---

by Nemesis
In terms of academic research,More and more medical students are becoming conscientious objectors, and many students now graduate without having used animals; instead, they learn by assisting experienced surgeons. In Britain, it is against the law for medical students to practice surgery on animals. Many of the leading U.S. medical schools, including Harvard, Yale, and Stanford, now use innovative, clinical teaching methods instead of old-fashioned animal laboratories. Harvard, for instance, offers a Cardiac Anesthesia Practicum, where students observe human heart bypass operations instead of dog labs.

---

Not got much time now, so I'll just come back on this one. I think we need to distinguish between teaching and research in Universities. I don't think any undergraduate students (in the UK anyway) would be involved in animal testing, you need to have a licence from the Home Office to even handle a laboratory animal. I (and Demona I think) were talking about research science, which is at a higher, more experimental level.

I could be wrong but animal testing for medical research is the only way (besides testing it directly on humans) to test the effects of certain substances on a complex being / mammals. As besides humans and certain animals which other complex beings / mammals do we have around?

Sure the effects that you get in animals will not be exactly simular to humans but they give a darn good indication. And it's not like before they start testing nowadays that they haven't run very complex simulations of what the effects "should" be.

But as far as I'm aware a simulation is a simplified version of reality - because you can't model the real world it's too complex.

For a lot of tests a perfectly good replacement to live animals has been found and in atleast most western countries they are used instead of animal tests. But some tests you just cannot be done without animal testing. Especially certain ape species are very well qualified for these experiments as they are very closely related to us humans.

Therefor I don't think that animal testing by default is a bad thing. It depends what it's used for and in which stages it is used. This might ruff some feathers but if animal testing could bring us closer to a cure for (enter anything nasty here) that by all means go ahead but under certain restrictions as where possibly the suffering of these animals should be minimized (but sometimes suffering is not something you can minimize )

I suggest that all medication gets a label on it which says if it's been tested on animals or any medicine of which it was derived or was discovered through any study that had anything to do with animal testing. In that case all the people that are against animal testing now have a choice

This will slowly solve the problems around animal testing as everyone that is against it should now not take these medicines (as it's a bit weak to say ooh I'm ill now so I'll take those medicines anyways which I was so against them developing it). Over the next couple of decades I'm sure that the part of the population of this planet that is against animal testing will slowly but certain disappear due to the fact that even the most simple of medicines are tested on animals to see if they are safe for human consumption or are derived from medicines or research based on animal testing.

And maybe if there is a market for it there will be medicines that aren't tested on animals (like cosmetics) but as that market is relativly small the costs of these medications will go up (you have to get all your research costs back atleast) probably 5 - 100 fold depending on the size of the market. But I'm sure that people that are against animal testing wouldn't mind paying that little bit extra for it

Lots of the medical breakthroughs in the past century have been made possibly due to the understanding that researchers got from testing on animals.

If you are against it...... don't use it. But don't let a minority dictate what a majority of the people can or cannot do

I have spent a total of 7 years studying - and researching - animal and molecular biology. Quite often, it is laws created decades ago that force the use of animal testing in medicine, rather than scientific necessity.

One of the (many) factors that led me to quit my PhD was the prospect that part of my research would eventually involve raising antibodies, using rabbits that would be destroyed after the antibody-containing blood had been extracted. I refused to contemplate this, and was actually prepared to volunteer myself until I was informed that regulations would not allow humans to be used in this way. Anya may condone the destruction of rabbits, but I could not.

I had managed to get through years of studying biology without dissecting an animal bred for the purpose, and was not prepared to compromise my principles in order to further some fairly interesting, but not very applicable research. I hope that funding into alternatives to animal testing will continue until the law has to concede that they are more effective than using animal subtitutes. This is certainly possible within my lifetime, given sufficient political will and financial backing.

And yes, while I was a vegetarian for over 7 years, I do now eat meat occasionally. But I do make sure it is ethically sourced which, although more expensive, is a price I am prepared to pay, and does taste better.

---

by Chambler
Over the next couple of decades I'm sure that the part of the population of this planet that is against animal testing will slowly but certain disappear due to the fact that even the most simple of medicines are tested on animals to see if they are safe for human consumption or are derived from medicines or research based on animal testing.

