April 20, 2006

• Mmm. Complicated. In an ideal world, of course it's wrong. And doing it assumes a high level of speciesism. On the other hand, if a loved one was ill and we didn't have a drug because there was no animal testing...If it's being done for genuinely new and necessary research, and is done as 'humanely' as possible, then maybe. However, I think the human race has thrown up plenty of individuals who have proved themselves unworthy of living withy the rest of us, so maybe we should experiment on them. I'm agains weraing fur, but I'll wear leather, I'll eat meat but am against hunting and badger culls... I'm all messed up on this animal thing.
• this research is essential to the bank balances of animal researchers. I'd be willing to bet most animal research is not needed. How many animals being used in this way are just wasted on trivial grant-exhausting experiments that serve nothing and help no one?
• Chy - I am a little surprised at your comment. If I recall correctly, someone close to you received treatment for a carcinoma which the treatment probably started out as a theoretical experiment (molecule modelling) and then an animnal experiment and finally testing in human volunteers. Its a bad world but sh*t happens.
• I'd be willing to bet most animal research is not needed. Maybe some is not needed, maybe some is because the alternative is either prohibitively expensive alternative testing, or inconclusive results. Who's to say? I'm no scientist, and I do love animals, but I'm inclined to believe that at least some animal testing is beneficial to the human race. We are the only animals capable of guilt; do you think a giraffe would pause for a second to do testing on a human, if it could find a cure for some nasty giraffe ailment? I think not!
• Nothing worse than a giraffe with a sore throat! ... gets coat...
• Sure, Chyren. And besides, researchers have so much time on their hands that they happily spend it on fruitless experiments just for the sake of it. Do you know how difficult it is to get an authorization to experiment on animals ? Or how much time and money it takes to buy them and take care of them ? Of course you know, because you know so much.
• Dont rattle poor Chyrens cage! He's probably curled up like an 'ickle lab rat at the mo'
• i'm afraid that the 'silent majority': (a) don't care (b) don't want to know (c) don't know enough to argue effectively pro or contra the hypothesis that this research ... is essential to the health and quality of life of humans and animals (d) a combination of the above (e) like bunnies but dislike stinging shampoo the structure of the petition: * statement 1, sentence 1, is irrefutable. * statement 1, sentence 2, is open to debate. * statement 2 is a value judgement for uk residents to make. it's a difficult one, because it implies certain conditions concerning "alternative available" and "highest standards". these conditions are not identified. * statement 3 is irrefutable, assuming that the research is legal and that "intimidation" is interpreted narrowly (i.e. does not affect the right of anti-vivisectionists to protest peacefully). remember kids, if you're going to draw up a petition, be sure to include some items that everyone can get on board with, like cakes or something. note the frequent references to "animals" and vets in the petition.
• My mother is working on research in the areas of brain damage and spinal injuries. Her goal is to understand the healing process. Ultimately, this may lead to cures for paralysis and loss of brain functions. Over the years she has used the brains of many rats and several monkeys. She will cut them, leave them to heal, kill the animal, extract the brain, and study the structure. Some may say that all of this could be avoided with the use of computer models of brain and spinal functions. That would be so neat and easy, but such a thing does not exist. Should the rats and monkeys be spared, and the hopes of damaged humans diminished?
• There is pointless research on animals going on, to be sure, but it's hard to figure out how to limit it, you probably can't block the pointless research without blocking some of the important stuff. And as Koant mentions there are already a lot of regulations. I think there has been some real progress over the last 20 years or so. There has been a great reduction in animal testing on completely unnecessary crap (e.g. cosmetics). There has been somewhat of a reduction in pointless animal sacrifices like high school/intro college class dissections -- although I'd like to see that done away with entirely. Unfortunately, the extremists like PETA (or worse) just seem to polarize people. I wish there was a louder voice that was more moderate and making reasonable demands that people might actually listen to. PETA just gets dismissed (rightfully), by the scientific community.
• I think that people who are given the death penalty should have the option to allow drug and medical experiments to be done on them instead. If they decide that they experiments are too painful or unpleasant, then they should be allowed to choose to be executed at any time.
• *grinds molars further, stomps vinyl shoes*
• Wingnut - have you heard of a little thing called the Final Solution? Or the Nazi Party? Or Belsen? In practical terms how many are there on death row? Not enough to conduct drug testing which needs enormous numbers to prove a drugs worthiness. In ethical terms, NO NO NO NO !!
• Why not let people choose what is cruel and unusual for themselves? Why not allow someone who has committed society's greatest sin to do something good for humanity? If you were given a choice to try out a new AIDS vaccine or to be put to death, what would you choose? Why would you choose it? Does killing people faster and with no societal benefit make us more civilized than the Nazis?
