NationStates Jolt Archive

I would like to congratulate Pro-test and other groups for finally bringing the voice of reason to the debate on vivisection, and show the violent animal rights fringe groups tht there are people willing to stand up to their petty criminal and terrorist actions, such as leaving bombs near childrens play areas and digging up human remains.

Well done, lets show these people that humans should come first

Sounds good, but what are you talking about specifically?

The use of animals in medical testing, which although isn't pleasant, is vital to continuing medical research

The use of animals in medical testing, which although isn't pleasant, is vital to continuing medical research

Now, while I agree that these terrorists must be silenced, animal testing is not a good idea.

If you aren't sure bout it, don't test it until you are sure. We have the technology now.

But exactly, which case, what happened??? inform us!!!!!!

But exactly, which case, what happened??? inform us!!!!!!
There is a group against animal testing in the UK who have been rather militant in their protests; even going so far as digging up and stealing the remains of the grandmother of an animal tester. Now, a new group of pro animal testers has been protesting the protests. I guess that's what they're referring to.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4739376.stm

Sounds good, but what are you talking about specifically?
www.pro-test.org.uk (http://www.pro-test.org.uk/)

www.animalliberationfront.com (http://www.animalliberationfront.com/)

ALF are against animal testing and use various methods to try to prevent it - generally violent, for example bombings etc. There was a high-profile case about 18 months ago, where they stole the recently buried body of a woman related to the owners of a company that bred animals (guinea pigs, I think) for testing in medical research.

Pro-test are a pro animal-testing group. They promote and support scientific research that uses animal testing.

Ah. That does sound good; many of these protest groups seem to fold up and die when people start taking offense at them. I guess they relize their arguments don't stand up in the light of day.

Now, while I agree that these terrorists must be silenced, animal testing is not a good idea.

If you aren't sure bout it, don't test it until you are sure. We have the technology now.
But how are you going to be sure about it until you've tested it? There's extremely hard regulations on this - you can't just say 'Well, we think that testing (whatever...some sort of medical treatment, normally) on animals would be a good idea, but we can't actually prove it'.

The researchers have to show that animal testing is the only way in which the research into (whatever) can go forward.

But how are you going to be sure about it until you've tested it? There's extremely hard regulations on this - you can't just say 'Well, we think that testing (whatever...some sort of medical treatment, normally) on animals would be a good idea, but we can't actually prove it'.

The researchers have to show that animal testing is the only way in which the research into (whatever) can go forward.

If the regulations are reeeeeeeally strict, then I say go ahead with it.

I have a peaceful solution to this problem. Instead of testing on animals, the animal rights people should volunteer for medical testing and vivisection. That way the animals are protected and the protesters do something nice for society instead of planting bombs.

If the regulations are reeeeeealy strict

They are. Most animals used are bred specifically, so they don't bring in stray dogs off the street, and if you need to test something on a living organism, would you risk it on humans?

I have a peaceful solution to this problem. Instead of testing on animals, the animal rights people should volunteer for medical testing and vivisection. That way the animals are protected and the protesters do something nice for society instead of planting bombs.

I heartily concur. Someone submitted an NS UN proposal about this, lol.

If the regulations are reeeeeeeally strict, then I say go ahead with it.
They're probably stricter than you think.

I have a peaceful solution to this problem. Instead of testing on animals, the animal rights people should volunteer for medical testing and vivisection. That way the animals are protected and the protesters do something nice for society instead of planting bombs.
Personally, I think we should pay homeless people to be tested on. Just because something's fine on animals doesn't mean it'll be ok when used on people. I assume you heard about that incident with the drug-test at the hospital in London recently? Link, in case you didn't. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4807042.stm)
[The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency] had approved the trial and the drug had already been tested on animals and in a laboratory.

If the homeless people accept the risks, and give their consent, then researchers should be allowed to test on them.

They are. Most animals used are bred specifically, so they don't bring in stray dogs off the street, and if you need to test something on a living organism, would you risk it on humans?
Just look into that case in the UK recently where the company messed up a test on humans.It just makes sense to test on animals

I think we should focus on perfecting human rights before we move on to animals. But I do agree that many animals are being treated like shit.

Just look into that case in the UK recently where the company messed up a test on humans.It just makes sense to test on animals
They didn't 'mess it up'. There were side-effects to the drug they were testing that could not have been predicted by anyone. There's a link in post 15 to the story, and a quote from it saying the drug had previously been tested on animals with no ill effects. It was simply unfortunate.

Personally, I think we should pay homeless people to be tested on. Just because something's fine on animals doesn't mean it'll be ok when used on people. I assume you heard about that incident with the drug-test at the hospital in London recently? Link, in case you didn't. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4807042.stm)


If the homeless people accept the risks, and give their consent, then researchers should be allowed to test on them.

Why the homeless only. Anyone that is healthy should be allowed to volunteer for first in human trials, which is the current situation.

Oh, and the testing was not carried out at the hospital itself, but at a private drug testing clinic, who transferred the subjects to the hospital when they showed adverse reactions.

They didn't 'mess it up'. There were side-effects to the drug they were testing that could not have been predicted by anyone. There's a link in post 15 to the story, and a quote from it saying the drug had previously been tested on animals with no ill effects. It was simply unfortunate.
Exactly! It was tested on animals but it didn't help a bit. Quite rare, of course, but worth noticing. Nothing is certain until it's been tested on humans

edit
And of course, testing on humans doesn't mean that a product is safe to everyone.

They didn't 'mess it up'. There were side-effects to the drug they were testing that could not have been predicted by anyone. There's a link in post 15 to the story, and a quote from it saying the drug had previously been tested on animals with no ill effects. It was simply unfortunate.
Yes but there were problems with the animal testing that were not disclosed to those partaking in the tests.More testing should have taken place before it ever went to human trials

Why the homeless only. Anyone that is healthy should be allowed to volunteer for first in human trials, which is the current situation.

Oh, and the testing was not carried out at the hospital itself, but at a private drug testing clinic, who transferred the subjects to the hospital when they showed adverse reactions.
They're more likely to go for it. Seriously - who's more likely to be motivated by a couple of grand, someone who's homeless and has their only income from begging, or someone who has a decent job already?