And maybe if there is a market for it there will be medicines that aren't tested on animals (like cosmetics) but as that market is relativly small the costs of these medications will go up (you have to get all your research costs back atleast) probably 5 - 100 fold depending on the size of the market. But I'm sure that people that are against animal testing wouldn't mind paying that little bit extra for it

Lots of the medical breakthroughs in the past century have been made possibly due to the understanding that researchers got from testing on animals.

If you are against it...... don't use it. But don't let a minority dictate what a majority of the people can or cannot do

---

Sorry but what a disgusting view of the world.
If that the case then maybe all medicines should also be labelled as to wether they have had detrimental effects on animals and yet have been passed as safe, since you think that animal testing is valid, or maybe that they should be labelled if any form of human torture has been involved (ie the reference to concentration camp victims).
I sadly have to use medicines most likely that have been tested on animals because there is no alternative to what i can use. but that does not mean i like it and that i cannot want to change the way research is done.

---

by Nutty Bat
I have spent a total of 7 years studying - and researching - animal and molecular biology. Quite often, it is laws created decades ago that force the use of animal testing in medicine, rather than scientific necessity.

One of the (many) factors that led me to quit my PhD was the prospect that part of my research would eventually involve raising antibodies, using rabbits that would be destroyed after the antibody-containing blood had been extracted. I refused to contemplate this, and was actually prepared to volunteer myself until I was informed that regulations would not allow humans to be used in this way. Anya may condone the destruction of rabbits, but I could not.

I had managed to get through years of studying biology without dissecting an animal bred for the purpose, and was not prepared to compromise my principles in order to further some fairly interesting, but not very applicable research. I hope that funding into alternatives to animal testing will continue until the law has to concede that they are more effective than using animal subtitutes. This is certainly possible within my lifetime, given sufficient political will and financial backing.

And yes, while I was a vegetarian for over 7 years, I do now eat meat occasionally. But I do make sure it is ethically sourced which, although more expensive, is a price I am prepared to pay, and does taste better.

---

thank the goddess there is somone out there with a shred of decency.

---

by Nutty Bat
Quite often, it is laws created decades ago that force the use of animal testing in medicine, rather than scientific necessity.

---

And that is where those laws need to be amended. As when there is no scientific need to do so you shouldn't do it. This has always been a problem as laws are always lacking behind.

Where however there is a scientific need for these tests they should be possible.

Because of the way some of the animal activists behave (almost like terrorists) there is very little "will" to do anything that even remotely has to do about the matter. As the changes that are presumed never go far enough for some people which exuals to negative publicity which no politician wants. In effect these activists shot themselves in the foot.

---

using rabbits that would be destroyed after the antibody-containing blood had been extracted

---

I presume that these rabbits where in some way altered to produce these antibodies. (I suspect that these rabbits had any side effects from being altered in this way besides the occasional needle stuck in their skin to get blood samples?) Which in effect means you can't really go around setting them free and let me do what they normally do (breed like mad) as you have on control on the effects this could have if you set them free. Also think of the proof people that don't like genetically altered food and hunt for their own rabbit at christmas You can't really risk them getting in contact with the outside world so there are two options:
dispose of them or keep them locked up somewhere until and take care of them until they die a natural death.

I'm sure that the latter one would find atleast some appeal with the people against animal testing. Although while these animals are still alive they form a risk (activist break in and let the fluffy bunnies free?)

From a cost and risk viewpoint you can't let them live and therefor you condem these animals to not be seen as living beings but as production means instead.

I really don't see whats different about this (breeding rabbits for antibodies) or breeding 1 day chicks to feed some animals in our zoo's..... Or all those animals that produce the meat most of us eat so often (and like!).

When push comes to shove I even think that this rabbits might be more useful than the 1 day chicks that are served as food to our entertainment in the zoo's.

Btw I admire the fact that you stood up (and left) for what you believe in.

---

by nemesis
(quotes)
Sorry but what a disgusting view of the world....
I sadly have to use medicines most likely that have been tested on animals.