• Its a bad world but sh*t happens. But it doesn't have to. Some may say that all of this could be avoided with the use of computer models of brain and spinal functions. That would be so neat and easy, but such a thing does not exist. Because there's animal testing. Wingnut's idea is interesting, I offer tentative commitment to future talks. There are bigger problems at the moment (insane ruler of the most powerful nation on earth, for one). Death penalty, other inhumanity-to-others things. Destroying the Earth with pollution. etc. That said, rats have rights, never ever ever ever experiment on dogs, and animal testing for cosmetics should be punishable by the death penal . . umm . . *shuts up, joins fish tick's shoe-stomping*
• Insulin. Hypocrisy.
• On further review, what Koant said. Someone here clearly works in the field and knows what is going on. Scientists aren't in the same category as Revlon, generally speaking. I approve of the use of mice, rabbits to improve human and animal welfare. I draw the line at dogs and monkeys should be paid for their time and have to sign a consent form.
• I'd have to disagree with you, petebest on the assertion that there is no computer modeling because of the existence of animal testing. For better or worse, science is still ultimately empirical. You have to gather real-world data to validate and improve models, and not only that, you have to have almost countless quantities of real-world data to analyze and reduce to even come up with a model in the first place. If you think climate modeling is tough, I'd wager it's got no easier than the vast complexity of attempting to model something like physiology.
• We can't computer model a single protein, let alone all the interactions in a cell, let alone an entire organ. The idea that computer models can somehow replace animals is poorly concieved. And when the first people die because a computer model said a drug was safe, and was wrong, because of an unforseen real world interaction, you'll see a tremendous backlash. As to the ethics, when the public at large switches to vegetarianism, and the head of PETA stops taking her insulin, I'll begin to think the public has a right to talk about the mote in the scientist's eyes.
• If the roles were reversed, the animals wouldn't hesitate to experiment on us. Hasn't "Planet of the Apes" taught you anything?!
• I guess I was thinking more of the known, routine animal tests i.e. cosmetics & personal hygeine assininities. (Yeah it's a word, shutup it is) Johnson & Johnson test for legal reasons not because they're searching for the magic bullet to anything. That's assinine and fucked up and cost efficient. Can't stop torturing bunnies because you'd be open to a lawsuit? Fuck. That's evil in a nutshell you corporate suckholes. That shouldn't be allowed. Opportunity exists to replace that testing with modeling but it won't get done as long as animals are cheap and "scientists" don't care. As for actual medical research, I agree modeling is a long way off. But there is a fallacy in assuming that the current empirical models are the only ones, or necessarily the correct ones. I'm not arguing against the underpinings of science, just saying studing Alzheimer's treatments might have many avenues besides animal testing. Ones that aren't funded, or even conceived of. Ones that might not be conceived of because of the prevalence of animal testing. I'm runing some of my own tests at the moment involving a mostly hairless ape and large quantities of caffienated beverages. OOk! Ah ah! *slhrrppp* Ah! Ooh ooh ook!
• Computer modelling only works if you have a vast wealth of information already available to base it on. When it comes to the brain and how it functions on a molecular level, we don't have that knowledge yet. Studies of the brain and central nervous system are just too new and can't be mapped to a computer. I don't know. I guess I'm all for animal research that is aimed at improving the lives of humans (disease research) but I can't believe that we need to constantly test perfumes, makeup and hair products on animals when the chemical components that work are already known, and the researchers are probably already aware of the possibility of this shampoo melting a rat's skin off, or that perfume permanently stripping a monkey's sinuses for the sake of someone smelling like flowers. And it's part of the process that even though they are 90% sure that it'll happen, they'll run it by some animals anyway to confirm it, because that 10% chance that it's safe for animals means dollars to the company.
• I wrote my comment an hour ago and took a shower between typing and posting, and most of what I was trying to say has been said in the interim. You bastards.
• Hasn't "Planet of the Apes" taught you anything?! Ahh, but they were just following our lead!
• Check and mate!
• > Hasn't "Planet of the Apes" taught you anything?! Damn, I'm usually quite keen on documentaries but I don't remember this one.
• Call me insensitive, but I don't want animals researching anyfuckingthing. Most of the filthy bastards don't even have thumbs, which are critical for research. Wake up, people!
• "If I recall correctly, someone close to you received treatment for a carcinoma which the treatment probably started out as a theoretical experiment (molecule modelling) and then an animnal experiment and finally testing in human volunteers." Good point. HOwever, I didn't say that ALL animal testing was pointless, I postulated that not all of it was useful, which is a totally different thing. I mean, how many times do you have to do the experiment? There are millions upon millions of animal test labs. And they're all curing cancer? The animals that were used to test important life-saving medicine and procedures were necessary to civilisation, but what about all the other stuff? I've had a little bit of insight into the academic world, and if what I've seen is any measure, there must be lots of wasteful research.
