Banned
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 66
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
This thread is for anyone who wants to trash animal testing in a relaxed environment. If you want an intense environment or to read or post the other side of the argument, there is a thread in the Compost Heap by the same name.
Ill go first. Animal testing (AT) is horrific and unnecessary cruelty. It is terror-ism and torture-ism at its worst. Animals endure pain and suffering that we shudder to even think about. It should be a crime punishable by years in prison, but due to the moral schizophrenia and propaganda in society, it is condoned rather than condemned. Why? Billions of dollars in tax money are given to researchers and research organizations. There is a strong financial incentive for animal testing.
Almost all AT is archaic and currently useless. Although it provided some basics from around 1700 1950, it is now outdated and provides very little additional information. AT often backfires on humans when tests turn out fine on animals only to kill or harm humans, proving that the drug should have been tested on humans in the first place. Now, human testing is necessary to really advance medicine. If you want to know how to fix a Porsche, work on a Porsche, not a lawn mower. If you want to find a cure for mouse cancer, test on a mouse. If you want to find a cure for human cancer, test on a human.
Animal testers are mercenaries who terrorize, torture, and kill for money. They need to be stopped.
For more information, go to:
www.navs.org
www.aavs.org
Ill go first. Animal testing (AT) is horrific and unnecessary cruelty. It is terror-ism and torture-ism at its worst. Animals endure pain and suffering that we shudder to even think about. It should be a crime punishable by years in prison, but due to the moral schizophrenia and propaganda in society, it is condoned rather than condemned. Why? Billions of dollars in tax money are given to researchers and research organizations. There is a strong financial incentive for animal testing.
Almost all AT is archaic and currently useless. Although it provided some basics from around 1700 1950, it is now outdated and provides very little additional information. AT often backfires on humans when tests turn out fine on animals only to kill or harm humans, proving that the drug should have been tested on humans in the first place. Now, human testing is necessary to really advance medicine. If you want to know how to fix a Porsche, work on a Porsche, not a lawn mower. If you want to find a cure for mouse cancer, test on a mouse. If you want to find a cure for human cancer, test on a human.
Animal testers are mercenaries who terrorize, torture, and kill for money. They need to be stopped.
For more information, go to:
www.navs.org
www.aavs.org
| Sponsored Links | |||
|
Advertisement |
|
||
Veggie Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
I'll vent a little:
I think that by engaging in animal testing we are like persons who, when being threatened with a gun, violently grab innocent bystanders (e.g. children) to use as a cover. Us suffering and dying from diseases (despite being tragic and something that hopefully will be helped in an ethical manner) gives us no right whatsoever to cause suffering and death to other sentient beings.
To paraphrase and possibly expand Isaac Bashevis Singer's views:
What is our real "justification" to animal testing? It's that
1) non-human animals don't belong to the same group as us. They are different, and we have compassion only for our "own kind", never mind any ethical similarities.
2) we have the power to kill and torture.
This is also the basic structure of the "reasoning" racists have.
--
One of the strongest quotes I know against vivisection is this:
"I am of the opinion that not one of those experiments on animals was justified or necessary...I witnessed many harsh sights, but I think the saddest was when the dogs were brought up from the cellar to the laboratory. Instead of appearing pleased with the change from darkness to light, they seemed seized with horror as soon as they smelt the air of the place, apparently divining their approaching fate...
Hundreds of times I have seen when an animal writhed in pain, it would receive a slap, and an angry order to be quiet and behave itself...To this recital I need hardly add that, having drunk the cup to the dregs, I cry off, and am prepared to see not only science, but even mankind, perish rather than have recourse to such means of saving it."
-Dr. George Hoggan (assistant to vivisector Claude Bernard).
I think that by engaging in animal testing we are like persons who, when being threatened with a gun, violently grab innocent bystanders (e.g. children) to use as a cover. Us suffering and dying from diseases (despite being tragic and something that hopefully will be helped in an ethical manner) gives us no right whatsoever to cause suffering and death to other sentient beings.
To paraphrase and possibly expand Isaac Bashevis Singer's views:
What is our real "justification" to animal testing? It's that
1) non-human animals don't belong to the same group as us. They are different, and we have compassion only for our "own kind", never mind any ethical similarities.
2) we have the power to kill and torture.
This is also the basic structure of the "reasoning" racists have.
--
One of the strongest quotes I know against vivisection is this:
"I am of the opinion that not one of those experiments on animals was justified or necessary...I witnessed many harsh sights, but I think the saddest was when the dogs were brought up from the cellar to the laboratory. Instead of appearing pleased with the change from darkness to light, they seemed seized with horror as soon as they smelt the air of the place, apparently divining their approaching fate...
