Animal testing awful
Very well said. It takes a twisted person who willingly inflicts pain on something that can't fight back.
I hope there is a special place in hell for the people who do this sort of thing, as well as those who support it.
Be prepared for lots of foaming-at-the-mouth responses here. Whenever anyone suggests that animals not be abused, we see plenty lowlifes who think otherwise.
Posted by Just Me on April 30, 2007 05:43 AMSo what your saying is a Animal is more important then a Human? So all the poeple that would have died because of heart problems, small pox, polio, and about a million other different thing would have been ok if it saved the life of one monkey?
Posted by Joseph V Seifert on April 30, 2007 08:26 AMSave the animals!!! It's cruel, and a shame, and don't we have criminals we could test products on?
Posted by shaupeen on April 30, 2007 08:31 AM"It takes a twisted person who willingly inflicts pain on something that can't fight back."
While this is true if the motive is sheer sadism, it is delusional to think that there has not been substantial good to come out of animal testing. Are you advocating that we should have let the golden retrievers and pigs live so that diabetics and victims of fire would continue to have a death sentence? No one in their right mind want to inflict needless pain on animals, but in all honesty I would rather see a few animals die over the millions of people that have been saved by isolating insulin some 50 years back. Odds are that you know someone who is only alive because of animal experiments, keep in mind that should animal testing stop, there will be bad to go with the good.
Posted by on April 30, 2007 08:32 AMYou wouldn't happen to be a grandchild of Dr. Mengele, would you shaupeen?
Posted by on April 30, 2007 08:33 AMA quote I once read about animal testing has haunted me ever since:
"Imagine leaving your body to science - while you're still in it."
Also, the animal testing industry is suspected of some serious bad practices - from funding researchers who are simply repeating studies already done, to turning a blind eye to "bunchers" who steal pets and re-sell them to the labs. If you don't think the latter is happening, you should check out the HBO documentary "Dealing Dogs." IYou can probably buy a copy of it somewhere, as the documentary was aired a couple years ago.)
I cannot argue that animal testing has contributed to major advances in medical understanding and knowledge. However, at this point we have other models we could be using that might even give more accurate results, like computer simulation.
What's more, the public is funding a lot of "scientists" who are performing absolutely horrendous experiments that have little to do with sustaining human life. I don't know about you, but I don't like my tax money going to support some sadistic researcher doing a "sight deprivation" study that involves taking a baby monkey away from it's mother and sewing its eyelids shut.
Wikipedia has a well-rounded page devoted to animal testing for anyone that is interested in learning more about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing
The people for the ending of animal testing are ok with stem cell testing of aborted humans. I tell you our world is all screwed up when animals take priority over fellow humans that have not been born. I rather see a million animals die in testing then one human die. Yes there are abuses but do you end research because your feal bad. Come on people how would you feel if you mom was dieing and you could save her by killing a rabbit? That rabbit would be history and you know it. Come live in the real world the majority of the research animals are raised for that reason nothing more. Its testing on food nothing more.
Posted by Joseph V Seifert on April 30, 2007 09:07 AM"I cannot argue that animal testing has contributed to major advances in medical understanding and knowledge. However, at this point we have other models we could be using that might even give more accurate results, like computer simulation."
Do you have examples of "other models" that have found knowledge equal to the isolation of insulin or the creation of a polio vaccine. The Wiki article doesn't mention any.
Posted by on April 30, 2007 09:08 AMComputers can not show the human condition. You would have to have every DNA and condition in this data. The data alone would fill every computer in the world and you would never still run every posible test known. You might as well throw dice like they did in the middle ages. At least you eliminate alot of dangerous drugs or combinations with live testing you would never see this in a simulation.
Posted by Joseph V Seifert on April 30, 2007 09:18 AMDo you have examples of "other models" that have found knowledge equal to the isolation of insulin or the creation of a polio vaccine. The Wiki article doesn't mention any.
Hey, thanks for reading the Wiki article! :) Truth be told, I doubted anyone would take the time to just check out some general information on the issue.
