Research at my University

[Princess87]

Hi everyone!
This is my first post- I was referred by RoboMonkey after making a post on a pre-med forum ( http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=621569 ) that got me some very mixed reactions. Basically, I have a chance to enter a very well-respected program at my university, but I've found out that it performs animal testing in the labs. My question is would it be a good option to enroll for the purpose of getting insight into something that I'm out to change? I know that if I don't go someone will happily take my place, so wouldnt it be better to do it myself and treat the animals with more respect that anyone else could, and afterwards try and find alternatives? I'm really quite confused so I would appreciate any help!:confused: Thanks

[RoboMonkey]

:hi: Hi.

[Luise]

"Just make sure you don't personify the animals and you'll be fine."

...wow. It's ultimately your call, just make sure you don't end up regretting it. I personally might land myself in jail or in a mental institution if I had to do that.

[Almeria]

No, I couldn't do that. I recently had a similar dilemma, I was going to apply for a program, but then I found out that they use animals in it. I just absolutely would not be able to live with myself if I'd gotten into the program and had to work on animals.

Obviously it's up to you to decide, but for myself I could not do it.



ETA: And by the way, I have no idea how you were able to tolerate a lot of those responses. Red Leader and a few others just made me want to punch my screen.

[Princess87]

Thanks guys! I think I just needed a bit of support to be confident that it's completely not the direction I want to go down.

Bella: I so know what you mean. I'm usually a pretty mellow person but my blood just boils when people try to feed their egos by acting like the tough guy on the internet. Ughh! I'm glad I found this site!

[RoboMonkey]

You should really ignore their replies. These are the type of people who think that ethics are doing what's best for oneself, doing what's best for people regardless or the cost or just doing whatever. It is absolutely not possible to convince someone like this that animal testing is wrong. You would first have to convince them that unnecessary suffering and death is inherently wrong and can be experienced by all sentient, which is quite difficult to do in a debate. They will either realize they are being inconsistent on their own, or just ignore whatever you have to say that contradicts their beliefs.

[Hotchilidog]

If I were you I wouldn't do it unless you were filming to expose the methods used at the university. It was quite depressing to read all the responses unflinchingly accepting the neccessity of animal research, when that really isn't the case at all. There are lots of non-animal based areas of medicine emerging now, maybe it would be worth pursuing your medical career in that direction, it will definitely be a growth area in years to come.

Regardless of the alleged benefits to humans do you really think we have the right to exploit them for our own ends? It is a tough dilemma for you, but you do have a choice. Whichever path you choose make sure you are happy and content with it. Good luck.

[Simply_Love]

I deffiently would not do it. To me, a life is a life. I would no sooner conduct research on any of my pets that will more than likely cause stress than I would on any other animal.

Try to find another pre-med program that test on human tissue samples and such. You should never comprimise your values to get ahead in life.

Best of luck.

[muchluv]

I read the first page. I'm glad to see most people weren't just like "screw the animals".

I think that guy made a good point, that it's going to live with you forever. And you'll have to kill the animals yourself?

You surely have good ability in this field. You should be able to find a good placement that doesn't involve such things! Then you'll have the respect of being a doctor who turned down testing on animals!

[ajax13]

You should really ignore their replies. These are the type of people who think that ethics are doing what's best for oneself, doing what's best for people regardless or the cost or just doing whatever. It is absolutely not possible to convince someone like this that animal testing is wrong. You would first have to convince them that unnecessary suffering and death is inherently wrong and can be experienced by all sentient, which is quite difficult to do in a debate. They will either realize they are being inconsistent on their own, or just ignore whatever you have to say that contradicts their beliefs. :) This is a great post, Robo, and it made me smile a bit. I often think this way too: at the end of the day either people are willing to see that value lies outside of themselves or their species, or they're not. I don't think many people much mind about moral or logical inconsistencies.

