Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by welfarist:
Perhaps a group of unbiased people, or a combination of pro and anti vivs to build a website showing both sides of the story. One that gives evidence of animal research that has been successfull AND tests that have failed miserably. Photos of animals in poor conditions and in extreme procedures AND animals kept in good conditions and subjected to only mild procedures e.g. injections. One that gives information on the law and its enforcement.
It may be true that some labs keep animals in some standard conditions, I've seen the photos. All I am saying is that many do not. I know of one where the monkeys are gang housed in compatible groups (not in isolation). They do have metal cages where they can be shut away when necessary (e.g. when recovering from anaesthetic) but these are left open within a large open room. There is sawdust on the floor and wooden shelving and perches along the wall. They have a number of toys including climbing frames, and toys suspended from the ceiling to swing on. They have a swingin tyre that their lab food is put in to keep it clean but they also receive a variety of other foods. The enrichment programme is fantastic and constantly improving. Food is scattered to encourage foraging behaviour, put in cardboard boxes or dog toy e.g. kongs so the animals have to use their brains, Treats may be froxen into flavoured ice blocks.I could go on. All the staff treat the animals with respect and consideration. The monkeys are not shouted at, hit, kicked or mistreated in any way. Of course, groups such as BUAV will not tell the public about monkeys like these.
Sorry it's so long but my point is that this issue is so controversial and emotive that no one wants to present an unbiased, one-sided view.
How ridiculous. People fight over what they think is the best football team and that is a lot less emotive than animal testing. People can't be unbiased on the subject and outside of the people with a financial interest in the subject, only a sociopath would agree with vivisection once they had looked into it. No one from the AR movement is going to join vivisectionists in sharing a website. It's obvious from other posts that you are a vivisectionist (you actually admit it) but now that your arguments are being demolished by someone as knowledgeable as Catrina, your only response is to suggest that we all share a web site. Talking about giving the monkeys treats is like a paedophile saying that he gave his victims sweets first. |
| |
|
New Member
|
The Wikipedia entry on Animal Testing tries to do just this, but it's fraught with difficulty. Take a look at the page and the discussion that goes alongside it. It has a long-standing warning "the neutrality of this article is disputed" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by welfarist:
Perhaps a group of unbiased people, or a combination of pro and anti vivs to build a website showing both sides of the story. One that gives evidence of animal research that has been successfull AND tests that have failed miserably.[QUOTE]
A crucial point re the issue though is that it is only After testing on humans* that it can be known if the previous animal tests/research did or did not give the same results as were subsequently seen in humans.
So re 'successes' and failures, you see they just don't know which of the results from other species are going to be 'successes' and which are going to be failures...the dangers of this are obvious.
* Although further of course, because of the tiny, tiny genetic variations between individual humans a drug which helps one person might seriously harm/kill another person, ie drugs which might be useful to some humans not represented in the clinical trials are being lost because of the outdated one-size-fits-all-approach holding sway.
[QUOTE]my point is that this issue is so controversial and emotive that no one wants to present an unbiased, one-sided view.
I have tried to stick to the scientific arguments  |
| |
|
|
Claire G.
Well done, round of applause for spotting the use of the word "us" in one of my posts. Well here's something you may not be aware of... not everyone that is involved with laboratory animals is a "vivisectionist". I am not. I do not hold a home office personal licence, therefore I do not conduct experimental procedures on animals. Neither do I beat, kick, punch, yell at or torture animals. But yes, I do have first hand experience at what goes on inside animal labs.
Secondly, as I have said to other people on this forum... you do not know anything about me, least of all WHY I do what I do. You would like to see animal testing abolished. So would I. The only difference is that you want it done now, whereas I do not think we're in a position to do it yet. In the meantime however animals are being used in labs. I work with them for one reason and one reason only. I like animals, I am knowledgable, and I care about them and their welfare.
I'm sure we've both seen the footage of dogs being abused by staff at HLS. Is it so hard for you to understand that I do not want animals to be treated like this? As long as animals are kept in labs I believe they should be cared for by people that like animals, people that give a damn, people that will do everything in their power to improve their welfare and reduce their suffering. People like me.
