Poll on medical testing on animals:

[Anarcho-Socialist]

What are your feelings on animal testing? Should it be permitted?

[HamstersFromHell]

1. NO...

I think animal testing is a terrible idea; they get all nervous and
give the wrong answers.

[POed_Ex_Repub]

27. *smack*

:spank:

(Also, dogs are known to eat homework, so we can only imagine what they do to tests)

[enki23]

2. it is absolutely a necessary evil.

that is, so long as we are to advance the sciences of biology and medicine. there is no, and i mean *NO* substitute for empirical testing in animal models. and i say that as someone who, at the moment, is doing computational toxicity modeling for a... "living." (if you can call grad school a living)

[cheezus]

7. YES - we need to sacrifice animals, but it must be done in the most humane

way possible

[enki23]

10. i'm absolutely in agreement there

humane treatment is key, as is careful oversight to ensure it.

[enki23]

16. also, apparently, i'm very absolute today

.

[DrWeird]

3. For people who say a substitute should be used...

any suggestions?

[jukes]

17. republicans?

just a thought.

i'm absolutely opposed to it. i'm also powerless to stop it.

think i'll move on to something constructive...

[Skip Intro]

4. From where do humans derive the right to torture/kill animals?

In my gut, and in my heart, I know that torturing (testing on) and murdering animals is wrong. This medical benefit justification takes the issue of animal rights to an extreme. Now we're not talking about the murder of animals for their fur, or their fluids from which to make cosmetics. And we're not talking about the massive and ongoing brutality visited upon factory farm animals. If it were ever justifiable to exert our will, forcefully, and without regard to the animal's life, and yes, rights, it would be in this instance - our own self-preservation.

Seting aside for the moment the real life agony, the bloody pain and suffering we inflict on these innocent creatures, and looking at the issue from a moral, philosophical perspective, I have to ask - from where does our right to "test" on any creature come? Do we have a right to do as we wish with "lesser" creatures merely because we can?

In my opinion, we have no such right. And therefore, it is wrong.

[DrWeird]

5. If hooking a racoon up to a car battery will cure...

AIDS five years from now, I've got two things to say about it.

The red is positive and the black is negative.

[Skip Intro]

6. What if hooking up a homeless person was the only way to that cure?

same?

and the difference is?

[stavka]

8. I think the difference is a homeless person, is a person

But I'm bad with math and science.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrWeird]

39. Not at all.

What about earthworms. They're animals. Should they not be tested on? How about fleas? Or tapeworms? Or cockroaches? Dust mites? They're all animals, just like you and me. Would you have a problem with any of these?

What about plants? They're alive. We're all decended from the same common ancestor. You don't eat plants, do you? You do? So it's up to you to draw the line on what we can use and can't?

[jukes]

21. oopsie-dupesy

[theo4487]

9. Let Humans test their own medicines

i dont think the animal world is being threatened by AIDs the same way we are

[sir_captain]

14. Uh, no

do you want to have some completely experimental drug tested on you? Would you rather have it be you than a monkey? I really do feel bad for that monkey, but it's worth the lives that can potentially be saved...

[DrWeird]

12. What's the difference?

Here's a raccoon:




Here's a homeless person.




Any questions?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

29. In my neighborhood racoons are often road kill. The homeless are not.

It's sad to see a racoon end up this way but at least the homeless have the sense to stay out of a car's way.

[Dookus]

31. exactly right

my ex-boyfriend was an animal rights activist and actively opposed any medical research on animals. I told him I'd strangle every chimpanzee with my bare hands if it would cure AIDS.

We didn't last long.

[SOS]

62. Killing and eating chimpanzees

caused SIV to jump to humans. If humans had treated their closest animal relatives with respect, there wouldn't be any AIDS in the first place.

[sir_captain]

15. I think you're making a fallacious analogy

medical testing is hardly the same thing as simply torturing an animal, which is obviously inhumane. Almost everything in life is a cost-benefit analysis. Do we have the right to take property from the rich to help feed the poor? Hell yeah we do! In this case, the people in Africa who desperately need a an AIDS vaccine, or any other such example of people, need our attention to the point where testing on animals becomes a very sad, but necessary step. Every effort should be made to treat the animals humanely and to minimize their pain, of course...

[depakid]

11. Useless repetition

is a problem. You don't need to perform the same experiments over and over, just to teach people how to do them.