[DeFacto]

I am a neuroscience student and I am personally working on research which involves behavioural training and testing, injections, and eventually extracting the brains of rat pups (between 7-21 days).
I was hesitant to begin, and had never killed a mammal before in the 22 years of my life.
I surprisingly had very little trouble coming to terms with this scientific research.
There is a (relatively) good set of regulations in place to prevent the suffering of animals as much as possible. The only physical pain that the rats in my lab experience is from injections, which is truly quite minor.

I don't believe that all animal research can be justified.
But those who oppose all forms of animal research have some explaining to do.
What would the most ardent vegan do if their child developed a severe disease?
Would they hold steady on an all-out boycott of any fruits of the past 100 years of medical research?
Would they watch their child degenerate and likely die?
Would they find a "natural" (aka a questionable unproven folk remedy) treatment?
Maybe this would help the parent cope with their own guilt, but it likely would do nothing to slow the disease.

If they utilize all available modern medical treatments, then on what grounds?
They are supporting the industries that developed treatments through vigorous research involving animals.
They are likely funding future animal research by putting dollars in the pockets of these companies.


It would be ideal if all animal research could be instead done on synthetic tissue, but to argue that would simply be ignorant of the facts.
Can all of you seriously state that you don't believe there should be any research into developing cures for cancer and neurodegenerative diseases like alzheimers, ALS, MS, Parkinsons, or for treating stroke victims?
The non-animal-based models for most of these diseases are either very limited or nonexistent.

Taking the life of an animal is not trivial to me, but at the same time I don't accept any inherent sacredness, for humans or non-human animals.
Life is not always better than death, though i wish it were.

These issues are not as easy as some of you make them seem.
I don't think anybody has all the right answers.
If you do not at all consider a "quality of life" concept as valid, then things can become dodgy.

[Prajnaparamita]

DeFacto, you make a compelling point but you are operating on the assumption that all of us hold a human life as more important than a non-human life. Not all of us do. IMHO, humans have become way too arrogant about our place in the animal kingdom.

Now, of course, it is murky territory when we get into personal attachment to our family members, I'll grant you that, and I can't claim there's an easy answer. But that is not to say the end justifies the means.

I myself have to dissect euthanised animals in my university course. I don't like it, but there is no other way to become a vet in Australia. If someone asks me how I reconcile it, I say honestly, "I don't". It's hypocritical and I don't like it. It would be more hypocritical of me to say "well, it's ok because...." BUT, having said that, if I were doing a course in human medicine no way would I test on animals. Why? Because I don't buy into the human supremacy theory. We are not better or more entitled, in my opinion. Unfortunately that attitude is not the current status quo.

Just to clarify- I'm not judging you, Princess, I know it's a tough call, and I wasn't referring to you with the above paragraph. I guess all you can do is go with what you feel is right. Be true to yourself. Good luck. :)

[DeFacto]

Well my point doesn't only operate under the assumption of complete human superiority.

Why I mentioned the quality of life concept at the end of my post was because there are reasonable ways to measure this sort of thing.
Let's take it from the bottom up..
Why do we virtually ignore the plight of plants and single-celled organisms?
Presumably because they lack a nervous system?

What about ticks, fleas, mosquitoes? they have nervous systems but they are not as developed as say those of honeybees.
The nervous systems of honeybees are not as developed as those of mice.

you see where I am going?
If you claim that a life is a life, how and where do you draw a line in the sand to say "these organisms deserve our consideration but these other ones can be justifiably ignored" ?
There must be some quality of life concept taken into account, and the only seemlingly reasonable way to determine this is through examining the cognitive capacities of organisms.
this is hardly fool-proof, but it is the best possible way of determining how a type of animal "feels" throughout its life.
The quality of life concept is the starting point for ethical considerations of the more intelligent animals.
And as I said, I cannot provide all the answers here, nor can anybody else.