Yes, I accept that all healthy people should be allowed to volunteer (I've done it myself, though my girlfriend has forced me to stop since that drug trial incident), but if there's little basis for the trial already (ie. no other tests on living creatures have been done), which the drug company has to explain in the literature for the trial, then healthy people with jobs are very unlikely to go for it. So I say open it to homeless people first (I should probably have said that in my original post), then to others.

And, yeah, you're right about it being at a private clinic. Doesn't make so much difference though, and many drug trials are performed at hospitals (all the ones I've been involved in were at Leicester Royal Infirmary).

*waits for the OMG ANIMALS HAVE RIGHTS TOO!!111one!! crowd to show up*

Yes but there were problems with the animal testing that were not disclosed to those partaking in the tests.More testing should have taken place before it ever went to human trials
From an article related to the one I previously linked to:
TeGenero described the reactions as "shocking developments" and said the new medicine had showed no signs of problems in earlier tests.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4811626.stm

It is extremely unlikely that the MHRA would have allowed the trial to be undertaken if there had been problems.

Oh, and AB - the research unit was "located within the hospital" (first article I linked to).

*waits for the OMG ANIMALS HAVE RIGHTS TOO!!111one!! crowd to show up*
Well, humans are animals. (IMO, another subject, another thread)

They're probably stricter than you think.

Indeed, depending on what type of animal you are talking about. The level of regulation scales with the cognitive and pain capabilities of the organism. Basically, testing on insects has little regulation. Testing on rodents has a bit more. Testing on pigs even more. Testing on apes is damn near impossible unless you can show a great deal of utility.

Personally, I think we should pay homeless people to be tested on. Just because something's fine on animals doesn't mean it'll be ok when used on people.

First of all, all animal testing is not "We have a product, let's test it." Much of it has to do with creating the product in the first place or simply studying a disease process. Second of all, while we cannot guarrantee that something that does not harm an animal will not harm a human, or that something that does harm an animal will harm a human, the correlation is damn close. There is a reason that testing moves up through animals, getting closer and closer to humans.

Well, humans are animals. (IMO, another subject, another thread)

Hmm, yes and no IMO. Point taken though. Especially the "another subject, another thread" bit.

Now I'll shut up before I contradict myself again.

Now, while I agree that these terrorists must be silenced, animal testing is not a good idea.

If you aren't sure bout it, don't test it until you are sure. We have the technology now.

We don't have any technology that would allow us to skip animal testing and stil consdier anything safe enough to move to human trials.

First of all, all animal testing is not "We have a product, let's test it." Much of it has to do with creating the product in the first place or simply studying a disease process. Second of all, while we cannot guarrantee that something that does not harm an animal will not harm a human, or that something that does harm an animal will harm a human, the correlation is damn close. There is a reason that testing moves up through animals, getting closer and closer to humans.
I know that, and I know that the researchers can predict from experience the effect a drug is likely to have on humans, after they've done animal tests. My point is that nothing will show the effects a drug will have on humans like a controlled trial on humans.

Also, animals can't give consent. Just because they're bred for testing doesn't make it any more morally right than if they'd stolen a dog from a family home. A human, of sound mind, can give consent. Although by paying a homeless man, I guess you could argue they wouldn't necessarily be of sound mind if they're just thinking of the money.

Just look into that case in the UK recently where the company messed up a test on humans.It just makes sense to test on animals
No, it doesn't because animals are not humans and thus might not be affected the same.

Personally, I think we should pay homeless people to be tested on. Just because something's fine on animals doesn't mean it'll be ok when used on people. I assume you heard about that incident with the drug-test at the hospital in London recently? Link, in case you didn't. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4807042.stm)


If the homeless people accept the risks, and give their consent, then researchers should be allowed to test on them.

On the other hand, the homeless are possibly the last person to use in a test, considering that they are probably least likely to be educated and so don't really understand the risks (which makes the issue of abuse all the more probable), and they are probably more desperate for the money, and thus more vulnerable than others who at least are not wondering where their next meal might come from.

Although by paying a homeless man, I guess you could argue they wouldn't necessarily be of sound mind if they're just thinking of the money.

Ah, I see that you had thought of that problem already.

How about them paying people like you and me to get injections of some 'funny green liquid' in our skin?

On the other hand, the homeless are possibly the last person to use in a test, considering that they are probably least likely to be educated and so don't really understand the risks (which makes the issue of abuse all the more probable), and they are probably more desperate for the money, and thus more vulnerable than others who at least are not wondering where their next meal might come from.
I know. I came back to this point in my last post (I think).

My point with the 'paying homeless people' was that they're more likely to appreciate the money. Also, they have to understand the risks (and, having taken part in trials myself, and read the consent forms, I can tell you the risks are made explicitly clear) before they give consent. In which case the issue of abuse is taken out of the equation.

How about them paying people like you and me to get injections of some 'funny green liquid' in our skin?
I don't follow...

Do you mean instead of homeless people? Is 'funny green liquid' actually a quote from somewhere?

What the drugs being used in the trial are is detailed in the consent forms given to every prospective participant, so each volunteer would know what the 'funny green liquid' is.

Besides, that's basically what they do already, though generally drugs are administered in capsule or pill form, rather than injected.

I would dig up anybody's remains to stop animal testing. Animals are a hell of a lot better than people...for example, they haven't polluted their entire planet.

I would dig up anybody's remains to stop animal testing. Animals are a hell of a lot better than people...for example, they haven't polluted their entire planet.
No offence to you, but I've now lost all respect for you. There are many forms of acceptable protest anti-testing protestors could use, but digging up someone's remains is lower than I thought they could possibly stoop to.

Why not use cell cultures or recently dead people? If you can use machines that cause the body to act like a living person(minus the usual actual brain functioning), then you should be able to have a non-living person test subject that could actually be more suitable than animals. With the cell cultures, you can simulate real-world conditions to accurately detect side-effects(such as heart failure) better than with non-human hosts. I mean, what's safe for a rat isn't always safe for a person. Why not decrease the risk of Saves-a-rat-but-kills-a-person-ism.