• The "useless" stuff teaches them the stuff they need to know to be to try to learn how to cure cancer. That's how research works. I heard a talk the other day about the ways different bacteria have evolved. Apparently some have cloroplasts, including the bacteria that causes malaria. That means malaria might be treated by attacking it's cloroplasts. Which would have never have been known, unless someone was sitting around thinking "I wonder how these bacteria evolved". "Wasteful" research has begotten the telescope, the age of the earth, the theory of evolution and the computer (the last was developed in the war, but from a theoretical mathematical paper written for no reason but curiosity).
• Also, why do we care more about dogs? That is very specific to our culture. Pigs are very intelligent, but we have no problem killing them in very large numbers. Some cultures eat dogs, others revere cows. We shouldn't be so absolutist. We should respect life, try to see that animals don't live in pain, but at the same time we kill constantly just to survive - we eat plants and animals, kill far more life to make room for ourselves. We cannot live without killing. So we should try to do so in a humane way.
• "Wasteful" research has also provided us with cold fusion (heh), nookular bombs, thalilomide, glowing animals, and mascara that can curl, lengthen, thicken and/or waterproof your eyelashes. And some of us *do* have serious problems with killing pigs in very large numbers, or any numbers. P'raps we're the 'silent majority', though. Nice bunnies, Chy!
• Not to say revisiting earlier research is useless, just suggesting that repetition of the torturing bits isn't often useful for pig or human.
• Egad. I was into my third year of a BSc, majoring in Phsyiology, when I quit. Sure, I couldn't handle it, but the professors I had sure as hell knew what they were doing. There I was, a kid who'd signed an anti-vivisection petition at age 12, completing a degree that required me to do experimentation on animals as a matter of course. I think the bit that got me was when the prof showed a video of happy kittens, and then, through the magic of television, he immediately showed us an example of a cat lobotomy. Sh*T! "You know, a few years back, we would have used one cat per group of four students," he admonished. "For some reason, people get more upset about cats than they do about other creatures." I think regulating research is vitally important. I also think the research itself is vitally important. Recently an experimental drug in Britain resulted in serious consequences for human trial patients even with animal testing, so I think the effort to minimise pain and suffering for ALL involved is a major component. Personally, I try to only buy beauty products that aren't tested on animals. And I support cancer research because I haven't enjoyed watching people die from it. The issue isn't black and white, so I'm going to sit on the fence and agree with a range of perspectives.
• "Pigs are very intelligent, but we have no problem killing them in very large numbers." Who is 'we', white man? Some questions for those who support animal testing across the board: do you know how many animal experimentation labs are there in the US? Got statistics on the industry? It is an industry, there's billions of dollars involved in animal testing. What is the number or animals used in experiments every year in the US? What companies are the major source of funds for research? What proportion of testing is vital medical research, vs cosmetic research, etc? I'm not being snarky, I genuinely want to know, & I'd like to be edumacated. Do you have any of these kinds of figures? I'd genuinely like to know. I always hear all these vague arguments from defenders of animal testing, but never specific numbers. They must exist.
• "For some reason, people get more upset about cats than they do about other creatures." It's amazing how many academics are so fucking stupid. Really, I have met more classically moronic people within the walls of academia than in almost any other environment. IMHO, life is life. The value of life is a constant; no one life form has a more 'valuable' life than any other, that is a retarded idea. That's based upon primitive assumptions that are totally out of date. Life is ∞.
• There was a wave of anti-animal-testing about 10-15 years ago, and at the time most cosmetic industry testing stopped. I have no idea whether the practice has returned now that the spotlight is off. I'm all for eliminating the cosmetic testing and needless crap like that, along with some of the 'education only' experiments, but serious medical experimentation is vitally important to humans. And for those who like animals better than humans - try to think of them all as cute little girls in pigtails, whose pets would be sad if they died from the disease you don't want to cure.
• "but serious medical experimentation is vitally important to humans." *What* serious medical experimentation? Examples? I don't doubt the statement, it just seems totally vague. Ok, AIDS research. Cancer vaccines. But what proportion of the total animal testing is made up by this 'serious medical experimentation'? Nobody fucking knows. It's like we trust these institutions to do no wrong & to be full of ethically upstanding individuals. My experience of humanity belies this.
• "..And for those who like animals better than humans - try to think of them.." Stupid little straw man attempt to smear animal rights proponents as not liking humans. No one said that, you knob.