[RoboMonkey]

I am a neuroscience student and I am personally working on research which involves behavioural training and testing, injections, and eventually extracting the brains of rat pups (between 7-21 days).
I was hesitant to begin, and had never killed a mammal before in the 22 years of my life.
I surprisingly had very little trouble coming to terms with this scientific research.
There is a (relatively) good set of regulations in place to prevent the suffering of animals as much as possible. The only physical pain that the rats in my lab experience is from injections, which is truly quite minor.

I don't believe that all animal research can be justified.
But those who oppose all forms of animal research have some explaining to do.
What would the most ardent vegan do if their child developed a severe disease?
Would they hold steady on an all-out boycott of any fruits of the past 100 years of medical research?
Would they watch their child degenerate and likely die?
Would they find a "natural" (aka a questionable unproven folk remedy) treatment?
Maybe this would help the parent cope with their own guilt, but it likely would do nothing to slow the disease.

If they utilize all available modern medical treatments, then on what grounds?
They are supporting the industries that developed treatments through vigorous research involving animals.
They are likely funding future animal research by putting dollars in the pockets of these companies.


It would be ideal if all animal research could be instead done on synthetic tissue, but to argue that would simply be ignorant of the facts.
Can all of you seriously state that you don't believe there should be any research into developing cures for cancer and neurodegenerative diseases like alzheimers, ALS, MS, Parkinsons, or for treating stroke victims?
The non-animal-based models for most of these diseases are either very limited or nonexistent.

Taking the life of an animal is not trivial to me, but at the same time I don't accept any inherent sacredness, for humans or non-human animals.
Life is not always better than death, though i wish it were.

These issues are not as easy as some of you make them seem.
I don't think anybody has all the right answers.
If you do not at all consider a "quality of life" concept as valid, then things can become dodgy.


Oh boy. :rolleyes:

[Sevenseas]

There is a (relatively) good set of regulations in place to prevent the suffering of animals as much as possible.No, not as much as possible.


If they utilize all available modern medical treatments, then on what grounds?
They are supporting the industries that developed treatments through vigorous research involving animals.
They are likely funding future animal research by putting dollars in the pockets of these companies.Maybe they're a bit like American taxpayers who, say, opposed the Iraq war or what went on in Guantanamo Bay: they were supporting various forms of violence, and not by necessity because they could always have gone to prison or moved to another country. Does this make anti-war protesters hypocritical? Maybe, but no one asked them to be born in a societal context where simply by being a citizen, they will participate in an unjust system.

It's not just medical treatments that have been tested, and are being tested, on animals. A boycott of all medical treatments (the efficacy of which I would question) would only apply to a segment of all animal testing. So what we're dealing with here is that simply by normally participating in Western society, instead of living in isolation in some cabin, one is benefiting from animal testing.

Is the conclusion to derive from this that we should all sing the praises of vivisection? Hell no. That would seem extremely counterintuitive to me: that simply by being born into a certain societal/cultural context we are forced, on pain of hypocrisy, to condone it. It would be an extremely conservative view of the world, preventing any real social progress. The conclusion that I would draw from it is just that a mere consumer boycott (of medical treatments, or of food coloring, or whatever) will not work, and that we need political action instead.


Can all of you seriously state that you don't believe there should be any research into developing cures for cancer and neurodegenerative diseases like alzheimers, ALS, MS, Parkinsons, or for treating stroke victims?
The non-animal-based models for most of these diseases are either very limited or nonexistent.I can seriously state that if someone thinks potential great benefits (assuming them for the sake of argument) justify some suffering caused by experimentation, then that person should be willing to stand by their judgment and subject themselves to that suffering. But they aren't willing. So this is not a question about the "greater good", this is a question of people valuing their own suffering, or the suffering of humans generally (which is a pretty weird generalization -- there are many cognitive differences between humans, after all) far, far above the suffering of other species.


If you do not at all consider a "quality of life" concept as valid, then things can become dodgy.I do most certainly consider quality of life as a valid concept. We shouldn't just ask how much well-being we can add to society by engaging in the cruel, violent and cowardly practice of vivisection, but whether such material well-being is worth the moral ill-being: whether enjoyment and freedom from pain is the only thing contributing to our quality of life, or whether our morality enters into it too.