Of course, some people might disagree. Well, why? Why not try to get as close to a living human as possible without going out and "bribing" a homeless person.

I would dig up anybody's remains to stop animal testing. Animals are a hell of a lot better than people...for example, they haven't polluted their entire planet.

Animals are not worthless. Not at all.

But that went too far.

I have a peaceful solution to this problem. Instead of testing on animals, the animal rights people should volunteer for medical testing and vivisection. That way the animals are protected and the protesters do something nice for society instead of planting bombs.

But many of the people against animal testing want to use prisoners. I say if you want to change a system then put yourself forward!

Why not use cell cultures or recently dead people?
Because the family of the recently deceased will probably not give consent...

Hell, I intend to either donate every part of me that medicine will accept, or donate my entire body, and I'd hope that other people would do the same, but I wouldn't give permission for any of my relative's body to be used for that.

Just a thought.

Animals are not worthless. Not at all.

But that went too far.
I agree and disagree. Some people may take the corpse-digging as an insult and/or threat, but I'm sure the dead woman couldn't care less. I mean, if you were muslim, died, and had people cutting pictures of mohhammad into your corpse, would you care? If you were Jewish, died, and saw people putting swastikas on your corpse, would you care? Hell no. Once you die, your body is worthless to you. You wouldn't care less if somebody mutilated it. At least that's what I think.

Also, animals don't think of new ways to kill one-another. If that's because they're smarter than us or if they don't know how remains to be cared about.

"Because the family of the recently deceased will probably not give consent...

Hell, I intend to either donate every part of me that medicine will accept, or donate my entire body, and I'd hope that other people would do the same, but I wouldn't give permission for any of my relative's body to be used for that.

Just a thought."
-I V Stalin

Of course, it would be the dead one to consent. Of course, by consent, I mean consent before death. Just think of it as their final wish. After all, final wishes have to be respected, right?

I would dig up anybody's remains to stop animal testing. Animals are a hell of a lot better than people...for example, they haven't polluted their entire planet.

What about cow farts? Methane pollutes as well

What about cow farts? Methane pollutes as well

Hey... he is right.

I would dig up anybody's remains to stop animal testing. Animals are a hell of a lot better than people...for example, they haven't polluted their entire planet.


Be quiet!

I'm trying to put lipstick on this monkey!

Of course, it would be the dead one to consent. Of course, by consent, I mean consent before death. Just think of it as their final wish. After all, final wishes have to be respected, right?
You know why dead people are dead, yeah? Usually because there's something wrong with them. Drug trials only use healthy volunteers. Bit of a stumbling block there.

Because the family of the recently deceased will probably not give consent...

Hell, I intend to either donate every part of me that medicine will accept, or donate my entire body, and I'd hope that other people would do the same, but I wouldn't give permission for any of my relative's body to be used for that.

Just a thought.

If you want to do it why not let your relatives? It would make more sense if rather than having donor cards to opt in, people had to have cards to opt out, that way loads of people, like myself, who dont have one could still give their organs, and also be used for medical research.

And why not use paedophiles and terrorists for medical testing before its safe for human trials? yeah yeah, human rights, but its a hell of a lot more civilised than digging up someones remains.

And why not use paedophiles and terrorists for medical testing before its safe for human trials? yeah yeah, human rights, but its a hell of a lot more civilised than digging up someones remains.

I do believe that once the Five Castes gets in here, he'll blast you for your use of the word pedophile.
And no it isn't more civilised then digging up someones remains. Injecting a live person with a potentialy deadly substance is more civilized then digging up a corpse? What universe are you from?

I know that, and I know that the researchers can predict from experience the effect a drug is likely to have on humans, after they've done animal tests. My point is that nothing will show the effects a drug will have on humans like a controlled trial on humans.

Of course not. Of course, like I said before, animal testing involves much, much more than testing of drugs. We use animals to study disease processes, to learn medicine, to practice new surgical techniques, etc. Would you prefer that your doctor operate on you without ever trying it on any other creature? Would you prefer that we never have controlled study of disease processes, meaning that we can never really progress in our knowledge of how they work? Would you prefer that people die when we have a new drug to try, because we jumped straight from, "I came up with a chemical formula" to "stick it in a person"?

Also, animals can't give consent.

They don't have to. They aren't human beings.

Look, I care about animals just as much as the next person, but they are not on the level of human beings. If I have to kill 100 rats to save one person, no problem.

Why not use cell cultures

LOL. Where do you think we get enough cells to test on, hmmm? I use cell cultures all the time. Guess what? Every time I start one, I have to kill an animal. Go figure.

or recently dead people?

Maybe because dead things don't react to treatments in the same way as live things? Not to mention that you can't study a disease process in dead tissue.

Cadavers have their place in scientific testing, but they cannot be used for much of what needs to be done.

If you can use machines that cause the body to act like a living person(minus the usual actual brain functioning),

You can't. Even just being sedentary can mess up a trial, and you are talking about using a body in which some of the tissues (all cannot be kept as such) are being kept artificially alive. That won't really give you any more information than a cell culture, human or animal.

With the cell cultures, you can simulate real-world conditions to accurately detect side-effects(such as heart failure) better than with non-human hosts.

Heart failure is rarely caused by anything that can be measured on the cellular level, my dear. Thus, cell culture would tell us basically nothing about whether or not a given drug would cause heart failure.

Of course, some people might disagree. Well, why?

Because it wouldn't work. Biology is a bit more complicated than you seem to think.

Why not try to get as close to a living human as possible without going out and "bribing" a homeless person.

A living pig is much closer to a living human than a dead human.

I don't follow...

Do you mean instead of homeless people? Is 'funny green liquid' actually a quote from somewhere?

What the drugs being used in the trial are is detailed in the consent forms given to every prospective participant, so each volunteer would know what the 'funny green liquid' is.

Besides, that's basically what they do already, though generally drugs are administered in capsule or pill form, rather than injected.


