Does anyone else support animal research?

[Cimora]

I drove back and forth with a guy I knew who was doing neurobio research at the Scripps Insitute there. He was working on a simulating just the electrical properties of a single neuron. Just one; it took a while to simulate only a few seconds of activity, and God knows how accurate it was. In the human brain there are 100 billion neurons -- you would need hundreds of gigabytes of memory merely to list them all....

This is a great example of the kind of level of detail a functional model really needs. A single nueron, with all its charges, chemicals and gates is quite complex indeed. But the function it serves - to activate at a set level depending on the strenght of an association can be emulated perfectly using neural networks. The have built fairly good learning AI on the back of this simple multi-CPU model - an insect robot which can learn to navigate its enviroment and how to walk from stratch has been made, they are going to use it for a mars mission. So, in pratice the emulation doesnt need all that detail to work in the same way. Biology is based on legacy and branching technolgy, often its pretty ineffeciant compared to how wed have designed the same thing.

On the heart model -- not sure what you're talking about, but there are many heart models out there, some better than others, all very limited and incredible simplifications.

Ive posted some links at the end, that may help. Check em out, theres actually alot of links out there on the virtual human heart.

On the contrary, they're pretty much the only way we can learn about biology. Look, pick any recent advance in large-scale (eg more than just pure biochem/molecular bio) biology, and try and tell me how it could have been achieved without the use of animals models. Can you?

With that statement i was refering to purely brain studies. There are some low-level things we have learnt from animal brain studies, but most of the big stuff is human only learnt. That stuff we have learnt from animals have involved a very high level of suffering for the animal subject, making some of these low-level findings questionable in terms of ethical input and output in my mind.

But take mood. Mood in humans works not much like any other animal - mood is a composite of primitive emotions composed by the frontal cortex. Langauge - theres little we can learn for animals. Conceptualisation, logic, anticipation, high level perceptual processes. This list goes on, and these are some of the things we really want to know about ourselves.

You wanted an example? memory. All recent advances in understanding concious memory in humans have come directly from human case studies. Many regions of neuropsych are like this: theres only one way to really learn, humans; damaged case studies and brain imaging.

But in many cases even these drugs aren't on functions specific to humans; usually they target older systems and mechanisms in the brain that are fairly conserved across all mammals. I don't know of a single drug that affects the kind of high-level cortex function unique to humans (probably with good reason -- no animals to do research on!) Most mammals have an anxiety system built in the amygdala; they can all have seizures, they all sleep, etc

There is some truth in what you say, all higher functions are based on and utilise more primitive functions. We are a legacy machine. But take any of those functions i mentioned are there is some profound variation from that base. Mood in humans is more complex, mediated through the frontal cortex - trying to emulate human mood with another animal is like trying to cook a roast with a toaster. For epilepsy, the seizure is local to a region of the brain, thus the way it spreads and the functions in effects are unique to the specifics of a brain - studying other humans may even be useless to some degree let alone animals. Admited sleep and anxiety are fairly basic though. But you see, alot of these drugs are being tested for safety on primates and mice - when many of them such as anti-depressants, anti-pscyhotics are basically human specific, the animals tests are more or less a waste of time and life. (Which i find particularly distasteful considering primates are often used. They are our ancestors for christs sakes, nearly on the same level of evolution and 99% genetically similar - they experience psychological pain - we should not call apon them for animal studies unless the circumstances truely justify it). You want a medicine that works on higher functions, actually most anti-psychotic and anti-depressant medicines do. And yes, they are tested on animals, but god only knows why.

Research is very rarely done with monkeys, partially because of cost, partially because of ethical concerns. In safety trials, typically rats & rabbits would be used, or mice & pigs.

In most science yes, your right. And rats and bunnies dont have true psychological pain, so thats more acceptable to my mind. But monkeys are used alot in brain and neurological drug research - IMO needlessly. Which animal you use depends on which is "the most compatible". The problem is, is that the most compatible isnt always very compatible at all.

You and vegan both seem to think that because there's not a perfect correlation between toxic effects in animals and people, there must be no correlation at all. But there'a big range between 0% and 100%! Some quick googling reveals that 70%+ of toxic reactions are caught in animal trials.

