Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
Neuroscientist,
May I attempt to answer your points:
We do know how proteins and made,
and that each has specific roles within the cell,
and that these different proteins together confer funtional roles,
therefore the active sites between species can certainly be compared,
BUT:
the total sum of an animals parts contain millions of subtle immeasureable and unpredictable differences in how the organism as a whole will deal with different chemicals and combinations of chemicals
If we were able to accurately measure and quantify these differences we would be able to predict what will happen in the experiments.
We can't!
I'll say that again - The fact that there are 'immeasurably complex differences' between the total sum of an animals cells means ALL the differences cannot be accurately measured and quantified, so in fact we CANNOT ACCURATELY PREDICT what will happen when substances are given to different species.
We know this, otherwise researchers would always or nearly always be able to predict outcomes in advance. They can't! In fact it is more accurate to flip a coin, because results are predicted less than 50% of the time.
I also must disagree with the point you made about humans having a moral responsibility to understand our existence, because you believe that we are the only things on the planet that can have insight into our own existence. Frankly you must have a poor insight into the understanding of other species, who are in many ways living a far more moral and humane life than humans. If we are so very special as you believe, then we must be more especially careful not to exploit our position.
Also what is this moral obligation to understand ourselves? Surely it is mere curiosity - no bad thing of course, but nothing so grand as a moral responsibility!
|
| |
|
|
I just want to reply to one thing flooxie said, about some species leading lives more "moral" than our own. This is a pointless comparison... animals do not have morals. Animals do what animals do, such is the way of life and of nature. An animal is primarily concerned with only 2 things, it's own personal survival and the survival of it's offspring. Animals kill other animals for food. Is this morally wrong? No. Females of a number of species will physically attack other females, even their own daughters, if they become pregnant to cause them to miscarry, so that only the lead animal in the group will reproduce successfully. Again, this is not morally wrong, it's just life. Equally animals do not generally behave in a moral way, they are not selfess, and only rarely show signs of altruism (helping others even when there is no direct benefit to themselves). Only humans have a conscience, we alone understand the concepts of wright and wrong, good and evil. In the animal world, even the plant world, survival and reproduction are all that matter.
|
| |
|
|
You can paint any picture you like and say what you want but there is no justification for what you do to the animals what so ever. it doesn’t matter if it’s to help humans or not all you are trying to do is paint a pretty picture of what you do in the lab and justify your own actions.
|
| |
|
|
Welfarist, perhaps we are looking at this from a different viewpoint. I could have been clearer, what I could have said was 'authentic' rather than 'moral'. What I am trying to say is that we regard the whole world as something put there just for us, by 'God', to be used up as we see fit for our own benefit. Animals as a rule don't, and therefore tend not to exploit other species unnecessarily. I would like your opinion on the other, more relevant points I made though  quote: Originally posted by welfarist:
I just want to reply to one thing flooxie said, about some species leading lives more "moral" than our own. This is a pointless comparison... animals do not have morals. Animals do what animals do, such is the way of life and of nature.
Equally animals do not generally behave in a moral way, they are not selfess, and only rarely show signs of altruism (helping others even when there is no direct benefit to themselves). Only humans have a conscience, we alone understand the concepts of wright and wrong, good and evil. In the animal world, even the plant world, survival and reproduction are all that matter.
|
| |
|
|
Before I carry on I would like to make one point. Everyone here, and everywhere, is entitled to their own opinion. I hope we can carry on this discussion accepting that while we may disagree we are all entitled to our opinions and beliefs, so please do not take offence when I state mine.
Fair point about your comment floozie... it's not always easy to interpret exactly what people are saying from a post! Although, human beings are still animals, and it is perfectly natural to put our own survival before that of others. Of course I agree that no species kills animals, and damages the environment to the extent that we do.
As to your arguement about whether animal tests work... I don't know. I believe they do, but I can not say for certain... I don't think anyone can. Many drugs and procedures have been successfully developed through animal tests. Others have failed miserably. There have been some fairly major mistakes but overall I think we've done more good than harm. Yes, of course all species are different, there are differnces within subspecies, breds, races etc. but there are also many similarities.
For the record I don't like animal testing, but I believe that at least for the time being it is necessary. I hope that as we improve technology in this area we will replace all animal test with more humane methods. I just don't think we're in a position to do this yet.