As for your question about examples of alternative models to isolate insulin or create a polio vaccine, no, I don't. I am assuming that animal testing was the primary, if not only, model used back then for those efforts.
My original point is that new technology and methods are making it possible to use other approaches now besides animal testing. It would be nice to see more public concentration on that, as I get the feeling that when the debate against animal testing comes up, many people aren't aware there are new models available now, so it's not just an issue of "Animal testing or we can't find a cure."
I also see someone posted something that implies if we don't do animal testing, we'll do stem cell research on aborted fetuses, instead. I am not really informed on the subject of stem cell research, so I can't delve too deeply there. Other than that most of the discussion I see on neutral sites about the topic of animal testing typically mention computer simulation models, instead. I also have read that researchers are more and more using "engineered tissue" from donated body parts, for example, from someone who has donated their eyes after they die.
Posted by mytwosense on April 30, 2007 09:35 AMComputers can not show the human condition. You would have to have every DNA and condition in this data. The data alone would fill every computer in the world and you would never still run every posible test known. You might as well throw dice like they did in the middle ages. At least you eliminate alot of dangerous drugs or combinations with live testing you would never see this in a simulation.
Actually, a human being's biochemical make up is markedly different in numerous ways than animals. In fact, one of the ways computer simulation is being used more and more is to study drug toxicity on human cells.
At any rate, with the increasing sophistication of simulation software programs, you can get a heck of a lot more data in there about the human anatomy than by opening up a dog.
Posted by mytwosense on April 30, 2007 09:48 AMAs someone who has personally been witness to the use of animals for the purpose of medical advance, it is my opinion that the use of animals is far more advantageous than using computer models.
Some of the best medical schools in the Nation still utilize animal research for study in medical school and include such prestigious colleges as:
Johns Hopkins
St. Louis University
NY Medical School
Case Western Reserve Medical School
The Medical College of Wisconsin
The University of Wisconsin Medical School
Some of the wonderful cures that have been developed by these schools, along with advances made by companies such as Pfizer, Merck, Abbott are:
insulin, antibiotics, analgesics, anti-depressants and anesthetics; the development of kidney, liver and heart transplants, bypass surgery, heart catheterization and joint replacement. Smallpox was eradicated through world wide vaccination; polio is being eradicated.
There are protocols that have been implemented through the Nuremburg Code and the Helsinki Declaration.
We sometimes attach human emotion into animals (thus the term "humane" treatment), and I understand why. When I worked for Abbott Labs, I had a very hard time entering the diabetic research lab, because they utilized testing on beagles, of which I had one. I understood the need for that research, but also knew it was something that I couldn't personally do. That didn't make it wrong, it just made it uncomfortable for me.
If that makes me an evil person in the minds of some people, then so be it. I would rather have my Grandfather alive because of the research performed, or someone else's father, mother, brother, sister...
I do understand the compassion people have for animals. They are cute, depend on us for food, water, shelter, love and compassion. But that doesn't mean they are human.
I do understand the compassion people have for animals. They are cute, depend on us for food, water, shelter, love and compassion. But that doesn't mean they are human.
Dan2, with all due respect, I kind of resent the implication I have compassion for animals because they are cute and depend on us. I also have compassion for beings in this world many would not describe as "cute" and for wild species that don't depend on us to feed them and clean up their poop.
Animals can and do feel pain, intense pain. That is one reason I have compassion for them.
They also feel terror and depression. That is another reason I have compassion for them.
I also have compassion for sick and ill human beings. Being compassionate for animals is not mutually exclusive from caring about the suffering of human beings. Many researchers, scientists, people in the medical communities, and yes, in the for-profit pharmaceutical companies feel compassion for both, and thus, are moving towards other alternatives besides animal testing. This is not something driven solely by the animal rights movement. Many people in the field share your own discomfort you experienced watching animals being experimented on, and are open to using new methods in the hopes of one day completely replacing animal testing.
I don't think you are an "evil" human being, but I do think you have perhaps desensitized yourself a bit, for whatever reasons. Perhaps you had to since you worked in that field. I am glad some people in the field have not stuffed their feelings of discomfort away somewhere, and are actually open to the possibilities that other research methods can provide, of which more and more studies are showing advantages, as well.