• When they develop new medicines, they test extensively for potential side effects on a variety of animals before human sbegin. It prevents fuck-ups like thalidomide.
• No one said that, you knob. Nobody in this thread said that, and I didn't mean to imply that anyone did, but it's a sentiment I've heard and read from the more hard-core animal rights proponents I've encountered. And for fuck's sake, learn how to discuss issues civilly. The "resident asshole" routine is getting stale.
• Give
• Oy vey- such a touchy issue this is, already! r88, you *did* indeed imply that somebody said that, and do NOT be telling people how to be civil whilst calling them an asshole. And furthermore, maybe it's best to try not to call a knob a knob.
• you *did* indeed imply that somebody said that That may be how you interpreted it, but it wasn't intended. I read the thread. I know nobody said that. I also know that it was a largely polite discussion until comment 263285.
• Don't we have enough humans to test on? Oh wait, that's 'unethical'. Yeah, right.
• *Applies for grant to fund experiment involving tying monkey's thumbs behind their back to prevent them from reaching keyboard, said experiment designed to acertain if a monkey's anus would pucker from frustration. Certain other monkeys, those having a flaccid anus, would remain as the control group.
• Those that think animals are the moral equivalent of humans are wrong. The Thalidomide tragedy teaches us that we need more animal testing not less. Thalidomide itself has been in the news again recently as potentially useful in the treatment of ovarian cancer of all things.
• What of those monkeys whose anuses are permanently clenched, BlueHorse? Perhaps we could test some sort of, oh I don't know, anus-unclenching drug? Okay, so expecting everyone to unclench on a hot topic like vivisection is a pointless exercise, but personally I'm a big fan of civility and NOT CALLING PEOPLE KNOBS in discussions. And also calling people assholes.

• Those that think animals are the moral equivalent of humans are wrong.

  yeah, look at those rabbits, fornicating all the time. and dogs, they sniff each other's bottoms in public. i've seen them! and magpies, little feckers, always taking shiny stuff that doesn't belong to them. it strikes me that our view of animals as worthy candidates for experimentation (and as a source of food) is similar to the way psychopaths view other people, at least as described in this recent thread. we see animals as objects to manipulate. i suppose loyalty to one's species has a lot to do with this, as does the desire to believe that we humans are more than simply a "virus with shoes". the whole "soul" business is likely wrapped up in this too. so what to do? well, we can accept that some animal experimentation is necessary to reduce human suffering. the cost statements here are probably "number of human lives saved X number of years gained each" versus "psychic (and material and perhaps karmic) cost to us of caging, maiming, killing millions of animals per year". evaluating these statements is very difficult, and public (or the average) opinion will change over time. what i would to be clear about is that at every step in this process we are stating that human life is absolutely more valuable than animal life. there's no "objective" difference between human life and animal life, as all of our comparisons are necessarily biased towards our species. maybe when we meet the space aliens they can help us make an informed decision.
• And furthermore, maybe it's best to try not to call a knob a knob. Boys will be boys. And also calling people assholes. Curmudgeonly misanthrope doesn't really have the same punch though. Plus, it broke my spell checker.
• MonkeyFilter: those having a flaccid anus To Chy's point, let's see some numbers. And fwiw, rocket88's comment didn't bother me any, even though I've been known to detest animals less than people on the whole. Actually I think rocket and Chy are making the same point - animal testing can be beneficial for research but by and large it's needless. Of course I'm going to have to inject you all with a few cc's of this to be sure. Hold still.
• An interesting page of pro & con here Each year in the United States, an estimated 70 million animals are maimed, blinded, scalded, force-fed chemicals, genetically manipulated, and otherwise hurt and killed in the name of science, by private institutions, household product and cosmetics companies, government agencies, educational institutions, and scientific centers. "Statistics from the Animal Research Database. Number of Animals Used There are approximately 56 to 100 million cats and 54 million dogs in the US. It is estimated that every hr 2,000 cats and 3,500 dogs are born. Between 10.1 and 16. 7 million dogs and cats are put to death in pounds and shelters annually. Approximately 17-22 million animals are used in research each yr. Approximately 5 billion are consumed for food annually. Approximately 1.1% of dogs and cats from pounds and shelters, that would otherwise be euthanized, are used in research. Fewer than one dog or cat is used for research for every 50 destroyed by animal pounds. Rats, mice and other rodents make up 85-90% of all research animals. Only 1 to 1.5% of research animals are dogs and cats. Only 0.5% are non-human primates. There has been a 40% decrease in the numbers of animals used in biomedical research and testing in the US since 1968" Oops. Seemed to have bumped up against pet population control. Well, fuck.