But of course, that is assuming that stopping vivisection would halt medical progress. I don't buy that. Development of alternative methods of research is a matter of resources -- resources which would be a bit more plentiful, if we couldn't rely on non-human victims to suffer from our own problems.


Why I mentioned the quality of life concept at the end of my post was because there are reasonable ways to measure this sort of thing.
Let's take it from the bottom up..
Why do we virtually ignore the plight of plants and single-celled organisms?
Presumably because they lack a nervous system?

What about ticks, fleas, mosquitoes? they have nervous systems but they are not as developed as say those of honeybees.
The nervous systems of honeybees are not as developed as those of mice.

you see where I am going?Yes, I see where you are going: to the implication that it could be more justifiable to experiment on unconsenting mentally incapacitated humans, or newborn humans, than on some primates, for example, given the difference in cognitive abilities.

[muchluv]

If super-intelligent aliens came from outer space, landed on earth and said. "PATHETIC HUMANS, YOU HAVEN'T EVEN MASTERED INTER-GALACTIC SPACE TRAVEL YET, WE SHALL TEST OUR MEDICINES ON YOU".

Then proceeded to inject you with alien cancer, keep you in a little cage, and generally abuse you, would you be ok with that?

[Irizary]

It's crazy that you can't talk about meat eating on this board, but it's o.k. to be a vivisectionist and launch a defense of torturing animals in this way.

To OP, no, don't become a vivisectionist. I don't care what you might learn or accomplish, you will lose any claim to a soul you have in the process.

[Koala]

I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't be able to live with myself contributing to another being's suffering and death just so that I could attend a prestigious program. That goes against everything I stand for. I think it weird that some veg*ns think that animal testing is okay (especially AR/AW veg*ns).

[Greyham]

Holy hell, why did i click on that link...

As for the mentality of 'if i dont, someone else will' - that applies to many, MANY areas around the whole vegan issue, the most most obvious comparison being buying pets from a breeder. If you dont buy them, someone else who might not treat them as well might - but then it is YOU who is contributing towards an inherently immoral and cruel industry. The most unifying way to show opposition to something is not to take part in it

If you took this position, you would either end up quitting before the end, or renouncing veganism, as the only way to last in such an environment is to adapt to it, stop viewing animals as living creatures and isntead just as THINGS

There will always be oppurtunities that someone else could do instead of you - so let them be part of the problem

[Greyham]

Well my point doesn't only operate under the assumption of complete human superiority.

Why I mentioned the quality of life concept at the end of my post was because there are reasonable ways to measure this sort of thing.
Let's take it from the bottom up..
Why do we virtually ignore the plight of plants and single-celled organisms?
Presumably because they lack a nervous system?

What about ticks, fleas, mosquitoes? they have nervous systems but they are not as developed as say those of honeybees.
The nervous systems of honeybees are not as developed as those of mice.

you see where I am going?
If you claim that a life is a life, how and where do you draw a line in the sand to say "these organisms deserve our consideration but these other ones can be justifiably ignored" ?
There must be some quality of life concept taken into account, and the only seemlingly reasonable way to determine this is through examining the cognitive capacities of organisms.
this is hardly fool-proof, but it is the best possible way of determining how a type of animal "feels" throughout its life.
The quality of life concept is the starting point for ethical considerations of the more intelligent animals.
And as I said, I cannot provide all the answers here, nor can anybody else.

Your lab rats are mammals, not single celled organisms, or mosquitos. Animal testing seems to be excluively done on mammals - probably because their functions are more similar to ours

Where do we draw the line? Simple - we don't.

