Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. cutecat22
    Offline

    cutecat22 The Strange One Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2014
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    1,063
    Location:
    England

    Animal Testing - discuss?

    Discussion in 'Debate Room' started by cutecat22, May 11, 2014.

    Somehow, one of my threads got onto the question of animal testing. Personally, I am against it. I have my own reasons and probably can't back those reasons up with scientific statistics except to say that I just think it's wrong.

    Saying that, I don't wish to force my opinions on other people, we each have our own reasons for why we think and believe what we do.

    So, on the subject of animal testing, are you for it, against it, on the fence about it or somewhere else? What would you suggest as an alternative?

    Is medical testing on animals more or less important than cosmetic testing or as these things are for human consumption, should we be testing on humans and if we should, then who decides which humans we test on?

    What do you really think?
     
  2. thirdwind
    Offline

    thirdwind Contributing Member Contest Administrator Reviewer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    7,351
    Likes Received:
    2,891
    Location:
    Boston
    Given the choice between testing on humans and testing on animals, I pick animals. Some experiments, however, make me uneasy (dissecting animals alive, for example).
     
  3. mammamaia
    Offline

    mammamaia nit-picker-in-chief Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    19,316
    Likes Received:
    1,014
    Location:
    Coquille, Oregon
    i'm an atheist, but the biblical dictum to 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' should be observed by all sentient beings in re all of their fellow members of the animal kingdom, imo... to do otherwise is the epitome of hypocrisy...
     
  4. Wreybies
    Offline

    Wreybies The Ops Pops Operations Manager Staff Contest Administrator Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    18,880
    Likes Received:
    10,062
    Location:
    Puerto Rico
    Putting aside lipstick and shampoo testing, which is often the billboard of plucked heartstrings when it comes to animal testing, the likelihood that any one of us would be alive right now to participate in this conversation without there having been the gains in the different fields of medicine that were garnered and gleaned through animal testing is extremely low. Extremely. The base, natural lifespan of a standard model human being, without any medical intervention, knowledge of good diet, all the mod cons, is between 50 and 55 years. That's how long a human is technically designed to last.

    But put aside lifespan as well. Without the medical knowledge we have learned over the past century and a half, a great deal of it learned through animal testing, HIV and AIDS would very likely have altered our society beyond the social issue it is today, and could easily have brought our species to its knees. There are impoverished areas of the world right now where the inability to accessing modern medicine is showing us exactly what the world would be facing without these medicines and therapies. It's game changing.

    I am a person living with HIV. Diagnosed on April 10, 2001. I bless every little bunny and mousy that gave up his life so that I can live, because without that, you would not know me be because I would very probably not have lived this long. I would have died.

    Dead.

    Not the prettiest of conversations to have on a Mother's Day, but the fact is that for many people, this topic isn't an academic one. And it's not an academic topic for many more people than realize the fact of it.

    Now, that being said, chill everyone. I am in perfect health thanks to HAART therapy and having served in the military, which gives me access to medical care for the rest of my life at negligible costs.
     
  5. jazzabel
    Offline

    jazzabel Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    4,273
    Likes Received:
    1,666
    I'd be a hypocrite to claim animal testing was always wrong, since, despite it's intense depravity, it saved millions of human lives over the years.

    However, we are now in the position to not require living beings for drug and product testing, or at least we would be justified to conduct but a tiny fraction of what's still going on. We should focus on testing on laboratory generated cells and tissues, and move straight from there to human trials. Or make sure we explore every possibility before we decide to sparingly use animal trials, on case by case basis, and under extremely close control of ethics committees.

    I believe animals, and especially apes, pigs, elephants, dogs, dolphins, octopi and other highly intelligent species, should be given the equivalent of human rights. I think Spain already did so for the apes. The meat industry should concentrate on growing parts from cell lines, and 'growing animals for food' should stop.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2014
    T.Trian and cutecat22 like this.
  6. cutecat22
    Offline

    cutecat22 The Strange One Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2014
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    1,063
    Location:
    England
    As was mentioned before, sometimes you have to go through a situation personally before you are willing to change your mind. Glad you are OK all things considered, you have my admiration for not letting it take you over. x
     
    Wreybies likes this.
  7. Wreybies
    Offline

    Wreybies The Ops Pops Operations Manager Staff Contest Administrator Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    18,880
    Likes Received:
    10,062
    Location:
    Puerto Rico
    Well, allow me to caveat that it's not that I think there isn't a serious conundrum in the matter. There is, obviously. Some issues just don't have any pretty answers. As humans we want there to always be a "right" answer that lets us rest easy. We create a mythos that this answer is always there if we just look hard enough, but the reality is that it's rarely there. What we almost always do find at the end of any quest for an answer is cost. Cost is the universal truth. The question very often becomes which cost are you willing to pay? I agree with Jazz that science has progressed to the point where it is very probably no longer necessary to test on live beings. We can create and grow tissue cultures of even humans and use that instead. But we never would have gotten to this point without the intervening years of animal testing. It just would not have happened.
     
