Does anyone else support animal research?

[justsomeguy]

the "something better" might be a holistic approach to medicine, where we focus less on allopathic "cure-finding" for each new and particular disease that crops up, and more on habits and practices that promote well-being in its totality.

 

[justsomeguy]

I appreciate the opposing point of view, and I can surely understand why people feel they don't want to cause pain to anyone or anything. However, my contention is that life is about pain and suffering. It is an unfortunate fact that every person must consume life to remain alive, and that our actions have a multitude of consequences, some not even remotely imagined, many of which are deleterious to other forms of life. We should try to minimize the wanton destruction of life, however for a higher purpose it may be sometimes warranted in the absence of something better.

It is interesting that your contention is "that life is about pain and suffering." I agree with this contention, but I think we are carrying out the conclusion of this life-as-pain idea to different conclusions.

(I) One course that this idea might be seen to follow is that (a) because life is about pain and suffering, and (b) we as humans see pain and suffering as bad despite its necessity, (c) we as humans ought to try to prevent our own suffering by the subjegation of animals, and (d) this subjegation is justified because of (a).

(II) Another course that this idea can be seen to follow is that, (a) because life is about pain and suffering, and (b) because we see pain and suffering as bad but necessary, (c) we ought to accept our own human suffering and necessary death at the hands of disease and sickness while (d) avoiding causing the pain and suffering of animals through their subjegation.

Certainley life eats life, and pain and suffering and death are unavoidable, few would argue against these points. Both (I) and (II) accept these points, and I'm still working out myself why I choose (II) over (I).

In a "final" analysis it still seems to me that (I) is a misuse of power, whereas (II) is choice to restrain power.

 

[skywise]

That's an uncomfortably good point.

 

[justsomeguy]

or rather, (I) is a use of power, while (II) is an act of restraining one's capacity to use power.

i think the way i phrased my final sentence in that last post was a bit loaded.

with this recognized, we must ask, "is our use of power sensible, reasonable, ethical, and does it demonstrate caring."

now i think i'm just repeating what others have said

 

[vegan]

The plant's growing behaviour is proof enough of its interest in survival.

do you think machines have interests?
if you program a robot to dodge bullets and then fire on it. does the fact that it avoids bullets proves that it has an interest in survival.
plants are "programmed" to survive, we agree. but that doesn't prove it has an interest in survival. the plant probably isn't even conscious of being alive.

I meant the trauma is detrimental, as opposed to merely halting a series of biological reactions

do you have a friend plant who confessed to you about the traumatism of being cut? was it crying?
if you break a pen, do you think the pen feels any traumatism?
do you think the pen, or the plant is aware of its condition?

I can't compare the two here in this analogy. To remove consciousness from the person is not likening them to a plant, because they lose so much of their normal functioning in the process. To a person in a coma, a cut finger is, by scale, unimportant. Its like saying to a plant who's lost 90% of its root structure, a torn branch is insignificant, yes, but because of the relative significance of the injuries - not from other factors.

i hardly understand what you mean.
why couldn't you compare? a cut finger to a person in coma is like a torn branch to a sane plant, not to a plant that has lost 90% of its root structure.
a plant always has a vegetable-like existence. by being static as a disabled person it hasn't suffered any loss of capacity. it's a healthy plant, to which a torn branch doesn't induce any psychological trouble or physical pain (as far as we guess).

Can you not also relate to a plants suffering, as in envisioning major trauma (lets say for arguments sake, without pain)?

i have a hard time imagining what the life of a plant is like, can you?
the best i can imagine is that it's not explicitly conscious of its surroundings, just reacting to it chemically. that it's not aware of being alive. that it doesn't have a goal to survive, it just undergoes the chemical reactions of its cells.
maybe there is a different sort of "soul" in plants, but neither could i imagine how it feels, neither could you for now on.
the best we could do if we discovered the existence of such a "soul" would be to respect plants even more than we do now.