What I meant was simply if you and I would not be comfortable with being 'rats' in an experiment, we certainly should not be dragging the homeless people into this. Many of the homeless people that I have met have some sort of mental problem--whoops, I mean 'challenge', and so are possibly not in the best position to understand what exactly is going on (other than they might be getting some money from the gentlemen in the white coat). My point is the homeless people are people, worth all of the dignity and respect that any human deserves, but perhaps even more consideration, given their vulnerability and frequent handicaps. I don't think it is right to make tests on these people (exclusively). Although, if testing is allowed, I am not arguing for specifically excluding the homless. Just that the homeless need extra protection.

Why not students, rather than homeless? They usually need the money also.

You know why dead people are dead, yeah? Usually because there's something wrong with them. Drug trials only use healthy volunteers. Bit of a stumbling block there.

Just a correction. Early phase drug trials use healthy volunteers. This is because those trials are designed to test safety and dosing issues. Later phase trials use volunteers with the condition which the treatment was designed to be used on.


Hell, I intend to either donate every part of me that medicine will accept, or donate my entire body, and I'd hope that other people would do the same,

Good for you. My basic instructions for disposal of my body after I die:

-Take any organs that can be given to people who need them and donate them.
-From what's left, science can have whatever.
-If there's anything at all left at that point, cremation, I suppose.

Look, I care about animals just as much as the next person, but they are not on the level of human beings. If I have to kill 100 rats to save one person, no problem.

That's interesting, Dem. But would you kill all the rats just to save one person? (not a question necessarily related to the topic, but you seemed so certain about rat killing that it prompted such a question)

Perhaps the point is where does the value of one human life end? Or how many animals lives are worth one human life?

Of course not. Of course, like I said before, animal testing involves much, much more than testing of drugs. We use animals to study disease processes, to learn medicine, to practice new surgical techniques, etc. Would you prefer that your doctor operate on you without ever trying it on any other creature? Would you prefer that we never have controlled study of disease processes, meaning that we can never really progress in our knowledge of how they work?
Actually, trainee medics (those doing medicine degrees) learn there skills from dissecting human bodies. In the UK at least.

Would you prefer that people die when we have a new drug to try, because we jumped straight from, "I came up with a chemical formula" to "stick it in a person"?
Most testing on animals isn't done straight from coming up with a formula. It has to go through numerous laboratory experiments before the researchers even think of testing on animals. Then there's rigorous investigation into the basis behind the animal tests by an independent organisation.

The animal test is then done with two groups - the 'control' and the 'live' group. I assume you're familiar with this, but I'm including it in case you're not. Because of the tests involved before research has reached this stage, it is comparatively rare (comparative meaning relative to public perception) that animals die. If several animals die from side-effects of the drug, the research is halted and the drug almost always withdrawn from further tests.

I'm proposing that instead of using animals, we use humans. As it is comparatively rare that animals die, I believe I can say with a degree of safety that it will be comparatively rare for humans to die. Also, because of the greater understanding we will gain from trials on humans, it will increase the speed with which advances in medicine come.


They don't have to. They aren't human beings.

Look, I care about animals just as much as the next person, but they are not on the level of human beings. If I have to kill 100 rats to save one person, no problem.
Fundamental difference. While they aren't necessarily humans, that doesn't mean they don't have rights. Although I'm vegetarian, I don't disagree with animals dying for people to eat them. Just because we are 'superior' to them (I can't think of a better word right now), by which I basically mean we can take advantage of them, doesn't mean we can sacrifice their lives to save the lives of some humans.

If I had to kill 100 rats to save one person, I'd let the person die.

If I had to kill 100 rats to save one person, I'd let the person die.

Even if it were to save your father, and all of the rats were ill?

If you want to do it why not let your relatives? It would make more sense if rather than having donor cards to opt in, people had to have cards to opt out, that way loads of people, like myself, who dont have one could still give their organs, and also be used for medical research.
It wouldn't be 'letting them'. If they had expressly stated a wish to have their body be used for such a purpose, I wouldn't stop them, but if they hadn't, I wouldn't assume they'd want me to decide what to do with their body. If they hadn't made any wishes, and it were solely down to me to decide what to do with their body (for whatever reason), I would have as many of their organs as possible donated, then burn the remains.

While the 'opt-out' idea is quite a good one in theory, what about children? At what point would they be deemed fit to decide? If their parents have opt-out cards, most likely they'll not want their child's organs used either, but the child may grow up with completely different views on the matter.

Even if it were to save your father, and all of the rats were ill?
Oh, come on. I don't deal in subjective arguments. What if it could be proven that the rats would somehow stop the president of the US dropping a nuke on a heavily populated area?

Oh, come on. I don't deal in subjective arguments. What if it could be proven that the rats would somehow stop the president of the US dropping a nuke on a heavily populated area?

Yeah, I realised as I was posting that I was doing something I hated. It always happens in death penalty discussions.

Just a correction. Early phase drug trials use healthy volunteers. This is because those trials are designed to test safety and dosing issues. Later phase trials use volunteers with the condition which the treatment was designed to be used on.
I agree with the correction.

Again, dead people would be useless. If, for example, a drug was developed that could stop breast cancer, and it was proposed to use it on people who had recently died of breast cancer, the idea would be laughed at.

Why? Because once the person is dead, so are the cancer cells. The drug couldn't have any effect.

The use of animals in medical testing, which although isn't pleasant, is vital to continuing medical research

Agreed most definitely. We owe so much to animal experimentation that it's beyond belief.

Banning animal testing would be immoral.

That's interesting, Dem. But would you kill all the rats just to save one person? (not a question necessarily related to the topic, but you seemed so certain about rat killing that it prompted such a question)

Perhaps the point is where does the value of one human life end? Or how many animals lives are worth one human life?

In my opinion, it depends on the animal, which is why I approve of the current regulations on animal testing which scale with the cognitive and pain capabilities of the creature in question.


Actually, trainee medics (those doing medicine degrees) learn there skills from dissecting human bodies. In the UK at least.

They start out there, but nearly all medical programs move to live subjects at some point. The exact animal used depends on the area of study. For instance, cats have been used to simulate intubating neonates, because the physiology is similar. Pigs have been used in learning liver transplants.

