|Animal experiments.Page 2 of 3 (1, 2, 3)|
Personally I don't set my moral compass solely based on a % of other people in society who would or wouldn't do a thing.
People have their initial understanding of morality bullied into them as kids. As tinapenny said, it isn't something that most people stop to think independently about. So if most of society believes something, most scientists' parents teach their kids those morals, and they are re-inforced by everything they see and do within society. If you ask me it is far more important to get through to young parents rather than the current scientists that are already indoctrinated.
why haven't they?
My answer might offend. But lots of anwers to be found in the experiments done on humans. The Milgram experiment. The Stanford Prison experiment.
It takes a lot to offend me, don't worry. I already touched on desensitisation and vested interests. The question was: if it is so easy to overcome these things and "just...not" then why haven't they? Your answer of Milgram and Stanford is just agreeing with me that it is extremely difficult to overcome such conditioning independently.
Sentient seems too subjective.
Not everyone would agree with you on that. Some countries have defined it in legislation, and are now dealing with the impact of the changes that necessitates in how they do things.
I'm not sure why that changes anything. It is still vertebrates that are important for the experiments because humans are vertebrates. If you use non-vertebrates it is even more pointless.
They found that 99.7% of the results were not applicable to humans, and that no medical use had been found for the remaining 0.3%
That was from 51 experiments in biomedical research. Perel (2007) examined 221 experiments and found 50% succeeded in predicting human outcomes, also in biomedical research. Bear in mind that biomedical research is just one subsection of science and medicine - there are other areas I mentioined in msg 12 such as biochemistry and genetics where it is often the only way to obtain complex molecules or research gene expression.
It is great that use of animals has enabled advancements such as new techniques of cell-based studies, silicon chip biosensors, genomics, proteomics and computer simulations in biomedical research. No doubt further reductions in animal testing are now possible.
So you can argue benefit, and belief in benefit, til the cows come home, and you’d be merely be helping to spread a fallacy.
Eh? You provide evidence yourself that biomedical results are applicable to humans. Even if you take the extreme figure of 99.7%, that means 1 in 333 mice is relevant, or just 12kg of mice gives a result. If you use the 50% figure it is incredibly successful. Moo
So you are putting humans paying tax on a par with an animal having pain inflicted on it in a lab experiment? And money on a par with physical harm? Wow.
Now you get it. Morals must be consistent, otherwise it is self-serving hypocrisy rather than morality. We are talking about the widely held moral that 'stealing is wrong'. If it is wrong to steal someone's kidney it is wrong to steal someone's car stereo, wife or money. It is the same moral principle. Saying "on a par" is misleading because obviously the consequences are different. The integrity of the moral position is what we're talking about, not the relative severity of particular examples.
It could be argued that tax is a system designed by humans whereby all contribute for the collective good of humans.
If a clear majority of people want something done then it will be done whether by democratic government or by competing organisations and charities. If only a few people want something done it can still be done voluntarily but not by government (unless a dictatorship). Government is unneccessary, and immoral because it is a monopoly enforced by violence. Replacement with free-market competition would improve every service the bungling behemoth purports to provide.
The contribution made by rats and rabbits to medical research wasn't decided by previous generations of rats and rabbits and does nothing for the collective good of rats and rabbits.
Ah, lets have a look at the voluntary and peaceful history of income tax initiation then:
"One of the first recorded taxes on income was the Saladin tithe introduced by Henry II in 1188 to raise money for the Third Crusade."
"Income tax was announced in Britain by William Pitt the Younger in his budget of December 1798 and introduced in 1799, to pay for weapons and equipment in preparation for the Napoleonic wars."
"In order to help pay for its war effort in the American Civil War, the US federal government imposed its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861"
But these are not Australia, I hear you say. No, we got our national income tax in 1915 to finance our involvement in the horrors of WW1.
The point is that the the theft constantly perpetrated against us on threat of violence has always been justified by perpetrating even greater violence abroad. To say it is just 'immoral' is an understatement. Decided by us and for the collective good of humanity? Pull the other one.
'Perfectly fine' is a stretch... but I figure you chose that particular phrasing to make me squirm.
Well maybe. lol
So basically you want a formula to allow you to calculate what my ethical stance would be on a reality that does not exist?
If only a tiny number of animals are allowed then it is logical to assume that researchers would make sure that only the absolutely most important, most likely to be useful tests are done. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that as you approach zero the usefulness of the testing increases disproportionately to the decline in animal numbers.
The reason I asked you to think about what your threshold was is that you wanted a cessation because the ratio of human benefit to animal harm wasn't high enough for you.