-------------------------------------------------

djwhirlpool. it's very nice of you to participate. but you might realize that we all try to share arguments. so you could at least take into account what's been said before.
your "idea" : we have the ability to reason -> we are superior to the animals.
since you either haven't read the rest of the thread or haven't understood it, i'll take your very own words to illustrate your "idea".

but we have the ability to reason (some would disagree )

so what about if i do disagree. what about if i think that you don't have the same ability to reason as i do.
if that opinion alone justifies for you your superiority to the animals, then it justifies for me my superiority to you. and since it's the unique criteria that you take into account, that gives me the right to put you in a cage, put detergent in your eyes, close them with tape, and come back in one week to see if you've suffered enough.
how good does this way of thinking sound when applied to you?

maybe i'm selfish

maybe?
oh let me remove the doubt from your mind. there's no maybe, you are selfish

so who or what are we supposed to exploit?

what's wrong with you?
you've been beaten as a child and want to do the same to others?
you don't have to exploit anyone.
sounds as someone who in order to earn money will think "so, who can i rob" instead of thinking "so, where can i work".

i am one of the people that feel that animals do not have the same rights as humans

history has heard the same thing said about a lot of human groups. who were not even considered humans by the way. who were said to have no soul.
not everyone learns from the mistakes of the past.

if you feel so strongly about putting a non-human animal in pain then why don't you let them do it to you?

during WWII, nazis experimented on jews, because "hey, we're not going to do it on ourselves!". i'm happy to see this altruism is still around.
if you want to buy something, you do it with your money, not by stealing others.
by the way, we've been arguing for 2 pages about the ineffectuality of animal experimentation, maybe you should read what's been said.

please excuse the tone, but when someone openly and almost proudly says that she's willing to make others suffer to avoid her own suffering, i want to vomit.

-----------------------------------

we have stated there is no other way to achieve the ends than without these means

and we have stated that there is.
have you even read the link you asked for?

to my ears your sentence sounds exactly the same as "hey girl, i can't get sex, so there's no other way to achieve my ends than to rape you".

No animal is to be made to suffer unless it is necessary for the purpose of the experiment.

- if you've heard of anaesthesia for tests of skin irritation, DL50, test of draize, or about any other, please share, that would relieve me somehow.
- i think you overestimate the sensibility of most scientists.
- do you actually think that living is a cage without seeing the sun, in total boredom, with the cries of all other animals, with the view of other animals dying, separated from your parents, without any social/sexual life, receiving shots or being immobilized… is devoid of suffering?

 

[fizzygirl]

Just for the end point of that, there are standards stating how social animals should be kept with other animals, and can only leave parents at such and such an age, and that when animals are put down it is done in a different place than where animals live, etc. They also state that recreational materials be provided according to what those animals generally see as recreational (so, rodents have cotton squares to tear up, etc). There are also minimum cage sizes, standards for cleaning, periods of darkness and light to match a normal cycle and set temperature requirements. These are things you could actually go observe in the labs, because they DO allow this information to get out and don't hide their practices. There are always people to show videos and answer questions about these things--it's not as secretive as some people think. Most labs are kept behind locked doors, which is as much for the safety of the animals (who aren't raised as 'wild') as for the protection of the lab equiptment, but as far as I can tell they aren't against showing people around or anything--at least not at my university.

 

[justsomeguy]

^^^

who is a crybaby?

 

[nads]

vegan - You'll understand what I'm talking about if you look at life from a cellular level, not an anthropomorphic POV. Its what all life has in common, whereas only some have a nervous system, so is fairer.

BTW, trauma also exists as a purely physical event, not solely a mental/emotional event in case you misunderstood.

i have a hard time imagining what the life of a plant is like, can you?
the best i can imagine is that it's not explicitly conscious of its surroundings, just reacting to it chemically.

Please define 'explicitly conscious', without reference to any outside chemical force or influence. If you can do that, you can convince me that consciousness stems at least partly from within and not entirely from without.

the best we could do if we discovered the existence of such a "soul" would be to respect plants even more than we do now.

If a 'soul' is ever discovered, it will be expressed in scientific language as a physical process...souls can't be found, they only exist as thoughts in belief systems.

Aaaanyway. The point is, using the phenomenon of "pain" as a determinant in "suffering" is a double-standard against those organisms that lack the capability for pain. It is as narrow-minded as using "intelligence" as a determinant for value or worth. By not even considering that you are doing anything wrong by the plant you are killing, you are no better than the
1960s Aboriginal hunters.