Most testing on animals isn't done straight from coming up with a formula. It has to go through numerous laboratory experiments before the researchers even think of testing on animals.

Those numerous laboratory experiments are usually cell culture experiments. The cells in culture usually come, in early tests at least, from animals. Human cell lines may be used, but since cell lines have been transformed, primary cells (usually animal) have to be used at some point.

Then there's rigorous investigation into the basis behind the animal tests by an independent organisation.

Indeed.

The animal test is then done with two groups - the 'control' and the 'live' group. I assume you're familiar with this, but I'm including it in case you're not. Because of the tests involved before research has reached this stage, it is comparatively rare (comparative meaning relative to public perception) that animals die. If several animals die from side-effects of the drug, the research is halted and the drug almost always withdrawn from further tests.

Indeed, although it isn't as rare as you think that animals die, at least not in the earliest testing. In most drug tests, doses are taken from ineffective to deadly, to get a good idea of where dosing will lie for human beings.

And the only way that a test will be stopped is if animals die, and the cause of death cannot be determined and dealt with. If it is a dosing issue, doses are reduced. If it is a chemical issue, the chemical makeup of the drug may be altered, and so on.


And, once again, you are sticking completley to drug testing, which is a very, very tiny portion of all animal testing.

I'm proposing that instead of using animals, we use humans. As it is comparatively rare that animals die, I believe I can say with a degree of safety that it will be comparatively rare for humans to die. Also, because of the greater understanding we will gain from trials on humans, it will increase the speed with which advances in medicine come.

There's one thing you are missing here, the idea of controlled trials. If I test a drug on mice, I can use mice that are all genetically identical. Thus, I know with great certainty that any difference seen between the control and test groups is due to the effect of the drug. To get the same degree of certainty in human beings, I would have to use at least an order of magnitude more subjects, increasing the chances of more human deaths. Percentage-wise, this means that more humans would die than animals in the same level of testing. Forgive me if I'm not willing to put all those humans at risk until I have seen how something reacts in a living body.

Fundamental difference. While they aren't necessarily humans, that doesn't mean they don't have rights.

It means they have less.

If I had to kill 100 rats to save one person, I'd let the person die.

So, if rats invaded your house, putting your health and that of any pets you have in danger, you'd just let them live there?

What I meant was simply if you and I would not be comfortable with being 'rats' in an experiment, we certainly should not be dragging the homeless people into this.
I wasn't suggesting 'dragging' them in. I said we should consider them first.

Many of the homeless people that I have met have some sort of mental problem--whoops, I mean 'challenge', and so are possibly not in the best position to understand what exactly is going on (other than they might be getting some money from the gentlemen in the white coat).
People are exploited all the time. I know this isn't an ethically 'good' answer, but it's the nature of humanity to exploit weakness.

So we don't consider those who are 'mentally challenged' - but they'd be rejected anyway, because they're not healthy. I wasn't saying we go kidnap them, trial the drug on them, then pay them. I was suggesting that the drug companies could approach them first, then use the ones who are suitable.


Why not students, rather than homeless? They usually need the money also.
Because students can usually get a job - homeless people can't even apply for benefits. The students that don't get jobs either don't need the money or are actually just lazy. I come under both categories, but I still go in for drug trials (used to, anyway).

Animal Testing is wrong! Tons of animals get hurt, get sick, or even die from animal testing! Animals have rights too, one of them is being able to live freely.

If I had to kill 100 rats to save one person, I'd let the person die.

Wow.

Just to let you know, I'd kill every rat on the face of the planet with my bare hands to save just one drug-addicted street thug.

Just to let you know, I'd kill every rat on the face of the planet with my bare hands to save just one drug-addicted street thug.
Way to go and ruin the food-chain.

Animal Testing is wrong! Tons of animals get hurt, get sick, or even die from animal testing! Animals have rights too, one of them is being able to live freely.

Under the current laws, animal testing is only used when no other option is available. IMO, fair comprimise.

Oh, and prove those statistics.

(Oh, and don't tell me you're supportive of this dig up remains thing.)

Way to go and ruin the food-chain.

It'll adapt like it always does.

It'll adapt like it always does.

Really?

Animal Testing is wrong! Tons of animals get hurt, get sick, or even die from animal testing! Animals have rights too, one of them is being able to live freely.

There's no need to be naïve.

Really?

That's right. Creatures who couldn't adapt to the change have to die.

Mother nature is a cold-hearted bitch. And when she says it's time to go, it's time to go, be that species humans, dogs, cats, rats, anything.

We humans have driven so many animals to extinction before and the food chain has adapted. Those animals that couldn't joined the species we wiped out.

meh, i'd still test on animals even if banned...but i'll mix in a few human subjects as well.

I mean, put in the people who are either suicidal, the ones experience too much crappy drama, or the ones you/society really despise(s) [sry if it's misspelled].
Kinda like my friend's idea of burning old people for fuel. They're so numerous, dying anyway and don't make many contributions. YAY!

Besides, we need to thin the population a bit; nuke a few cities or something because a lot of people are frail, stupid, and destructive. WOOOO!

Animal Testing is wrong!

Oh really?

Tons of animals get hurt,

Not without analgesia, unless they are insects.

get sick,

Some already are sick. That's why they are the subjects of the test. Some are made sick, yes. It's a little hard to study a disease in healthy tissue, don't you think?

or even die from animal testing!

Most often they don't really die *from* the test, but as a part of it.
What is your point?

Animals have rights too, one of them is being able to live freely.

Actually, most test animals could never be allowed to "live freely". They have been selectively bred and/or genetically altered to the point that releasing them into the wild would be extremely detrimental to the ecosystem. If we decided tomorrow to ban testing on, for instance, mice, all of the stores of lab mice would simply have to be destroyed.

They start out there, but nearly all medical programs move to live subjects at some point. The exact animal used depends on the area of study. For instance, cats have been used to simulate intubating neonates, because the physiology is similar. Pigs have been used in learning liver transplants.
I'd have to ask my girlfriend about this, as she's the one doing the medicine degree. Though you seem to know what you're talking about, so I'll take your word for the minute.

