animal experimentation

Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by fantsyme, Aug 31, 2004.

  1. fantsyme

    fantsyme New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2004
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Hi there,

    a friend of mine has sent me this link and after watching the video I was really sad. Why do we allow those things. Can anyone help me out? Why vivisection? Why all this animal suffering? I have no clue... I am just ...sad

    www.planet-of-covance.com


    Don't watch it if you are younger than 18 years - just a suggestion!

    cya
    fantsyme :devilspin
     
  2. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Well, that does some getting used to, doesn't it? I don't know the specific company the promo is about, but I'd say this is pretty common practice. And indeed, when you don't know anuthing about these kind of things, it could be pretty shocking.

    About your question, why vivisection, well strictly vivisection is just a very narrow band of animal research, namely that of disecting live animals for research or educational reasons. But, basically I get what you mean. Well, first of all, animal research focusses dominantly on that - research, or things we do not know. whether that is usefull? It is what has lead to our civilisation. That pretty much answers the question for me. And, yes we could stop with animal testing, but realise that our biological understandings (and we are only at the start of understanding animals) would come to a near standstill. And standstill is decline, do realise that, apart from medicine being invented, others disappear due to new rules or simpy they have lost their effect!

    To dig myself further in the discussion, the basic question is whether humans have the right to inflict these things on animals to enrich their lives and be able to live longer. I rather turn the question around, formulating, whether (mortally or chronicle) patients could be denied the prospect of a cure, if we decide to stop animal testing. That is the other side of the story. For instance, there are at least 4 different types of anti-HIV medicine on the market (combined in one therapy, by the way), due to our understandings derived from amongst others animal testing. Potentially we are talking an average of 20-30 years of exrtra lifespan per infectee, and curing about half of them.

    On the other hand, I do realise that the number of tests are either too high or could be reduced. realise that pharmaceutical companies are not about saving animals, but making money. It is a bilion dollar industry. Since a lot of medicine that come to the market (about 20 a year) are medicine that work more or less the same as other products already for sale at your local pharmacist. Since (I estimate) that a new medicine "takes" anything between 10.000 and 100.000 animals (yes, that much), that would count up over the years. One way to control the usage of animals is already pioneered in Great Brittain and Holland, where a special board has to give their OK to each and every animal test conducted. This gave rise to both a nice decline in the number of used animals and a better treatment for animals.

    And why animal suffering? that is such a general question one couldn't answer easily. Have you ever been in a petshop, with these plastic animal cages every child looks into a bit too enthousiastically? Well, that seems to be about as stressfull for especially rodents (still the top sellers in the petshop). 1.) most of the time the light that is used is very stressful to these animals, who rather live in the dark anyway. 2) every time humans walk by, they will be put under extra stress. knocking on boxes doesn't help either, just as talking people. 3) smell of other animals could be very stressful to the animals (for instance a mouse smelling a rat). I could go on, but I won't. Also appreciate that the situation at the new owners isn't that much better, and the animals normally live about 1/3 of the time they could. Most animal tests involve injection with something, in 99% of the cases non-toxic, observation of the animal, before killing it. Also realise that stress is a bad factor in any experiment, since it could interfere with about every parameter in the animal. Killing, for instance is done as mildly as possible.

    In the end, I'd say animal testing has a function in this society. It has a function, however on a global scale could be enhanced. I'd say don't fight animal research, make gouvernments implement better rules of conduct for them.
     
  3. kartaron

    kartaron Hunter / Gatherer

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,287
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +20 / 0 / -0

    Good Answer, I agree
     
  4. Radagast

    Radagast Art House Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,058
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Saskatchewan, Canada.
    Ratings:
    +18 / 0 / -0
    I pretty much agree with Turamber on this one :)

    After viewing that video, I have come to the same conclusion I have of Michael Moore's works. There may be some truth behind it, but it is presented in a way to specifically gain sympathy, with facts that are rather hazy.

    One thing that bothered me was when the video stated roughly "There is a new science that doesn't rely animal testing." But they left it at that. When they fail to provide information pertaining to this 'new science', it makes me rather wary. Why not tell us of these methods? Where this 'new science is being developed? How does it work?

    Unlike Turambar, I have not worked around research animals. But I do work in a Veterinary Clinic, which presents similiar situations that may give me more insight than the general public. One of the big points in the video was that the monkeys are disposed of in the garbage. Here's something for you to ponder: unless you pay $150+ to have your pet properly cremated when the Vet euthanizes your animal, your pet will end up in the garbage dump too. Lots of times, for educational purposes, the Vet and myself have disected a deceased pet once the owner leaves the body in our care. I know it sounds harsh, but I learn 10x more from those experiences than from the textbook. Like Turamber said:
    Because I know first-hand the wealth of knowledge to be gained, I can only imagine how much is gained when properly educated individuals are researching.