 

[zorn]

do you think machines have interests?
if you program a robot to dodge bullets and then fire on it. does the fact that it avoids bullets proves that it has an interest in survival....
plants are "programmed" to survive, we agree. but that doesn't prove it has an interest in survival. the plant probably isn't even conscious of being alive.
do you have a friend plant who confessed to you about the traumatism of being cut? was it crying?
if you break a pen, do you think the pen feels any traumatism?
do you think the pen, or the plant is aware of its condition?
...
the best i can imagine is that it's not explicitly conscious of its surroundings, just reacting to it chemically. that it's not aware of being alive. that it doesn't have a goal to survive, it just undergoes the chemical reactions of its cells.

Replace "plant" with "nonhuman animal" in the above and you have a pretty good argument against animal rights.

You also leave yourself open to the same cheap demagoguery you've been using.... eg "I could just say that I don't think you're even explicitly conscious to be alive, just like a robot, and experiment on you... how do you like that reasoning, huh? That's what the Nazis said!"

by the way, we've been arguing for 2 pages about the ineffectuality of animal experimentation, maybe you should read what's been said.

You've been asserting that, incorrectly. Look, these moral questions about whether animals deserve the same rights as people are at least arguable... you have your opinion, we have ours. But whether animal experimentation is medically helpful is a question of fact, not opinion.

Among those who are at all familiar with biology and medical research, there is *no doubt* that it is incredibly helpful/necessary for medical research. You'll note the same in this thread; all of those here who know anything about bio research have said the same. I don't even know where to start to explain because it's so obvious. Simply none of the tools we have now for understanding how biology works are anywhere close to good enough to let us work without animals. If you want to figure out what's going wrong in some disorder, or what kind of drug might help, there's just no way you could do it without using animal models. It's inconceivable.

As far as I can tell, the only people who claim otherwise are animals-rights activists who cannot allow themselves to believe banning animal experimentation would hurt medical progress. Pure cognitive dissonance.

But it's a huge error to think that "animal experimentation is morally wrong" is a good reason to believe "animal experimentation is useless." Look, I'll say that allowing experimentation on humans would speed medical progress. Such experimentation is wrong; it's wrong enough that we don't do it, even though it would be helpful. You can say the same thing about animal experimentation.

 

[Cotytto]

Hi all - this is my first post on Bluelight.

I enjoyed reading this thread but wonder how one really interesting point that was in my mind as I read had been missed? Or maybe I just missed it in the thread...

Who's doing this research and what are they doing with the results? I don't know for sure but I suspect that the majority of the organisations involved with animal research are the multinational phamaceutical companies. These companies have disasterous track records when it comes to ethics and standards - profit comes before everything.

For instance one of the really big ones (possibly Ely Lilly?) were distributing an untested treatment for meningitis during a Nigerian epidemic without informing the parents of the children they were treating that these were unapproved human clinical tests. 100s if not over 1000 children died unnecessarily as a result.

Also the vast profits generated by the sale of the drugs that these organisations develop and their continued persuit of such huge profits ensures that the majority of the people who can benefit from the drugs are never able to afford them. So if these organisations use a "For the good of humanity" stance to defend their use of animals to test drugs I say that they're completely hypocritical.

If they had the good of humanity at steak the results of their testing would not be secret nor would their products only be available to those who can afford to buy it.

Animal ltesting would sit much better with me if I knew that it really was benefiting society as a whole and not the investment portfolios of the few...

Just some thoughts.....

 

[JerryBlunted]

Who's doing this research and what are they doing with the results? I don't know for sure but I suspect that the majority of the organisations involved with animal research are the multinational phamaceutical companies. These companies have disasterous track records when it comes to ethics and standards - profit comes before everything.

...

If they had the good of humanity at steak the results of their testing would not be secret nor would their products only be available to those who can afford to buy it.

Animal ltesting would sit much better with me if I knew that it really was benefiting society as a whole and not the investment portfolios of the few...

You take an interesting approach, and I agree with what you are saying but I think it is really a separate issue. For starters, much of the basic research conducted with animals is done in university laboratory facilities. Most universities have a requirement of their full staff members in scientific departments that they must continue to publish scientific work. In my school I know the professor that usually teaches behavioral neuroscience is on sabbatical this semester to continue his experiments on how rats that eat their placentas are immune to constipation related to opiates. I don't even think these rats are necessarily being harmed in this experiment, just doped up on pain killers and either given placenta to munch on or not.

