Animal Experiments II
2002-06-12 11:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
archershipsContinued discussion with ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
portia regarding animal experimentation. Read the initial discussion.
Portia--thanks for the response.
Points I agree with:
1. I have no problem with moving to computer models for high school students.
2. Yes, many illnesses would be greatly reduced if humans stopped smoking, eating Whoppers, and so on, thereby reducing the need for animal research.
And I heartily support ending tax subsidies for scientific research so that you can spend your money to support education and prevention efforts, if you so desire. That way you wouldn't have to support research you felt was useless and/or immoral.
On to the points where we have greater differences:
Yes, I realize animal testing has helped in the past and can continue to help for MEDICAL purposes. Cosmetic testing is completely unnecessary in my opinion.
O.K. So would you support animal research for legitimate medical purposes? If so, what would constitute legitimate, in your mind?
However, most medical labs do NOT practice "good science" (as evidenced by the never-ending stories of abuse being reported) and continue to treat the animals in an inhumane manner.
What percentage of laboratory animals do you believe experience unacceptable levels of inhumane treatment?
Keep in mind that animal rights organizations have to keep the money flowing in too. Which is more likely to garner support: a) claims that inhumane treatment of animals is done by small fraction of labs b) claims that animal abuse is rampant in the industry and therefore requires your support now.
If the gov't would eliminate animal tests that have no benefit to humans, I'd be happier. I'm talking, for example, about some researcher who has applied for a grant to see what will happen to a cat if you place it over a barrel of water on a small railing, in the dark, and implant electrodes in it head... how long does it take to fall in the water? Cruel, useless and just a way for some asshole to spend gov't money in "the name of science." No benefit to humanity whatsoever. Those are the kind of tests that I find the most horrific. And that kind of stuff is happening all of the time.
I agree with you--I'm all for eliminating cruel, useless experiments that are of no benefit to humanity whatsoever. How could anyone be for such experiments?
But don't many animal rights activists want to stop all animal experimentation regardless of its possible benefits to humans?
If you're not part of that camp, what medical experimentation on animals would you allow?
What is so wrong with expecting those so-called good "men of science" to not be cruel bastards? Apparently it is too much to ask since anti-animal rights individuals get so upset when we ask them to stop their cruel treatment of animals. I wonder why that is?
There's nothing wrong with expecting scientists to be humane. However, imagine for a moment that you are a scientist. Wouldn't you get upset if someone
...implied that you were a cruel bastard who killed and tortured innocent animals just so you could get rich.
...implied your work was useless, horrific, and of no benefit to humanity.
...wanted to pass laws that would make it effectively impossible to pursue research that you believed might extend or save the lives of millions of people.
I personally do not want to take a drug that was proved to be safe on animals.
No drug can be proven safe. The safety of a drug depends upon dosage, timing, co-mingling with other drugs, hormonal levels, and a myriad of other factors. There's so many variables, you can't test them all.
It's all about risk reduction. And as I admitted, animals are not perfect models. But suppose I have two untested treatments for a disease you have. I give each to a rabbit. One of the rabbits dies; the other lives. Wouldn't you want to know what drug the dead rabbit got?
Take another example. Crash test dummies. They're made out of wood, plastic, and steel. They're not perfect models--they aren't living at all. But they tell us a lot about the safety of cars.
In other words, there would be a lot more Thalidomide-like tragedies if we didn't do animal testing.
Animals are not there just to be eaten and experimented on.
Yes, they make great little fur hats too.
Sorry. But how do you know that animals are not there to be eaten/experimented upon? Killing other animals for food(survival) seems to be quite common among mammals.
A car, a computer, dairy products--none of them you need to live. Someone who doesn't own a car, or use a computer might regard them as luxuries, frivolities even. Yet you're willing to tolerate the death and suffering of some animals so that you can enjoy them.
Likewise, I'm willing to tolerate the death and suffering of animals because I believe that it will help save the lives of myself and the people I love.
portia regarding animal experimentation. Read the initial discussion.Portia--thanks for the response.
Points I agree with:
1. I have no problem with moving to computer models for high school students.
2. Yes, many illnesses would be greatly reduced if humans stopped smoking, eating Whoppers, and so on, thereby reducing the need for animal research.
And I heartily support ending tax subsidies for scientific research so that you can spend your money to support education and prevention efforts, if you so desire. That way you wouldn't have to support research you felt was useless and/or immoral.
On to the points where we have greater differences:
Yes, I realize animal testing has helped in the past and can continue to help for MEDICAL purposes. Cosmetic testing is completely unnecessary in my opinion.
O.K. So would you support animal research for legitimate medical purposes? If so, what would constitute legitimate, in your mind?
However, most medical labs do NOT practice "good science" (as evidenced by the never-ending stories of abuse being reported) and continue to treat the animals in an inhumane manner.
What percentage of laboratory animals do you believe experience unacceptable levels of inhumane treatment?
Keep in mind that animal rights organizations have to keep the money flowing in too. Which is more likely to garner support: a) claims that inhumane treatment of animals is done by small fraction of labs b) claims that animal abuse is rampant in the industry and therefore requires your support now.