• "It is inexcusable for scientists to torture animals; let them make their experiments on journalists and politicians." -Henrik Ibsen "Physiological experiment on animals is justifiable for real investigation, but not for mere damnable and detestable curiosity." -Charles Darwin Just so that I'm presenting both sides of the issue here. Sort of. We do not yet know enough about the brain to model it in a dish. There is of yet no substitute we can use that will allow us to learn more than we already know. If you want to find out how the brain works, we need to start with a brain. We do need ethical guidelines - for example there are multiple instances of old experiments in years past that were clearly falling into the "unreasonable torture for no good purpose" category - so in that sense animal rights activists have done some good, because we no longer do this sort of thing. However, ending all experimentation is not a good idea, unless human beings come forth and act voluntarily as guinea pigs for our testing and research purposes, or unless all humans voluntarily agree that learning more about how we work is unnecessary for health. Some fall into that category. Richard Pryor said he would refuse to accept a cure for his ailment if it had been developed using animal research (of course I wonder if the man ever took an aspirin...) Others, like Chris Reeve, see a great deal of promise in research, and would like nothing more than to see us able to cure any ailment. Many others fall in between. Educate yourself, vote your conscience, but don't condone violence to promote your views. That's my advice.
• It's good to know that 50 years of society can undo the preservation instinct granted by thousands of years of evolution.
• Eh?
• "Pigs are very intelligent, but we have no problem killing them in very large numbers." Who is 'we', white man? My country and your country. If you are a vegan, I respect that, but most of the people in both of our countries are not. And we treat animals in agriculture worse than we treat animals in science. If you really love animals, go out and protest a factory farm, or try to educate people about buying non-factory farmed products. caution live frogs makes very good points. It's also good to know the context of this petition in favour of animal testing. It's from Britain, where in the last few years a family who raise guinea pigs for science have been systematically harrassed and physically assaulted. Scientists are regularly threatened with violence. The rest of the country is sick and tired of violent activists being the only voices heard. As for the value of dogs and cats - that is purely our cultural biases. We in the west have decided they are pets. There are many other animals which are as or more intelligent that we don't accord the same respect for. Rats are more intelligent and apparently more loyal pets than cats, but do people get up in arms about hurting rats? And when push comes to shove, almost all of us do value human life over animal. If you had a dog and a baby and enough water to keep one alive, what would you do? Personally, I might see if there were a way to smother the dog, so that it died peacefully and did not suffer. Being for animal testing doesn't mean we want to see animals put in pain. I would like to stricter rules about the treatment of animals in both research and agriculture. But it means that we believe that there is some good coming out of this, and that the more we understand about biology, the more we can help animals and humans.
• I can't believe nobody has kittened this thread yet.
• This experiment on a cat is probably one of the most horrific.
• I was going to give a bit of dialog basically showing how ridiculous the extreme animal rights position is, how flimsy the ethics are, but I think I'll simply say this: Right now, scientists are starting to consider leaving the US and moving to singapore, or who knows where else, where the guidelines and red tape involved in doing research on stem cells or on vertebrates are less. This isn't some sort of threat, this is just whats happening. Its like the old adage "if you raise taxes, the rich people will just leave the country" except this one actually happens. This is what, apparently, society wants. Less science, more feeling good about ourselves. All because very few people seem to be able to stomach that they cause pain. The fact that they are doing it ALL THE TIME, with their consuming oil, and buying merchandise from sweat shops, not recycling, and eating meat, etc... doesn't phase them, because they aren't scientists, and they can afford to give human rights to animals they'll never interact with. Animal rights people have infiltrated the upper echelons of the regulatory agencies in the U.S. and are stifling much animal research on vertebrates with tons of paperwork, so much so that no scientist wants to engage in it unless they absolutely have to. After submitting an animal use protocol, they are now insisting more documentation showing that thats the protocol that was actually followed in the lab. Its easier to work with radiation. They just want to know if you spill any. Piles and piles of paperwork because the animals right trumps the humans. Where do you hold the line and say, ridiculous, better I should become an administrator since obviously I'm not going to be allowed to get into the laboratory? If the trend continues, at some point, research on vertebrates will not be done in this country. At all. I'm sure many of the squishy, feely types will rejoice at that, and be completely ignorant of the amount of potential future human suffering that they've gained for society. In return, the mice, aware of our beneficence, will thank us and raise statues in our likeness. So, if its right to experiment on a fruit fly, and wrong to experiment on a cat ... for what animal is it ethically neutral to experiment on and why? Really. I'd like to know whose yardstick we're using. As far as I'm concerned, if the animals cause unnecessary suffering to other animals in the wild, they have no right to expect any different from us. Anyway, we're all murderers and torturers in one way or another. We can keep denying it and be hypocrites, or we can accept incremental improvements where we can afford them, while acknowledging that we will never live up to the ethics we espouse. I'll never get over the fact that the president of PETA feels animal experimentation is akin to nazi genocide, but still takes her insulin every day. Gah, think of all the chicken embryos that will be sacrificed to develop the bird flu vaccine. Teh horrors.