Likening me, and other lab staff, to paedophiles is ridiculous. Would you prefer it if we kept our animals in the poorest conditions and beat them for entertainment? Get a grip.
Finally, about an unbiased website. You seem to have missed the point. The general public know virtually nothing about animal testing, and have only limited information with which to form an opinion. Surely they should have access to the whole arguement, both sides, so that they can look at the issue objectively and think for themselves. Unless you are so afraid that your arguement will not stand up to scrutiny that you feel the public should be brainwashed onto accepting what you say rather than using their brains?
Finally, please don't start getting on your moral high horse with me. At least I can hold this discussion with civility, respect and common politeness for my fellow humans. You, on the other hand, seem capable only of accusing and slagging people off.
|
| |
|
|
Just want to add I am glad the majority of AR supporters on this board are capable of behaving rationally. At the end of day it is my belief that animal testing for medical purposes is currently necessary. If you can show me the evidence to prove this is not the case, then I am open minded enough to consider this. Name calling will not win me over.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by welfarist:
Claire G.
Well done, round of applause for spotting the use of the word "us" in one of my posts.
You have actually written about what you do all over this forum, but I only saw that after I spotted the 'us'.
Secondly, as I have said to other people on this forum... you do not know anything about me, least of all WHY I do what I do.
Everyone on the forum is in the same position. You know no more about the rest of us than we know about you and yet I am sure you make assumptions after reading our posts.
people that will do everything in their power to improve their welfare and reduce their suffering. People like me.
So you admit that animals suffer in laboratories.
Likening me, and other lab staff, to paedophiles is ridiculous.
You justify your 'work' by claiming that the animals were well looked after. I believe (and I have every right to my beliefs) that this is tantamount to a paedophile justifying his actions by claiming that he gave his victim sweets and used a comfy bed. This isn't even an original opinion - I have heard it voiced many times before.
Would you prefer it if we kept our animals in the poorest conditions and beat them for entertainment? Get a grip.
Do I have a choice? Because if I do I don't want you to keep animals in labs at all.
Finally, about an unbiased website. You seem to have missed the point. The general public know virtually nothing about animal testing, and have only limited information with which to form an opinion. Surely they should have access to the whole arguement, both sides, so that they can look at the issue objectively and think for themselves.
Did you follow Rob's links to the wikipedia? The general public do know that there are 2 sides to this argument and if they want information they are just as likely to visit web sites with opposing views as one 'unbiased' one.
Unless you are so afraid that your arguement will not stand up to scrutiny that you feel the public should be brainwashed onto accepting what you say rather than using their brains?
Or are you scared that anyone who is interested in the subject is going to look at the animal rights sites and miss the pro vivisection ones out altogether. And the best way to ensure that this doesn't happen is to tack pro-vivisection information on .....
Finally, please don't start getting on your moral high horse with me. At least I can hold this discussion with civility, respect and common politeness for my fellow humans. You, on the other hand, seem capable only of accusing and slagging people off.
Don't start doing an AlexW - please.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by welfarist:
Just want to add I am glad the majority of AR supporters on this board are capable of behaving rationally. At the end of day it is my belief that animal testing for medical purposes is currently necessary. If you can show me the evidence to prove this is not the case, then I am open minded enough to consider this. Name calling will not win me over.
What name was that? I likened your arguments -not you - to a paedophile's. |
| |
|
|
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I have no problem with anything you have to say about my arguement, it's only personal insults I don't like. If that was not the case then fair enough. I am also well aware that the view that using animals to help humans is justified is often likened to racism, sexism etc.
I justify using animals in medical research because I think it is acceptable for animals to die so that human lives can be saved. Good conditions alone are no justification, the same reason I oppose animal circuses, regardless of conditions.
However, animals are currently used in research, whether we like it or not. Until there are no longer animals in labs they should be given the best care possible.
Ultimately, it would be better if no animals were used in labs.