Posted by mytwosense on April 30, 2007 10:24 AMMTS,
I apologize, as I did appear to be very casual with my reference to "cute and cuddly," if you will. But, from my perspective, that is what I tend to see from the "animal rights" crew, and as an example I would say "dolphin safe nets" when culling and fishing tuna. To hell with the tuna, as long as we protect the dolphin (I know, I am exaggerating, but using that to prove a point).
I think the good out-weighs the bad in animal testing. I really do (as I do with stem cell research). We, as a mature society, need to understand that we can do both (and honestly that is one of the benefits of animal testing is to utilize the senses that they have, and understand what is a tolerable pain level - and BELIEVE me, I know that is hard - ), use models, but also animals for the betterment of human pain and suffering.
I love my pets. I personally have two cats and a dog right now, and my wife and I love and cherish them. But if I had to chose between my pets or my wife, I would chose my wife every time, without thought.
Posted by Dan2 on April 30, 2007 10:46 AMAnd yes, many universities test animals in labs. Some of these same universities are also making efforts to move towards other alternatives, for example, Johns Hopkins University, the first school you quoted in your list.
If interested in the specifics of how and why they're doing this, visit the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing: http://caat.jhsph.edu/
You might also find this article from an Oxford-educated neurosurgeon and neuroscientist of interest. He puts forth the argument that one reason we have so many drug errors is because of the animal testing methods behind it. http://www.vero.org.uk/press7.asp
Posted by mytwosense on April 30, 2007 10:49 AMDan2 is of the ilk that I described in my first letter. Too bad they can't use him in their experiments!
Posted by Nature Boy on April 30, 2007 10:51 AMBut if I had to chose between my pets or my wife, I would chose my wife every time, without thought.
Yes, of course. But it would still be a crappy choice to have to make. And that's my main point: with the advent of alternatives to animal testing, very soon it will be a moral choice people won't even have to theoretically ponder anymore.
And that's what concerns me about the debate. There just seems to be a lot of people who aren't aware that there are alternatives, and assume that without animal testing, we're all going up in a puff of smoke, lol. It's kind of swept under the rug that:
a) We actually have a huge body of research already performed, providing a wealth of information
b) computer simulation can often provide a better representation of anatomy, plus allow more variables to be changed
c) donated organs provide engineered tissue research models (donated as in, not taken from aborted fetuses)
Let me expound on point A for a moment. According to the Animal Welfare Act, researchers and scientists ARE supposed to find other alternatives to animal testing first, at least that's my understanding. However, two things here: if a researcher can find a body of evidence that would eliminate the need for animal testing first, his/her grant money would be shrunk in proportion to the time saved not going through a bunch of animal testing trials. Call me a cynic, but I suspect there are researchers/scientists out there who are performing the same studies, just with a slight variation, in order to get funded, i.e., make their living.
The second thing is that the oversight activities needed to curtail such unethical, taxpayer money wasting behavior is seriously lacking.
Anyway, I would love to chat with you about these kinds of topics in more depth if you're ever up to it. You can email me at jlschmidtco@yahoo.com if you'd like! Of course, we can also continue the discussion here, too.
Posted by mytwosense on April 30, 2007 11:03 AMDan2 is of the ilk that I described in my first letter. Too bad they can't use him in their experiments!
Well, stick around Nature Boy and you'll change your mind about that. He's one of the few conservatives on this board who will actually converse with me in mature, respectful manner. Makes it a lot easier to separate the message from the messenger.
And quite candidly, when you say something antagonistic like that, it hardly helps convince others that animal testing is wrong, it just makes them hate us animal right advocates more!
Posted by mytwosense on April 30, 2007 11:07 AMmts,
I agree, that there are wonderful alternatives to animal testing, and those alternatives are being utilized and should continue to be utilized. I am not arguing against that in the least.
