Animal Testing

[anakhouri]

I was thinking about this the other night after a visit with some of my husband's scientist buddies in which they were talking about animal testing. How do you guys feel about it?

I am all for animal testing in a medical or research setting. All medication must be extensively animal-tested before being accepted in the US, and that's as it should be. I love animals, but since I've had an inside look at the world of science I've learned that there are very strict protocols involved to ensure that the animal experiences an absolute minimum of discomfort.

I'm not a big fan of the idea that non-medical products like makeup or shampoo are tested on animals. I don't think that sort of animal testing is strictly necessary. I am absolutely against any form of entertainment involving animal torture (such as dog-, cock-, or bullfighting).

It doesn't help of course that all the stories I've seen about people protesting animal testing makes them look like utter gits. I read about one group in Texas that hacked a computer database and posted the names, addresses, phone numbers of animal research scientists as well as the names and ages of their children and where they went to school, and encouraged their members to harass them! I doubt anyone wanted to support them after a stunt like that. And you have to wonder if these people just ignored the fact that every medicine they ever took has been tested on animals, or did they just never take aspirin or Lipitor or anything? My husband is actually unable to tell anyone that animal testing takes place in his particular research building because of these kind of people.

Thoughts?

[BroomJockey]

I heard a comedian once joke that he's all for animal testing on things like shampoo because "I'm putting chemicals on the layer of skin closest to my brain, so yeah, let's kill a few rabbits if it'll save me."

I am nowhere near that view. However, I think the sentiment in there is valid. Animals used in testing are bred specifically for that purpose. They don't go randomly catch an animal and start dosing it. If it wasn't needed for testing, it wouldn't be alive. Medical testing saves lives, and not always just human lives. I'm sure procedures/medication have been found to further vetrinary medicine too. If it requires a few animals who's sole purpose on the planet is to have testing done to them, then it's something I'm willing to accept until they come up with a better way of doing it.

[Boozy]

Animals used in testing are bred specifically for that purpose. They don't go randomly catch an animal and start dosing it. If it wasn't needed for testing, it wouldn't be alive.

I don't necessarily disagree with the points you make, but this argument is a little bit silly, isn't it? I mean, if it weren't for my parents, I wouldn't be alive. But that doesn't mean they can do whatever they want to me.

Besides, you have to understand that animals don't have advanced frontal lobes. They live completely in the moment. They are incapable of thinking, "Gee, this hurts like hell, but at least I'm alive." They aren't aware of their existence; they are aware only of what is happening to them at the moment.

With that said, I think most scientists are probably lovely people who test on animals only when necessary and take all the steps they can to mitigate their discomfort.

[Greenday]

Well, if some new drug that's being created gets tested on an animal and that animal dies as a result, it's a damn good thing it wasn't first tested on a human being.

[AFPheonix]

Pretty much. I hate to be speciesist and all, but better a lab mouse than a person.

Besides, if they switched to human testing right off the bat, could you imagine the howling that would ensue? Hell, Vioxx and the other COX-II inhibitors were out on the market for years before they figured out what was wrong with it, and Merck is STILL wading through all the litigation fallout from it. Unfortunately, we're just not to a point where we can simulate in-vivo drug testing without doing it on a live animal. Some day we'll get there, but in the meantime, animal testing is the best way.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I'm of two minds about the scientific research. On the one hand, I hate the thought of putting an animal through any sort of pain, especially if it's for something as dumb (IMO) as cosmetics.

On the other hand, I understand there are valid reasons for doing so, and I don't disagree with them. There really is no good solution, until/if they ever come up with a way to test things without using living beings.

As far as 'sport' fighting goes - TOTALLY against it. Those people should be treated as the abusers they are.

A couple of things that this post reminded me of:

A long time ago I once sent some money (don't remember the exact amount, but I know it wasn't more than $50) to PETA. Then I found out what they were really up to, and I felt like eating a big slice of crow (no pun intended). So-called 'activists' that harass and attack scientists are no better than the scum that claim to be 'pro-life' who harass and attack women and particular healthcare providers.

Also, in the prairie states like the Dakotas, they have a real big problem with prairie dogs. Cattle step in the holes they make and break their legs, or the bacteria/insects (like fleas) carried by the prairie dogs spread to the cattle and/or human populace. To counteract this, many places will allow and even encourage people to shoot prairie dogs as a sport. My dad is into this (on the few occasions he is able to travel there), and several of his friends are as well. They never take home carcasses - you *can't*, because they're so dirty and the chances of transmitting disease are high. The corpses are left to decompose as is where they're killed, or else buzzards/carrion eaters will come by and deal with it.