While they are, better conditions are of vital importance.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by welfarist:
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I have no problem with anything you have to say about my arguement, it's only personal insults I don't like. If that was not the case then fair enough. I am also well aware that the view that using animals to help humans is justified is often likened to racism, sexism etc.
I justify using animals in medical research because I think it is acceptable for animals to die so that human lives can be saved.
The problem is, we don't believe that human lives are being saved by animal experiments. Animals are used in research but that doesn't mean that we actually needed to use them. We believe that animal tests results are misleading and even dangerous, and we also believe that it is ethically and morally wrong to torture and kill animals. But haven't we been here before? |
| |
|
|
quote: The problem is, we don't believe that human lives are being saved by animal experiments
My mother must take medication for the rest of her life. If she doesn't she will die. She has taken this medication for the past 20 years at least. So if it wasn't for these pills she takes she would have died when i was a child. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by RobDeManc:
My mother must take medication for the rest of her life. If she doesn't she will die. She has taken this medication for the past 20 years at least. So if it wasn't for these pills she takes she would have died when i was a child.
Your mother might have had better treatment, perhaps a cure, had animals not been used to test for medication. The tests have been done now. They can't be undone. We will never know what different outcomes there could have been if other methods had been used decades ago. I hope that your mother does, one day, get proper treatment. I don't know what her condition is but many conditions can be helped with a change in diet. |
| |
|
|
Well "Might have" is not good enough in this case. My mothers treatment consisted of an operation, which would have required aneasthetic, costand medication for life, and a change in diet.
I am happy my mother is still here. And I accept it if a few animals died to allow her to still be here.
|
| |
|
|
Of course you're happy that your mother is still here. Long may she be so.
'Might haves' are all we can have when talking about the past that didn't happen. We'll never know what discoveries could have been made if money hadn't been wasted on animal experiments. There might have been actual cures discovered decades ago.
|
| |
|
|
Martin I think you are of the mind that the drug companies are involved in some kind of conspiracy. When you say there might have been cures discovered decades ago do you mean that, for example, a cure for AIDs exists already?
I can see the logic of this. It helps to keep the pharma industry making money. However, if a cure is discovered, the person or persons who discovered the cure would simply leave their jobs and offer the cure to another firm. And often things are discovered by universities who have no interest in making money.
Unless you think they are all in league.
|
| |
|
|
I meant that there could have been the possibility that cures would have been discovered.
|
| |
|
|
But there is also the possiblilty that they wouldn't, and that without animals the treatments and therapies that do exist may never have been created.
|
| |
|
|
We'll never know. But it would be folly to continue with the old ways that don't work. Just flip a coin and save animal lives and money. The results will be the same. That's what relying on animal experiments is like.
|
| |
|
New Member
|
But developing new drugs and cures from animal testing does work, albeit not all the time, but no method of testing could ever hope to work anywhere close to 100% of the time.
Animal experiments are currently our only option until non-animal alternatives have been fully tried and tested and to show to have been more successful than animal alternatives, and it is UK law that non-animal alternatives have been researched before any animal test can commence.
It's easy to highlight areas where animal testing has failed to work, but what about all the times where it has?
I think we ALL agree that we would like to see animal testing to end, but at present, this is not viable if we want to further medical development.
|
| |
|
|
They're not the only option. We've mentioned other options. Animal tests have given so many false safety results that I don't understand why they are still used. It's often said that if something doesn't work you should stop doing it, and try something else. Doing the same thing that doesn't work will give you the same results that don't work. As has been said before, if you conduct enough experiments some of them might prove useful. But so is using a pin to pick the Grand National winner.
|
| |
|
|
Martin why are you so convinced that animal tests don´t work? And perhaps you could tell us how you expect them to work. What do you mean by "work"?
I would say you have the opinion that scientists are just blindly sticking needles in animals or shoving a new pill don´t their throats and hoping for the best. Please don´t forget that these are people who have devoted a large part of their life to studying to get where they are now. They do not do anything without proper forethought.
|
| |
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