[sir_captain]

13. Is it pleasant? No. But it's necessary.

Clearly, we cannot have human testing until we know that something is safe. But to ban animal testing would be *even worse* than what Bush has done with stem cell research. There are ethics rules about animal testing and every precaution is taken to eliminate or minimize the suffering of animals in a lab setting. In order to fulfill the promise of science that John Kerry talked about so eloquently last night, we need to leave these avenues open, even if they somewhat offend our sensibilities. The millions of people that can be helped through the animal testing of drugs are well worth the sacrifice.

[Coventina]

18. Animal testing is cowardice

Anything that YOU are afraid to do, and so inflict it upon another being that you have power over, is an act of cowardice.

THAT is MY problem with animal testing.

[DrWeird]

19. Cowardice?

So then I assume you're a vegan and have foresworn to take any medicine that was tested on animals?

[Coventina]

22. Yes, COWARDICE! eom

[Pithlet]

24. Are you aware

that we wouldn't have most of the life saving medical techniques we have today?

I'm sorry. If there were another way, I'd be against it. But I will not consign other human beings to misery and death. I will not withhold life saving medicine from my own children, should they need it. And I won't sabotage further testing for future life saving medicine that my children, and other humans, will need.

One of my best friends used to work in research at St. Jude's Children's hospital. Yes, they test on animals and it is absolutely necessary. The research they are doing saves these childrens' lives. I could not look at them and their parents and work to crush that research.

[SOS]

63. The three greatest advances in medicine

have been antibiotics, anesthesia and simple hand-washing.
No animal testing involved.
Can you name three diseases cured by animal testing?

[Pithlet]

64. Antibiotics have never been tested on animals?

Are you sure of that? They didn't ever test anesthesia on animals first to make sure it wouldn't kill anybody? Where is the evidence of that? Have anything to back that up? Clean hands alone won't treat cancer patients.

I know through my friend that research they've done with animals have found treatments that have saved the lives of children with cancer at St. Jude's. Well over three different types of cancers, so right there I have your challenge beat. Show me anything that claims that no life saving cures have EVER been found with the aid of animal testing. Show me the evidence that claims we'd have the medical innovations we have today if we'd never used animal testing.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pithlet]

66. Now, I may have missed it,

but neither link claims that animal testing was never used.

Another thing, you shouldn't be posting pics like that without a warning. There are very sensitive people here at DU. That picture tells me nothing. Was that legitimate medical testing, or was it Mary Kay testing the latest anti-wrinkle cream? That makes a huge difference.

Third, how am I supposed to link you to something a friend of mine said? I could turn it back and say why should I believe you, someone I do not know on the internet over someone I know in the flesh, and her colleagues that I used to run with every week? St. Jude is pretty well known for its research and the advances they've made in treating pediatric cancer. I didn't just pull St. Jude out of my ass. They really do exist.

[SOS]

67. The links provide

a good timeline on the benchmarks of the development in both fields of medicine.
They probably do test new antibiotics on animals nowadays, yet the success in this field has been very limited lately. Only one new antibiotic has been approved in the last 39 years. The groundbreaking research was done on discarded bandages and in petri dishes.

The photo is in a burn research center. They burned his skin off to experiment on him.
It seems odd that a proponent of AR would find such a photo disturbing.

Don't believe me. I did not ask that. I'm just curious as to what human diseases have been eradicated through the use of animal torture. Peronally I haven't found any. Maybe you know of some examples?

Cancer will soon overtake heart disease as the #1 killer in the US. It is estimated that 50% of all Americans alive today will die of cancer. The 5 year survival rate, after millions of tortured animals, is now exactly what it was in 1930. Animal experimentation has yielded negative results in this field. The future is in genetic research. Hopefully that will soon take over and this animal cruelty will finally end.

On a personal note, I watched both my mother and mother-in-law die of cancer. Animal research didn't do a damn thing for them.

[Pithlet]

68. All that means is more people are getting cancer

it does not mean that cancer drugs have never saved anyone's lives.

It seems odd to you that a proponent of AR would find that photo disturbing? Now, nowhere did I mention that it did, but as a matter of fact, it isn't a pretty picture to look at. I love animals. You seem to assume that proponents of AR are automatically heartless animal haters? But, I love my children more. I love the advances of medicine and believe AR is a necessary evil. If one of them gets cancer, I would not want to offer them up as test subjects for medicine that has never been tested on humans, and won't know if it will kill them or not. As much as it pains me, I'd rather that research is done first. And it requires animals. The only other alternative is to test on humans, and there just aren't going to be enough willing to risk their lives, or their children's lives, in lieu of AR.

