12 Feb 07
The post that was quoted here has been removedYou haven't really answered the question.
And really, without wanting to sound like I'm a wholehearted supporter of these types of experiments (I'm not) to suggest that they are abuses misses entirely the point.
The researchers doing these experiments are simply trying to develop an understanding about something. That they are abusing the animals, would I imagine, not cross many of their minds, and might indeed be argued against - except for the very extreme cases that are always going to be the subject of videos and are always going to be argued as the norm.
The trouble of lab infiltrations and hidden cameras and so forth is the nature of the people doing these things. Usually they are young, often students or unemployed people - and are the type of people who can very quickly get fired up and emotional about some issue or another. They are the very people who become environmental activists or dare I say it, suicide bombers.
What's needed is a little bit more rationality and calm.
12 Feb 07
The post that was quoted here has been removedSo what?
I can find associations of Doctors against Logging, Doctors against Prostitution, and probably Doctors against Hamburgers.
Cruelty is an entirely subjective thing. How would you define what is cruel?
And so what if the numbers of experiments are rising? All that means is that there might be more people doing research, or more success with research, or less use of alternative methods.
What we need in this debate is a clear discussion of the nature of the research - ie. what's it for? - and of the options in terms of alternatives to vivisection and the effectiveness of these alternatives.
13 Feb 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyThat's a silly argument- just because you disagree with how something is done, doesn't mean you disagree with the end product.
The claim that this is the norm is unfounded, some institutes are obviously worse than others.
If you object so much then don't use modern medicine. Oh, and your pets shouldn't go to the vet either.
I disagree with how democracy is carried out in the uk, but that doesn't mean I disagree with democracy.
Personally I don't use pharmaceuticals for several reasons, including animal research, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't use them in the future, if I felt it was my best option and I don't consider this position hypocritical. I am fortunate that I have the knowledge and means to use alternatives, which others may not.
I can understand the view that in vivo reaearch is superior to in vitro, but it is difficult to prove that it is necessary, especially with advances in cell lines and computer modelling.
Unfortunately violent protests mean that people ignore the issue, and take a simplistic view that a human life is worth more than animals, and scientists say it is necesary and therefore must be true.
13 Feb 07
I think that in any discussion of this sort it is important to include the issue of meet for the table. The number of animals slaughtered for meat is so overwhelmingly greater than the number used in scientific experiments that the various practices in slaughter houses should not be ignored.
Of course most people don't eat such highly intelligent animals as chimpanzees.
13 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by london nickIn the UK, in vivo experiments are only carried out when in vitro will not work, for example, those involving antibody response, surgery and intercellular signalling (hormones, short peptide signalling etc). There is no practical way to use cell lines to simulate an entire human body, and animals, regrettably, are often the best (though not always ideal) model. The in vitro technology is, however, improving, but it is not suitable under all circumstances.
[b]That's a silly argument- just because you disagree with how something is done, doesn't mean you disagree with the end product.
I disagree with how democracy is carried out in the uk, but that doesn't mean I disagree with democracy.
Personally I don't use pharmaceuticals for several reasons, including animal research, but that doesn't mean I wouldn' is worth more than animals, and scientists say it is necesary and therefore must be true.[/b
If you believe something to be wrong, is it not hypocritical to use its products for your own benefit? For example, if I thought stealing were wrong, it would be hypocritical to illegally download music, or buy stolen goods. Have you ever been vaccinated? Would you undergo surgery, not knowing whether or not the procedure would only exist were it performed on an animal to see if it were effective?
Is it ethical to take your pets to the vet when procedures/medicines have been tested on other animals?
As for deciding human life is worth more than animal life, if a buffalo were to chase down a man, then is it more tragic for the buffalo to be shot, and the man escape, or the man to be trampled? As long as vivisection is carried out with the preservation of life in mind then it is justified.
13 Feb 07
The post that was quoted here has been removedThe people in question should be brought to justice. You could argue that the scientific community should do more to make sure that these abuses do not happen, isn't that the goal? If we were to ban vivisection, the science would simply move abroad to countries where there are fewer safeguards to minimise animal suffering.
Don't forget there is going to be a massive media bias - who would bother filming and broadcasting footage of a workplace where nothing goes wrong?
13 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadwhy should intelligence be any measure of something's right not to be killed or eaten?
I think that in any discussion of this sort it is important to include the issue of meet for the table. The number of animals slaughtered for meat is so overwhelmingly greater than the number used in scientific experiments that the various practices in slaughter houses should not be ignored.
Of course most people don't eat such highly intelligent animals as chimpanzees.
13 Feb 07
Do none of you have children?
If it meant that I had to cut my own dog's open, in order to save my children, I would do it in a heart-beat. The price is worth it. Cruel is having to watch a loved one slowly, painfully die in from of you.
You need to understand & accept survival of the fittest. If you lack the guts to do what it takes to survive, Darwin has a few word for you.
13 Feb 07
Originally posted by mrstabbyso that's the main reason for not farming them. The fact that we see them as almost "human" so therefore somehow "special" has nothing to do with it.
We could farm anything, but some animals are more practical than others. Chimps are likely to be too aggressive and not produce much meat for the effort put in.
13 Feb 07
Originally posted by wedgehead2The problem is that evolutionary theory places Chimps in our family tree, and you would'nt want to eat your grandparents now would you?
so that's the main reason for not farming them. The fact that we see them as almost "human" so therefore somehow "special" has nothing to do with it.
But like every else they apparently taste like chicken. Either.
13 Feb 07
Originally posted by kmax87There is nothing wrong with eating chimps if you eat any meat. All the same.
The problem is that evolutionary theory places Chimps in our family tree, and you would'nt want to eat your grandparents now would you?
But like every else they apparently taste like chicken. Either.
Be vegetarian!