I think that would be a hard thing to study with objectivity (how much is actually caught). The FDA certainly wouldnt want you to have to low a number .

Im not saying less than perfect is unacceptable. 99% safety is good safety IMO. Its just that, in practice there are many specific areas we cant give reliable safety for - and people assume we can, so they waste life, time and money on animal studies they dont need. Im with you on using rats to cure cancer - I just think we should be prepared to say sometimes - look, we cant know how safe it is, until we give it to someone, otherwise we are fooling ourselves.

And if we are talking about ethics, it should balance something like this:

Benefit of animal testing (ie the suffering eased) TIMES the accuracy SHOULD BE LESS THAN the suffering of the animal.

If people arent doing an equation everytime they sacrific a life or cause pain to acheive a greater good, they have lost sight of their goal. Thats why the exact degree of safety is important IMO - its part of the cost/benefit analysis.

Can you point me to your reference for this? I saw a few papers suggesting something along those lines a couple years ago, but they were all extremely sketchy, borderline effects. I thought they'd all failed to find any support for the idea -- has there been some new research I missed?

It was about a year ago, on this site i first saw that research. It was replicated once, and they studied multiple subjects for the axon damage (of course to find actual axon damage they needed dead long-term prozac users so this research is only just becoming possible, and the subject count should be a bit higher before we are certain about this). It may not be conclusive, but one or two replications more and we may have to accept this as fact.

As far as i know, no one has ever studied long-term prozac users and NOT found axon damage post-mortum - thats what would disprove this.
It makes sense though, that excesses of the most important neurotransmitter in any form could be trouble.

There are plenty of other examples of things declared 100% safe only to be deadly or damaging. Thats part of the problem: the public perception that safety testing is 100% reliable.


And ive saved the best till last:

Firstly, heres a good use of animal testing to acheive simulation, here they are using slices of rats brains to create an artificial hippocampus (the world first brain prothesis) - something that will easy suffering and further understanding: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993488

Secondly, heres a project to virtualise the human body, which mentions the heart simulation ive meantioned:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/345762.stm

Virutalising the human body just isnt possible yet? maybe you should tell these guys Some1 should give these guys some more money!

 

[jsbumed]

OK, to start off with, I don't post much (have been a greenlighter for more than 2 years now), but I like the way the discussion has been going in this thread. I am a "biology" person who does support animal research for scientific purposes. I don't remember who stated that most testing is done at universities, but I would also like to point out that testing is also done by pharmaceutical companies as well as the USDA....which does a decent amount of animal research.

I would like to ask, however, what peoples opinions are on the use of animals for educational purposes. There are times in my education, specifically the Immunology course I am currently taking, where it has been necessary to use and occasionally kill animals to fully understand the concepts of the course. What are others opinions on this? I personally feel that this is perfectly acceptable, as it provides the knowledge which will be the basis for me to eventually help others. Thoughts, comments?

 

[justsomeguy]

i dissected a cat in highschool anatomy, and looking back, cutting the cat up was a really worthless thing for me.

 

[JerryBlunted]

This is a great example of the kind of level of detail a functional model really needs. A single nueron, with all its charges, chemicals and gates is quite complex indeed. But the function it serves - to activate at a set level depending on the strenght of an association can be emulated perfectly using neural networks. The have built fairly good learning AI on the back of this simple multi-CPU model - an insect robot which can learn to navigate its enviroment and how to walk from stratch has been made, they are going to use it for a mars mission. So, in pratice the emulation doesnt need all that detail to work in the same way. Biology is based on legacy and branching technolgy, often its pretty ineffeciant compared to how wed have designed the same thing.

You can emulate the function of the neuron, but not its detail... well then that is not accurate enough for the purposes of drug experimentation. You don't want to know just how it makes the neurons work (does it inhibit the release of neurotransmitter, modulate the effects, etc.) but also how the neuron itself is changed structurally. With the model you are proposing I fear that so much information is discarded in an effort to simply (oversimplify) the design and make it possibly to emulate via computer. It is like changing the facts to fit the theory, or in this case the technology.