---

Disgusting view maybe but isn't it a bit weird that there are people against something but when needed they are willing to take the benefits from it?

Just curious, aren't you kinda happy at the fact that these medicines are there and they are cheap enough so you and millions of other people can use them? This wouldn't have been possible without Animal testing that was done in the past.

---

but that does not mean i like it and that i cannot want to change the way research is done.

---

Sure you can but how would you like to change it? I'm all for changing the law so that where there are REAL alternatives to animal testing (or where there is no scientific need) these are taken into account.

But I'm not for banning animal testing completely. The same as I'm not against genetically changing things for medical science (or even for food production). As I don't want to limit science in these area's to find new cures / medicines etc etc. They should be regulated though!

If through these means they are eventually able to for example find a cure for cancer which will save millions of lives than it has certainly be worth it.

Is it me, or did anyone else age in the time it took to read these posts???? I'll be a monkeys uncle if some people don't half waffle!!!

oops, if you believe in Darwens origin of the species, then I am a monkeys uncle! So just ignore everything I just said, you already had? Good!!

But no testing on me ok!! Well unless Sange wants to see if her new lipstick works!!!!!!!

(Edited by TNT 10/12/2003 18:58)

---

by Chambler
(quotes)
Disgusting view maybe but isn't it a bit weird that there are people against something but when needed they are willing to take the benefits from it?

Just curious, aren't you kinda happy at the fact that these medicines are there and they are cheap enough so you and millions of other people can use them? This wouldn't have been possible without Animal testing that was done in the past.
(quotes)


yes these medicines are available but if youd bothered to have read any of my posts you would see that i don't like what i have to use or that im confident that alot of the drugs out there are actually safe

[quote]by Chambler
Sure you can but how would you like to change it? I'm all for changing the law so that where there are REAL alternatives to animal testing (or where there is no scientific need) these are taken into account.
But I'm not for banning animal testing completely. The same as I'm not against genetically changing things for medical science (or even for food production). As I don't want to limit science in these area's to find new cures / medicines etc etc. They should be regulated though!
If through these means they are eventually able to for example find a cure for cancer which will save millions of lives than it has certainly be worth it.

---

But thats just it. My argument is that Animal testing is hindering any decent medical breakthrough due to its inacuracy.
*sigh*

Just a note about the rabbits, which aren't contagious. They are exposed to a foreign protein, which has been identified through lab research. As a result, they raise antibodies to it in the same way that we do to a cold virus or, more accurately, the antigens that cause allergies such as hayfever in people who's immune systems are a bit hyper. The antibodies are purified from the rabbits blood and used in further investigations of the protein.

However, I don't know how much of the blood is required, so the rabbits may well be unable to recover if a large volume is required. I would certainly rather they be euthanised than be allowed to suffer, in the same way that I think that humans should have the right to choose euthanasia over suffering the final stages of a terminal illness. So I guess that makes me a pro-quality-of-lifer. Or something.

OK, correct me if I'm wrong, but really this comes down to one difference. Some people think that cruelty to any animals (including humans) is unacceptable; some think that their own species should come first? All the rest of what we have discussed is just decoration around these core values, or am I simplifying too much?

I've heard the argument before that the main reason for animal testing and research is economics, and that it's cheaper than using human cells in a petri dish. Maybe this is true. I haven't found any figures to back this up, so I'm dubious. If I get chance I'll see if I can surf something up later.

But at the end of the day, looking through these posts, I get the feeling the split is about how we view other animals. Simplifying, some people feel that animal cruelty is no worse than human cruelty (see Nemesis' reference to the holocaust) and is unacceptable. These people usually view those with the opposite view as being egotistical. That they have an 'animal superiority complex', if you will.

The other type (of which I am one) believes that you look after your own first. If pain and death of animals can save the lives of humans then lets do it. A few extremists might not care what is done to animals in any situation, but it seems to me that most of us can be summed up as feeling that as long as the testing/research is vital (eg - not cosmetics) or could not be better done by other methods (human cells in petri dish) then the use of animals is valid.