Do we accept medical treatment that has been tested on animals? Theres no one answer for that, people view it differently. Animal testing is insanely wasteful, cruel, inefficient, and has lead to some severe illnesses in humans. Human testing in medical trials is inevitable anyway, and is NOT IMMORAL AS PEOPLE CHOOSE TO DO THIS. ANIMALS DO NOT. If a cure is out there for a certain disease, animal testing may have been used, but is unlikely to have been the breakthrough. It already exists, and no amount of refusing to use it take back the torment that was involved to make it. What is neccesery for survival is, at any length, a different moral dilemma than eating meat/dairy or wearing leather

Most importantly, however, and people need to keep this in mind, is that THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. If you were to accept that animal testing HAS provided medical breakthroughs, then you accept that the cruel and inhumane treatment of one group of beings for the betterment of another is an acceptable practice. It would be much more efficient to use humans. Why dont we? Because its wrong. Yet this sense of moral obligation never seems to cross the species boundry

Animal testing is morally abhorrent, and the suffering of those involved is not offset by any percieved benefit that may come from it

[Hotchilidog]

Animal testing is morally abhorrent, and the suffering of those involved is not offset by any percieved benefit that may come from it

And that is it in a nutshell, nothing more needs to be said.

[vanahera]

I'm actually not a violent person (though I sometimes do have a bit of a twisted sense of humor), but this made me want to punch the idiot who said it: You'll gas them, then pull their tail to snap their neck. Absolutely disgusting!

And this, too, bothered me:
The rats are going to die anyway, whether you do it or not.

I hate it when people (though I've more often seen this excuse from hunters) try to use "well it's going to die anyway" as a means of justifying something. By that logic....well, you know, YOU'RE going to die sooner or later anyway, and I'm a bit curious about the human body....That was a joke, I swear.

And then, there was this comment here:

I am all for animal rights activist testing.

What I'm about to say may very well be a form of internet suicide here, but let me explain: I am not an animal rights activist. I choose not to follow a specific group or movement, mainly because I've seen that many large movements or groups become corrupt over a period of time.

I joined an AR forum a little while back. And despite the fact that I was very helpful to people, and tried to be a good person and was polite and respectful, I was treated like sh--um, poo. Actually, I expect they treated poo better than they treated me. For some reason, everyone on there decided they hated me. And after some observations, I found that all anyone did on there was just argue with each other and troll around and look for people to attack. Few, if any, of them were really getting out into the world and doing anything. If they had spent so much as half of their time going out into the real world and DOING things to benefit the environment/animals, as they did fighting amongst themselves, they might have accomplished more and more people might have respected them.

I do not mean to pass judgment on all AR activists. Not at all; I know that one single forum is not a reliable source. I've joined a few pagan forums...and I can tell you right now, very few of the people on those pagan forums were actually pagan. Most of the people on those forums said they were pagan, but chances are, they just watched Harry Potter or some other movie with magic in it and decided then and there that they knew everything about paganism. And I would not want to be judged as a pagan based off of the antics of some pretenders. My point in all of this is? I have only had negative experiences with AR activists on that one forum, and although I've met a lot of hostility from AR activists, it was only on that forum, and I've met plenty who are good people, and the above quote ticks me off.

I try to remain neutral in most cases. To quote one of my favorite fantasy characters, "little of what I do or say is opinion." And although I am not an AR activist, I still have to say, that comment disgusted me. Most of the online attacks I've suffered have been from hunters or from people who don't care about animals.

I may not be an AR activist myself, as I prefer to consider all sides to an argument before forming my own, but I do not approve of attacking them or making snide remarks about them, either. In fact, I prefer not to attack every group that has a different viewpoint than my own. That comment right there was just weak.

I don't care what you believe but you have no conviction and its so pitiful you're letting me some random guy on the internet casually bring down your belief system. It's so easy because (a) you have no conviction and (b) you know nothing about it. Anyways, have a good day saving more animals.

Sadly, just about everyone on one particular pagan forum I was a part of acted EXACTLY like this. *rolls eyes*

Don't you just love it when people like this whine and throw hissy fits and accuse you of being an intolerant fanatic, but then they end up showing you their true colors?