I'm sorry your mother and mother-in-law died of cancer. I, too, have lost loved ones to cancer. I'm having a colonoscopy soon, myself, to rule out cancer soon. It's scary. People will be dying of cancer for a long time, but more could be saved and are being saved with valuable research.

[SOS]

71. We are both clearly sincere

in our beliefs. It was never my intent to imply that you were heartless.
We may disagree on the methods, but improving the quality of life for people seems be a common thread.
Hopefully new advances will give us both the cures we hope for and an end to the suffering of our fellow travellers.
My thoughts are with you on your test. Stay strong.
SOS

[Pithlet]

73. Thank you

Yes, I agree. We want the same things. And believe me, if there were alternatives, I would be fiercely against AR, just as I am for non-medical reasons. And since you believe that there are alternatives, it's only natural for you to be against them now.

[DrWeird]

36. Answer the question.

Are you a vegan that has foresworn all medication that's been tested on animals?

[Coventina]

41. No and no

I am not a vegan and I don't know what medications I have taken in my life that may have been tested on animals.

I still don't see how that changes the issue of forcing a creature to undergo something that the experimentor is unwilling to try for themselves. If that is not being cowardly, then please explain what it is.

[Pithlet]

42. It's helping to find cures

to deadly and dibilitating diseases. That's what it is. I don't see what is so cowardly about that :shrug: I'm glad there are those who will do it.

[Coventina]

43. I won't deny that it has benefits

I'm not even saying that it should be stopped because of my personal squeamishness.


My issue is simply that it is COWARDLY to force a creature to do something that WE are not willing to do ourselves. I don't see how it isn't. If we believe we have a cure, a drug, a preventive treatment--- we should be willing to try it ourselves.
It's just my opinion. I happen to feel strongly about it. I realize that other people feel strongly that animal testing is needed. I've just never heard anyone explain to me how it is not, at its root, an act of cowardice.

[Pithlet]

45. How

How is it any less cowardly to force a human being to undergo the experiments? Because you would have to. There is no way anyone could find enough willing participants to undergo the kind of testing that is necessary. Researchers aren't using animals because they are too cowardly to do it to themselves. Experimenting only on themselves would not yield nearly enough data. They're doing it because it is the only way to get the answers.

[Coventina]

46. I don't feel humans should be forced either.

I've given these issues a lot of thought, because many ugly diseases run in my family. Chances are, I am going to die of cancer.

But, we all have to face it that we ALL are going to die. Some of us a little sooner than later. In the end, it really doesn't make that much difference. What matters is what we do while we are here. What we stand for, the pain we caused, and the pain we allieviated.

I understand that YOU believe animal testing is a net GAIN, and therefore acceptable. Maybe you are right.

All I can say is that FOR ME, I find it morally repugnant to force things upon those weaker than I. I cannot balance that with who I am. Am I perfect at this? No. But it is what I strive for.

[Pithlet]

48. Those are your beliefs

My exception was to calling others who work in the field cowardly. I think that is a gross misrepresentation of who they are and why they do the work they do, regardless of your beliefs.

I also assert that it indeed DOES make a difference whether we die sooner or later. For one, I'd rather my children not die sooner from something like leukemia, for instance. I'd rather live myself to see them grow up into the fine adults I hope they become. Those things do make a difference for most people. I think the world would be a grim place if our life expectancies rarely exceeded our thirties, the way it used to be before modern medicine flourished. And I rather enjoy the fact that I didn't have to worry about dying in childbirth quite to the same degree that my ancestors did.

[Coventina]

53. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree

I understand your points. I understand your reasoning for your opinions.

I would even agree with you that the people conducting the experiments are fine, upstanding people who do not enjoy the act of torturing animals or are "cowards" in a personal sense.

The cowardice is collective.

[DrWeird]

49. Oh, so you'll eat meat.

But you won't sacrifice animals to actually save lives.

You disfavor testing animals for medication, but you'll take advantage of those medications.

Sounds hypocritical to me.

[Coventina]

50. I don't eat meat

You asked if I was a vegan. I am not a vegan, but I don't eat meat.