Some of this testing is done by private research corporations and by pharmaceutical companies. As far as the track record of the pharmaceutical industry, it is less than stellar. However, you can probably pick any single industry that exists today and find some evidence of complete shadiness. The restrictions are much stricter today in this country, but we have no control over what people do in other countries, which leads to sweat shops and unethical experimentation abroad. Can hardly blame us for that, though.

When new medicines come out the FDA protects the rights of the company to market it alone for either 8 or 11 years (I disremember which). At this point other companies can step in and market generic versions of the drug (a good example would be Prozac. Two years ago it came off protection and generic brand fluxotine flooded the market, causing the price to drop rapidly in competition). The purpose of this period of blatant price gouging is to recoup the investment from the very expensive testing and development procedures (so expensive in part because of the great lengths taken to ensure the animals are treated as humanely as possible). I definitely agree that this process bars many lower income people from availing themselves of the proper treatments and to me it seems grossly unethical. However, my solution would be a socialized medical system, but don't hold your breath for that one. If it was the government paying for all of our prescriptions you can bet the prices would be set a tad bit lower.

However, it still is the good of humanity at stake even though some people profit to an enormous degree. All the medicine we currently have available comes as a result of this procedure. Think of the untold suffering we have treated or even prevented with the thousands of medicines currently at our disposal. There are tons of crazy diseases that we just don't see anymore thanks to this technology. It also benefits animals, as I know my dog was given medicine for epilepsy before she died, where do you think we got that?

Someone else mentioned that a lot of animal research "comes to naught" meaning nothing new is discovered or the new hypothesis is rejected. However, this is meaningful scientific data. You learn a lot from mistakes and failures, though they may not be as dramatic or newsworthy this is the bulk of the scientific process. Trial and error.

 

[Razzie]

I truly believe that JerryBlunted, zorn, and I would be friends if we ever met.

 

[JerryBlunted]

Thanks man, I appreciate that. I like the avatar too.

 

[vegan]

there are standards stating how social animals should be kept with other animals, and can only leave parents at such and such an age, and that when animals are put down it is done in a different place than where animals live, etc

apart from the fact that you overestimate these standards (pictures have been enough to convince me), you'll never change the fact that life in a cage is torture enough in itself.
"put down"? does that mean "killed"?
you're right. you solve all the problems by calling a dwarf a small person.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You'll understand what I'm talking about if you look at life from a cellular level, not an anthropomorphic POV. Its what all life has in common, whereas only some have a nervous system, so is fairer.

do you think your consciousness is felt by each cell?
if your finger is cut but the tissue is kept alive in a lab.
does you finger have a consciousness of its own?
in order to salvage arguments you're denying ideas that would have used as arguments in another thread.
are you now denying the importance of a nervous system?
does your cut finger suffer, or can you only feel the pain through your central nervous system?

trauma also exists as a purely physical event

look at me in the eyes and pretend that the physical trauma of a rock being broken or of a plant being cut is comparable to an obviously conscious animal to be tortured.

i really don't appreciate people who don't give a fuck about animals trying to use my reasoning about them, relying on facts, to a similar reasoning about plants, only relying on suppositions. and then ignoring my reasoning about animals and only pointing out their hypothetic conclusions about plants, that they obviously don't apply in their lives.

if you pretend to care about plants, that should be a reason to care even more about animals whose consciousness and senses are so obviously related to ours.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Replace "plant" with "nonhuman animal" in the above and you have a pretty good argument against animal rights

it doesn't work. and you're blind not to see it.
when you hurt an animal, it cries, tries to avoid anymore damage. it obviously suffers.
an animal will do anything not to be hurt or not to die. it will defend itself, flee if necessary.
it's obviously conscious of what's happening and reacts on purpose.
whereas we have no proof that plants are conscious or sensible.

how do you like that reasoning, huh? That's what the Nazis said

i say :
we are sure that animals suffer and fear pain -> we should respect them
we are not sure that plants suffer and fear pain

and you pretend that it's comparable to :
"i don't think you're even explicitly conscious to be alive, i can experiment on you."
it's totally dishonest thinking.
i say i'm sure animals suffer because they show the same symptoms of suffering as humans do.
plants don't show the same symptoms.
if you torture me, you can't "not think you're even explicitly conscious to be alive". you will see my reactions. whereas you can't interpret the lack of reaction of a plant.
so no, i have no problem at all with my reasoning applied to me. i just have a problem with people who can't apply a reasoning.

