Animals Animal testing, your feelings?

[No-name]

You make a good point about humans being "higher" creatures. I do however ascribe significantly higher value to human life than I do to any other life. And although I agree that ethical lines should not be crossed, I do believe that because I ascribe a higher value to human life, animal testing is justified.

If my house was on fire, the four humans take precendence over the four cats...and the dog. And the fish... the last forrest fire that had us evacuate had my little aquatic friends sadly abandoned for eleven days.

The bigger question that you raise is why do I ascribe a higher value to human life than to my cat, his fleas, or the mites on the fleas. I think that is the major question... I don't give any other animal equal consideration with humans... people matter more than animals to me, and I can actually get myself upset over the billions that we spend pampering our beloved pets while humans suffer in various places. Why are people more special then pets, livestock, mammals, birds, eukaryotes, or bacterium... I can't think of a good answer to that at this moment... but give me time.

 

[No-name]

Many in the advanced stages of a desiese who do not have time to wait for years of animal testing would volunteer. Yes, I would if I had the pressing need to do so.

So your answer to saving fido is to play on the desperation of the hopeless and dying. Wow I never though of that. Considering the legions of impoverished masses in the third world, we could probably buy the children out of the crowded slums for a fraction of the cost of the average rhesus monkey. What do you think? There are billions of poor throughout the world, orphans, plus prisoners, crimanals, drop outs, the mentally unfit, the religious (Christians!), and others who could be persuaded to risk all for the ultimate benefit of mankind. Where do I sign up?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

12,000 children were deformed due to administering Thalidomide to women during their pregnancies. The drug was tested on animals before being given to women. Testing various dosages on mice, rats, and guinea pigs showed no negative results. Animals are not accurate models for humans. So, what do you say to all those kids who had limbs grow out of them as nubs?

?gSorry, but you are collateral damage in the animal testing world.?h And then, do you expect them to say thanks for the honor and shake your hand with one of their nubs?

If someone accepts those numbers and risks of the unknown for medical advancement in order to benefit a larger portion of the population, then one is promoting the idea that the majority can rule tyrannically over the minority so long as the majority continues to get the benefits. That is not ethical -- either for the animals or for those who are deformed by drugs because animal models are not accurate models for humans.

But hey, I would guess a few women got some benefit from the Thalidomide -- I guess that justifies all the other miseries derived from it. Perhaps the nubby armed kids are now old enough to appreciate the benefit and are trying to make their hands reach so that they may clap for those ladies.

 

[No-name]

I don't know how thouroughly Thalidomide was or was not tested. Perhaps this horrible chapter in history illustrates that the testing done was inadequate. Not testing on animals would not have made the drug any safer. Fortunately, as you have previously pointed out, the human species is part of the animal family, and the comparative anatomy and physiology is perfectly valid. To suggest that people would want desire that horrible outcome is indeed a bitter and sad thing to do.

The strawman argument you give about what we in the rational world might say would be hilarious if it were not so cruel and misguided. You would have to be truly heartless to view humans as collateral damage or to make light of their suffering. It would have been far better to have visited this suffering instead on lab animals, and it would have saved humanity entirely from this dark chapter. Their misery would have saved us from ours. I find that emminently acceptable. Certainly if one more round of animal testing could have prevented this horrible occurance from happening, it would have been well worth it.

I also don't think comparing animals to human minorities is appropriate.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Thoroughness will be the cry of those who want to consider bringing drugs to the market that are animal tested. The thing is, lack of ?gthoroughness?h is noticed when the damage has been done. Ask the pharmeceutical company that developed Thalidomide and their experts/FDA administrators at the time will tell you it was ?gthoroughly?h tested or else they would not have brought it to market.

Furthermore, it is unrealistice to think that one kind of every animal in the world should be tested on each drug to ensure "thoroughness," but that would be the only absolute way of accounting for doses or chemicals that may kill one kind of animal but not another and then have the same or lack of same reaction in humans.

Thalidomide was a disaster just waiting to happen. It had no affect on commonly used lab animals. So, should all drugs be tested on all animals? domestic and exotic? It could not realistically happen.

Whether the term collateral damage is liked or not, to continue using animals as a model for humans, knowing that ?gcomplete?h thoroughness can never be achieved and that their will be failures resulting in misery and death for those who are the recipient of animal tested drugs, one is putting forth the argument of accepting the risk of collateral damage.