Hundreds of times I have seen when an animal writhed in pain, it would receive a slap, and an angry order to be quiet and behave itself...To this recital I need hardly add that, having drunk the cup to the dregs, I cry off, and am prepared to see not only science, but even mankind, perish rather than have recourse to such means of saving it."
-Dr. George Hoggan (assistant to vivisector Claude Bernard).
"and I stand
upon a mountain
made of weak and useless men"
Veggie Regular
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,905
I completely agree with both of you. I had a corneal abrasion once - if you've ever had one it's really painful. It feels like broken glass behind your eyelid. While I was waiting in the emergency room, all I kept thinking of were rabbits and the Draize test. I was in so much pain, and how much suffering those poor innocent animals were going through - must be fun to have to have chemicals poured into your eye. And how completely inaccurate and thus useless tests like this are. Rabbits are used because they are inexpensive. But the anatomical differences between rabbits and humans are so vast that these experiments are rendered ineffective in the end. So thousands upon thousands of these animals are suffering for needless experiments.
| Sponsored Links | |||
|
Advertisement |
|
||
Veggie Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiedog 
Rabbits are used because they are inexpensive. But the anatomical differences between rabbits and humans are so vast that these experiments are rendered ineffective in the end. So thousands upon thousands of these animals are suffering for needless experiments.
Rabbits are used because they are inexpensive. But the anatomical differences between rabbits and humans are so vast that these experiments are rendered ineffective in the end. So thousands upon thousands of these animals are suffering for needless experiments.
Another thing...Rabbits are also used because they don't have tear ducts. So they can't naturally wash their eyes of the chemicals.
“There is a distinct difference between having an open mind and having a hole in your head from which your brain leaks out."-James Randi
Veggie Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,262
I have an older friend who has been involved in animal rights for many years. She has given me antivivisection material dating back to the 60s & 70s.
You see the horrific stuff that was going on back then. I am sure some equally gruesome stuff is going on now, but now they know to shield it much better.
I find it disheartening when people say things like "well! If it's between a child and a rat," because it really isn't. But emotional, simplistic slogans like that have allowed the industry to stay in favor with the public, so folks will follow it.
You see the horrific stuff that was going on back then. I am sure some equally gruesome stuff is going on now, but now they know to shield it much better.
I find it disheartening when people say things like "well! If it's between a child and a rat," because it really isn't. But emotional, simplistic slogans like that have allowed the industry to stay in favor with the public, so folks will follow it.
slops, gloops, and gruels.
Veggie Regular
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by peace
I find it disheartening when people say things like "well! If it's between a child and a rat," because it really isn't. But emotional, simplistic slogans like that have allowed the industry to stay in favor with the public, so folks will follow it.
I find it disheartening when people say things like "well! If it's between a child and a rat," because it really isn't. But emotional, simplistic slogans like that have allowed the industry to stay in favor with the public, so folks will follow it.
That goes along with the "if there was a dog and a child drowning who would you save" question. URRRRRRRGGGH.
Veggie Regular
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 533
Animal testing is complete disregard for life. It's not okay to take one life for another. I think the people before have said it better than I ever could.
Veggie Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,374
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040615/nytu018_1.html
(italics mine)
Read the rest at the link above, if you like. I didn't cut anything essential to the topic out, mostly just edited for copyright purposes, though this is probably pushing it...
Quote:
Press Release
New Therapy Disguises Cancer Cells as Viruses
Tuesday June 15, 8:31 am ET
HAIFA, Israel and NEW YORK, June 15 /PRNewswire/ -- A novel new cancer treatment has been shown to eliminate or shrink tumors in 100 mice. The treatment causes anti-viral T cells -- white blood cells that play a large role in the body's immune response -- to recognize tumors as virus-infected cells, and thus attack them. The Technion-Israel Institute of Technology study is published in the June 15, 2004 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"Our approach is to use anti-viral T cells to kill tumors," says Dr. Yoram Reiter of the Technion Faculty of Biology. "Tumor-specific T cells are very rare and not very efficient. On the other hand, the body has very efficient anti-viral T cells, because throughout our lives we're exposed to many viruses such as influenza. These cells are very efficient at recognizing cells that don't belong."
(*snip*)
The team genetically engineered a molecule that is naturally found in the body. On one side of the molecule is an antibody designed to attach itself to a specific type of cancer cell. On the other side, the team placed a molecule called major histocompatability complex (MHC) that allows T cells to recognize if the cells are 'self' or 'foreign.' MHC does this through its peptides, small fragments of protein from cells. T cells survey peptides on MHC molecules to determine whether the cells attached to the MHC molecules are foreign and should be destroyed.
