation period of nine months - that's three months shy of an entire year - and have a very low offspring yield. Humans generally have one offspring, and each successive offspring per litter is increasingly rare, not to mention that those extra offspring may be small and not entirely healthy. And if that one offspring dies in utero or soon after birth, that's another minimum nine months wait for just one more.

 

People complain that it can take years for the FDA to approve new treatments, but think how long the studies that got those treatments to the FDA at all took, and that was done in no small part with animal testing, creatures that reproduce quickly and in large numbers.

Now think about how long it would take if we went solely with human testing.

 

Why is in vitro a moral question? It isn't an actual full human, it's just an organ or cell. It's not fair to put a single organ over the rights of an animal.

 

I don't think that's what she was saying.

The main point of her post, however, is that, drugs in particular, travel through multiple organs. This makes it impossible to effectively determine the true results of a test drug if you're only testing it on, say, a synthetic kidney. You'll determine the drug's effect on the kidney, but in a natural system most drugs have passed through, and probably been altered by, at least one other organ before even reaching the kidney.

 

On top of that, we can't even grow some of these organs in a lab yet. I certainly haven't heard any news of labs growing synthetic, fully functional human lungs or hearts.

 

Another good point Nectaris brought up is that drugs may affect successive generations, including sometimes severe birth defects or death outright. A prime example is the Thalidomide babies; the mothers took thalidomide when pregnant, and it resulted in birth defects in the fetuses (limb defects, I believe).

 

Just so y'all know, I am against animal testing because it is usually cruel, but that's not the only reason. It is also not a very effective way. The DNA, anatomy, and cell difference between humans and other animals such as rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, etc. is so great that it does not make a good comparison.

EpiSkin and SkinEthic are two synthetic skin materials that may be able to be used in testing.

Human blood from volunteers can be used to test for contaminants in intravenous medications.

How about the in vitro test method? Using living tissue, organs, cells, etc. stored in petri dishes and test tubes.

 

Actually, these animals we use for testing are relatively similar to humans. This is why we use them, because they do, in fact, provide a good model for how something will act in humans. They are not exactly the same, no, and there are exceptions when something is clearly not going to be the same as in humans at all, but generally speaking animals provide reasonable models for human systems.

 

Animals in labs are treated a lot more humanely than they were 3+ decades ago; iirc there are laws in place to help guarantee humane treatment for test animals. Testing by its very nature is going to be cruel depending on the agent that's being tested.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

The fact of the matter is that no matter how much people hate animal testing, it is a necessary evil at this point in time. There is no way around that fact.

The only way to stop testing completely is to either switch over to human testing (which is impractical for reasons I listed in the beginning of this post), or to stop attempting to devise new treatments for diseases.

 

For the record I don't agree with animal testing for nonessential things like makeup, but medical testing I do agree with.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Infinis

[igloo9201]

I mean, when its something like makeup? No. Medicine? Yes. 'Nuf said. I'll have unhappy rats vs humans dying of disease.