And has what been proved? About animals being fundamentally selfish. If you do some research into animal behaviour you will find that yes, many species do kill other animals, including their own kind, if it will in some way benefit them. Very few species show altruism... they are much more likely to help others when the benefit is mutual in some way. Humans are the only species to make a habit of it, whether donating to a charity or helping an old lady across the road.
|
| |
|
|
By the way Rob, why does it always seem as if anyone against vivisection assumes that it's supporters are all directly involved? You know nothing about me, yet assume I am trying to justify what I do.
|
| |
|
|
I totally agree that humans are animals and therefore have the same drives and motivations as all other species. But because we have become so successful we have decimated the planet in our striving to be even more successful, ie numerous. I am not saying I'm against advancing medical treatments or reducing peoples suffering - far from it. But success at all costs is an oxymoron, and the sooner a majority (  the americans included!) grasp that we cannot continue to be successful as a species without a fully functioning planet, the better our chances of continuing to enjoy this wonderful place. I think the antivivisection movement is to a large extent in the vanguard of this ethical paradigm shift, and should be supported by anyone who thinks, as I do, that what we are doing as a species is unsupportable. It is about looking at the whole picture, not just our selfish needs as a species. |
| |
|
New Member
|
quote: Originally posted by floozie66:
Neuroscientist,
May I attempt to answer your points:
We do know how proteins and made,
and that each has specific roles within the cell,
and that these different proteins together confer funtional roles,
therefore the active sites between species can certainly be compared, [QUOTE]
They can be more than just compared; they can be identical in their responses, especially in the more evolutionarily conserved cell types (the cells really essential to survival). For instance the block of sodium channels by a toxin found in puffer fish (the bit you don’t want to eat ) selectively binds the sodium channel and hence eliminates the excitability of the neuron in all species known to have neurons.
I do however accept that on the macro scale there may be certain systems that are specific to different species that confound an experiment that is looking to model a human biological mechanism on an animal. BUT this is why the different species are used - and as our knowledge of the physiology of different species gets more advanced (and the only way to do this is by using the animal) we can select more effectively the appropriate animal model for the question being asked.
[QUOTE]
BUT:
the total sum of an animals parts contain millions of subtle immeasureable and unpredictable differences in how the organism as a whole will deal with different chemicals and combinations of chemicals
If we were able to accurately measure and quantify these differences we would be able to predict what will happen in the experiments.
We can't![QUOTE]
You somewhat make my main argument here, which is for the physiological understanding of life. The ONLY way we can get enough information about the cell and its operation within the organism is by investigating the organism, then we can get better predictability, and experiment more effectively.
[QUOTE]
I'll say that again - The fact that there are 'immeasurably complex differences' between the total sum of an animals cells means ALL the differences cannot be accurately measured and quantified, so in fact we CANNOT ACCURATELY PREDICT what will happen when substances are given to different species.
We know this, otherwise researchers would always or nearly always be able to predict outcomes in advance. They can't! In fact it is more accurate to flip a coin, because results are predicted less than 50% of the time.
[QUOTE]
Um yes science is not complete yet, it follows a Bayesian scheme - that is , a confirmation of a hypothesis does not entail the hypothesis to be true but increases the probability of it being correct. It is now possible, as a result of the body of evidence that has been gained from animal experimentation, to start to make better predictions that have greater probabilities of being correct and this accuracy will only increase as knowledge progresses. Science is an ongoing process and to say that 'immeasurably complex differences' will always exist is simply untrue, unless you can predict the future. My prediction would be that in the future we will not have to use many animals in experiments because many of the questions will have been answered, however i think this is a long way off because as you point out the total sum of cells do often have some emergent features that are hard to model in a non living system.
[QUOTE]
I also must disagree with the point you made about humans having a moral responsibility to understand our existence, because you believe that we are the only things on the planet that can have insight into our own existence. Frankly you must have a poor insight into the understanding of other species, who are in many ways living a far more moral and humane life than humans. If we are so very special as you believe, then we must be more especially careful not to exploit our position.
[QUOTE]
I don’t just 'believe' that we are the only species with insight. This is the difference between a scientist and a non-scientist that believes things without evidence - there is no evidence that other species have this insight apart from some higher primates that have demonstrated some mirror identification but it is at an incredibly low level in comparison to humans. Yet this does and should confer a higher state of recognition for the primate, which is more indication of our cognitive superiority to the animal. We empathise with them. It is the very thing that differentiates us from animals that makes us look with shock and discomfort at the PETA banners on the high street stall. But in the case of the animal rights movement it has gone too far, the distinctions are getting blurred, surely you must accept that most of a humans intellectual abilities and capacity to suffer emotional pain are NOWHERE to be seen in the animal kingdom and that a human life is therefore worth more that an animal life.
[QUOTE]
Also what is this moral obligation to understand ourselves? Surely it is mere curiosity - no bad thing of course, but nothing so grand as a moral responsibility!