The team places peptides on the molecule that tell T cells that tumors are actually virus-infected cells, so anti-viral T cells now target and kill what they believe to be a virus-infected cell.
This process can be designed for any type of tumor, and to attract any type of anti-viral T cell. Over the past two years, the researchers have conducted test tube and animal experiments, shrinking or eliminating tumors in mice that replicate human cancers such as breast cancer and leukemia.
Reiter cautions that many approaches in cancer research have been successful in mice but do not translate to humans. He remains optimistic, however, and strongly believes the process will not be toxic -- unlike chemotherapy and similar treatments -- since it is based on natural molecules in the immune system.
Source: American Technion Society
New Therapy Disguises Cancer Cells as Viruses
Tuesday June 15, 8:31 am ET
HAIFA, Israel and NEW YORK, June 15 /PRNewswire/ -- A novel new cancer treatment has been shown to eliminate or shrink tumors in 100 mice. The treatment causes anti-viral T cells -- white blood cells that play a large role in the body's immune response -- to recognize tumors as virus-infected cells, and thus attack them. The Technion-Israel Institute of Technology study is published in the June 15, 2004 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"Our approach is to use anti-viral T cells to kill tumors," says Dr. Yoram Reiter of the Technion Faculty of Biology. "Tumor-specific T cells are very rare and not very efficient. On the other hand, the body has very efficient anti-viral T cells, because throughout our lives we're exposed to many viruses such as influenza. These cells are very efficient at recognizing cells that don't belong."
(*snip*)
The team genetically engineered a molecule that is naturally found in the body. On one side of the molecule is an antibody designed to attach itself to a specific type of cancer cell. On the other side, the team placed a molecule called major histocompatability complex (MHC) that allows T cells to recognize if the cells are 'self' or 'foreign.' MHC does this through its peptides, small fragments of protein from cells. T cells survey peptides on MHC molecules to determine whether the cells attached to the MHC molecules are foreign and should be destroyed.
The team places peptides on the molecule that tell T cells that tumors are actually virus-infected cells, so anti-viral T cells now target and kill what they believe to be a virus-infected cell.
This process can be designed for any type of tumor, and to attract any type of anti-viral T cell. Over the past two years, the researchers have conducted test tube and animal experiments, shrinking or eliminating tumors in mice that replicate human cancers such as breast cancer and leukemia.
Reiter cautions that many approaches in cancer research have been successful in mice but do not translate to humans. He remains optimistic, however, and strongly believes the process will not be toxic -- unlike chemotherapy and similar treatments -- since it is based on natural molecules in the immune system.
Source: American Technion Society
(italics mine)
Read the rest at the link above, if you like. I didn't cut anything essential to the topic out, mostly just edited for copyright purposes, though this is probably pushing it...
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 66
Now epski's source is a good example of unbiased factual reporting. 
It is written by "the other side" (vivisectors) stating the fact that mouse results do not translate very well to humans. No ulterior motives.
It is written by "the other side" (vivisectors) stating the fact that mouse results do not translate very well to humans. No ulterior motives.
Veggie Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 1,688
good point Couloir. mice are completely different life forms than humans. rabbits are not the came as cats although they are closely related cousins. arsenic is fed to chickens to stimulate growth but when we eat it it has a negative effect on our body possibly resulting in death.
it would be more relevant to use primates for research but most people tend to be opposed to it, because they are so intelligent and similar to humans.
it would be more relevant to use primates for research but most people tend to be opposed to it, because they are so intelligent and similar to humans.
“There is a distinct difference between having an open mind and having a hole in your head from which your brain leaks out."-James Randi
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizarro
it would be more relevant to use primates for research but most people tend to be opposed to it, because they are so intelligent and similar to humans.
it would be more relevant to use primates for research but most people tend to be opposed to it, because they are so intelligent and similar to humans.
Yeah, I read a very good philosophical paper on the general relationship between ethics and relevance in animal testing. Ill have to look for it and provide a link. Basically, the paper concluded that the more relevant and reliable the subject for testing, the more ethically questionable it was. So, chimpanzees make great test subjects, because theyre so close to us genetically, etc., but because theyre so close, theyre the most ethically questionable. The more unlike us an animal is, the more ethical considerations diminish, but then the medical relevance and reliability diminish, too, as in the case of mice.