However, this is the right direction to be moving in... I have no doubt as the level of sophistication increases for models such as this it will become more and more useful to researchers doing cutting edge experimentation. For the moment it may have a greater use in laboratory classrooms, etc.

Im not saying less than perfect is unacceptable. 99% safety is good safety IMO. Its just that, in practice there are many specific areas we cant give reliable safety for - and people assume we can, so they waste life, time and money on animal studies they dont need. Im with you on using rats to cure cancer - I just think we should be prepared to say sometimes - look, we cant know how safe it is, until we give it to someone, otherwise we are fooling ourselves.

And if we are talking about ethics, it should balance something like this:

Benefit of animal testing (ie the suffering eased) TIMES the accuracy SHOULD BE LESS THAN the suffering of the animal.

If people arent doing an equation everytime they sacrific a life or cause pain to acheive a greater good, they have lost sight of their goal. Thats why the exact degree of safety is important IMO - its part of the cost/benefit analysis.

How would you operationalize the suffering of the animal? How do you operationalize the benefit of the testing? These are very ephemeral concepts and pretty damn difficult to quantify. However, I do agree that we need to balance the destruction of life with the benefits it is intended to produce. There are some types of uses which are just unacceptable (cosmetics, etc.) and we should not allow animals to be sacrificed for those endeavors. However, where that line is drawn is not simple to determine, there isn't a magic equation you can just plug a few variables into...

 

[Cimora]

You can emulate the function of the neuron, but not its detail... well then that is not accurate enough for the purposes of drug experimentation. You don't want to know just how it makes the neurons work (does it inhibit the release of neurotransmitter, modulate the effects, etc.) but also how the neuron itself is changed structurally. With the model you are proposing I fear that so much information is discarded in an effort to simply (oversimplify) the design and make it possibly to emulate via computer. It is like changing the facts to fit the theory, or in this case the technology.

They are not pretending simulations can do things they can't: they simply agknowledge what ever the current limit of detail is. For example, most current simulations would not emulate cell level or gene and protein level events, making emulation of viruses, immunology etc difficult (Although thats the Physiome Projects next task, a cell level model for imminology). EI the heart model cannot model cancer of the heart, nor the effects of hormones and substances in the brain that might tigger the heart at different rates. As other parts of the system are modelled, they can be intergarted so that the heart model can emulate cancer and protein level events for example. (Of course even then specific DNA coding would be require to emulate some events, some of which could be taken from the genome project). As we advance various levels of detail more applications become viable, and more complex organs become easier to simulate.

You cant use a neural net to emulate drug effect, exactly in the way it happens in the brain - but you can use the neural net for all the ion flow details - just the transmitters, gates and protein transactions need be modelled to model drug interactions - of course complete mapping of all neural connections in a human brain is a long long way off, and required for this kind of testing - again, a simulation of a human brain could be just as ethically dicey as a real one or an animal, we may not ever even want to use models of the brain in this way.

How would you operationalize the suffering of the animal? How do you operationalize the benefit of the testing? These are very ephemeral concepts and pretty damn difficult to quantify. However, I do agree that we need to balance the destruction of life with the benefits it is intended to produce. There are some types of uses which are just unacceptable (cosmetics, etc.) and we should not allow animals to be sacrificed for those endeavors. However, where that line is drawn is not simple to determine, there isn't a magic equation you can just plug a few variables into...

These are good points, clearly moral judgement and good ethic cannot be enforced or legalsated. What i had in mind was more of an ethics component in education of people using animal research giving guidelines on various different species expereince of suffering, whats "worthy" , in terms of benefit to people, research and what isnt, and the limits of testing in certain areas - Just so its in scientists heads a bit more they are dealing with living creatures even though we are supposed to be objective. Perhaps even a reveiw board for large animal studies or ones involving primates etc, to ensure the study is useful, by some formal standards - they could catergorise research, such as into medical cure, serious illness, minor illness, moderate illness, advancement of knowledge, major possible finding, minor possible finding, level of accuracy of safety level etc - then they could have a list of acceptable quantities of different animals for different types of harm, be it death, impairment or pain or pain & impariment. Of course the guidelines would need to be broad to allow for the subjective element and not to inhibit industry, but you could surely stop some general wastefulness.