See my post #46. I never said I was perfect, and that I have never benefitted from the suffering of others.
I am sure I am benefitting right now, in dozens of ways I am completely unaware of. I do what I can to minimize the damage I do.

Call me a hypocrite if it makes you feel better.
It makes no difference to me or how I feel about animal testing.

[DrWeird]

51. So what kind of animal products do you use?

Leather? Milk? Fish?

[Coventina]

54. Where are you going with this?

You've already called me a hypocrite.

Is a list from me of all animal products in my home and refrigerator going to convince yourself or me?

If you want me to admit that my ideals are higher than my current practice, I have NO PROBLEM admitting to that.
I think that is probably true for just about everybody.
We are all works in progress.

on edit: grammar

[DrWeird]

55. Well...

if you're using animal products because they taste good and look fashionable, and you benefit from drugs that were tested on animals, then it's a bit hypocritical to call for the stoppage of using animals for something that actually benefits mankind. As opposed to, lets say, you're hungry, or you see a really nice leather jacket in the window that just HAVE to have.

[Coventina]

57. Please read all of my previous posts on this thread

I did not call for an end to animal testing.

I feel that animal testing is an example of cowardice on the part of humans, collectively. This is MY OPINION. Obviously, it is not the majority opinion. I accept that. I also accept that on this issue, I may be in the wrong. All I can say is, that to date, nothing has convinced me that I am wrong. My opinion may change in the future.

I strive to live in a state of mindfullness. I try to make the best choices I can with the tools I have. I minimize the animal products I buy and use. Actually, I minimize ALL purchases. (Trying to starve corporate America by getting by on less in all areas!)

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jukes]

28. i have no idea why my post was deleted

i posited that cruelty to animals was lacking in moral fiber, that was not an attack on another member.

i suggested that the poster in question was excusing cruelty through a misguided definition of humans as "different" than other animal species. i am a member of the animal kingdom, as is the poster; hence, this was not an attack on the poster.

i reminded that member that he was, as i am, a member of the animal kingdom, to wit, a primate. that is not a violation of any posting rules.

i attacked the message, not the messenger. if i'm not allowed to refute what i percieve as a specious argument, then this board has become a capricious and censoring instrument of favoritism.

i wd appreciate it if the mod that deleted my post wd explain, publicly , the specific rule i broke.

this post will be copied & forwarded to the admin's for clarification.

[DrWeird]

35. We're all related to plants, too.

How there you carve up those poor innocent plants for food and use their fibers for clothing. That's just sick.

But seriously, animal testing is the most legitmate of all uses of animals. If you really care about animals, go protest something that's not necessary to human health, like fashion, food, and pets.

[Pithlet]

25. Yes, you speciesist, you.

Imagine caring about sick and dying people. What the hell is wrong with you.

[jukes]

32. specie-ist, a coined phrase to suit the circumstances

if you're going to ridicule me, please edit for correct quotation.

thank you for your consideration of this matter (i hope this isn't construed as a personal attack.)

[Pithlet]

33. I wasn't quoting you

I may have misspelled the word, if it is a word.

Edit: dammit, I always misspell misspell.

[Pithlet]

34. And, I'm sorry.

It's one thing to disagree with someone on the necessity or morality of animal testing. It's quite another to suggest that the motives behind the one disagreeing with you is as nefarious as racism. That is utterly ludicrous, and is deserving of ridicule. It could have nothing to do with, I don't know, the fact that those with the opposing view don't want to see fellow human beings die of diseases?

[Spider Jerusalem]

26. And, to those who say "no", would you rather use convicted criminals?

Certain procedures, medications, and so on can only be tested for effectiveness and lethality on living organisms typologically similar or identical to those they are intended for. Which means either animal testing on other species of class mammalia or testing on human subjects. The third option is to not test at all, and either randomly try unproved treatments in hopes that they might work (like a medieval physician), or to halt the advance of medical science altogether.

Like it or not, those are the choices. Test on animals, institute Auschwitz-style experimentation on humans, or abandoning progress in medical treatment. The utilitarian principle of the greater good serves as a sort of Ockham's razor in the deciding of such questions, I think, and its application in this instance would seem to lead to the reasoned conclusion that the first choice is the most morally acceptable (repugnant though some may find it).