If I'm right then arguing over costs etc is pretty pointless, as this isn't the cause of the difference. We need to be discussing the value we put on other animals.

Just two other things.

Chambler, while I have sympathy with what you are saying, your bit about people who are against animal testing using medicine that has been tested on animals stuck in my mind. It reminded me of comments I would get when I would describe myself as a Marxist. 'If you're a commie then why do you collect your pay?', 'Why are you buying things?' etc. Which is all pretty dumb. If you don't have a choice (a Marxist living in a capitalist society doesn't) then you have to make do. And as Nemesis says, she'd like to buy medicine that wasn't tested or researched on animals but doesn't have the option. And feels this is because the drugs companies want more profit, and not because there isn't another option. So the argument falls flat. The real argument would therefore be whether there is a viable alternative, which I suspect none of us here are qualified to know. But then again, as I said, this is really just a side issue.

As for that comment I made earlier (and Nemesis referred to) about people from my standpoint thinking they are superior to other animals. I suspect I've mentioned this on another thread (probably about vegetarianism) but I actually think the animal rights position requires a belief in the superiority of the human species, and not the other way round. Life feeds off life. With the exception of most plants. It's how animals work. We eat each other. Many are parasitic or symbiotic. The dominant feature is that we look after our own. Is a cat evil if it plays with a mouse before killing it? Or even just for killing it? I know no animals other than humans experiment on other animals, but do you really think they wouldn't if they could experiment on anything?

No. I'm pretty sure they would. My compassion goes so far as to say that cosmetics or research with no application is an unnecessary use of cruelty to animals, but that which is used to improve the quality and quantity of life is valid.

Oh, I lied, one more thing, then I'm off...

---

by TNT
oops, if you believe in Darwens origin of the species, then I am a monkeys uncle!

---

Actually it's Darwin. And it would make you a great to the however much grandson. And not of a monkey. Of a Great Ape. Which is different. Closer to Gorillas than monkeys. Just so you know.

---

by Jayjay
OK, correct me if I'm wrong, but really this comes down to one difference. Some people think that cruelty to any animals (including humans) is unacceptable; some think that their own species should come first? All the rest of what we have discussed is just decoration around these core values, or am I simplifying too much?

---

You might have dropped a few shades of grey from the argument but I think that in the core thats about right

---

Chambler, while I have sympathy with what you are saying, your bit about people who are against animal testing using medicine that has been tested on animals stuck in my mind. It reminded me of comments I would get when I would describe myself as a Marxist...

---

I must admit in retrospect it was a bit harse putting it like that but better black and white and defining the borders than just hanging in the grey all the time

I was more refering to how the whole "none animal tested" cosmetics finally made it to the market. The only reason it did was because there was a market for it (there where enough people out there willing to buy it). And I think the same applies to medicines. Sure it's not as simple as you just don't take them as I know that really isn't an option in loads of cases (although in certain religions people are however willing to die because they for example don't want a blood transfusion but I would call that a bit extreme). Atleast in the Netherlands the GP has a wide choice of medication he can prescribe that all lead to the same end result and there is a pretty good feedback to the market (by the GP's) to what kinda medication people would prefer (or what he prescribes the most as he makes the most profit on ). If a lot of people find it hard to swallow a certain shape of capsule this info will trickle back to the market via the GP.

If enough people would make it known to their GP's that they would prefer non animal tested medicines and where willing to pay a bit more for that (as in the beginning they will cost more that is something that can't really be helped much) than these signals will eventually filter through to these companies (if they do something with it I have no clue but I'm sure that these companies are more likely to buckle under market demand than violant protesters). As for a lot of people they or won't mention it at all to their GP's and will just discuss these things within a group of friends or a small group gets a bit "extreme". We really shouldn't forget that "we" are the consumers so in the end we decide what the market will offer us but we do have to tell the market what we want This isn't the early 20th century anymore where you could pick any colour of car aslong as it was black (Ford).

---

by Jayjay

Oh, I lied, one more thing, then I'm off...

(quotes)

Actually it's Darwin. And it would make you a great to the however much grandson. And not of a monkey. Of a Great Ape. Which is different. Closer to Gorillas than monkeys. Just so you know.