To set the record straight, I do not believe in animal testing for cosmetics, hair products, sensory testing, or any other non-medical research. I do, however, feel that there are some instances in which an animal is the only subject that will be able to provide the necessary components similar to humans. And models are not able to assist (especially in surgeons) the ability to react to, with compassion, the "crashing" of a patient. It is also beneficial to utilize animals when dealing with neurosurgery and spinal cord injuries, as well as asthma. Not all testing is cruel and research also benefits veterinarians as well.
Thanks for sticking up for me (even though the conservative label hurts a little bit) ;o)
I like to think of myself as a well researched person, who chases the facts, vs follows a specific mantra all the time, but that is not an issue really.
Posted by Dan2 on April 30, 2007 11:20 AMNo 8:33, I wasn't referencing nazi doctors, more like Carl Reiner.
Posted by shaupeen on April 30, 2007 12:02 PMAnd Mengele's "patients" weren't criminals, just normal people who happened to be Jewish or other people despised by Hitler.
Posted by shaupeen on April 30, 2007 12:06 PM"And Mengele's "patients" weren't criminals, just normal people who happened to be Jewish or other people despised by Hitler."
The state determines who is a criminal and who is not, which is exactly what Germany did against the numerous ethnicities that they butchered. Where exactly would the state go after using up the murderers and rapists for lab rats?
Posted by on April 30, 2007 12:24 PMHitler WAS the state! I think you missed the point, but you might be used to that. Probably why you don't use a name after your posts...
Posted by shaupeen on April 30, 2007 01:33 PM"Hitler WAS the state!"
That's exactly the point. Sometimes the state, whatever that might be in a given society, makes criminals out of innocents. And those are people that you advocate experimenting on, unwittingly or not. Learn to think before you retort, it will probably improve the quality of your posts.
Sometimes the state, whatever that might be in a given society, makes criminals out of innocents.
Interesting analogy, albeit unintended, about something I've always wondered regarding animals being subjected to torturous medical experimentation. What the hell was their crime, other than being lucklessly born a creature other than human?
At any rate, I don't advocate involuntary testing on crimimals anymore than I do on animals, as I think its barbaric and inhumane in either case. Although there's some types of criminals I'm sure it would be hard-pressed to find didn't deserve it.
Posted by mytwosense on April 30, 2007 02:32 PM"One of the perennial curses of thought is making seperate of what is only distinguishable."* Whether its drug or product testing, vivisection or disection or a host of other terrible things we do to animals we are collectively guilty of barbarism. Read on fellow barbarian.
Hundreds of Thousands of Animals Killed Annually in Cruel Military Experiments
News programs have been airing ghastly video footage from Afghanistan that shows dogs dying agonizing deaths in al Qaeda military experiments. One tape shows a dog trapped in a room with vapor rising. The dog begins licking his chops (increased saliva is one of the first signs of poisoning), loses control of his hindquarters, and is eventually seen lying on his back, moaning. However, these cruel experiments are nothing new-nor are they confined to Afghanistan. The war on animals is an international one. From Tel Aviv to Tehran to Texas, dogs and other animals are being poisoned and otherwise tortured in chemical, biological, and conventional warfare experiments. PETA has equally barbaric, secretly shot footage, from 1977, of Israeli soldiers injecting- and killing-dogs with what appear to be nerve agents. No matter where you stand on international conflicts, it is a painful fact that the Israeli army has also blown up unanesthetized pigs with Scud missile explosives and conducted other painful experiments on dogs, monkeys, doves, mice, toads, and guinea pigs. An article in the March 17, 2000, issue of Ha'aretz, Israel’s most respected daily newspaper, reported that experiments carried out by the Israel Defense Forces on animals were so horrific that the soldiers forced to conduct the experiments had to seek psychological counseling. The United States military has a long history of conducting cruel animal experiments.
A long history but not as long as the history
of the cruel hunter, abatoir butcher, trapper, and a plethora of other savage activities that should be perceived as the resultant abomination of the animals as property concept. Collective barbarism wil cease only upon the abandonment of the concept.
OK, 1:41, now you've missed the point and the movie reference and...ah, the hell with it. If I have to explain, you'd never understand. I'll try to be less complicating in the future. But if you have a few free hours, watch The Jerk. That was what I was referencing. Then look up sarcasm--that's what I was using. But first, relax. You are way too uptight.