Once you do admit that at a certain point on the reduction curve there is high enough benefit to harm ratio and the testing is allowable then we can end our pontificating because we'll be agreeing. The appropriate course of action is constant reduction and refinement along with improving the overall ethics of society.
Posted: 6/17/2012 3:54:15 AM
|did anyone else whilst reading this, (especially the bit about eating animals is fine as long as they are bred and killed whilst by human projection called happy) suddenly find themselves transported via the inprobability drive to the restaurant at the end of the universe and the bull that is very sad cos he is proud of growing such lovely tender beef and Arthur doesn't want to eat him? Yes as usual I am being flippant but hey most if not all of us would not be here if it weren't for medical experimentations that at some time included some lab animal processes...immunisation being one of them. Agree that sadistic cruelty is unacceptable but having seen a fair amount of horrendous human illnesses that have funnily enough no ethical standards whilst they ravage a helpless, vulnerable organism, would suggest that some people should just toughen up and deal with it. Whilst I have no wish to see an animal suffer, I refuse to see a human suffer twice as much just because some d**ks managed to prevent vital safety research. Anyways we all know the world is run by white mice who are experimenting on us, so whats the problem?|
Posted: 6/17/2012 6:17:27 PM
Your answer of Milgram and Stanford is just agreeing with me that it is extremely difficult to overcome such conditioning independently. …but not impossible because from memory a few did exercise their own personal morality. Were they superhumans, or saints, or just the people we could all choose to be? I think where you and I differ is that you seem to see that aspect of human nature (the stuff highlighted in those experiments) as an excuse. Your various comments attribute blame to society ..majorities …authorities…etc. Whereas for me those experiments prove a need for greater acceptance of personal responsibility. They provide a wake up call, not a defence.
But if you’d asked Doctors Against Animal Experiments, Germany, why scientists keep doing experiments, (and let’s pretend you did ) …they’d have said this….
” a researcher’s quality is not measured by the number of people he or she has helped, but rather by the amount of scientific publication. True to the motto Publish or perish, it is only possible to attain profile in the world of science by means of a long list of publications in renowned scientific journals, the amount of research funding available depending on the list of publications. This funding is invested in new animal experiments, which again result in a new publication. This absurd system is self-sustaining and devours incredible amounts of research funding, third-party funds or scholarships, without being of any benefit to sick people.” http://www.aerzte-gegen-tierversuche.de/en/component/content/article/55-resources/244-why-animal-experiments-are-not-necessary
That was from 51 experiments in biomedical research. Perel (2007) examined 221 experiments and found 50% succeeded in predicting human outcomes, also in biomedical research.
Actually it said “An extensive study by Perel and colleagues (2007) examined 221 experiments using over 7,100 animals in research into six different treatments for five human illnesses5. For five out of the
six conditions, the researchers criticized the quality of the animal research, and they found that half the animal experiments failed to correctly predict human responses to treatment.” The fact that half failed to correctly predict human responses is not equal to saying the remaining 50% succeeded …certainly not in terms of producing a result in treatment for those illnesses. I tried to find more info on that study for greater clarity, but didn’t have any luck. But I’ve spotted varying other statistics …
One study conducted by the pharmaceutical company Pfizer came to the conclusion that »one would be better off tossing a coin than relying on animal experiments to answer the question of carcinogenic substances. Only 5 - 25% of the substances harmful to humans also have adverse effects on the experimental animals. Tossing a coin delivers better results
research based on animal experimentation repeatedly fails all along the line. 92% of potential pharmaceutical drugs that are shown by animal testing to be effective and safe do not pass clinical trials, either because of insufficient effectiveness or undesired side effects. Of the 8% of substances that are approved, half are later taken off the market because grave, often even lethal side effects in humans become evident.
In the mid eighties, researchers at the Harvard University succeeded in inserting a human cancer gene into the genome of mice, so that the rodents prematurely developed tumours. This genetically engineered mouse was even the first mammal to be patented, in the USA in 1988 and in Europe in 1992. Since then, tens of thousands of cancer mice have been ‘cured’, but all the treatments that were ‘successful’ in rodents failed in humans.
In a German study, 51 applications for animal experiments that were approved in Bavaria were analysed with regard to their clinical implementation. The research team discovered that even ten years later not one single project had been demonstrably implemented in human medicine.
But with all these negative outcomes on display it becomes less surprising that someone in support of animal experimentation might be quite keen to promote even 50% as ‘incrediby successful’. And yet with respect to a prevailing belief that all this impressive animal experimentation is keeping humans safe, that would still only be giving us all as much protection of the toss of a coin. (Or are you just trying to trick me into revealing some kind of personal tipping point? )
Besides, as I first mentioned, FDA have been quoted as saying that 90% of results are not transferable to humans. No doubt they are dealing with far greater numbers than any of those studies cos everything in the US has to go through them.