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 66
Here's the link to the paper on the dilemma between scientific relevance and ethics in animal testing:
http://www.stpt.usf.edu/hhl/papers/species.htm
http://www.stpt.usf.edu/hhl/papers/species.htm
Veggie Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,670
Animal testing makes me very sad and discouraged with the world. It breaks my heart. I agree with pretty much everything that's been said in this thread, and I appreciate I am not the only one who feels this way, as even many in the veg*n "community" seem to support it.
Veggie Regular
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by meatless
Animal testing makes me very sad and discouraged with the world. It breaks my heart. I agree with pretty much everything that's been said in this thread, and I appreciate I am not the only one who feels this way, as even many in the veg*n "community" seem to support it.
Animal testing makes me very sad and discouraged with the world. It breaks my heart. I agree with pretty much everything that's been said in this thread, and I appreciate I am not the only one who feels this way, as even many in the veg*n "community" seem to support it.Do so many really support animal testing or do they just disagree with extreme measures to stop it?
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiedog
Do so many really support animal testing or do they just disagree with extreme measures to stop it?
Do so many really support animal testing or do they just disagree with extreme measures to stop it?
Judging from what I've read in the past week on these boards, it depends on whom you're talking about. Apparently, some here are against animal testing, but are also quite outspoken against any form of activism that would be viewed as negative by the public. I think thats a reasonable position, even though I dont necessarily agree with it. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said once, I am only effective as long as there is a shadow on white America of the black man standing behind me with a Molotov cocktail. In other words, peaceful protests, newspaper articles and letters, and philosophical papers, and internet postings, although absolutely necessary, dont cut it alone, or at least history has shown they dont. Unfortunately, history has shown that oppressors do not give in without demand and issues do not get public attention until there is real turmoil (read: violence / property damage). As I said in another post, personally, Im a writer and a speaker, not one to engage in or be involved in any way with illegal activities other than peaceful protests. But I neither condone nor condemn those who might engage in property damage mere silence is my response to such action.
There seem to be quite a few here who fully support animal testing as much as anyone in the biomedical research industry does and others who may not support all of it, but most of it. I dont know, but there must be a lot of health-only or health-mainly vegetarians here who couldnt care less about the ethical side. That saddens me. The ability to put oneself in the position of another, including an animal, and deeply imagine what they might be going through seems to vary widely among people. This is understandable as everybody is born with different temperaments and in different environments. The good news is that compassion can be cultivated and grow tremendously. The bad news is that most people either do not consider it important enough to be cultivated or think its important, but forget. I fall into the latter category way too often. Well, enough ramblingthats my two cents.
Veggie Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,670
There are a lot of ethical veg*ns here who support it from the view that if it saves their family/friends then it's a-ok because animals are not more important.
IMO if they want to feel that way then fine, but I also get the impression that they look down on those who don't share that view. But I could be imagining things. I fully realize most people don't share my views on it and will not berate them for it and I don't think I'm "better" than them. I understand that some people have a limit, and who knows how each of us would feel if our family's survival hinged on testing.
But I guess I take the view that if we didn't test in the first place (as the act is immoral) we would not have this conflict.
IMO if they want to feel that way then fine, but I also get the impression that they look down on those who don't share that view. But I could be imagining things. I fully realize most people don't share my views on it and will not berate them for it and I don't think I'm "better" than them. I understand that some people have a limit, and who knows how each of us would feel if our family's survival hinged on testing.
But I guess I take the view that if we didn't test in the first place (as the act is immoral) we would not have this conflict.
Veggie Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Couloir
In other words, peaceful protests, newspaper articles and letters, and philosophical papers, and internet postings, although absolutely necessary, dont cut it alone, or at least history has shown they dont. Unfortunately, history has shown that oppressors do not give in without demand and issues do not get public attention until there is real turmoil (read: violence / property damage). As I said in another post, personally, Im a writer and a speaker, not one to engage in or be involved in any way with illegal activities other than peaceful protests. But I neither condone nor condemn those who might engage in property damage mere silence is my response to such action.
In other words, peaceful protests, newspaper articles and letters, and philosophical papers, and internet postings, although absolutely necessary, dont cut it alone, or at least history has shown they dont. Unfortunately, history has shown that oppressors do not give in without demand and issues do not get public attention until there is real turmoil (read: violence / property damage). As I said in another post, personally, Im a writer and a speaker, not one to engage in or be involved in any way with illegal activities other than peaceful protests. But I neither condone nor condemn those who might engage in property damage mere silence is my response to such action.
Veggie Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by meatless
But I guess I take the view that if we didn't test in the first place (as the act is immoral) we would not have this conflict.
But I guess I take the view that if we didn't test in the first place (as the act is immoral) we would not have this conflict.
| Thread Tools | |
|
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
|
|
|
| Posting Rules | |