Morals are a human creation, born out of a need to live in groups harmoniously and regulate harm to other persons. I am proposing that the purest pursuit of the human is the quest to understand our environment and that to neglect this is to neglect humanity and therefore is a moral responsibility. A final point: I do not write this to make animal experimentation look nice - in many cases its not nice (especially for the animal) but its also not as bad as many of you think. If you were to see good practice instead of bad (which is all you do see) i think you would be surprised, its not all toxicology. I am also sure you would be amazed if you looked in a Physiology textbook and saw what we know and how it almost all depends on animal studies, life really is beautiful. |
| |
|
|
I have to admit people make no sense to me. I know people in the vivisection industry that are vege on ethical grounds, as I know people who are totally against animal testing but eat factory farmed meat. Strange.... I do not support animal rights (obviously) but I do think they have a lot of good ideas... like not abusing our position and destroying the planet. I think we're all hypocritical in some way, I mean I am far more concerned about the human suffering and animals becoming extinct as we rip up all natural areas and pollute every corner of the globe than I am about eating animals or using them in research.
|
| |
|
New Member
|
Looks like i cant edit posts - messed up the quoting there a bit in my last post.
Anyway, Id just like to add that this is a very important debate and it is at the forefront of the mind of most researchers i know when they need to work with animals.
|
| |
|
|
I'll second that Neuroscientist.... I hate the fact that so many people think anyone that supports animal testing is some evil sadistic psychopath that enjoys cutting up animals. Most of us actually care about the animals, and would see it end if we thought it was possible.
|
| |
|
|
Well according to Richard Dawkins there is not such thing as a selfless act in the animal kingdom. Our genes see to that.
|
| |
|
|
I eat meat and support animal testing. However, I do not support wearing fur or killing animals for their tusks etc. I object to Zoos, animals locked up all day just so people can go and look at them! I am concerned that we may be destroying the environment. I love dogs and would never like to see one harmed. I got upset when the beagle was put down in the program, even though I knew it hadn't really died!
|
| |
|
|
You love dogs which are an animal but yet you support the killing of thousands of innocent animals to eat for your pleasure and abuse inside the labs.
Your just as bad as the people who murder them because that’s what your money is supporting.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by the neuroscientist:
CatrinaC, this is mainly in response to your post on the other thread but is applicable here also...
For ease of ref this is my reply as posted on the other thread - quote: Originally posted by the neuroscientist:
CatrinaC, you are obviously not a practicing scientist
Whilst you must be because your username is 'the neuroscientist'...although of course 'appeal to authority' is fallacious reasoning. However, the fact is that many scientists and medical professionals are against animal testing on scientific grounds. quote: and have a strange idea of the nature of science if you seriously think that those of us who are experimenting on animals are wasting our time?
Many medical professionals and scientists are against animal testing on scientific grounds, and this is not just a recent happening. As history shows us, unfortunately the nature of scientists is to accept the dogma of the age. quote: Why would we do this if we did not know that accurate information is gained from examining the physiology of different species.
Accurate information in respect of what though? History shows us not in respect of humans. quote: I am going to respond to your so-called scientific case against animal experimentation:
Actually it isn't mine, it is the basis of the case made by medical professionals and scientists against animal testing on scientific grounds. Re your response, I am pleased that, it seems, the only point you dispute is whether or not the differences between species are immeasurably complex, I will address that point in more detail on a separate post to avoid this one becoming overly long. quote: First a basic intro to physiology, we are collections of cells. Proteins make cells - proteins have specific functions and roles within the cell...
However, as is obvious, nevertheless humans are humans, rats are rats, dogs are dogs etc, and clearly our body systems are different - I refer everyone to the PCRM site re differences between rats and human body systems and the consequences http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/rats.htmlquote: Although there are overall genetic differences between species the homology (that is the similarity) between the active sites of proteins that interact is extremely high. It is the active zones that most drugs interfere with.
We know the genomes of the animals we deal with so we know the protein sequences - once a drug target is identified we can look at its effect in an animal that has a similar sequence for the site of interest to a human - if that is the goal of the experiment.
Are you saying that the effects in humans will definitely be the same as the effects in the species that has a similar sequence? quote: So my point is the 'immeasurably complex differences' can in fact be measured and quantified and that is what the majority of biomedical scientists are trying to do.
You have not said anything that actually shows that the differences can be measured and quantified though, as my question above and see below, and rather you have totally ignored the actual complexity. To give three examples that demonstrate the complex differences are immeasurable and have not been measured and quantified - they cannot even take the results from humans and scientifically/safely apply them to other humans as shown by the fact that different humans can and do have different reactions, sometimes fatal, to the same drug. Also, the then-Head of Glaxo said in December 2003 that 90+% of prescription drugs do not work in between 50-70% of patients taking them - they cannot even take the results from human adults and scientifically/safely apply them to human children thus Lord Warner said in a speech in 2004 to the ABPI re paediatric medicine "...our children are still being treated for the most part with off-label and unlicensed medicines. Prescribers guess at the correct dose and make presumptions about safety and efficacy that we know may not be correct...for children, the situation we have is simply unacceptable." [QUOTE]This is where animal use is essential - to elucidate the physiology of life/QUOTE] I understand the public does not accept animal experiments for 'knowledge for the sake of knowledge' though. I hope you don't mind but I have not answered your 'moral' points as I would prefer if we kept to the scientific validity, or not, to avoid confusing the two separate issues. |
| |
|
|
the neuroscientist
and this was my separate post re same thread -
Re the immeasurable complexity I would like to post this example re causal mechanisms
"Let’s assume system S1 has causal mechanisms {a,b,c,d,e} and system S2 has causal mechanisms {a,b,c,x,y}.