Those numerous laboratory experiments are usually cell culture experiments. The cells in culture usually come, in early tests at least, from animals. Human cell lines may be used, but since cell lines have been transformed, primary cells (usually animal) have to be used at some point.
Again, I will have to take your word for it. If I had time to do more research into it, I would.

Indeed, although it isn't as rare as you think that animals die, at least not in the earliest testing. In most drug tests, doses are taken from ineffective to deadly, to get a good idea of where dosing will lie for human beings.
Sadly, again, I have to take your word for this. I don't like it, but I have no choice. I can imagine that you're right, though.

And, once again, you are sticking completley to drug testing, which is a very, very tiny portion of all animal testing.
Mmm, yes, but I'm starting from the position that anything other than medical drug trials on animals are morally unacceptable.


There's one thing you are missing here, the idea of controlled trials. If I test a drug on mice, I can use mice that are all genetically identical. Thus, I know with great certainty that any difference seen between the control and test groups is due to the effect of the drug. To get the same degree of certainty in human beings, I would have to use at least an order of magnitude more subjects, increasing the chances of more human deaths. Percentage-wise, this means that more humans would die than animals in the same level of testing. Forgive me if I'm not willing to put all those humans at risk until I have seen how something reacts in a living body.
Valid argument. I guess the only way I could get round this would be to advocate cloning humans for research purposes, but I find that worse than allowing humans to die.


It means they have less.
Still doesn't mean we are morally justified in taking advantage of them for medical purposes.


So, if rats invaded your house, putting your health and that of any pets you have in danger, you'd just let them live there?
I stated already I don't deal in subjective arguments.

Actually, most test animals could never be allowed to "live freely". They have been selectively bred and/or genetically altered to the point that releasing them into the wild would be extremely detrimental to the ecosystem. If we decided tomorrow to ban testing on, for instance, mice, all of the stores of lab mice would simply have to be destroyed.
I know this wasn't a reply to me, but I'll answer this anyway.

Although what you've said about genetically identical animals being used is (almost certainly) correct, I still disagree with the idea of breeding animals solely for testing. A life that is limited to a cage and a lab, with no prospect of any freedom, and being subject to potentially numerous, potentially lethal doses of drugs or whatever, is not worth being called a life.

Wow.

Just to let you know, I'd kill every rat on the face of the planet with my bare hands to save just one drug-addicted street thug.
Then you have screwed priorities. Hell, given the prospect of one lab rat and one drug-addicted street thug, I'd probably choose to save the life of the rat.

NB: again, this is subjective. I'm not going to continue this argument, so don't bother me with arguments about how the druggie could be rehabilitated into society.

Mmm, yes, but I'm starting from the position that anything other than medical drug trials on animals are morally unacceptable.

How exactly do you think we get to the point that we can come up with a drug in the first place? It isn't someone just sitting around and a chemical formula pops into their heads and they think, "I bet this will cure [insert disease here]." We get to that point by studying the biological processes associated with normal and diseased tissue. Without animal testing, there is no controlled way to study these things and no way to get a time course study. Thus, without animal testing, there would be no drugs to test on animals.

Still doesn't mean we are morally justified in taking advantage of them for medical purposes.

That is something you'll have to decide for yourself. But understand that medical technology has never and most likely cannot progress without animal testing. So, if you don't agree with them being used, you should cease using medical technology.

I stated already I don't deal in subjective arguments.

It isn't an argument. It's a question. Do you refrain from having any type of exterminator come out to your home?

I know this wasn't a reply to me, but I'll answer this anyway.

Although what you've said about genetically identical animals being used is (almost certainly) correct, I still disagree with the idea of breeding animals solely for testing. A life that is limited to a cage and a lab, with no prospect of any freedom, and being subject to potentially numerous, potentially lethal doses of drugs or whatever, is not worth being called a life.

Fine, that is your opinion.

And it means that:

(a) We cannot do scientifically valid tests to further medical research without killing off a lot more life, since we are going to have to have exponentially higher numbers of subjects in tests.

(b) All current lab rodents would have to be destroyed, as they could not be released into the wild.

Edit: Although I would point out that it is highly unlikely that most lab animals have any concept of freedom. Meanwhile, they are much safer and often have much, much longer lifespans in a lab. They are kept on a strict light-dark cycle, fed and watered at will, and have no predators to worry about.

We don't have such a rat problem. We put down poison, traps or humane traps. Nobody calls an "exterminator".

Then you have screwed priorities. Hell, given the prospect of one lab rat and one drug-addicted street thug, I'd probably choose to save the life of the rat.

NB: again, this is subjective. I'm not going to continue this argument, so don't bother me with arguments about how the druggie could be rehabilitated into society.

My priorities are screwed?

I'm not the one trying to put a significant halt on medical science here.

By banning animal research, you'd be doing just that. We owe so much to animal testing that you've probably taken drugs that were tested on animals.

By saving that one street thug druggie of whatever his condition was, we'll be able to save countless others.

Banning animal research would be beyond belief. You'd be almost halting medical research completely. In fact, the only reason any research at all would still continue is because researchers could look at previous data researched before the ban and hopefully come up with something off of that.

We don't have such a rat problem. We put down poison, traps or humane traps. Nobody calls an "exterminator".

An exterminator would put down poison - you apparently do the same.

You cause more suffering to animals than anything I do in the lab, considering that lab animals get analgesic for any harm I cause them. Sounds to me like you are more cruel to animals than animal testing.....

By banning animal research, you'd be doing just that. We owe so much to animal testing that you've probably taken drugs that were tested on animals.

Anyone who has ever taken any drug, undergone any medical procedure, or even seen a doctor has benefitted from animal testing. In truth, even a person who has never done any of this has benefitted from testing, because having a healthy populace around you makes you less likely to get sick yourself.

Anyone who has ever taken any drug, undergone any medical procedure, or even seen a doctor has benefitted from animal testing. In truth, even a person who has never done any of this has benefitted from testing, because having a healthy populace around you makes you less likely to get sick yourself.

Good point.

I think I'll go back and edit my post.

An exterminator would put down poison - you apparently do the same.