Posted by shaupeen on April 30, 2007 03:39 PMUm, I'm waiting ...... When is someone going to blame animal testing on illegal immigration? The resident racists on this forum must be asleep today ......
Posted by on April 30, 2007 04:40 PMSeifert, testing on innocent animals who have done no harm to anyone and who have no choice is completely in humane. Test on paid volunteers including criminals or people who volunteer to test new drugs. Leave the animals (like kids) who have no choice out of it. Or yes, use computer models. Not as accurate you say? Too bad.
Posted by Karl on April 30, 2007 06:37 PMOr yes, use computer models. Not as accurate you say? Too bad.
Actually, I'd like to point out that there is evidence of more accuracy in computer models in many cases. If one wants to really delve into the subject, there are plenty of articles about this on the Internet in reputable medical journals.
Posted by mytwosense on May 1, 2007 08:53 AMWhy do humans think humans are the most important animals on the planet?
Posted by dks on May 1, 2007 09:39 AMIllegal aliens??? Testing them?? Good idea!!!! since they want to work so bad let them volunteer!!!!! but, pay them below wage scale of course!!
Posted by on May 1, 2007 10:17 AM"OK, 1:41, now you've missed the point and the movie reference and...ah, the hell with it. If I have to explain, you'd never understand. I'll try to be less complicating in the future. But if you have a few free hours, watch The Jerk. That was what I was referencing. Then look up sarcasm--that's what I was using. But first, relax. You are way too uptight."
This is rich, thanks for the yip shaupeen, from now on I'll rely on obscure movies to make my points and make supercilious comments when someone hasn't seen the movie, it really is an excellent way to put a position out there. And it continues, "look up sarcasm--that's what I was using", aside from the fact that sarcasm is a pretty lowbrow way to act clever, it doesn't translate very well into type, a fact you might consider in the future. And let me tell you, I'm about to go into conniptions from pent up hostility, I better see a doctor. Hahahahahaha
Posted by on May 1, 2007 10:17 AMLowbrow? You call me lowbrow after implying I'm a descendent of a nazi butcher? That's funny. "Hyporcite...party of one...your table is ready."
Posted by shaupeen on May 1, 2007 11:33 AMI think all of God's creatures are deserving of a place of their own - right next to the mashed potatoes!!
Posted by Meat&Potatoes on May 1, 2007 12:02 PMI think we should start testing the products on the murderers 1st, then the child molesters, then the real nutjobs that want to blow everything up.
What a novel approach.
I used to work in the medical industry, and any expert will tell you that clinical tests work far better than any other. In this modern day, there is not only no reason to use animal subjects (they have a different metabolic rate than us, so all drugs have a different affect on them than on us), the funding that goes into animal testing could be used for far more useful clinical testing. Alternatives to animal testing are far more accurate. In fact, the reason many companies (you'll notice it is the huge corporation companies that do not care about us (people) either) still test on animals is that because the results are highly inaccurate, when a child dies because of a chemical or drug ingested, the company blames the death on the fact that animals have such a different metabolic rate, there was no way to know how it would affect a human. The companies that do alternative testing are much more responsible in the fact that the results are much more accurate, so they are held more accountable.
In any situation, there is always an ethical way, an ethical solution. Let us look toward the future with open minds, strong, knowledgeable minds. Thank you for your time. :)
wow! i was pleasantly surprised to see so many comments to my article! good to see that people are talking about this issue. once and for all:
--human systems and animal systems ARE NOT the same.
--animal rights and stem cell research/abortion are COMPLETELY different issues and i do not understand why "christians" always are comparing the two. but, if you really want to go there, if one thinks the killing of innocent, unborn children is wrong, shouldn't one then believe that the killing of ANY innocent creature is wrong?
--people who still believe (in this day and age) that animal testing only benefits humans and that no testing is done for harm's sake or curiousity only has a lot of learning to do. do your research before making ignorant comments.
Posted by CAROL on May 25, 2007 04:50 PM