Is Animal Testing Justifiable or Should We Seek Alternatives?

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Monique
Yeah, well, there are only so many things that can be found out by testing on animals.. mistakes can happen too.

*edit* I have another one: DDT.

What does DDT have to due with testing drugs on animals?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
What does DDT have to due with testing drugs on animals?

DDT might ward off flies, but it's destructive to wildlife.

 

[Monique]

If you don't know why I said DDT, could you then explain why you said Thalidomide?

I said DDT, since for decennia people thought it was a very safe chemical, only harmfull to insect, not to humans. They used to shower themselves in that stuff and used it perfusely. Until they found out many years later that it in fact IS dangerous to humans, I believe it was causing some defect in fertility/developing embryo.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

monique:

Animal rights proponents often cite the drug Thalidomide as an example of the failure of animal testing. (Thalidomide caused unforeseen birth defects in pregnant European women during the 1960s.) In fact, every test of the drug on pregnant animals, regardless of species, showed that it caused birth defects. The drug was sold over-the-counter in Europe, however, before adequate animal testing and without tests on pregnant animals -- despite the fact that it was sold for morning sickness during pregnancy! The drug was never approved for such use in the U.S. because of questions about its safety. (Thalidomide was approved for leprosy.) Subsequent research on animals also showed that Thalidomide inhibits the growth of blood vessels -- the action that caused birth defects but that also makes the drug effective against multiple myeloma, a type of cancer.

- Americans for Medical Progress

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Monique
If you don't know why I said DDT, could you then explain why you said Thalidomide?

I said DDT, since for decennia people thought it was a very safe chemical, only harmfull to insect, not to humans. They used to shower themselves in that stuff and used it perfusely. Until they found out many years later that it in fact IS dangerous to humans, I believe it was causing some defect in fertility/developing embryo.

First off, DDT was never tested in clinical trials for human consumption. Secondly, the harmful effects of DDT is what it does to the environment, i.e. it gets in the food chain, is fat soluble, and is particularly harmful to birds of prey because it weakens egg shells. Thirdly, if extensive animal testing of DDT had occured, the damage may have been preventable. Although DDT was invented in the early twentieth century, and there wasn't that kind of environmental awareness there is today.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Monique
could you then explain why you said Thalidomide?

I'm serious. Go to google.com. Select images. Enter "thalidomide."

 

[Monique]

Greg: thank you for that little illumination :) So chemsuperfreak, we agree then that we should be carefull with drug safety. That still doesn't mean we are free to torture animals without any moral implications.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
I'm serious. Go to google.com. Select images. Enter "thalidomide."

Yeah, I know.. I just had never heard of that drug before. There also used to be a birth control pill, about one generation ago, which had long lasting effects. Woman who had taken the pill and later decided to get children also were confronted with genetic defects in their children.


Well, wouldn't you find THIS interesting.. the FDA is still performing tests with thalidomide on males and females.. http://www.fda.gov/cder/news/thalidomide.htm

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Monique



Well, wouldn't you find THIS interesting.. the FDA is still performing tests with thalidomide on males and females.. http://www.fda.gov/cder/news/thalidomide.htm

Oh, I know. It's been used to treat leprosy in India for years. The right enantiomer is perfectly safe for human consumption.

 

[jimmy p]

I am for animal testing for certain reason. I am against animal testing for cosmetics and things like that but for medicine and the good of nature (woah hippy-boy!) then testing on animals is important. I mean what is a 20 mice to countless humans AND animals...lol ur cat would prob eat them 20 mice...not very nice n I am sorry if i offend

 

[notal33t]

Animal testing-Whose testing WHO!

I once was an anthropomorhic centralist, that viewed "animals" as an exploitable resource. Until the day a dolphin decided to give me a wake up call by tossing a beach ball at my face while I was taking a picture of it at a marine park! As for the human race being the "top dog" brainwise on this planet, get real! Or better yet expand your conciousness to include "none technical species" as candidates for that role!

 

[Hurkyl]

Just to chime in with a little Devil's Advocate...


A lot of people have been against against testing for cosmetic purposes... the purpose is the same when testing for cosmetic purposes and when testing for medicinal purposes; to make sure that the chemicals aren't harmful.

Are you suggesting that people should cross their fingers and hope they don't get cancer from wearing make-up, or are you suggesting the cosmetics industry be shut down? Or do you have some alternative for making sure the stuff isn't harmful that doesn't require animal testing (and why wouldn't this alternative work with medicinal testing)?

 

[notal33t]

We are not alpha & omega!