You cause more suffering to animals than anything I do in the lab, considering that lab animals get analgesic for any harm I cause them. Sounds to me like you are more cruel to animals than animal testing.....

I never said that I was opposed to animal testing. I personally have never killed a rat, you understand.

I'm not bothering to quote anything here - this is to the people claiming I'm trying to stop medical research:

I never said we should stop medical research. I said I disagree with breeding animals for it, that it isn't morally justifiable. Note that is not saying we should stop it. While I believe this, I also accept there is no better alternative. So I should not stop using medical facilities, or whatever it was Dempublicents said. I think the majority of capitalism unfairly exploits people, and I find that morally unjustifiable as well, but I accept that there seems to be no better alternative, so I go along with it.

The medical testing done on animals is used for advancement in human and animal medical advancements. I assume that the people who are against laboratory testing on animals know that. Some of the advancements made in animal testing on animals are used for humans and vice versa. Medical testing on animals is not the only way animals are used in a laboratory setting. The people who are against all testing on animals would be horrified to know about some of the things that animals are used for in veterinary schooling, but most of the animal rights groups seem to forget that.

I agree that animals have rights and the animals in laboratory settings are not treated inhumanely. There are many regulations on how the animals are to be treated, they have people specifically hired to socialize the animals and spend time with them. Some people seem to have the idea that medical testing is a horrible way for an animal to spend its life, but they are not treated inhumanely.

It isn't an argument. It's a question. Do you refrain from having any type of exterminator come out to your home?
It's a question, yes, but from my answer, doubtless you will argue. Hence, it is an argument.

As to the question, yes, I'd probably call in an exterminator. But I don't believe that my life would necessarily be at risk.

Your original statement - 'I would kill 100 rats to save one person', or words to that effect, implies a dispassionate situation, where you have a choice of the killing rats or killing a person. The situation you gave arouses emotion, therefore making it subjective. As I said, I don't deal with the subjective - though I have given you an answer, I would prefer it if you did not continue an argument based on this.

I agree that animals have rights and the animals in laboratory settings are not treated inhumanely. There are many regulations on how the animals are to be treated, they have people specifically hired to socialize the animals and spend time with them. Some people seem to have the idea that medical testing is a horrible way for an animal to spend its life, but they are not treated inhumanely.
(Emphasis mine). Well, if you call being stuffed with lethal drugs humane, then fine. My point was that a life without freedom isn't really a life. A mouse bred for testing has no life, because it has no life outside the laboratory. Just because it may have a better life within the lab (apart from the tests) than if it were outside, doesn't make it any better.

As to anyone thinking of arguing that an animal bred for research probably wouldn't be able to survive outside the lab, I have already made my view on breeding for research clear.

I'm not bothering to quote anything here - this is to the people claiming I'm trying to stop medical research:

I never said we should stop medical research. I said I disagree with breeding animals for it, that it isn't morally justifiable. Note that is not saying we should stop it. While I believe this, I also accept there is no better alternative. So I should not stop using medical facilities, or whatever it was Dempublicents said. I think the majority of capitalism unfairly exploits people, and I find that morally unjustifiable as well, but I accept that there seems to be no better alternative, so I go along with it.

Wouldn't "there is no better alternative" correlate closely to "morally justifiable"?

Edit: Meanwhile, if you find animal testing to be morally unacceptable, wouldn't it be rather hypocritical to then benefit from it?

Wouldn't "there is no better alternative" correlate closely to "morally justifiable"?
It's close, but I don't consider it the same.

I know I will make myself many enemies but I am thankful for animal test subjects. Everyone can whine and bitch, saying that now we bave programs but the thing is is programs are predicatable, living tissue isn't. Granted animals will respond differently than a human will but at least is is the first step. After they get CONSISTANT results with an animal, they they test it on a human subject.

Edit: Meanwhile, if you find animal testing to be morally unacceptable, wouldn't it be rather hypocritical to then benefit from it?
I wondered if someone would ask that. Can you honestly say you're never hypocritical?

Considering I only benefit from it indirectly - in so far as, like you pointed out, the general population is healthier because of it - as I never use medicine (or haven't since I thought about the issue and came to my current belief), I don't consider it to be that hypocritical. In the future if I need some form of medical treatment, I would have no hesitation in accepting it, even though I know that that is most certainly hypocritical.

I know I will make myself many enemies but I am thankful for animal test subjects. Everyone can whine and bitch, saying that now we bave programs but the thing is is programs are predicatable, living tissue isn't. Granted animals will respond differently than a human will but at least is is the first step. After they get CONSISTANT results with an animal, they they test it on a human subject.
Even though I'm arguing against animal testing, to an extent, I still agree with you. I'm thankful for it, as many medical advances would never have happened without it. Yes, Dempublicents, I know that's hypocritical. :)

Well, if you call being stuffed with lethal drugs humane, then fine.

The only drug that a laboratory animal would recieve that is knowingly lethal is to be euthanized. It isn't known if the drug is lethal, that is why it is being tested in the first place.


My point was that a life without freedom isn't really a life.

One could argue that a pet rat doesn't have any freedom. It has to stay in a cage whether it wants to or not and be socialized and fed at the owner's discretion. The idea of a life of freedom is subjective. While an animal doesn't choose to be used for testing, a dog doesn't choose to stay in the house all day while the owners are out.

I wondered if someone would ask that. Can you honestly say you're never hypocritical?

I can honestly say I try my best not to be.

The only drug that a laboratory animal would recieve that is knowingly lethal is to be euthanized. It isn't known if the drug is lethal, that is why it is being tested in the first place.
I was being hyperbolic. As Dempublicents said, doses that are almost certainly lethal will be given to some animals.



One could argue that a pet rat doesn't have any freedom. It has to stay in a cage whether it wants to or not and be socialized and fed at the owner's discretion. The idea of a life of freedom is subjective. While an animal doesn't choose to be used for testing, a dog doesn't choose to stay in the house all day while the owners are out.
But the rat isn't necessarily born into that life - animals bred for testing are.

Taking your argument further, one could say that many humans have no freedom. Because of the capitalist society we live in, they have no choice but to earn money to survive.