[Piltdown13]

30. I voted "other"

I tend to see medical testing on animals as a necessary evil, but none of the options given quite matches my position. Essentially, I support the ideas behind the Animal Care and Use Application I had to fill out to get animal subjects approval for my dissertation research (which I had to do even though my research is completely non-invasive, only involving filming the animals and taking a few body measurements). The application requires the researcher to justify, among other things, the species chosen and the number of individuals required (which has to be minimized), and requires a complete statement on pain management. Researchers also have to justify the degree of invasiveness of their study, explaining why less-invasive procedures are not to be used. They also have to submit the results of a very recent literature search to demonstrate that the proposed study does not unnecessarily duplicate published results. Since animal testing is, IMO, necessary, this is the best way to go about it. The bureaucracy was a pain in the ass for me, as my study is in no way biomedical, but it's a hassle I'm willing to endure to keep animal biomed testing as regulated as possible.

[Jack_DeLeon]

37. Yes, and we also need more human testing...

I'm not suggesting we do a Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan level of human testing.

However there should be more opportunities for people to volunteer to become human test subjects.

[nini]

38. my nephew is alive today because of heart research and a ..

technigue perfected on animals.

When he was 5 and undergoing a horrendous open heart surgery some fucking animal rights protesters were getting ugly outside the UCLA medical center. My poor sister was ready to have a nervous breakdown and some witch shoved pictures of animals in her face and was screaming about saving the animals.

I almost made the evening news that night as I wanted to beat the crap out of this woman who was screaming at my sister. That woman would NOT back off even we she was told there was a kid in surgery and to back off.

I'm no fan of hurting any living thing but if research can enable medical science to provide solutions to tough problems and people are saved then it is a necessary evil. Mother of God, we eat animals don't we?

My nephew is turning 21 in December and would not be here if it wasn't for a dedicated surgeon and he research done on animals. Maybe you have to have loved someone that was saved to see the importance in it - you dont' have to like it but you should at least see how important it is.

[lastliberalintexas]

44. My mother is now in remission

Most assuredly because of cancer fighting techniques and drugs which were tested on animals. For very selfish and personal reasons, I agree with you.

It isn't pleasant, and not something I would want performed merely to find the next Viagra. But I at least, am very grateful the medicines were there for my mom.

I hope your nephew is doing well, and has a long, happy and productive life.

[LiberalPersona]

40. No

I believe that computer technology has progressed far enough that animal subjects in testing is no longer necessary.

[SteveG]

47. Computer simulation is no substitute

Computers are still far from able to simulate much of the interactions involved between organic systems in a single organism, to be substituted for testing on animals. Maybe the day will come, but it's not now. The researchers will tell you that.

[JPJones]

52. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha - maybe on Star Trek n/t

[Swamp Rat]

56. Well, we rats don't like to be tortured and killed,

so I hope new methods are developed shortly.

[meow2u3]

58. Animal testing is not only immoral.....

...it doesn't always translate to a cure for, or relief of, human illness.
You simply cannot always apply the results from animal tests to humans

[Massacure]

59. Animal testing is a necessary.

However, researches should have a pretty damn good idea what is going to happen to the animal before they give the drug to it. Animal testing shouldn't be an excuse for torturing.

[Gothic Sponge]

60. NO!

It's wrong to test on animals!

[Justice]

61. Why not Just a Simple "Yes"

The options don't allow you to say yes. The yes options are too limiting.

You don't distinguish between rats and mice and other animals like monkeys, dogs and cats. To some people, that distinction makes a difference.

[RebelOne]

69. As an animal rights advocate, I know there are other

ways other than using animals to test drugs and cosmetics. In fact, I only buy cosmetics that are not tested on animals.

[Pithlet]

70. As far as cosmetics goes, I'm with you.

It's completely unnecessary.

[curse10]

72. No

not that anyone is surprised I'd say that

[Dastard Stepchild]

74. Animal testing - not the best plan...

Without even getting into the philosophy of the issue, looking at it from a research standpoint provides, for me, evidence that animal testing is unnecessary. The physiology of the human and the rat/cat/pig/etc. is such that a chemical metabolized in one being will not react in the same manner as this same chemical metobolized in another being. I mean, female and male humans do not even metabolize chemicals in the same way, let alone me and a bunny. Thus, after countless animal trials, any organization will STILL have to go through countless human trials, since the results from animal trials cannot be generalized to humans. Seems like a very unnecessary waste of life. And I won't even get into the animal research that defies my sense of logic, i.e. pumping cats with amphetamines and then throwing them into a swimming pool to see if it affects their ability to swim.