    Here's another point to think about. The big message in the video was that animals are our equals and should be treated as such. In that case, our international Livestock Industry should be shut down, no? My dad is apart of the Cattle Industry in Canada, I know the conditions livestock are subjected too. Cattle here have to stand outside and endure our -40C blizzards for the whole winter. It's no different for chickens who have to remain locked in tiny crates their whole lives. Or milkcows who are over-milked for more quantity.

    Is this wrong? Yes, it is. But the general public seems okay enough with it, as long as they can have their BigMac the next time they go to McDonalds. I see Animal Testing in no different perspective: it is 'wrong', but the neccessity of it outweigh's my morals.
     
  5. Ranger_of_Gondor

    Ranger_of_Gondor Gondorian Defender

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,091
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Massachusets(The mostly Anti-Bush state. Hooray!)
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    It's things like this that makes the human race disgusting. Now Radagast, I think the livestock should be treated better if you say they are treated so bad. We should still be able to eat them, I mean one of the basic laws of nature is eat or be eaten. But even if we plan on eating these animals, why should they not be treated fairly? They have lives too. So I'm also against such cruel test on animals that I saw in the video. It's just not right. That's why I like anti animal cruelty soceitys like the ASPCA. And what I think they ment by the trash bag thing was that those animals should not be dead in some lab's trash bin. They should of died in the wild or in a zoo. But not a lab where they were cruely treated.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2004
  6. kartaron

    kartaron Hunter / Gatherer

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,287
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +20 / 0 / -0
    It is not immoral to subject an animal to testing for a valid reason. Investigating the behaviour of pathogens and diseases in other animals is a viable means of being able to predict the same in our own bodies. Animals and humans are not equals and cant be trated so. To take that absurdity as a fact would mean we have no right to own or interfere with any animal. Abusing animals without justification is a different matter and it probably immoral but that wasnt the point of the original post.

    As for the cows and chickens: Free range chicken is on the market and it tends be priced higher to represent the extra costs involved in raising the chickens. Vote with your pocketbook. It is not abuse to let an animal endure what it would have to endure in your absence. Leaving a cow in the cold isnt abuse. I tend not to care much that animals raised to be food are mistreated in the process. It just doesnt bother me that much. I wouldnt mind a little extra care in the process (like not leaving chickens in their filth) though, because it tends to lead to healthier food products for me to consume.
     
  7. Ranger_of_Gondor

    Ranger_of_Gondor Gondorian Defender

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,091
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Massachusets(The mostly Anti-Bush state. Hooray!)
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    No, animals and humans aren't equal. But animals have lives too. It's diffrent if you are examining the animal or simply testing what disease it has. But mistreatmnet is a diffrent story. And what I saw in those pictures was defeinetly mistreatment.
     
  8. Radagast

    Radagast Art House Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,058
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Saskatchewan, Canada.
    Ratings:
    +18 / 0 / -0
    I have a strong belief that those pictures and video clips were rather false in telling the story. How easy it is to take one short clip and condemn, without understanding all the facts. One needs to consider the history, atmosphere, procedure etc that was taking place in full depth.

    When we were shown the clip of the researcher trying to hold down a raging monkey, maybe they were testing a monkey with an influenced amount of hormones, making the monkey very dangerous. See how the movie could easily be misleading?

    I know that many times at the Vet Clinic, if a stranger would come to the back to observe when we have a not-so-nice cat to administer, he or she might be surprised by the amount of restraint we apply. But it is required.

    Plus, I didn't see one instance of actual abuse in that video. I only saw restraint, which there is nothing wrong with.
     
  9. Ranger_of_Gondor

    Ranger_of_Gondor Gondorian Defender

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,091
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Massachusets(The mostly Anti-Bush state. Hooray!)
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    It could be misleading, but what if they are really mistreating these animals? It's a big possibility, considering a large number of the human race doesn't really care about the envirment and animals and such.
     
  10. Arwen

    Arwen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    5,450
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    Ratings:
    +45 / 0 / -0
    I agree that those videos were editted to evoke sympathy...heck if you guys caught me at the right moment at barn you might think I was a horse abuser...but you know when you are dealing with a 1200 pound animal (or a wild one like a monkey) that has a mind of its own you sometimes have to use force.

    There are organizations out there doing a lot for animal rights..like ASPCA..and then there are other agencies like PeTA that wind up endangering animals even more through their actions...you have to be smart about who you listen to.
     
  11. Elan Morin Tedronai

    Elan Morin Tedronai The Forsaken

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    7,747
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney
    Ratings:
    +47 / 0 / -0
    Well im a vegetarian so i think its absolutely revolting, and I also think that we shouldn't harm other living, breathing beings at all. But thats just my 2 cents.
     