• Lab rats over sick kids
• Those that think animals deserve to be tortured are vile, insensitive monsters who should be humanely slaughtered and fed to the insects.
• I feel the same about those that would put the suffering of mice before human suffering.
• The first problem I have with this link is that if the silent majority sign anything, they cease to be the silent majority. And it's always refreshing to read a discussion on vivisection. I'm not sure where I stand, but I like to be informed on both sides.
• Oh, and this is what you get if you fuck with the kittens:

• Animal rights people have infiltrated the upper echelons of the regulatory agencies in the U.S.

  really? pass the aluminum foil.

  As far as I'm concerned, if the animals cause unnecessary suffering to other animals in the wild, they have no right to expect any different from us.

  this is deluded anthropomorphism and exactly what i was arguing against above. animals don't share our perspective on their/our behaviour. we cannot apply our standards to them. you seem to consider the insulin example very important, but without explaining why. do you think the identification of the role of insulin in diabetes was necessarily dependent on animal experimentation? or do you assume that the head of peta (who i presume is diabetic) is using animal-harvested insulin? if the former, you're essentially arguing against deriving any benefit from a historical record that is in any way blemished. should we drop any technologies that were developed by people whose behavior we disagree with?
• With all due respect, ethical scientists refuse to deal with Mengele's data collected in Auschwitz. So there is a limit to what kind of research researchers are willing to use. I can understand that animal rights people want the bar to be lowered somewhat. If we should drop the benefits Mengele might have given mankind, we should be open to the possibility that it is right to drop the benefits that vivisection give us.

• ethical scientists refuse to deal with Mengele's data

  i take your general point, but i'd rephrase as scientists who take a particular ethical standpoint. those who argue in favour of using the data also argue in ethical terms. an interesting exploration of the pros and cons of this particular issue at pbs.org
• What caution live frogs and jb have said. Many years ago as a fledgling attorney I worked at a small biotech company. They didn't have the resources to do their own testing, so they had to contract the work to a lab in the Netherlands, and I had to handle the contract end. Reading the research protocol, what was going to happen to those poor rhesus monkeys, was hard. It was very disturbing. But I also learned that the process included ethical review panels where the researchers had to explain why they needed to use primates to get the data they were looking for, and justify the number of primates that they wanted to use, to ascertain that they used only as many animals as absolutely necessary to get statistically relevant data and no more. Animal research, on primates in particular, is astonishingly expensive (and rightly so.) It is not something that scientists take on casually. If drug researchers had a viable alternative in computer modeling or cell cultures, they would much prefer that instead. Hopefully some day such an alternative will be available. In the meantime, however, animal testing is the only avenue open to scientific researchers. That being said, animal research for cosmetics is dumb and I avoid buying products from companies that do animal research for that purpose. I also have no problem with animal rights groups going after KFC and other aspects of the food industry. We can, and should, do better in terms of how we treat the animals raised for food production. When it comes to medical research, however, it serves a purpose, even if I am uneasy about it. That compound the little biotech company was researching held promise for treating MS and Lupus. Within my extended family and circle of friends, people I love are battling MS, lupus, HIV and couple of different kinds of cancer. Do I put them first? Yes I do.
• Mice are more pleasant than humans, so I say let the mice run free and start testing nasty chemicals and amusing surgeries on celebrities and politicians.
• A) I'm in the field. Activists writing the rules is the only way I can explain the beauraucratic overhead that has been increasing yearly. Ask somebody at a university that wants to work with mice what was asked for by the NIH. B) Insulin treatment was developed with extensive animal testing on models of diabetes. Good luck developing your next vaccine without animal models, antibodies taken from sacrificed rabbits and mice for ELIZA assays, etc, not even counting clinical trials. The mice don't have rights. Period. If you want to sacrifice your future survival for the rabbits, feel free. Humans ARE more important. You can get squishy all you want, but you should forego access to the products, just like the Mengele data. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite.
• Tin foil hat my ass. In no other area do I need submit a protocol first, have it approved, do it, and then sign a statment that I didn't make any modifications. Micromanagement as a method to kill research.
• Mord, you are wrong. Not totally, yet a single hole can sink a ship.
• Thank you for that insight randomaction. I had no idea I was wrong. I think I'll go change my entire outlook on the value of life now.