Among those who are at all familiar with biology and medical research, there is *no doubt* that it is incredibly helpful/necessary for medical research

how come then you have associations of scientists such as Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine that are against animal testing?

the only people who claim otherwise are animals-rights activists who cannot allow themselves to believe banning animal experimentation would hurt medical progress

there are 2 problems, the ethical problem and the effectuality problem.
the answer to the ethical problem is so clear that the answer to the scientific problem wouldn't change my stance. if i thought animal testing was useful, i would just argue on the ethical problem. i don't need to fool myself or anyone about the scientific facts to have arguments against animal testing.
i just come to it because the facts are actually in favour of non-testing and that this can be an argument for people who only think about themselves and not about the ones they torture.

But it's a huge error to think that "animal experimentation is morally wrong" is a good reason to believe "animal experimentation is useless."

you're inventing.
it would be much easier to have a conversation if people actually read what i write.
i said, fact one "animal experimentation is morally wrong"
fact two "animal experimentation is useless." i didn't never linked the 2.
and it looks like most people don't disagree with fact one.

 

[fizzygirl]

pictures have been enough to convince me

i'm sorry, i don't stop with pictures, and i didn't overestimate the 'standards'---i had to learn them and pass certain assessments to get paid for my work...i've seen enough of those standards, and witnessed them fulfilled to convince me of any sort of standards.

perhaps you should make an attempt to do the same without just taking someone's picture as the coverage of the entire story.

yes, i suppose they kill a rat...i also have killed a bee, a wasp, a yellow jacket, an ant and a roach...i never thought about their feelings in it, and they didnt think about mine (i'm pretty sure). when rats were put down, it was done in a similar manner to dogs that were "put down"

when your friend has a pet put to sleep, do you keep after them about the animal being killed because of their choice? just curious....


your idea of calling a dwarf a small person is odd anyway, considering they pc term themselves "little people" overall, and that description has nothing to do with the overall classification.... i'm not sure what that had to do with anything.

 

[Tranquil Soul]

it seems to me to be a necessary evil that we should strive to replace with future technologies.

I wonder how long it will be until we will be able to fully and accurately simulate the entire body of a living organism, be it human, or other animal. I would love to see major progresses in these areas.

 

[JerryBlunted]

We are pretty far from being able to accurately simulate a complex living system. Guess what we have to do to get the data, by the way..... drumroll please.... animal experimentation.

 

[Tranquil Soul]

true, but if it means you can cut it out altogether in the end, then surely it is worth it?

 

[JerryBlunted]

Tranquil Soul - I agree absolutely, but if you accept that animal research is acceptable for what it is necessary for (gathering data for computer models), then it also follows that at this point it must be acceptable for all the other uses that it is necessary (keyword is necessary, as opposed to frivolous uses such as cosmetics, etc.) for in lieu of a good alternative (which would be in development for years if we go the route of computer modelling). Living systems are INCREDIBLY complex, even the simplest ones are very difficult for us to replicate with any degree of accuracy. There is so much we do not understand about biology yet, which is why we have to do the experimentation in the first place.

Vegan - I find it interesting that you latch onto one group of scientists who support your view while dismissing the vast majority of the rest of the field who do not. Also, your contention that plants do not communicate their pain to us is false. Plants do send chemical messengers to communicate their distress among one another. There have been many studies to demonstrate this, one that I found particularly interesting was where a scientist placed a bunch of separate potted plants in a blank room in rows. He came in and mauled one of the plants near the door. They measured electrical and chemical changes in the plants throughout the room and found a definite warning system arose by means of a subtle chemical signal excreted through the plants' leaves. Further, as time went on the same signal was sent up each time this same guy came into the room. Also, the plants tended to grow away from the direction of the original attack. Just because they don't make facial expressions comparable to ours does not mean they do not experience distress or react to it as any living organism would do.