---

Ah now you see you've bought into the popular misconception here...

Bob Aloysius Chadwell Geldof-Darwen was the black sheep of the Darwin family, so much so that not only was he excommunicated but the rest of the family changed the spelling of their surname so as to have no connection with him whatsoever.

Bob’s cousin, Limahl was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique le Cheeky Girls,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres Dib Dib Dob.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man but disproportionately not woman, are descended from other species (women being a species entirely of their own). He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. Limahl seems to have been chiefly led to his conclusion on the gradual change of species, by the difficulty of distinguishing species and varieties (it being dark in the bathroom at the time), by the almost perfect gradation of forms in certain groups, and by the analogy of domestic productions.

Now Bob was a chief exponent of this thesis, and indeed originally proposed the origin of the species (working title “See the chimp drink it’s own wee”). But Bob being Bob, a black sheep and all had to sever all connections with society at the time (ok he was serving time at her majesty’s for his part in the duck, cook and little philippino boy debacle, I would hasten to add all charges apart from those to do with the duck were subsequently dropped, and the jury couldn’t decide conclusively about the duck, but then that’s another story!!)

Anyway I digress, Bob passed all his papers, including RizlaÂ’s, onto his favourite cousin, Limahl. Limahl being Limahl with a penchant for cheesy pop recording, wasnÂ’t sure what to do with it, so passed all BobÂ’s fine work onto his Uncle Chuck. Now Chuck felt that he should use his given name to publicise these works, Charlotte Esop Bono Geldof-Darwen was a name that the family were trying to forget; ergo, after many attempts the following title and name were hit upon.

The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,
or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

by Charles Darwin

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding you may have had before, and I indeed hope that I donÂ’t have to correct you once again!!!!!!

Ps, nb, ie, jcb and all that, this is definitely the last time I try a gag on Tangent21!! P

---

by Jayjay
As for that comment I made earlier (and Nemesis referred to) about people from my standpoint thinking they are superior to other animals. I suspect I've mentioned this on another thread (probably about vegetarianism) but I actually think the animal rights position requires a belief in the superiority of the human species, and not the other way round. Life feeds off life. With the exception of most plants. It's how animals work. We eat each other. Many are parasitic or symbiotic. The dominant feature is that we look after our own. Is a cat evil if it plays with a mouse before killing it? Or even just for killing it? I know no animals other than humans experiment on other animals, but do you really think they wouldn't if they could experiment on anything?

---

A fair and reasoned argument. To the matter above, there i beileve is a difference.
Animals understand the balance of nature. We on the other hand abuse the balance of nature. We consider ourselves better than the wild animal, yet we show none of this to those we mistreat.
If there was no other way for us to learn how drugs work then this arument would stand, But we do. We are intelligent, we are above most basic animal instincts, we have compassion and learning, yet we do not use these on other life forms.
It boils down to respect for life.Which sadly lacks in many ways.

---

by nemesis
(quotes)
It boils down to respect for life. Which sadly lacks in many ways.

---

Respect for life is a funny concept. As two young school going children are missing and are eventually found death a few miles away from the town in the forest a whole country is in uproar but in the 10 minutes that this been on the news 10 people died of starvation, another 10 from some simple illness we can easily cure in the west, and 5 mothers lost their children but yet this doesn't shock us half as much as these two school children.

Is the value of their lives more than of those other people everywhere over the world? And do we have no compasion for life because we do feel pain for the two children but are numbed for all those thousands of other each day that suffer a maybe more gruesome fate.

It almost seems that how we "show our respect for life" has a lot to do with proximity. And I think for a lot of use this also applies in the genetic way which isn't more than normal you see it everywhere in nature..... A lion mother will young the infants of another lion that died but will kill the infant child of another species or not bother to look at it. Even animals value the lives of "their own" higher than those of others. Doesn't mean they don't have a form of respect of life in general.