  12. Ranger_of_Gondor

    Ranger_of_Gondor Gondorian Defender

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,091
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Massachusets(The mostly Anti-Bush state. Hooray!)
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    It could be fake, it could be just someone that hates that company. But they could be truly cruel to animals. We may actualy never know unless something pops up in the news.
     
  13. havelockploz

    havelockploz With a preliminary 'P'

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    Messages:
    772
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0
    Vegetarian? What? And waste all that hard work we did getting to the top of the food chain? ;)
     
  14. Elan Morin Tedronai

    Elan Morin Tedronai The Forsaken

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    7,747
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Sydney
    Ratings:
    +47 / 0 / -0
    Our hard work ? Thats ridiculous, we arent out their hunting them with claws and teeth. Just because we are smarter and can invent things to kill them for us (guns, etc) doesnt put us at the top of the food chain. And just because we're smarter than animals doesn't give us any right to kill them.
     
  15. Ranger_of_Gondor

    Ranger_of_Gondor Gondorian Defender

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,091
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Massachusets(The mostly Anti-Bush state. Hooray!)
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0
    Actualy it does. As I posted earlier when it comes to food it's ethier eat or be eaten. Their is a reason we are the dominant species. It just how the food chain works.
     
  16. Lego

    Lego God amongst men

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2003
    Messages:
    15,757
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Ratings:
    +71 / 0 / -0
    I personally resent animal expremimentation and I say that these experiments should be done on Criminals instead.
     
  17. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Unfortunately, we have no reason to asume that this is fake, and if this doesn't happen at the company that video is made about, I could mention a dosen others that do so. This is the truth, indeed, brought in a very unsubtle way, I admit. If anyone knows a way to do these kind of things better, please, please let me know. The fact is that in nine out of ten cases there isn't.

    Equally so, there is nobody forcing you to use products tested on animals. You could, out of protest or personal motivation leave all medicines be, just you could do so with the eating of meat. You could do so; old medicine didn't require animal testing. Medicine like Asperine, morphine and Pennicilin have never been tested on animals before marketing. But those are about the only still in use from that time. Accept also, that Cancer, HIV, Hepatitis in all forms, will mean certain death for you, all vaccinations other than pox vaccine and for instance all sedatives ar out of bounds. That is a choice someone cam make. If you are not ready to take all these risks, you do best by accepting this necessary harm to animals.
     
  18. kartaron

    kartaron Hunter / Gatherer

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,287
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +20 / 0 / -0

    ... The Nazi's liked to do that. They got in a bit of trouble over it.
     
  19. jeremiah.l.burns

    jeremiah.l.burns Callo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,784
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Cheshire, UK
    Ratings:
    +27 / 0 / -0
    No, we're not hunting them with claws and teeth. We're hunting them with bows, arrows, bullets and guns.
    Actually, that's a large contributing factor to putting us on top of the food chain. Probably the contributing factor. Consider the lion: the lion can kill a zebra and eat it. Why? Because it's higher on the food chain. Why? Because it is the predator and the zebra is the prey. The Zebra is not going to hunt down and kill a lion. Why? Because it wouldn't stand a chance. Why? Because the lion has sharp teeth and claws designed for killing. That killing allows them their survival.

    Consider the human: the human can hunt down a deer and kill it and eat it. Why? Because it is higher on the food chain. Why? Because it is the predator and the deer is the prey. The deer is not going to hunt down and kill the human. Why? Because it wouldn't stand a chance. Why? Because the human has a sophisticated mind that allows it to reason, choose decide. It allows the human to create and be inventive. It allows the development of "sharp teeth and claws", aka bullets and guns, designed for killing. That killing allows them their survival.

    Is that to say that animals should be killed without respect? Is that to say we should do as they've done in the 1800's and nearly wipe out a species (the buffallo) simply because we can with absolutely no regard for the animal's life? No.

    If I take my bow to the woods and hunt a deer, and kill it, that is my choice. But I will do it without disrespect to the animal. I will be glad that my freezer will be full of meat because this animal lost it's life, and I will respect the food chain because of it.

    Well our laws are what technically give us the right to kill the animals. And it's because we are more intelligent, aka "smarter" than animals that allows us to create a legal system. So yes...just because we are smarter than animals we have the right to kill them.

    I don't hear anyone complaining that deer have no right to eat grass just because they are smarter than grass. Trust me. Deer...they're so much smarter than grass. I mean really...grass is stupid, isn't it? It just...sits there. And grows. And muiltiplies. You can freeze it all winter under 20 feet of snow, and it will come back with a vengance come spring! It's like a disease! I feel like mowing a lawn....
     
  20. jeremiah.l.burns

    jeremiah.l.burns Callo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,784
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Cheshire, UK
    Ratings:
    +27 / 0 / -0
    Ha....ha....ha?