Even better if we just educate people about the potential we have just recently acquired to simulate these things, so the right people can get the funding and do it quicker and better

 

[vegan]

i'm sorry, i don't stop with pictures

you're right, the pictures mean nothing as long as on the parer the standards are high.
and the cages we see are photoshoped on the pictures
and the war in iraq was good, because your president says so.

i never thought about their feelings in it, and they didnt think about mine (i'm pretty sure)

is it supposed to be a reason or an excuse? either way it's not.
i killed you, but you weren't worried about my feelings so it's alright. 8)

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

what does "put to sleep" mean? does that mean "kill"?
if it is so, why would you want my friends to kill pets? is it a common tradition in the country of the civilized?
does that mean you should "put to sleep" your grand-parents when you don't have fun with them anymore because they're losing their mind? and costing too much money

your idea of calling a dwarf a small person is odd anyway, considering they pc term themselves "little people" overall

and it doesn't change anything to the problem. calling themselves "little people" instead of "dwarves" is just a ridiculous attempt at hidding something, as is saying "put down" instead of "kill", hoping it will make it appear a more gentle thing to do.

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

well, first i find the arguments of the former pertinent
second i have more trust for a minority that tries to inform about new ideas that won't profit them in anyway than for a majority which holds on to a situation that is profitable to them. i find people willing to sacrifice time, money, reputation… for ideas they believe trustworthy, whereas i have doubts about people who have interests in keeping the status quo.

Plants do send chemical messengers to communicate their distress among one another

it's nice to see such sensible people on this board. now if you actually care about the distress of plants (and then i suppose), put your thoughts in practice

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

great!
i said that animals obviously feel the same suffering as we do. whereas it's less than obvious for plants.
now you have stopped talking about animals to make a point that "yes, plants suffer like we do".
well, i talked about suffering comparable to human suffering, so to make us forget about the question you're trying to prove me wrong on a point that i haven't made. if plants suffer, it's not as we do. point. it's dishonesty to say the contrary.

when i say "animals obviously suffer", "plants suffer too" is rather out of topic don't you think? (since they are not used in animal experimentation and nothing's sure about their suffering which could be only chemical reactions without feeling)

the more balanced outlook tends to be on the side of those who support animal research

it's not being balanced to choose what only benefits the exploiter species.
anyway, an out of topic quote about animal activists being "non-balanced" : "if we are extremists, then we are not ashamed of it, for the conditions that our people suffer are extreme, and extreme illness can not be cured with moderate medicine".
- Malcolm X

then what do you propose we do as an alternative? mankind (womankind included of course) cannot and will not halt the quest for knowledge it is one of our fundamental characteristics.

just a thought
how long has mankind lived without animal experimentation? : millions of years
how long has animal experimentation been used in medicine? : about one century
how long before alternative methods are validated to replace all animal experimentation (be it currently effective or not)? : a few years
how many animals will suffer and die in these few years? : hundreds of millions
we're all of a sudden very impatient to kill as many animals as possible aren't we?

<<do you think your consciousness is felt by each cell?>>

No. I have already stated that it is better to look at cells from a cellular level, not an anthropomorphic level which includes phenomena such as consciousness, pain etc.

please explain better cause i don't see the point you're trying to make.
at cellular level there's no suffering or consciousness (as far as we know). and what we are talking about is the ability of a plant/animal to suffer/care. if we're not sure a plant has any king of consciousness, it will be even less sure at cellular level.

<<in order to salvage arguments you're denying ideas that would have used as arguments in another thread.>>
I have denied nothing

you're trying to say that plants can feel traumatisms, etc
and for this ask us to look at them at cellular level.
do you then deny that the reactions of a plant are not the work of individual cells, but of a system of cells?

<<are you now denying the importance of a nervous system?>>
Wherever did you get that idea from?

because you're trying to level the consciousness of a plant to that of a human although the consciousness we know humans to have is dependent of their nervous system.