 

[No-name]

The methodology of animal testing is not my specialty. I don't have a clue about what constitutes "good" testing, or what "thouroughness" would be. I don't think testing drugs on every animal in the world is either necessary or valid. I am also uncertain that animal testing would ferret out every possible side effect. I don't know what the testing regimen for thallidomide was, what animals were used, or if more testing would have helped. But I would have found it perfectly acceptable if a few dozen animals could have stood in for the thousands of humans that suffered it would have been preferable. It seems a reasonable first step in securing the safety of humans if the only collateral damage is lab animals. I still value human life above those of animals.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Oraflex was a drug tested on Rhesus Monkeys for years and was approved as an anti-inflamatory and then released on the market in 1982. Usually drug testing on animals begin with rodents and then proceed to primates. In this case of lab folly sever liver damage due to toxiicity occurred resulting 3,500 serious adverse affects and 60 deaths in Great Britain alone.

More collateral damage justified for the masses? The notion that "collateral damage" can be limited to animals only is a fantasy.

 

[Thunderthief]

Better to test on animals than a human, and testing has to be done for science to progress.

 

[No-name]

Oraflex was a drug tested on Rhesus Monkeys for years and was approved as an anti-inflamatory and then released on the market in 1982. Usually drug testing on animals begin with rodents and then proceed to primates. In this case of lab folly sever liver damage due to toxiicity occurred resulting 3,500 serious adverse affects and 60 deaths in Great Britain alone.
More collateral damage justified for the masses? The notion that "collateral damage" can be limited to animals only is a fantasy.

Again this doesn't argue against animal testing... only that possibly more testing was needed... It doesn't suggest that many important side effects and the determining of the minimum therepeutic dose can not be determined through animal testing or perhaps even in the end that not all problems will show up on animal tests. You seem to imply that drugs would be better if they made it to market untested... this is the fantasy.

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

I think part of what drives AT is the lack of an effective and feasible alternative.

If you are against AT, I think it would be the logical thing to do to try to come up with an alternative that is cheaper but yeilds comparible results or drastically more effective.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

If you are against AT, I think it would be the logical thing to do to try to come up with an alternative that is cheaper but yeilds comparible results or drastically more effective.

There is already a lot of research into alternatives. Here is a useful resource: http://altweb.jhsph.edu/. John Hopkins university has a centre devoted to such research: http://caat.jhsph.edu/. Here is a BBC discussion on the issue http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/animalexperiments/index.shtml

I think any company using animal testing should be forced by law to spend an equal or greater amount on research into alternatives.

 

[Ermac]

Many in the advanced stages of a desiese who do not have time to wait for years of animal testing would volunteer. Yes, I would if I had the pressing need to do so.
We`ve already discussed this before in the Animal Rights thread, but a system using prisoners could also be put in place (before you address this, please go look at the AR thread to view the discussion about this. Mycernius and I posted more than several messages on this rebutting each other).
Today there are alternatives to animal testing. Just because they don`t cover every possible scenario does not mean it should lead us to use animals. In fact, even animals can`t cover every possible scenario -- but that doesn`t lead us to use humans. Ethical lines should not be crossed and justifying doing so, while may seem logical, still should not be crossed.
lol. Funny logic and observation.
Is a species which wars against itself, causing some of the most suffering and pain, and often taking delight in that for greed and pleasure "higher"? -- not to mention degrading its environment, removing many of the natural things meant to keep our populations from overwhelming the environmental carrying capacities. If I were a betting man, I would bet that the cockroach will be here long after we are gone. Perhaps there is value in modesty.
huh? You mean "might makes right"? If that is your logic, I am sure you will find many people who have been in weaker positions and were exploited by a stronger person or group of person who will not agree with you.

The fact of the matter is this.
ATin will continue to be a way of life long after Im gone.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

The fact of the matter is this.
ATin will continue to be a way of life long after Im gone.

Imagine if Martin Luther King had said "apartheid will continue to be a way of life long after I'm gone" kashii:

 

[strongvoicesforward]

The fact of the matter is this.
ATin will continue to be a way of life long after Im gone.

Things sure do not happen overnight -- especially when changing perceptions of ethics in regards to animals is going against thousands of years of traditional use and exploitation. Look at how many thousands of years it took for slavery to get wiped out -- errrrrr, actually it is still around in some forms. ARists have no illusions about the tough fight ahead. We live in reality and therefore just don`t sit around and wish for things to happen. We organize an act on our convictions with multi-pronged approaches and strategies, always being dynamic adopting the new and the old which has been tried and tested in history.