Cosmetic "research" indeed! For mercy sake realize that this "research" causes untold suffering in species unable to communicate their agony in a way we "intelligent humans" seem to be capable of understanding! Perhaps having OUR race treated the same way by some alien "grey" race might wake us up! As for medical research.. Please PLEASE make sure the research is at least monitored by people not interested in making the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR!

 

[Monique]

I agree very much, I have never done anything related to animal research, so I really don't know how these things are regulated.

Can anyone tell me which organizations look out for the welfare of these animals, do they give yearly (and unexpected) inspections?

 

[Monique]

I mean, I have worked with radiochemicals and the regulations are very strict and tight. I have to write down where I worked with it, when, how much, moniter after using, moniter weekly and monthy even when not using it. We got yearly training and inspection by OESH and can expect someone from the federal nuclear inspection to walk in and try to get to our radiochemicals to see how close he can get to it. Something similar for labanimals? Does animal sanity get monitored?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Just to chime in with a little Devil's Advocate...


A lot of people have been against against testing for cosmetic purposes... the purpose is the same when testing for cosmetic purposes and when testing for medicinal purposes; to make sure that the chemicals aren't harmful.

Are you suggesting that people should cross their fingers and hope they don't get cancer from wearing make-up, or are you suggesting the cosmetics industry be shut down? Or do you have some alternative for making sure the stuff isn't harmful that doesn't require animal testing (and why wouldn't this alternative work with medicinal testing)?

I think what we are saying is that the animal testing done for cosmetic purposes ins't necessary or humane. We already know plenty of non-harmful ways to make cosmetics, and if they can'[t test new ways without mutilating animals, then that's their tough luck, isn't it?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Ah, the old that's just their tough luck argument. So people who don't want the cosmetics industry to stop dead (not all of whom are evil capitalists), are counted less than a bunch of lab animals. Suppose they were to say of the animals, "That's just their tough luck"?

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by notal33t
As for the human race being the "top dog" brainwise on this planet, get real! Or better yet expand your conciousness to include "none technical species" as candidates for that role!

There is a danger here... While of course it makes little sense to see humanity as top dogs in absolute terms, we are not below other species either. To ourselves, we most definitely are the most important species - while this does not justify, we need to remember that we are part of the world, before we start pleading for rights to rocks.

Of course medical researchers are interesting in making money - research is expensive, and money is a big motivator - that is part of the realistic way things happen. We can't just cut out the capitalism like that. But yes, we do need reasonable regulations, from reasonable people.

The can of worms lies in how we define reasonable, of course.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Ah, the old that's just their tough luck argument. So people who don't want the cosmetics industry to stop dead (not all of whom are evil capitalists), are counted less than a bunch of lab animals. Suppose they were to say of the animals, "That's just their tough luck"?

I'd pick the bunny's side over some corporate profiteer or some vain woman anyday!

 

[selfAdjoint]

So now we're down to demonization. Are all the humble workers who will be thrown out of their jobs despicable too?

 

[lavalamp]

Well I'm torn in two. Not by whether we should test on animals or not, I know dead straight that animal testing should be banned. Would you like it if a 50 foot giant came up to you and applied make-up on your face or cut you open to do experiments on you? People have nightmares about alien abduction that pretty much amounts to the same thing as being tested on.

What I think we should do is get all the horrible, back stabbing, granny selling b*st*rds and use those for testing on or organ donation. This is why I'm torn, I can't decide which.
Whether we should throw them all in a pit to let them kill each other, hence organ donation.
Or cut them open and poke around with their insides, hence testing.

Ah, decisions decisions.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by lavalamp
Well I'm torn in two. Not by whether we should test on animals or not, I know dead straight that animal testing should be banned. Would you like it if a 50 foot giant came up to you and applied make-up on your face or cut you open to do experiments on you? People have nightmares about alien abduction that pretty much amounts to the same thing as being tested on.

What I think we should do is get all the horrible, back stabbing, granny selling b*st*rds and use those for testing on or organ donation. This is why I'm torn, I can't decide which.
Whether we should throw them all in a pit to let them kill each other, hence organ donation.
Or cut them open and poke around with their insides, hence testing.

Ah, decisions decisions.

So then because you are against animal testing are you willing to forgoe any medication which has been tested on animals? Such as penicillin and tylenol?

 

[lavalamp]

If it's going to be used by humans it should be used on humans. I believe that some states have the death penalty in America. Maybe the prisoners should be offered the alternative to be tested on ina potentially fatal experiment. If they live they can go.
Of course testing could be imposed upon them, that would be a real deterent for gun crime.