The finger suffers in that it has had some of its tissue destroyed but feels no pain because a finger is not a vertebrate

please don't play with words. we're talking about pain-suffering, not damage like the one done to a broken object. we're talking about ah-ouch! suffering, and you already answered that the finger itself doesn't feel the ah-ouch suffering… like a plant most probably doesn't (until further discoveries). the finger without the central nervous system suffers the damage of the object, not the pain of the animal with CNS

<<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.>>

No pretending needed. On a physical level, all cell death is equal in it's deathness. A rock is different, it is a part of the non-living Earth which regenerates itself regardless of what we do thanks to tectonic plate movement.

then now, i ask you to look at the system of cells level, not at the molecule level. because the regrouping of cells + a soul or whatever creates a new entity which is not just cell1+cell2+cell3+… but has a consciousness of its own. the traumatism of a dead rock is then not comparable to the trauma of a conscious being.

You have no idea how I live my life, there is no 'obviousness'

glad to know you don't kill plants.

My arguments are based on facts about how cells are all identical in that they strive to survive and that physical trauma affects them all equally.

because the cells of a living being and of a recently dead being are identical, is there no difference between a dead and a living body?
that's what only looking at the cellular level would suggest.

to me why there exists a reason to care more about an animal than a plant if one cares about plants

if you care about plants… because you think they suffer or have an interest in living…, as we are sure animals also do, then you should care about them too

The point is most life exploits something else in order to grow, multiply and survive (exceptions being photosynthesisers & scavengers). So if we are to say it is morally wrong to do this, then we must feel as though we've risen above the life of a consuming animal and become one or both of the aforementioned classes of life. I highly doubt any person has achieved this.

because something has been done for a long time doesn't prevent us to judge it and stop it if we have the means to.
and if we can't totally stop using something else to survive, i don't see why we shouldn't try our best to limit harmful exploitation as much as possible.
i have no ego problem with considering that i have raised from a passive consumer to an aware consumer.

tell me how it could have been achieved without the use of animals models

maybe it would have been much faster without animal models, hey.
we don't know since we all time and money on animal experimentation instead of developing other methods..

i'm too tired to read the last posts
peace, harmony and butterflies for everyone

 

[justsomeguy]

just a thought
how long has mankind lived without animal experimentation? : millions of years
how long has animal experimentation been used in medicine? : about one century
how long before alternative methods are validated to replace all animal experimentation (be it currently effective or not)? : a few years
how many animals will suffer and die in these few years? : hundreds of millions
we're all of a sudden very impatient to kill as many animals as possible aren't we?

Actually, we've been conducting animal research for longer than this century and the last.

Check out Descartes' Discourse on Method for a really good description of a horse's cardiovascular system via vivisection.

 

[fizzygirl]

what does "put to sleep" mean? does that mean "kill"?
if it is so, why would you want my friends to kill pets? is it a common tradition in the country of the civilized?
does that mean you should "put to sleep" your grand-parents when you don't have fun with them anymore because they're losing their mind? and costing too much money

i suppose i could choose to shoot my cat if it is close to dying to save it from more pain, or i could have some small dose of a sedative that would allow it to just go to sleep, and save it from that pain....thus, "putting it to sleep" has some other meaning from "kill", although it would be a subset of dying/death/kill/whatever. we don't put our animals to death because they are costing us too much money, or losing their minds. we do it when they are suffering, or in a terminal situation, or when nothing else can be done. in the same way, we do make decisions for others sometimes on when to pull the plug on life support or whatever. more often though, we allow humans to make up their own minds about this because they can communicate this decision to us. in that vein, i do support assisted suicide for those that are in terminal situations, and choose to do so.

don't think that i am naive, or choosing words to make them sound prettier. OR that i believe everything i'm told--which is what the reference to the pictures was about--which was a little reaching to add something in about president bush to a totally unrelated argument! anyway, my entire point was almost what you were backing up---that i don't just accept what is told to me or shown in a picture, i have been into the labs and seen the procedures and the grants that fund them and know how these operations are done. if you are satisfied with ONLY pictures, then be my guest.