    T.Trian, cutecat22 and jazzabel like this.
  8. T.Trian
    Offline

    T.Trian Overly Pompous Bastard Staff Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Messages:
    2,246
    Likes Received:
    1,449
    Location:
    Mushroom Land
    I pretty much agree with the above. We've gotten this far in medicine which, I think, is far enough that we should start transitioning away from animal testing and towards testing on tissue cultures etc.

    However, if/when testing on a living being is necessary, I'd rather we used criminals who have been proven guilty without a shadow of doubt, condemned for certain types of crimes of certain severity (the parameters would be agreed upon and followed diligently). For instance, child molesters, rapists etc. against whom there is so much hard evidence, there is absolutely no doubt of their guilt whatsoever (e.g. they've been caught in the act).

    Of course, since we do have cell cultures and such, most of the human testing would probably be at or close to the phase where human trials would begin anyway, but even if some things couldn't be tested on cell cultures at all, I don't really see a problem with using such criminals as described above (again, proven guilty without a shadow of doubt) as test subjects.

    I support this option because I don't believe in the death penalty, but I do believe criminals proven guilty of crimes such as the abovementioned deserve whatever evils the universe can dish out. There are some crimes that automatically revoke a person's humanity in my eyes, so the way I see it, at the point when they commit their crime(s), they lose all their rights as humans and become about as valuable as, say, a cell culture.

    @Wreybies, my own health problems aren't life-threatening, but they're chronic and a daily PITA, so my heart goes out to everyone with chronic/long-term illnesses/ailments.
     
    cutecat22 likes this.
  9. Duchess-Yukine-Suoh
    Offline

    Duchess-Yukine-Suoh Girl #21 Contributor

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    2,319
    Likes Received:
    743
    Location:
    Music Room #3
    I love this idea! We should do this.
     
  10. Patra Felino
    Offline

    Patra Felino Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2012
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    126
    Location:
    Colombia
    @Wreybies: Well, that’s one to file under bombshell. I had to double check the poster and double check the post. Then I thought about what you’d actually said – 13 symptomless years is quite a big chunk of lifetime.

    I like to think that in your situation I would have your attitude, by which I refer to your seemingly relentless desire to aprovechar*. I believe that the majority of people on the planet let life and happiness slip through their fingers through sheer lack of appreciation. I see that you don’t. But one thing is letting a hypothetical situation pass through my mind and quite another is living it. You probably don’t want my sympathy, but please accept my respect.

    The treatment you have received would indeed have made the critical difference. When it comes to medical testing, I’m sure it’s often warranted. Actually, I have a neuroscientist friend whose team is working on artificial limbs, with moveable fingers and so on, for amputees. They have monkeys in the lab which all the staff adore, play with, try to keep as comfortable as possible during the experiments and reluctantly put down after, I think, three years. To my mind, this is clearly worth it.

    At the other end of the scale you have cosmetic testing which I think is disgusting.

    Animal testing, for me, is a bit like the meat industry. Let’s do it, because at the end of the day human beings are more important than animals, but we really should treat them with some respect.

    *Take advantage, in this case of what life has to offer.
     
  11. ChickenFreak
    Offline

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,969
    Likes Received:
    5,491
    Even if I were comfortable with this, the problem is that there wouldn't be enough test subjects--I can't imagine that this would help with more than a tiny fraction of the testing needed. It's rare for people to commit heinous crimes in front of multiple witnesses, and then immediately be captured in the act. (Because I wouldn't accept just one witness, and I wouldn't accept an identification if the criminal were out of sight between the act and the capture.)
     
  12. Bryan Romer
    Offline

    Bryan Romer Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2014
    Messages:
    891
    Likes Received:
    381
    The problem is that many people have been sentenced to the death penalty, which indicates the law was as certain as they could be of guilt, and and yet were later proven to be innocent.

    I have no problem with animal testing, even for "trivial" items such as shampoo. Almost anything applied to the skin can have serious, even fatal side effects. For instance, many cosmetics are using "nano particle" technology, which penetrates the skin and enters the blood stream and on to vital organs and the brain. I would rather any amount of animals be tested upon than one of my family die or be crippled by a "mistake".