If we stimulate the sub-system {a,b,c} of S1 with stimuli sf and get result rf, then we would expect to get rf from {a,b,c} of S2 as well-if the model is viable.
However, this outcome will be highly probable if and only if {a,b,c} are causally independent of {d,e} and {x,y}."
Of course our body systems interact and work as a whole, (a,b,c are not causally independent) and are far, far more complex than the above example. "The human genome comprises approximately six billion, 6,000,000,000, letters (chemicals) of A, C, G and T, joined together in pairs - 3,000,000,000 pairs - in a linear sequence along the length of the chromosomes."
As I think I've mentioned before all species share the same genetic material, are formed from the same DNA units (A, T, C, and G) and 'assembled' using the same process but it is the composition, the arrangement, of this genetic material that makes all the difference, that makes rats rats and makes humans humans.
Further though, there are tiny genetic variations between individuals, tiny differences in the arrangment of some genetic material, and it is these differences that mean a drug can be safe/effective in one human but can seriously harm or even kill another human.
It is these immeasurably complex genetic-arrangment differences that mean results from other species cannot be used to predict effects in humans, cannot be scientific/safely applied to 'humans'.
|
| |
|
|
Flaming, I didn't see the programmes, not having digital telly, but that Mr. Festing is hardly likely to cut his own throat by admitting that vivisection is wrong.
Humous (post of 13th Dec., 14.39), scientists can also not get insights into how a drug might perform in humans. It might seem like a miraculous cure in rats but could kill people. Give one cup of cow milk to most black people and they will get gut ache. Give it to many white people and they won't.
It can be argued that people who are behaving in a legitimate way should not be attacked and should be allowed to go about their business. It could be argued that the old slave owners should have been able to go about their business too, as it was legitimate. I hasten to add that I don't condone violence except in defence. As for the body disinterment - there was no proof that protestors did it. I wonder if there was any proof that anything of the sort had been done?
the neuroscientist (post of 15th Dec., 15.39), again I say that other researchers dispute what you say. When it comes to believing who is right it is a case of you-pays-your-money-and-you-takes- yer-chances. And I believe people who aren't paid to test on animals.
And 19.34 hours - if primates should have a higher state of recognition conferred because they have more of some sort of insight than other animals, it could be argued that some humans should have less recognition as they have less insight than other humans. I say that all species should be allowed to live their lives without being subjected to cruelty. Even the less intelligent and non cuddly ones.
|
| |
|
|
Martin, just going to comment on one part of your post... about who to believe. "I believe people who aren't paid to test on animals". In my opinion, the problem with this whole debate is that many people have not bothered to do their research. Yes, many people accept the view that animal testing is necessary as fact. Many others believe the view that it is not. Simply because that is what they have been told. Personally I would rather look into both sides of the arguement, and decide for myself.
With regard to the treatment of animals in labs, I would certainly have more faith in someone within the industry simply because they have first hand knowledge and experience of such things. Groups like BUAV have exposed cruelty in half a dozen labs, yet there may be hundreds in this countrywhere such cruelty does not occur.
|
| |
|
|
I have done research as far as I am able. I have read various studies that I can get access to. But, not being a medical researcher, I don't have the knowledge to argue with someone who is. They would come up with some obscure information that I had no knowledge of. That is why I rely on people who are involved in medical research. People who inflict pain and terror on animals on a daily or, at least, frequent basis will not get my vote of confidence. I wouldn't trust CIA or KGB torturers to give me an unbiased opinion on the merits of torture. People who have a vested interest in carrying out research using animals cannot be trusted to tell the truth. They might sincerely believe that they are telling the truth but they are likely to be lying to themselves to salve their consciences. No one, not even the sickest serial killer, believes that what they do is wrong. Everyone justifies to themselves that what they do is right.
|
| |
|
|
Everyone has a vested interest... phara's will tell you animal testing is valid and not cruel becuase because it protects their interests. Groups such as BUAV, etc only exist to get the practice abolished therefore will only tell you where it goes wrong and how cruel it is. Neither will give you an accurate overview which is why you need to consider both.
|
| |
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