And when I lived in Florida, there has recently developed a big problem with Nile monitor lizards taking over and killing off native species of birds and turtles and the like. (There's also a python population as idiots who buy snakes realize their cute little 12-inch baby snake quickly grows into a 10-foot behemoth, and release them into the wild, but the damage done by snakes isn't nearly as bad as what the Nile monitors do) There is nothing there (save for humans) that can serve as a counterbalance predator to these lizards, so people are being encouraged to either trap them for transport elsewhere (which is helluva lot harder than it would seem) or kill them outright.

Again, I don't like the thought of killing any animal for sport; my feeling on hunting in general is that unless it's a serious emergency (i.e., you're stranded in the middle of nowhere and are starving) I don't find anything sportsmanlike at all about killing an animal just for the fun of it. But in cases like these, I understand why people may feel it's the best option for the time being.

As far as target shooting (like skeet or otherwise where living things aren't involved) goes, I have no problem with that - I've done it myself and am a pretty good shot if I do say so myself.

Fishing - not much of a problem either (especially since I love to eat fish!), though I personally would practice catch-and-release, and I strongly disagree with sport-fishing like shark-hunting (another thing that's popular in Florida; being that sharks are valuable natural resources for the ocean I dislike hearing about some guy who boasts that he nailed a 14-foot hammerhead or whatever (as was one case last year, and it was a female to boot, and even though I don't think that hammerheads are an endangered species, I still think sharks should be left alone unless they're turning into a serious problem in a heavily-populated human environment).

[Seshat]

My ancestors (perhaps literal, perhaps cultural) made the incredibly stupid mistake of importing rabbits, foxes and cane toads to Australia. These animals, plus escaped farm and transport animals, are causing havoc in the Australian ecosystems.

Almost all Australian environmentalists are involved in some way in the process of weeding out non-native animals and plants, other than those we humans require for our own purposes (arrogant species that we are).

I support ethical target shooting of feral animals in the Australian environment - where by ethical, I mean causing minimal suffering to the animal, and learning how to do it with minimal harm to our fragile ecosystems.

I support farming of animals in Australia. It's the only efficient way to make human food in our semi-arid lands, without massive importation of fertilisers and using a lot of irrigation water. Farmers can grow grasses and sedges, feed them to animals, and thus make food. Most crops that are direct human food need too much stuff. Of course, the farmers tend to overstock their pastures for our ecosystem, but we're working on that.


Given that I support the deaths of feral animals, and of food animals, it would be hypocritical of me to oppose animal experimentation. All I ask is that the scientists do it carefully, and minimise suffering.

[rahmota]

Well my personal take on animal testing is this: It is better to test medicines and thigns that are going to be used to save human lives on animals before risking one human life. An animal's life is generally not worth the same as a human's. Especially somethign like lab rats where it would take about a thousand lab rats to equal the worth of a human's toenail clippings. So yeah I support animal testing when it can save human lives. To experiment on an animal just to go hey I wonder what happens if we toss a mouse in a microwave... I'm not as supporting of.

Sport fighting. eh? *shrug* I've been to a cockfight before in my life. It was boring and dumb. Shold it be illegal. Nah. I dont think so. While personally I dont like it or agree that its entertainment its not my right to tell people what to do with their property which is what animals are. And if they want to throw them away or waste them by fighting then thats their loss. And as for abusing them. Some of the more prized animals are treated better than some humans.

PETA should be labelled as the terrorists nutjobs they are and thrown in a pit with some of the animals they think are being abused and see how quick they ask for a ball bat or firearm....

And I'll agree that "sport" hunting is not really a sport. Sometimes it is necessary though like in the instances you pointed out. When an animal is a nuisance animal then open season on them is very agreeable. Groundhogs around here are similar to the prairiedogs out west in the problems they cause. Only fortunately not as major. A ground hog nest doesnt usually cover as much ground as a prairie dog city.

[rahmota]

Oh I was thinking and I should probably clarify my view on animals.

Animals fall into 3 vey broad classifications. But they are all the property of the person who owns them. They are not sentient, self-willed beings. In that they cannot make moral choices or decide to perform an action based on its value other than mere survival of the animal.

The 3 categories of domesticated animals are: Ornamanetal, Useful and Productive.
Ornamental animals are those like parakeets, goldfish, yip dogs,etc... Stuff that serves no function other than to look pretty and provide some form of enjoyment to the owner for looking at. While a fine horse or dog can provide enjoyment they can fall into one of the other categories better.

Useful are those like lab rats, guard dogs, cats that actually hunt vermin, etc...they provide a service or function that benefits their owners and or humanity in general.

Productive animals are ones that work. That would be most of your basic livestock like cattle, horses, pigs etc... Either you can eat them, ride them, eat something they produce, use their skins or fur for clothing. They produce something.

Just my POV on the question of animals.