    I am not a vegetarian and I like leather, so any objections to testing would be hypocritical on my part.
     
  13. T.Trian
    Offline

    T.Trian Overly Pompous Bastard Staff Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Messages:
    2,246
    Likes Received:
    1,449
    Location:
    Mushroom Land
    That's why I mentioned being caught in the act by more than one witness as just an example, the key being that no matter what the evidence, it has to be indisputable, and there are more ways than just one to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that someone is, indeed, guilty of crime X just as long as there's enough hard evidence pointing towards their guilt to eradicate the possibility of a mistake.

    Btw, how do you know there wouldn't be enough test subjects that way? Again note that I didn't talk only about cases with multiple eye witnesses, but instances where there's enough other kinds of evidence to prove a person's guilt. Do you know how many people are caught with enough evidence to prove their guilt with certainty? In the USA? Europe? Other parts of the world?

    Again, I'm not just talking about deathrow, I'm also talking about folks like child molesters and rapists who usually get away with doing time (or a slap on the wrist if you're in Scandinavia :rolleyes:), both of which are abundant everywhere. I'd imagine there would be enough of both in addition to killers etc. that we could do whatever testing that's impossible to do on cultures and such. But that's actually based on nothing concrete except articles I've read a long time ago, so I can't vouch for the numbers. Do you have any sources? I'll look for some statistics later this week.


    The same thing as above: plenty of people have been given the death penalty without evidence that proves their guilt with certainty absolute enough to match what I'm suggesting here.

    Besides, forensics are moving foward all the time, so the chances of wrongful convictions diminish over time the further into the future we go.
     
  14. 123456789
    Offline

    123456789 Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,343
    Likes Received:
    3,090
    You're right. I wouldn't want animals to evolve into intelligent creatures with disposable thumbs so they can build organizations and weapons and labs an confiscate humans so they can run tests on us.

    Seeing as how we already evolved to this state and are no longer doing it, how exactly are we being hypocritical?
     
  15. ChickenFreak
    Offline

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,969
    Likes Received:
    5,491
    I'm pretty sure that we have no way of knowing that, because that's more or less the legal standard anyway--and we know that it's a legal standard that fails, and that innocent people go to jail. I wouldn't trust a government that bumbles often enough to send innocent people to jail to make a distinction between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "beyond any doubt whatsoever."

    Edited to add: And I don't want our society to ever, *ever* benefit from the death penalty or torture-punishments like this medical testing would be. I don't trust humanity to refrain from abusing a conflict-of-interest situation like that.
     
  16. T.Trian
    Offline

    T.Trian Overly Pompous Bastard Staff Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Messages:
    2,246
    Likes Received:
    1,449
    Location:
    Mushroom Land
    But still not quite what I meant: I don't mean they should use people who have been proven guilty by today's standards. I mean a new standard that's applied alongside with the current standard: the current standard determines who go to prison and who don't. The new standard is then used to cherrypick the "worst of the worst," so to speak, i.e. those whose crimes match a certain predetermined creteria and who have tons of irrefutable evidence against them.

    So yeah, I don't think we should do human experiments with just the current standard, that would ensure that an innocent person ends up needled sooner or later. But...


    Um... you do know that government-sanctioned, involuntary human experiments have been conducted practically forever, right? On prisoners, mentally handicapped children, soldiers etc, so it's nothing new. If it was brought to the forefront and made into a public issue, it could also increase control, so the governments wouldn't be operating in secret anymore without the people's knowledge of what exactly is being done to them.

    Oh, and if we used criminals proven guilty with absolute certainty, that might spare the general population from experiments like the infamous human radiation experiments in the US that also affected innocent civilians including children. Not that the US is alone in this since so many other countries have done such experiments as well, like Russia and even Sweden.

    My point is, governments have done, still do, and most likely will keep doing these experiments. I just think it would be better to have a proper stystem in place and use it as a part of a prisoner's punishment. Some, I believe, do deserve it.


    Awesome, do they come in boxes? :D
     
  17. ChickenFreak
    Offline

    ChickenFreak Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    8,969
    Likes Received:
    5,491
    We're supposed to be pretty darn sure before we apply the death penalty, but we've killed innocent people anyway.

    I just don't trust the government that much. And the idea that we can't trust them now but can trust them if we just let them torture *some* people, openly and with regulations, doesn't work for me. I'd rather just stick with trying to eliminate government torture.
     
  18. 123456789
    Offline

    123456789 Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,343
    Likes Received:
    3,090
    @T.Trian you got me
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page