• I say let the mice run free and start testing nasty chemicals and amusing surgeries on celebrities and politicians. I'll drink to that!
• "In no other area do I need submit a protocol first, have it approved, do it, and then sign a statment that I didn't make any modifications. Micromanagement as a method to kill research." Yes, pity the poor researchers, they're the only people in our society who have to put up with needless red tape. Oh how I weep for their carpal tunnel syndromes brought on by signing bits of paper. Micromanagment *certainly* doesn't occur in any other workplace! For shame! Mord, I'll tell you why scientific research in the US is moving offshore, it's because that's a trend in US business across the board. The same reason KFC get their chicken from Indonesia & employ cheap labor there; they save money. The same reason Nike use sweatshop labor in whatever country they use it (I forget). "The mice don't have rights. Period. If you want to sacrifice your future survival for the rabbits, feel free. Humans ARE more important." Who the fuck are you, God? No one has the right to decide these value judgments. We use the animals *because we have to*. There's no other choice for some research. When you start bringing in those arbitrary anthropocentric values, you're not being scientific. It is sufficient to say 'the needs of millions of sufferers in human society outweigh the needs of these animals.' That is an acceptable view. Saying 'these animals don't have rights' is pig-ignorant. They *do* have rights. All life has right - to live. The life of the mouse is as important to it, as your life is to you. You have sentience & opposable thumbs. That is why it is you doing the disecting, & not the mouse. It's an accident of evolution. Humans assuming that they have more rights than anything else on the planet has led to destructive & stupid actions re: the environment. We're part of this thing, not kings of it. And bringing Mengele into it was lame.
• Chyren you were right in calling out mord's rather histrionic comment. Sadly the ideas that existence bestows rights, or that mice care about living are silly.
• Mice and all living animals have self-preservation instincts. They may not be self-aware, but they try to avoid death. The fear of death, the sensations of terror & pain are not unique to human beings. These sensations are in fact the most basic, instinctual ones, & every vertebrate on earth feels it. The cattle in the slaughter pen can smell blood from the ones who have gone in before, they feel fear in response. Fear is a self-preservation system that evolved to send the animal far away from danger, but the penned cattle can't get away, just imagine what that must be like. The mouse feels pain upon the scalpel's incision. The flood of pain & horror upon death is the same for a rat as it is for a man. I don't doubt a guy tortured at Abu Ghraib's mental processes aren't that far removed from a rabbit in a snare. I doubt they're composing symphonies. Does your species' advancement give you the right to needlessly inflict these kinds of suffering upon other, less-advanced living creatures? That's the question. Mord, or somebody, brought up the point that in the wild, animals kill each other all the time, but that is a strawman argument. Animals have to do this. We don't. We are supposed to be 'more advanced'. If you want to kill like animals do, go back to the jungle & live like an animal, is my response. Anyway, unless one is telepathic, nobody knows whether the animals 'care' beyond instinct. Many assume they are brainless, emotionless bags of meat, evidently, but I can assure you that is silly.
• Fine, if all that is true, and animals do have rights, then I hope you are all vegetarians. The right to live? Where does it end? With mosquitoes? Why are you more important than the mosquitoes blood meal. Its got nerves, it feels pain, who are you to judge that its not conscious? Simply draw me a line and justify it. So far all I've seen is appeals to emotion. As far as I'm concerned, rights come from a society the animals are not a part of. We extend them because of visceral discomfort with the idea that we destroy, damage, torture other life in order to survive. If you can't draw a line, you are forced into absurdities, like attempting to subsist only on things that died of natural causes. And before you go telling me "oh, my beauracracy is just as bad as yours, I suggest you interview some people who do research on live animals" I know we're all desperately trying to get away from it because its simply too much of a hassle. But, after reading the comments here, I really wonder how much I do care about the rest of humanity, considering that you'ld rather have happy mice than the most expedient solution to your health care problems.
• And as an atheist, your references to "not being god" fall on deaf ears. We are the only ones who are here to make these judgement calls, and all you've done is abdicate your responsibility to do so in one fell swoop "animals have a right to live". So apparently, we must all be vegetarians in the most absolute sense, or we're downright immoral bastards.
• And of course we don't have to use animals. We could simply give up our high standard of living, our high protein diets, however many years of lifespan animal research adds every year. So no, we don't have to. By simply saying we DO have to, you've admitted that you do value something more than the pain the animal feels. Just like I do.
• Sorry, one last thing before I retire from this thread permanently. I think the idea of causing something pain, for no reason, to be an utter abomination. Causing pain for sadistic pleasure, to be a form of insanity. If there is an alternative to a living system for study, I look forward to it. The day we can grow monkeys without brains in a tank for experimentation will be a day of great clarity. I'm sure you all think I'm utterly crazy, but go read some of Pete Singer's papers on animal rights, because its his work in mind that I say, no, the mice don't get rights.
