• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Does anyone else support animal research?

Razzie

Razzie

Bluelighter
Joined
Dec 6, 1999
Messages
536
I believe that animal research is critical in moving science and medicine forward. I have been in animal research for 5 years and the longer I am exposed to the work, the more I believe that pharmaceutical testing must be done in a living system vs. being applied to isolated cells in a culture plate. There are too many undiscovered factors in a living system that can affect the way different compounds will react.

In doing the research, it is part of my job to make sure that the animals are treated humanely. I have the greatest respect that the animals I work with. They give their lives to science and I am very grateful to them.

There are many animal activists who believe that the same scientific results can be achieved without using living systems. That may be true but that same achievement may take 10 years longer by using only in-vitro systems.
 
it seems to me to be a necessary evil that we should strive to replace with future technologies.
 
i support it....my psych dept is tied with a neurosciene/psychobiology program, so i've had an assistantship working with some of the animals, as well as assisting with the conditioning and learning classes. some of the findings that have come out of their animal studies are really amazing. i've also had to take 6 hours of training just to be able to *handle* a white rat, so i know about many of the procedures and humane ways that things are done.
 
I support it in certain circumstances, such as when we can reasonably assume that the research is aimed at reducing suffering in the world and furthering our understanding of physiology, disease, and trauma in a way that can only be done with animals.

I am against testing cosmetics or other frivolous products on animals, or any testing that causes preventable and unnecessary suffering.

Animal rights activists often see the world in black and white terms, and thus believe ALL testing is wrong because it harms animals. However, I see that animal research has prevented future harm to both humans and animals, and as such I believe the benefits outweigh the costs.

Respect and reverence for the sacrifice of the animals in question are absolutely indicative of a very mature and sensible outlook, in my mind.
 
i agree with what everyone said, especially the no testing of cosmetics, that truly is not nescessary and sick. i agree with what kewl said, it is a necessary evil which should have alternate methods being sought out and considered.
 
Whilst I agree that it is currently the only effective method available to us, my concern is that precisley because of its availability, there is little motivation to seek out more humane but equally effective ways of testing, and little research is done in this area. Perhaps, if animal research was outlawed, much more research would be done into more humane testing procedures, and other effective means of testing would more quickly be developed.
 
I don't believe it has as much basis as we think it does. Some diseases affect animals but not humans, and the other way around. Becasue something is tested to be safe on an animal, it doesn't necessarily mean that that producty will be safe for a human. What bugs me most of all is the way in which these animals are kept and treated. Whilst I'm sure some labs do look after animals I've seen pictures from many places which do not.
 
These have been some really interesting responses to read and I appreciate everyone's feedback.

I think the concensus is that animal research is a "necessary evil" of sorts. We all wish that it did not have to exist but under today's scientific needs, it is necessary to help cure your Mom or yourself of cancer and other ailments.

1024, I agree that most compounds will have a different effect in animals than it would in humans to varying degrees. But I believe that testing drugs in animals is a lot closer to humans than testing with an in-vitro system which is what animal activists would prefer. Labs that use animals are required to be inspected via a surprise inspection annually by the USDA as well as inspected twice a year by an internal committee.

I have been in this business for a while and while there are people who treat animals with less respect than they deserve, you will find that these people are few and far between. Most of the people in this field would agree that humane treatment of the animals is a number one priority because they are giving the ultimate sacrifice for human use.
 
I don't support it in most circumstances.
There is no excuse for cruelty.
Click to expand...

Really? Because so far, almost every response in this thread has been prefectly viable excuses for animal testing. You yourself say you don't support it in MOST circumstance. What are the other circumstances you do support it in? And what excuse is it that makes them acceptable circumstances?


P.S. this is really weird, but I recently met a girl named "deja." Is deja your real name? Or I am being stupid by assuming your name is deja, since your nick clearly states that "MynameisnotDeja". I dunno, I just think that it is a funny coincidence...considering that I have never heard of the name "Deja" before I met this girl.
 
Last edited:
Whilst I agree that it is currently the only effective method available to us, my concern is that precisley because of its availability, there is little motivation to seek out more humane but equally effective ways of testing, and little research is done in this area. Perhaps, if animal research was outlawed, much more research would be done into more humane testing procedures, and other effective means of testing would more quickly be developed.
Click to expand...

We DO have more humane testing methods,by means of cell cultures. The problem is that cell cultures can only show scientists what would happen if there was direct contact between a substance and that paticular cell. It cannot account for any interactions surrounding cells might have, nor metabolism, nor any other body part. To find out what effects there are from other parts of the body, you are going to need a living system with those parts. Therefore, you need a living animal.
 
I support limited testing - I think it should be something that should be reserved for truly meaningful research as has been said already in this thread. Not only do I think testing cosmetics on animals is unnecessary and wrong - but I think a great deal of research goes on that is not strictly serving any noble purpose other than making a few bucks off the newest "cure" for baldness.

That being said - if it is in aide of understanding the workings of the body or testing potentially life saving drugs and procedures - I suppose have no moral choice other than to support it. I still would not like to see it happen - nor do I think it is universally justifiable.

As was said - we should strive above all to find more humane methods - but for now some animals research is necessary for the benefit of countless human beings (and in some cases animals) in the future.

--- G.
 
no vivisection

fitter, happier, more productive...


08.jpg

..
.
.
monkey~1.jpg

..
.
cathead.jpg

.
monkey3.jpg


Vivisection5iso.jpg

...
Monkey1.gif

.
.
.like a cat,
.,,
tied to a stick,
.
Turtle1.gif

..
Maig80.jpg
.
Rabbit1.gif




...like a pig...
.
in a cage..
.
.
.
on antibiotics....

p_vivisection_1.jpg
 
The reason those pictures are *everywhere* is that the great majority of lab setups look nothing like that. I'd go take some pictures and bring them in, but seeing a hundred rats in nice clean little cages just doesn't do the same thing to the emotions I suppose.
 
is the objectification, confinement, subjegation, and destruction of animals ethical?

we knowit would be much more efficient to use humans in laboratory experiements, why don't we use people?
 
JSG - Those photos look ancient, I'm glad you didn't post that hoax of the two-headed dog. I studied a topic in ethics a while ago and was horrified by the level of consideration given to animals and humans alike in the 70s and earlier. We've come a long way in animal ethics since then, pushed forward by those 'animal activists' no doubt. :\
 
sure they look ancient, and i'm sure that lots of steps have been taken to prevent guys like this from being in pictures like this:
monkey3.jpg


.
.
.
.

these photos are part of the historic mileu of contemporary animal research.

contemporary scientific research can trace its lineage to vivisections just like these.

contemporary scientific animal research can trace its lineage back to Descartes if it wished, who thought animals were nothing more than emotionless, biological machines. If we smash a dog's legs, the dog doesn't feel any more pain than if we were to smash the hands of a clock.

its this type of modern objectification and alienation of nature, as beast (needing to be subjegated, controlled), or as inanimate matter (already subjegated, ready for vivisection and categorization) that pressuposes and justifies animal research.

i won't make the leap to ecofeminism quite yet!

LOL

look what college is doing to my brain!!
 
i mean, do you really think that by pumping a room full of rats with chemicals you are getting any healthier? are your children better off??
 
Razzie said:
I
In doing the research, it is part of my job to make sure that the animals are treated humanely. I have the greatest respect that the animals I work with. They give their lives to science and I am very grateful to them.
Click to expand...

So to be "treated humanely" means to be "breed for subjegation, experiementation, and execution"?

:\

actually, lol, that sounds about right!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top