I can honestly say I try my best not to be.
And I believe you, but I wouldn't have believed you if you'd said that you never are.

But the rat isn't necessarily born into that life - animals bred for testing are.

And we would have to kill many, many more animals if we had to catch them, and couldn't do much by way of long-term disease testing.

Out of curiosity, are you opposed to animal breeding for food? Many such animals are treated much less humanely than lab animals.

Out of curiosity, are you opposed to animal breeding for food? Many such animals are treated much less humanely than lab animals.
Yes, but not so much for the humane issue. I believe it's a waste of resources to farm animals, when much the land used for pasturing etc. can be used instead as arable land. Also, the amount of food used in the farming process could be better used if redistributed to areas in need of food.

It's mostly poultry that's treated inhumanely, although I know other animals are. I guess I've not thought about it as a moral issue, because I only think of it as a resource issue. If you're going to force an opinion from me on animal breeding for food as a moral issue, I would say that there are aspects of it that aren't morally justifiable as well. I don't really want to get into that though, because I'll just be making my opinion on the hoof (pun intended).

I am curious as to how you, I V Stalin, have determined that an animal does not have a life worth living if it does not have freedom.

Imagine the situation where you are condemned to live the rest of your life in a pitch black, damp tunnel; being provided with worms and insects to eat. Would your life be worth living? As a human no, but as a mole surely it would (ask moleland).

The point is that you are projecting human values onto non human individuals. A good life for a cat is pretty clearly one in which they get to eat and drink when they want and sleep as much as possible in the intervening periods. This life would drive a human crazy. You can not, without showing any evidence for it, assume that freedom is something essential to the lives of non human animals.

I am curious as to how you, I V Stalin, have determined that an animal does not have a life worth living if it does not have freedom.

Imagine the situation where you are condemned to live the rest of your life in a pitch black, damp tunnel; being provided with worms and insects to eat. Would your life be worth living? As a human no, but as a mole surely it would (ask moleland).

The point is that you are projecting human values onto non human individuals. A good life for a cat is pretty clearly one in which they get to eat and drink when they want and sleep as much as possible in the intervening periods. This life would drive a human crazy. You can not, without showing any evidence for it, assume that freedom is something essential to the lives of non human animals.
I guess it's a valid point. But then which out of the 'free' mice in the field or the 'captive' mice in the lab has the life? Then again, I'm also assuming that a mice would prefer not to be subject to the kinds of tests a lab mouse is subject to, but again, I'm projecting human values onto non-human individuals. (Yeah, that's just facetious, I'm sorry).

And, in fairness, that good life you gave in the cat example would not drive me crazy. Hell, I hope every day for that sort of life. Maybe with unrestricted access to this forum as well. ;)

I have a peaceful solution to this problem. Instead of testing on animals, the animal rights people should volunteer for medical testing and vivisection. That way the animals are protected and the protesters do something nice for society instead of planting bombs.
You could be included as well :D

I guess it's a valid point. But then which out of the 'free' mice in the field or the 'captive' mice in the lab has the life?

I can't know, I am not a mouse. What canbe done is to measure the after effects of stress on the system that are detctable after death. If this were done I am willing to bet that the mouse in the field will have gone through a lot more stress in its life than the one in the lab did. Now which is a better life: one full of risk and stress or one full of comfort and relaxation. Ceteris parabis the relaxing life. the quewstion is whether it is all else being equal or not.

Then again, I'm also assuming that a mice would prefer not to be subject to the kinds of tests a lab mouse is subject to, but again, I'm projecting human values onto non-human individuals. (Yeah, that's just facetious, I'm sorry).
Why do you assume this?

And, in fairness, that good life you gave in the cat example would not drive me crazy. Hell, I hope every day for that sort of life. Maybe with unrestricted access to this forum as well. ;)
Try it for three weeks and then say you would like to live like that for the rest of your life (No NS, no football, no intellectual stimulation whatsoever.)

I can't know, I am not a mouse. What canbe done is to measure the after effects of stress on the system that are detctable after death. If this were done I am willing to bet that the mouse in the field will have gone through a lot more stress in its life than the one in the lab did. Now which is a better life: one full of risk and stress or one full of comfort and relaxation. Ceteris parabis the relaxing life. the quewstion is whether it is all else being equal or not.
Risk and stress increases adrenaline flow which in turn increases endorphins. I imagine if you look at a stress/pain against pleasure balance for a 'free' mouse and a lab mouse, the two would probably come out fairly similar, as one has comparatively high levels of stress, whereas one has comparatively high levels of pain.

Why do you assume this?
Because it's been proven that their pain receptors work in very similar ways to ours. So they probably don't enjoy the tests.

Try it for three weeks and then say you would like to live like that for the rest of your life (No NS, no football, no intellectual stimulation whatsoever.)
More sex, more fights (more adrenaline), more exercise, more sleep. (This is life as a cat - I can't do the no intellectual stimulation thing without failing my degree).

Wow. I came to this thread, and started reading, expecting the "Save the poor bunnies" crew waving pictures from the 50's to have invaded.

Last thing I was expecting was a largely tolerant, well-informed debate.

Well done the NS General crew (esp Dempublicents and I V Stalin) for restoring my faith in the ability of denizens of this forum to have intelligent discussions about...well, anything :D

Wow. I came to this thread, and started reading, expecting the "Save the poor bunnies" crew waving pictures from the 50's to have invaded.

Last thing I was expecting was a largely tolerant, well-informed debate.

Well done the NS General crew (esp Dempublicents and I V Stalin) for restoring my faith in the ability of denizens of this forum to have intelligent discussions about...well, anything :D
Woo! Admiration at last! :p

Actually, there's usually at least a couple of 'tolerant, well-informed' debates going on here, if you look for them. You could check out the porn thread for another one, though it gets a bit flamy in the middle.

Oh yeah, just for the record I'm in favour of animal testing; believe a lot more people would be if the arguments were properly laid out by those involved; and am considering joining Pro-Test - simply because the ALF has said all Oxford students are 'legitimate' targets. They need a damn good kicking. (I expect most people opposed to animal testing would agree with that actually. Having psychos on your side devalues your argument by association).