And that all animals have an idea of the balance of nature isn't always true. Some insects harm their enviroment so badly that it become in habitable to anything and they just move on. And lions won't kill more than they need to. Well yeah as this takes loads energy to hunt and kill. And don't forget that a lion can't really leave it's food out of the freezer for 3 weeks

None of these species has got the chance to influance it's enviroment as heavily as us humans (and in a lot of cases humans made sure they couldn't). Doesn't automatically mean they have more respect for life than we do, it just seems that way.

---

by Chambler
(quotes)
And that all animals have an idea of the balance of nature isn't always true. Some insects harm their enviroment so badly that it become in habitable to anything and they just move on. And lions won't kill more than they need to. Well yeah as this takes loads energy to hunt and kill. And don't forget that a lion can't really leave it's food out of the freezer for 3 weeks

None of these species has got the chance to influance it's enviroment as heavily as us humans (and in a lot of cases humans made sure they couldn't). Doesn't automatically mean they have more respect for life than we do, it just seems that way.

---

vroooooooming off topic slightly but im gona reply anyway
if your talking about insects such as say Locusts who rampage through crops..well hey guess what human interferance yet again as overgrowth of certain crops gives rise to too many locusts being born, plus destruction of their natural enemy-the desert wasp, because people dont want it in the homes ,as it likes to live theur since its natural home is been chopped down or concreted over!The only life form that doesnt balance out is the Virus and to paraphrase yet another movie "..humans are just like a virus."

Still think we have less respect for life than other life forms..consider this- A History channel program stated "...Since 3600 BC, there have only been 292 years of peace...292 out of the last 5603 years".

---

by nemesis
Still think we have less respect for life than other life forms..consider this- A History channel program stated "...Since 3600 BC, there have only been 292 years of peace...292 out of the last 5603 years".

---

What is war mostly about...... Riches, land and power (some people would add religion but deep down still boils down to those three). Animals don't "fight" in the large scales we humans do and it's not that well documented

But with every generation of for example lions there will be a few that will challange leader of the pack for the power and the right to mate with all the females (riches?). If we look at that and translate it back to "our world" that sounds a lot like a coup to me. Also disputes about terrority (land) are very common in the animal world. Especially when it comes to food (riches) and the best places to get water (riches).

If we just look at the conflict in Israel all that is about is that due to hard work and support from the Americans a country was created that with rich ground with plenty of water and a great infrastructure surrounded by countries which are mainly "sand". Not very much different than animals fighting over the best spot of land + water in my eyes. Only thing that we fight our wars a bit different Just because we increased the scale a bit and we invented better means to fight our wars (but than again some animals have very effective "weapon systems", and even some animals use biowarfare ) doesn't mean that in principle it isn't just the same.....

Hi... I'm new to this chat place, it's v interesting! I just wanted to say that I wouldn't ever want to change anyone's mind on the subject but I found some really interesting material on this web page www.huntingdon.com/hls/EthicalIssues/EthicalIssues.html

It's always good to have as much info as poss 'cos then you can make an informed decision.

I study neuroscience at the Institute of Psychiatry, London,Uk and have recently taken a course to be legally allowed to work with animals. It surprised me how strict the laws were on this. I love animals and have a lot of respect for their wellbeing both mentally and physically. I strongly believe that the more people who care for animals in positions such as mine, the better. One last thing, I would like to say to anyone who doubts the way the animals are treated, even if the scientists aren't emotive towards the animals, not only does the law hold them completely responsible for any inappropriate behaviour but as a scientist one strives to achieve results that do not contain anomalies. An animal that is stressed/in pain etc WILL NOT give results that can be used and therefore the scientists' reputation will be compromised. Thanks!

---

by Sydney
The government has just given permission to Cambridge Uni to set up a new Animal Research project

---

I've seen on the local news recently that this has now been quashed and there isn't going to be a lab.

We were having a few discussions about this at work and one person mentioned that not having a proper regulated lab in the UK would probably mean research being carried out abroad where there are possibly less regulations. Not sure if that will be the case and I'm not sure if monkey's can really help into research for altzemers (sp?)

Certainly the animal rights people on the news seemed to be jubliant and said it would help patients in the longrun as nothing could be proven. It would have been amusing if someone had gone and asked them to volunteer their brains instead as human guinea pigs - as that's what is really needed