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

I would gladly never take any medicine and die of the plague rather than support what some people think is okay to do to animals.
This world will never change as long as people keep considering themselves seperate from everything else.
Just so ya know, I DO think about how it would feel to be a bug or a plant or any other form of life. I DON'T kill bugs very often..rarely..if ever(the only times I have was when ants were biting me and I'm allergic-it was a survival reaction and I felt bad afterwards)I catch spiders and take them outside. I rescue bugs that have fallen into swimming pools..I would do anything and everything I could to help anything and everyone, whether it be a plant an animal or a human.
I think all animal testing should stop. It's just how I feel. And to me, telling me that we might not be able to stop the next super flu or plague is not an argument. I would give up my life in a minute to let this world go back to the animals. Humanity (as it is now) does not deserve it, in my opinion.

 

[justsomeguy]

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.

i encourage you to do this



honestly, i've never been to a real live animal research facility, and am only making my arguments on a "conceptual" level

 

[nads]

please explain better cause i don't see the point you're trying to make.

OK, I'm not talking about consciousness here. I'm saying suffering can also be had on a cellular level which reverberates throughout the organism in the form of immune responses, cell death to prevent loss of fluids etc. Most often, the consciousness isn't aware of this as it is busy fulfilling its own function - learning, of which pain is a part of (a negative reinforcer). Now, in most cases, suffering is associated with pain - it'd be a crap mechanism if it didn't - but sometimes it isn't, e.g. unconsciousness or coma, some bacterial & viral infections, most parasitic infections.

you're trying to say that plants can feel traumatisms, etc
and for this ask us to look at them at cellular level.
do you then deny that the reactions of a plant are not the work of individual cells, but of a system of cells?

No. I already said trauma can exist as purely physical, not associated with consciousness which immediately rules out feelings. For example, doctors use the term 'head trauma' to describe serious head injuries. Often the patient is unconscious or in a coma and therefore feels no pain or emotional turmoil, here 'trauma' means the physical injury to the person.

you're trying to level the consciousness of a plant to that of a human

Once again, wherever did you get that idea from?

please don't play with words. we're talking about pain-suffering

Partly yes, yet the part where we're talking about non-pain-dependent suffering seems to be falling on deaf ears.

then now, i ask you to look at the system of cells level, not at the molecule level. because the regrouping of cells + a soul or whatever creates a new entity which is not just cell1+cell2+cell3+… but has a consciousness of its own.

Who's looking at a molecular level? I said a cellular level, and went on to discuss how cellular interactions transmit suffering through out the organism. Taking a systemic view (which to me is matter of classification rather than scale) doesn't make the issue any clearer - the systems of an organism are as reliant upon each other as any two randomly picked cells. Also, you are assuming we have a 'soul' if you say we are more than just cell1+cell2+cell3+... Either that, or you're saying having a consciousness is special in some way which gives those with consciousness extra merit. To which I stated pages ago, is unjustified in that it turns a blind eye to other life forms much like racism and sexism does.

glad to know you don't kill plants.

Huh? Right, I'm making an acronym out of it now - WDYGTIF - and please don't give me another either/or scenario where the two options do not cover all possibilities.

because the cells of a living being and of a recently dead being are identical, is there no difference between a dead and a living body?
that's what only looking at the cellular level would suggest.

If you had an inkling of understanding of what I'm talking about, you'll realize I'm talking about cells + their interactions with each other as opposed to a specialised structure found in some species of life. Unless you're being purposefully argumentative that is...

if you care about plants… because you think they suffer or have an interest in living…, as we are sure animals also do, then you should care about them too

You missed a vital word in my question - MORE - I even italicised it for you, now its bolded and capitalised aswell for your viewing ease. You should be familiar with it, let me remind you: (emphasis mine)

Originally posted by vegan:

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.

You seem to miss the meaning of everything I say, whats the deal? Why is it hard to understand that by saying animals are worthy of higher ethical consideration than plants, you are discriminating against plants because the criteria set out (consciousness) automatically exclude plants from any equality with animals.

Can you see the similarity to issues such as racism and sexism?

Now, just because I'm pushing this idea, doesn't necessarily mean I believe in it. That's what philosophy is in a nutshell - the act of argument without attachment in the pursuit of clarity. Non-attachment is essential to obtain clarity. It seems to me that you firmly believe in your stance, and assume I believe in mine - I don't.