If the gov't would eliminate animal tests that have no benefit to humans, I'd be happier. I'm talking, for example, about some researcher who has applied for a grant to see what will happen to a cat if you place it over a barrel of water on a small railing, in the dark, and implant electrodes in it head... how long does it take to fall in the water? Cruel, useless and just a way for some asshole to spend gov't money in "the name of science." No benefit to humanity whatsoever. Those are the kind of tests that I find the most horrific. And that kind of stuff is happening all of the time.
I agree with you--I'm all for eliminating cruel, useless experiments that are of no benefit to humanity whatsoever. How could anyone be for such experiments?
But don't many animal rights activists want to stop all animal experimentation regardless of its possible benefits to humans?
If you're not part of that camp, what medical experimentation on animals would you allow?
What is so wrong with expecting those so-called good "men of science" to not be cruel bastards? Apparently it is too much to ask since anti-animal rights individuals get so upset when we ask them to stop their cruel treatment of animals. I wonder why that is?
There's nothing wrong with expecting scientists to be humane. However, imagine for a moment that you are a scientist. Wouldn't you get upset if someone
...implied that you were a cruel bastard who killed and tortured innocent animals just so you could get rich.
...implied your work was useless, horrific, and of no benefit to humanity.
...wanted to pass laws that would make it effectively impossible to pursue research that you believed might extend or save the lives of millions of people.
I personally do not want to take a drug that was proved to be safe on animals.
No drug can be proven safe. The safety of a drug depends upon dosage, timing, co-mingling with other drugs, hormonal levels, and a myriad of other factors. There's so many variables, you can't test them all.
It's all about risk reduction. And as I admitted, animals are not perfect models. But suppose I have two untested treatments for a disease you have. I give each to a rabbit. One of the rabbits dies; the other lives. Wouldn't you want to know what drug the dead rabbit got?
Take another example. Crash test dummies. They're made out of wood, plastic, and steel. They're not perfect models--they aren't living at all. But they tell us a lot about the safety of cars.
In other words, there would be a lot more Thalidomide-like tragedies if we didn't do animal testing.
Animals are not there just to be eaten and experimented on.
Yes, they make great little fur hats too.
Sorry. But how do you know that animals are not there to be eaten/experimented upon? Killing other animals for food(survival) seems to be quite common among mammals.
A car, a computer, dairy products--none of them you need to live. Someone who doesn't own a car, or use a computer might regard them as luxuries, frivolities even. Yet you're willing to tolerate the death and suffering of some animals so that you can enjoy them.
Likewise, I'm willing to tolerate the death and suffering of animals because I believe that it will help save the lives of myself and the people I love.
no subject
Date: 2002-06-12 11:20 pm (UTC)You have my sympathy in trying to make this argument. The standard of education in this country has been falling consistently since the 1960's and the current generation is, for the most part, unfamiliar with science. Nor have they been exposed to any exercise in critical thinking. Good luck.
no subject
Date: 2002-06-15 04:37 pm (UTC)Although I don't expect to persuade Portia (I think that the arguments she brings up are mostly ex post facto arguments to support a belief she holds intuitively), I do hope that those without already existing strong beliefs may still be persuaded.
no subject
Date: 2002-06-13 05:22 pm (UTC)The truth is, MOST animals used in research are the types of animals that most weekend PETAposers would call the exterminator to get rid of if they found them in their homes.
Sorry, people are more important, and I don't think we're done there yet.
no subject
Date: 2002-06-15 04:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-06-17 11:02 am (UTC)Then too, I learned there is a difference between acting humanely and granting rights. I don't believe that non-sentinent beings need rights. I don't actually let my love of the anthropomorphic fallacy extend itself to cows. (Dolphins, maybe.) In the meantime, I had children and I worked in the non-profit sector with homeless, criminal justice, and child protective services client populations. So really, I do think that there are other things to worry about.
This does not mean that I don't see the value in acting with humanity to animals, I don't smash spiders, I put them outside. Rights, however, are a whole other thing.
no subject
Date: 2002-06-18 05:01 pm (UTC)Were your animal rights beliefs strong enough that they significantly affected your lifestyle, i.e. were you a vegetarian, did you contribute to organizations like PETA, etc.?
no subject
Date: 2002-06-18 05:17 pm (UTC)*****
Just to ramble on a bit on the subject, I must say that various animal protection sites I've seen seem a bit, well, racist to me.
no subject
Date: 2002-06-19 08:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-06-13 07:34 pm (UTC)-Dennis Miller, circa 1990
no subject
Date: 2002-06-15 04:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-06-16 09:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-06-16 07:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-06-16 08:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-06-16 10:25 pm (UTC)oooh, oooh! interjects in other converstation
Date: 2002-06-17 11:12 am (UTC)Here's a link if you're really interested in the use of human beings in research studies. There's a similar tutorial for the use of animals, but none of the projects I work with use vertebrate animals, so I haven't seen that one.
Re: oooh, oooh! interjects in other converstation
Date: 2002-06-18 04:57 pm (UTC)Re: oooh, oooh! interjects in other converstation
Date: 2002-06-18 05:03 pm (UTC)an administratora bureaucrat. My current assignment is a center looking at oral health disparities in children, we currently have 8 projects including clinical interventions with very young children.