 

[Mycernius]

Look at how many thousands of years it took for slavery to get wiped out -- errrrrr, actually it is still around in some forms.

Just a quick note on this. There are more people working under slavery now than there were during the 17th to 19th centuries

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Flenac, another Non-Steroid Anti-Inflamitory Drug which used mice, rats, guinea pigs, ferrets, rabbits, cats, dogs, pigs, horses, and monkeys as a tool for modeling use in humans was approved and caused severe toxicity in the liver tissue of its recipients. That is 10 species and it past the toxicity tests in all ten.

Here is the animal testers?f argument of contradiction:
We test on animals because they are like us. We test on them because they are not like us.

But, we do know they scream with pain and try to resist when possible when they are being violated -- just like we all would do if we were being violated. I guess we are alike in that respect. No one wants the integrity of the body violated.

Besides being unethical by using the might make right argument, the model of using animals leads one to the argument of accepting collateral damage. We know, while not intended, that animal models are inherantly dangerous for applying use to humans, and as a result of that danger many will suffer the cosequences -- but that is acceptable because they will have died while furthering medical knowledge. I guess supporters of AT like to look at it the way Thomas Edison replied to a comment from a reporter after years of trying to finish an invention.

Reporter: You have tried a thousand ways to get this to work. You haven`t learned anything from your experiments.

T. Edison: On the contrary. I`ve learned a thousand ways that don`t work.

lol. While fine for inanimate objects, I don`t think children would like to be one of the thousand ways they`ve let someone know something isn`t working when that has resulted in organ damage and disfigurement.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

And let`s not forget ATing besides medical, household chemicals and corrosives -- the gun and ammo industry just need living beings to shoot at to make sure their bullets are not too strong and go straight through the target. Let`s make sure they shatter somewhere inside living tissue. No, no, no, a pumpkin, hardened silicone, or some other subsitute would not do. Hey, let`s use live pigs for the test.

Tethered and tied and one moment eating, the next moment after being shot from close range are screaming their death cries of pain as the life force bleeds from them. Don`t take my word for the depravity that it is. Look at the video titled ?gLemas Ltd Shoots Live Pigs?h found here.

 

[No-name]

Again, the Flenac case could just as easily be used as an argument for more testing, not less. Emperical evidence would have to take into account the thousands of chemicals and drugs and treatments tested on animals to see how many somehow got through the gate and caused unnecessary human suffering... and then determine why the methods used failed. It may be an indicator that the basic premise is flawed or simply that more testing is needed. Animals have a similar physiology, anatomy and biochemisty= which is why we test on them. They don't have the same ability to cognate, express, communicate and are not human and that is why we test on them. They are not seen by most people as equivalent in value.

They don't just test drugs, they test surgical methods and tools, treatments, chemicals and procedures, food products, consumer products, cosmetics... all of which I hope follows strict ethics and reliable sound methodology, and I hope is necessary and has no other alternative to assure safety in the human population.

Computer modeling, futuristic methodologies yet unheard of and tests involving human tissue hold a bit of promise that such methods used today will someday be crude and laughable.

I have never made the "might makes right" argument. Yet I do consider the animals that have suffered and died to bring us modern medicine acceptable (collateral damage is one of those wierd military euphemisms, if you like it....) I don't know if they want or don't want the integrity of the body violated. I don't know that we can anthropomorphize other species in this respect. Perhaps lab animals understand the nobility of the undertaking (however unlikely that is) and perhaps feed lot beef endeavors to be the best beef possible- like Charlie the Tuna in the commercials. Or perhaps they lack the intelligence to figure out what is occuring. Either way, I still fell like it is better to use a few animals to ensure human safety than to increase the risk of human suffering just to save them. This is definitely a value judgement.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Once in a while a hiccup of truth escapes from some part of the status quo. That is how it was in 1988 when a representative from the American Medical Association testified at a congressional hearing on drug testing and animal models for those tests: ?gfrequently animal studies prove little or nothing and are very difficult to correlate to humans.?h -- The Newsmagazine of Veterinary Medicine, June 1988

 

[strongvoicesforward]

John Hopkins university has a centre devoted to such research: http://caat.jhsph.edu/.

They get it. From the page above:

We believe the best science is humane science. Our programs seek to provide a better, safer, more humane future for people and animals.

It is the more humane person and org that can be inclusive with their doling out of compassionate ethics. Exclusive compassion has lead to some ugly chapters in the history of the world.