What I believe is that animal research is fine because efforts are made to reduce pain & anxiety to levels that equate the non-pain-dependent suffering a plant feels upon death, and if those efforts are not done I believe they should be enforced. If its ok to kill plants, then its ok to humanely kill animals.

 

[boomdawg81]

I believe that man-kind, in our arrogance, believes that we are superior to every creature on this earth. The simple fact is, we are equally important. Each creature on this earth has a critical role to play in the eco-system. What give humans the right to say that one life is more important than another, regardless of how big or small? Most "animals" kill for necessity. For food. We kill because we don't like the way someone looked at us, or because of what color someone has on. That's kind of rediculous if you ask me. It's funny that you say it's a necessary evil. Evil is evil. There is "good" evil. In fact, evil is the opposite of good. That's a contradiction. My little brother went into the hospital a few years ago. He was being treated for Kawasaki's desease. It's a rare desease that the doctors still don't know all to much about. The nurse that was coming in and taking all of his shots would tell him"Quit crying! It's a neccessary evil!" My little brother told is mom, after she left, "Mom, if I stop being evil, can I come home!" He thought that he was going through all of that, because he was evil. Bad. The reason I think this is relevant, is very simple. The animals think the same way. They don't know that they are helping humanity. They don't care. It still is a horrible ordeal that they are going through, with no hope of anything better. Is that fair. What if it was you? Would you care. Especially if you didn't understand, like my little brother? Again, what gives us the right to say, "Your life isn't worth enough to keep you free. We're going to do all sorts of tests that will better man-kind?" What about making rat-kind better? Or monkeys? We've come really far through animal testing, I agree. But, If we can put a man on the moon, can't we find a more humane way of doing research? That would be a step in the "right" direction for man-kind. A crowning achievement.

 

[boomdawg81]

One more thing, I'm curious to know if it has been proven that plants don't have conciousness. They do a lot of things that make me wonder. How do we really know? It's a proven fact that energy is in everything, living or not. Wouldn't that mean that plants have conciousness too? They feed, they move to light, and the venus flytrap is a carnivour. They also deposit waste. It seems like they have a conciousness to me, but I'm no expert. I'd be curious to know more about that.

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

I believe that man-kind, in our arrogance, believes that we are superior to every creature on this earth. The simple fact is, we are equally important. Each creature on this earth has a critical role to play in the eco-system. What give humans the right to say that one life is more important than another, regardless of how big or small? Most "animals" kill for necessity. For food. We kill because we don't like the way someone looked at us, or because of what color someone has on. That's kind of rediculous if you ask me. It's funny that you say it's a necessary evil. Evil is evil. There is "good" evil. In fact, evil is the opposite of good. That's a contradiction. My little brother went into the hospital a few years ago. He was being treated for Kawasaki's desease. It's a rare desease that the doctors still don't know all to much about. The nurse that was coming in and taking all of his shots would tell him"Quit crying! It's a neccessary evil!" My little brother told is mom, after she left, "Mom, if I stop being evil, can I come home!" He thought that he was going through all of that, because he was evil. Bad. The reason I think this is relevant, is very simple. The animals think the same way. They don't know that they are helping humanity. They don't care. It still is a horrible ordeal that they are going through, with no hope of anything better. Is that fair. What if it was you? Would you care. Especially if you didn't understand, like my little brother? Again, what gives us the right to say, "Your life isn't worth enough to keep you free. We're going to do all sorts of tests that will better man-kind?" What about making rat-kind better? Or monkeys? We've come really far through animal testing, I agree. But, If we can put a man on the moon, can't we find a more humane way of doing research? That would be a step in the "right" direction for man-kind. A crowning achievement.

Wow. I love you my friend. It's good to know other people feel the same way. Thats the thing..if somehow humans were put in the position to be "tested on" by some "higher race", I sure as hell don't think most people would be happy about it.

 

[nads]

^^ Would you even know you were part of an experiment? I'm thinking Matrix, little grey men, big brother, those green alien toys in Toy Story - "He is the chooosen one". If given adequate conditions, and no knowledge of an outside freedom, would you even worry? Even if one individual stumbled upon the big secret, who would believe them?