I've already reiterated the limitations of my (and the majority of the scientific community would probably be close to this view) support for animal research. If you look back at the first page you can see all of those people who originally came in this thread with support for the practice did so fully aware of the costs and benefits of it and no one just dismissed the sacrifice of the animals out of hand. It seems the more balanced outlook tends to be on the side of those who support animal research as we have supplied both the reasons why we do, the consequences of not supporting it, and also the conditions which would reverse this support. The animal rights side (which as I have already stated I have great respect for) takes a moralistic stand which while admirable is hardly pragmatic and does little to advance our discussion. "It's wrong always.... it's like keeping slaves... it's like Nazis experimenting on Jews... etc. etc. etc." We never said it was right or wrong always... it is an entirely contextual matter.

Well, that's my view on it, I've said my piece.

 

[justsomeguy]

I have some more things to say

I'll quote from Longino's Subjects, Power and Knowledge: Description and Prescription in Feminist Philosophies of Science, The Gender of Science Janet A. Kourany (ed), 2002.

"Although the sciences have increased human power over natural processes, they have, according to [my above] analysis, done so in a lop-sided way, systematically perpetuating women's [and in the context of this thread, animal's] cognitive and political disempowerment...one obvious queston, then, is whether this appropriation of power is an intrinsic feature of science or whther it is an incidental feature of the sciences as practiced in the modern period, a feature deriving from the social structures within which the sciences have developed. A second question is whether it is possible to seek and possess empowering knowledge without expropriating the power of others. Is seeking knowledge inevitabley an attempt at domination? And are there criteria of knowledge other than the ability to control the phenomena about which one seeks knowledge?"

[emphasis mine]

I choose this quoted passage, despite its feminist focus, to get at what I believe and have said earlier is the core of my misgivings towards animal research. Those misgivings are the assymetrical application of power towards the animal research subjects for the appropriation of "knowledge" put towards the elimination of human disease. One might, as JerryBlunted has suggested, call my position a "moralistic" and "hardly pragmatic" stance. I can see how one might wish to avoid taking a "moral" stance in this discussion, as one's moral inclinations can be quite a poor foudnation from which to formulate an argument; after all, everyone's morals are different, right? But what I cannot see is how taking this "moral" stance stifles discussion. This stance actually does the opposite, promoting discussion and directing conversation to the very important, but at times stubborn and difficult issues that we might call "moral" or ethical.

I would also contend that my stance is pragmatic, albeit my pragmatic goals are different than yours. If by pragmatism you mean the idea that practical, observable consequences are the constructors of knowledge and value, and that a discourse's use is its most important feature, I would say that my ideas are pragmatic. Whereas you see the prevention of disease and the furthering of knowledge of biological systems as the practical goals of animal research (and certainley, these goals are admirable), I see the prevention of suffering and the insurance of just, respectable, and caring applications or prohibitions of power as my goals.

What my stance contends is that the way we treat animals, as objects of scientific research and containers of natural, useful knowledge, is indicative of a more general way science and our science's culture views the appropriation of knowledge and the appropriate means for that appropriation.

Animal research is an assymetrical, unjust, and problematic application of power serving the appropriation of natural "knowledge."

There is a much stronger interdependent relationship between knowing subject and knowable object, or scientist and animal, than one might think. At risk of sounding trite, how we treat our world and the creatures and things within that world is very much how we treat and think of ourselves.

There ought not be a uni-directional economy of power, at least not in the arena where human lives are being "saved" by medical research. If the means through which we save human lives and increase human happiness are supported through an assymetrical, hegemonic power-knowledge scheme, I believe that we, as humans, are at great risk of placing ourselves within that scheme, and of becoming victims to self-subjugation as dangerous as the cancer and AIDS we are trying to cure. While I wish to avoid the psychoanalytic route in general, misappropriated applications of power on nature and the Other, I contend, can have deep structural influences on applications of power on ourselves.

JerryBlunted - I find what you say about the plants possibley "communicating" pain and danger to each other very interesting. What I find even more interesting is that, if it is your contention that these plants are sending out signals of pain and suffering, that it took a scientist to mangle and cause this pain and suffering to "discover" that these plants do in fact suffer and feel pain.


[edited for terrible spelling mistakes ]