• From wikipedia: Critics of the concept of animal rights argue that, because animals do not have the capacity to enter into a social contract or make moral choices, [2] and cannot respect the rights of others or understand the concept of rights, they cannot be regarded as possessors of moral rights. The philosopher Roger Scruton argues that only human beings have duties and that "[t]he corollary is inescapable: we alone have rights." [3] Critics holding this position argue that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals for food, as entertainment, and in research, though human beings may nevertheless have an obligation to ensure they do not suffer unnecessarily. [4] [5] ^^^ Yep, I'm not alone.
• I'm inclined to agree with that definition of "rights", though it is an extremely controversial one (and controversy makes my tummy hurt). It is also used to encompass children's "rights", if I am not mistaken. I often think we should not be speaking of animal "rights", but rather human responsibility towards animals to not cause undue suffering.
• True. I watched this interview with Joseph Campbell recently, and one of the things that struck me about it (one of the many things) Was that up until just very recently in human history, animals played a much different role in our lives. They were conduits to the unknown, part and parcel of myths that sustained many, many generations. (I'd take this to the TV turnoff thread as well, but that's a different story) Simply draw me a line and justify it. So far all I've seen is appeals to emotion. True, the objective empiricism science wants to decide this issue probably isn't there. I'd love to argue that objective empiricism isn't there either, but again that's a different story. The "quality of life" issue is a good point, but this isn't a static issue, nor is it black-or-white. Testing should be phased out for unnecessary reasons and those reasons aren't difficult to define. And vegetarianism is a good thing in almost any way possible to look at it - ethically, environmentally, nutritionally, financially, etc.
• *proposes toast with glass of soymilk* *goes for bagel instead*

• And vegetarianism is a good thing in almost any way possible to look at it - ethically, environmentally, nutritionally, financially, etc.

  don't forget flatulently. *parp* 'scuse me
• Flatulence untainted by rotting carrion is far preferable!
• go team veg!
• Are you people trying to tell me that bean farts are less noxious than beef farts? I shall have to ask you to step outside! *closes door behind vegetarians*
• Mord, I too think it is foolish to believe an non-human animal has "personhood." Animals have different experiences in life from species to species which we should respect that in the way that we respect life: by eating it. [cue: Battle Hymnn of the Republic] Be it plant or animal or fungus, algae, bacteria or twinkie we'll eat it because we respect life. We respect our species and the need for life to feed on life. We need to consume. We need new medicines to continue to consume. We respect life so much that we need to create these medicines to keep old people alive in shreds of their former dignity because we respect life more than we respect dignity. When we kill an animal to eat, or a carrot, we end its life to prolong ours. When we kill off entire species just to grow some grade a cattle we do it out of a bonafide respect for the continuity of life. Why? Because we don't want to die off! Because when you reach over and put your hand in a pile of goo that was... Uh, maybe I should have just said, "something about a food chain and uncommon human decency..." I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm just trying to add a little humor to the way of the living. I eat the flesh of animals and plants (and other things too!), and oddly enough, I won't put any value judgements on you for not being me. I've been a Joseph Campbell fan since I was a wee lad. Thanks, pete. So long and thanks for all the fish. And pigs... and chickens... and ostrich... and cats... and pandas......
• Flatulence-free beans!
• Sure, if all you're going to eat is fermented beans. But what of the dried bean?? What of it fish tick???1 /loves beans despite the wind
• *toot*
• *downs huge beef & bean burrito smothered in sour cream, sets detonator for 30 minutes*
• MonkeyFilter: beef farts
• That's Cap'n Beef Farts to you.
• Bee farts!
• *squeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzz*
• I don't know qualitatively from beans or beef, but in my experience, the prettier the girl, the more noxious the farts. You dating a model? Better bring a friggin gas mask.
• wow, I must be BEAUTIFUL. heeeheeeeheheheee!!! /honk!
• *lights match*
• yeah but seriously though, what a crap and self-important name for a petition.
• What should it be called?
• ... bee farts ... lunar tick!
• petebest: I was being flippant, but there is a serious point. Why should this petition be 'The Peoples Petition'? There must be hundreds of issues where 'The People' aren't having their say. What I mean is it's a bit presumptuous on the part of the organisers. In fact it's the reason it caught my eye and ire enough to FPP it.
• And just in passing, UK Prime Minster Tony Blair has signed the petition, and his statement in on the front page of the site. Boom, cards on the table. Admirable, in a way.