 

[justsomeguy]

^^^

Tuskegee experiment

 

[JerryBlunted]

I would gladly never take any medicine and die of the plague rather than support what some people think is okay to do to animals.
This world will never change as long as people keep considering themselves seperate from everything else.

....


I think all animal testing should stop. It's just how I feel. And to me, telling me that we might not be able to stop the next super flu or plague is not an argument. I would give up my life in a minute to let this world go back to the animals. Humanity (as it is now) does not deserve it, in my opinion.

Individuals may be bred for sacrifice.... species as a whole will not take conscious steps toward their own destruction (though unconsciously our species has taken many). If you feel so strongly about animal testing to prefer death to using its benefits I'm sorry.... I personally can't afford medicine so I'll probably be right there with you. But, you can't expect our entire human race to feel that way, it would be suicide.


Vegan said:

maybe it would have been much faster without animal models, hey.
we don't know since we all time and money on animal experimentation instead of developing other methods..

Do you really believe that? We would have made progress either as a whole in the fields of medicine and biology or specifically in creating an alternative method of research if we didn't use animals at all? If so I would have to say your grasp on the reality of this ambiguous situation has been loosened by your black and white approach to a world full of shades of gray.

I think the advent of computer models are great, but you must understand to construct an accurate model MORE animals are going to be sacrificed and the process is going to take a considerable amount of time, effort, and money. I don't say it shouldn't be done, quite the opposite. But let's not be unrealistic about the ease and speed of such an undertaking.


Edit: The formatting of the bold/quote thing is a little screwy despite the tags being in place, but its not really too relevant.

 

[Razzie]

MynameisnotDeja, just out of curiosity would you provide your children with vaccination shots?

While I was at University I took a course on the Ethics of Animal Use which was required for my degree (BS in Animal Science). It was taught by two professors. One was a PhD who did research and believed that animal welfare was the way to go. The other prof was a DVM who was an extreme animal rights activist. We got to see both sides of the issues and it was really fascinating. I can only imagine how hard it was for the two professors to get together to go over their study plans.

We got to see interviews of parents who had decided not to vaccinate their children because of the research done on animals to create the vaccines. It started up a huge argument in class about the ethics of their beliefs.

Also, in our discussion groups required for the class we were supposed to read articles and bring them in for discussion. One girl did not believe in animal research but she stated that she had no great argument against it so she had brought in her two dogs. Her two dogs were sitting next to her in the classroom. I was like, "Huh?" I sort of understood what she had been trying to achieve but that I also thought that she was too lazy to document her arguments in a concise manner.

 

[Petersko]

I believe that man-kind, in our arrogance, believes that we are superior to every creature on this earth. The simple fact is, we are equally important.

The following statements are contradictory:

1 - Humans are a part of the normal ecosystem, no more important or different than any other part.

2 - Actions taken by humans can be unnatural or incorrect.

You cannot hold both beliefs simultaneously, unless you abandon reason altogether.

There is something fundamentally different about humanity that places us above the other creatures on the planet.

We ARE superior. If we weren't, we never would have made it out of Africa. Given our physical selves, we should have been tiger food. What is the difference? Intelligence.

The argument that we should act more in tune with nature and curb our behaviours to match some "natural" pattern is a spiritual argument. An emotional one. NOT a logical one.

 

[skywise]

^^^ So?

Perhaps humankind would be better if it didn't always think of "emotional" arguments as silly. Doing so is just a masculine bias imo, and one that is way too ingrained in the culture.

Anyway, there's a lot of overlap between the two. The argument that we should act more accordance with nature, despite our ability to choose not to (we do indeed have a sort of consciousness that separates us from the other species on earth) is an emotional one, but also in many cases completely logical.

For instance, by acting more in accordance with nature, and not thinking of her as something to subdue and have dominon over (see the patriarchal bias?), we wouldn't have (and wouldn't continue to) poison the water we drink out of. I can't even go wading in the Missouri river (i live in missouri) because if I did I would get god knows what diseases.

That sort of masculine biased, "we're better than everything on earth" and "emotinal arguments are silly" can be just as illogical and plain stupid (lets poison the water we drink! ) as some of the worst emotion tugging, liberal, love the animals propaganda.