I also didn't realize that penecillin was tested on animals, if it was then I don't think that it should have been. It may in fact be cheaper to offer money to people to be tested on, like I think they pay people over there to give blood.

I'm not very knowledgeable on this subject, but I do have a view point on animal testing.
Maybe if they had tested penecillin on humans the research would have progressed slower and it wouldn't have been used so much and we would have any super bugs. I don't know, I'm just hypothesising so I could be wrong. If I am wrong then all I ask is that you don't come crashing down on top of me because of it.

 

[FZ+]

Maybe if they had tested penecillin on humans the research would have progressed slower and it wouldn't have been used so much and we would have any super bugs

And millions of animals, human or otherwise, would have died. Would you support the rights of bacteria as well? Protozoa? Sponges? Fish? Lizards? Rats? At what point does it begin?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
And millions of animals, human or otherwise, would have died.

I'm not sure if people realize how truly revolutionary antibiotics are. Until their discovery, disease killed more soldiers (for example) than gunshots themselves by a wide margin.

And then there are vaccines - together, antibiotics and vaccines have likely saved closer to a BILLION lives.

 

[Monique]

Until their dicovery we didn't get much older than 50 right?

 

[lavalamp]

OK, fine. I'll trust you on that one, I just know that I'm against animal testing. I've made an attempt to try and justify me beliefs but I guess that I'm just irrational.

 

[Monique]

Lavalamp, if you are against animal testing of any kind.. are you against eating meat too? At least animal testing is regulated in some ways, animal farms are not in any way. Ever seen how chicks are processed in an animal food plant? They are transported along the line alive until the are finally ground up.. alive.

 

[Monique]

How do people think that piece of meat on their plates died? Not a natural death, not a peacefull death either.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by Monique
How do people think that piece of meat on their plates died? Not a natural death, not a peacefull death either.

Of course there are a lot of vegan animal rights activists who aren't affected by this logic.

 

[lavalamp]

That's a horrible way to die. Are you sure that you've got all fo your facts straight? I can't imagine how anyone could allow that to go on.
If animals are used for food then they should at least die in the most humane way possible, quickly and painlessly. I also don't tend to eat much meat by the way, although it has been known on occasion.

 

[Monique]

I have seen documentaries on television and in magazines, where people go into a plant with a hidden camera. Yes, I saw the chick example on television. The workers sort the chicks, ones that are healthy (or maybe the females?) were kept alive, ones that were damaged would be pulled out and set on a different line, ending up in a grinder.

As for the meat, there are two ways to die: bullet through the head or hammer in the neck. Who says the animal dies instantly? It might still be conscious while someone starts dismembering it. Many horor stories can be told.

How about veil, ever eat that? From birth they are put in a cage which doesn't allow them to move at all, not an inch, to keep the meat tender.

Eggs, ever seen how many thousand of chicken are in a several square meters? Stacked on top of each other.

Or do you know how animals are transported to the slaughery house? Noone cares if they get injured, dehydrate or die by heat exposure.

The problem is that I don't know how wide-spread these cruelties are and which organizations are there to monitor these activities. Neither for lab animals or farm animals.

 

[Monique]

I'd recommend taking 5-10 min of your time and view the flash presentation at www.animalcruelty.com just avoid using your browser back button, it will reset the presentation and you'll have to start from the beginning again.

I recommend to have your audio on, it really makes for a humbling feeling.

The site links to:

American Anti-Vivisection Society, very good website
http://www.aavs.org/home.html

and Factory Farming
http://www.factoryfarming.org/

For the ones with steady stomachs, some video footage of ongoing cruelties:
http://www.factoryfarming.org/gallery/photos_video.htm

 

[lavalamp]

So am I right in thinking that you think animal testing is OK because it's not as bad as it could be? If you were doing an experiment on an animal and someone said that it was wrong, would your justification be, "Well at least I'm not dismembering it."?

It seems as though you're trying to show that animal testing testing is OK by comparing it with something that is worse.

Anyway, I'm not here to argue my viewpoint, I just came in here to state it. It's quite obvious that neither one of us is going to change our minds about this subject so I suggest that we just drop it. I know that I'm going to.

 

[Monique]

That is fine, but the thing I am trying to do is create awareness about that both animal testing AND animal processing can be very cruel. Both need to improved. It is a very easy thing to turn away and not think about an opinion.

I wish I knew where to donate money or which product to buy to create an anti-force against cruelty and support cleaner practices. Apparently from this thread, no one knows.