I remember one particular thread on that site (the pagan site) that asked people how they felt about animals. A few people felt that animals were just as important as they were. I was among those people...and I was told by the mods and their pet members that I was a stupid little girl, that because I was younger than them, I could not possibly know what I was talking about, and I even had some rather vulgar comments thrown at me regarding my gender. -_-

These people are all the same. Don't listen to them, any of them. I've met many Red Leaders, and they're all the same. They sit on their bottoms at the computer screen and should anyone dare to have an opinion not identical to theirs, they just go insult-happy. They are not worth your time or your consideration. I've learned through a few years of verbal abuse now that people like this are weak. They lash out because they are incapable of backing themselves up.

Find me one expectant mother that is willing to take a drug that could potentially disfigure or kill her baby. Find me just ONE.

Sadly, I've known a lot of women who wouldn't care either way. Chances are, you could find at least one. After all, there are a lot of women who drink and smoke during pregnancy. I've known a few. Not that this justifies anything, of course. But I do hope that, at some point, one of these people could come up with a better argument.

Aww animals can feel. Naw really? Thanks for stating the obvious. You really enlightened me...not.

Someday, I will be famous for having invented the magical hand that can reach through computer screens and slap people.

I agree, Princess ignore me and go back to your herd of blind sheeple. I hope you sure don't get heart surgery or take any drugs when you get sick because then you're like indirectly supporting animal research. Oh what's that? You want the best of both worlds? Its ok, I won't tell anyone about the steak you ate after your PETA bonfire.

*frowns thoughtfully* I'm almost tempted to go on there and argue with this guy, mainly because I know he's not going to have anything to back himself up with besides poorly constructed insults. I mean, really, come on. He's more insulting to himself than he is to anyone else.

Pair of balls maybe for doing wat she did, but doesn't take too many neurons to not get up. Stop glorifying people.

Oh, my, god. Now that is just too easy. So many comebacks...it will take me a while to pick from them all.

You're an idiot. Please propose an alternative to animal testing that doesn't kill organisms. I know you like to think the world is full of unicorns and ****ing oompaloompas prancing around, but it's not.

And people (I do use that term loosely) like you make it that way.

It's that painful, but what can I say I am a nice person

:lol: Oh....wait, were you being serious? Gee, I can't tell.

Mankind > animals.

Don't be unethical. Anyone willing to sacrifice humans for animals should, on an evolutionary basis, be killed off.

And it's that same reasoning that's led to so much destruction in the world. -_-



*sighs* Princess87, don't listen to any of these people. Pay them no heed. Whatever you decide, I will support you.

NOTE: I also had a major headache when typing this up. So if I said something that doesn't make sense...that's probably why. :P

[Miss Unleaded]

If super-intelligent aliens came from outer space, landed on earth and said. "PATHETIC HUMANS, YOU HAVEN'T EVEN MASTERED INTER-GALACTIC SPACE TRAVEL YET, WE SHALL TEST OUR MEDICINES ON YOU".

Then proceeded to inject you with alien cancer, keep you in a little cage, and generally abuse you, would you be ok with that?

It's funny, I thought I was the only one who has imagined that same situation: maybe one day humanity will encounter another species which is stronger, smarter, and more technologically advanced than we are, and they may use us like we have used other species. I wonder if they will make the same rationalisations which we now do to justify vivisection and factory farming of humans? I wonder if the doctors on that message board would agree with it. After all, if they don't test their drugs on us their children will die of diseases and they won't get enough protein, and it's not like we humans have a great quality of life any way.

As for the OP, I think you really need to consider long and hard whether you could live with yourself if you did this. Have you considered having a talk with one of the course coordinators about this aspect of the course, and perhaps gathering more information first? I don't think I could live with myself. I faced a similar decision when I was younger, and ended up going in Chemistry so I would not have to continue doing dissections and other morally abhorrent things.