And of course then there are the higher success rates now being produced via non-animal testing.
And numerous opinions from scientists in the field, along the lines of….”There is no doubt that the best test species for man is man. This is based on the fact that it is not possible to extrapolate animal data directly to man, due to interspecies variation in anatomy, physiology and biochemistry.” Dr. MacLennan and Dr. Amos, Clinical Sciences Research Ltd., UK, Cosmetics and Toiletries Manufacturers and Suppliers
Decided by us and for the collective good of humanity? Pull the other one. Schools, parks, roads, water, conservation, trade, sanitation, hospitals, transport…but apart from that, what have the Romans ever done for us! Seriously though, to go down that track further would be getting into strawman territory because my original intention was never to defend the tax system as being beyond reproach. It was merely to point out that your apparent comparison of the suffering of a taxpayer with that of a lab animal seemed a terribly indulgent form of self-pity when we all know we wouldn’t swap places with them. Plus I’ve lost interest in your version of ‘being consistent’ if it means agreeing that having your liver stolen is on a par with having your money stolen.
It might be more apt to compare lab animals to a person being born of a certain race or gender, and being imprisoned and physically harmed because of that fact alone. That occurs in the world, but I think most people can see that is morally wrong, which is not inconsistent with a view that it is morally wrong to do it to animals.
Well maybe. Lol
most if not all of us would not be here if it weren't for medical experimentations that at some time included some lab animal processes...immunisation being one of them.
The fact that medicines have been tested on animals does not prove that animal testing was the reason they worked on humans. If it was an effective measure then all medicines that worked on animals would have resulted in something that helped humans, instead of the greater percentage not transferring across the species divide. Given the failure rate, the eventual successes are quite likely sheer coincidences …as in, discovered in spite of animal testing rather than because of them.
• Human and animal testing agree only 5-25% of the time, according to Huntingdon Life Sciences
• 88% of stillbirths are due to drugs posed to be safe in animal testing
• Corneal transplants were delayed for 90 years and blood transfusions were delayed 200 years due to animal studies
• Less then 2% of human illnesses or 1.16% are ever seen in animals
I refuse to see a human suffer twice as much just because some d**ks managed to prevent vital safety research.
One could equally say, "I refuse to see a human suffer twice as much just because some d**ks managed to keep kidding themselves that animal testing constitutes vital safety research".
Posted: 6/17/2012 7:43:56 PM
|I wanna see a full blown , no holds barred , knock down , drag 'em out argument( discussion) between Ginger and Mrs N !|
It would probably end up in the interwebs melting down due to the sheer volume of well researched , massive essayed posts :)
( I love you guys but ! )
oh and just to keep on topic , Animal testing is a huge business, I dont object to necessary testing where there are no other means available to researchers , but personally I think far too much 'Grant Hunting" etc . takes place at the expense of innocents .
Science should not be about glory and publication , but rather it should be focussed on doing good in the world .
Perhaps here is an argument for cloning , or at least the duplication of human organs etc for testing .
Said clones would have to be "thought neutral " or vegetative in nature .
Posted: 6/18/2012 12:19:37 AM
|I think Angelina Jolie should be cloned...many many times over. :)|
Posted: 6/18/2012 3:24:58 AM
|I guess the arguement against animal experiments is cancer research. With the billions poured in every single year the BEST and most effective defence we have is early detection and that is it. Not one animal was harmed in the typing of this post.|
Posted: 6/18/2012 4:32:21 AM
…but not impossible because from memory a few did exercise their own personal morality. Were they superhumans, or saints, or just the people we could all choose to be?
I already covered the moral scientists. I used an example figure of 20% of society (yes, just guesstimate) that take an absolute moral stance, that was then reduced due to desensitisation and vested interest. I also mentioned in reference to tinapenny's point that a few people - scientists included - do re-think their morals after their parents are done with them. My proposition was that increasing the quality of the parental guidance would therefore increase the base % of moral scientists. You seemed to think of that as an excuse, and to that I again say moo
with all these negative outcomes on display it becomes less surprising that someone in support of animal experimentation might be quite keen to promote even 50% as ‘incrediby successful’
What that 50% showed was that your figure of 99.7% was unreliable. If the next (larger) study shows 50%, then who knows what the real value is? I freely admit this uncertainty is obviously a concern in direct human comparisons in biomedical research. However even within this subcategory there are great advances being made with transgenic 'knockout' mice that I've already referred to. Due to selectively inserting human genes at will in these mice they are incredibly powerful tools, much more applicable to human disease models than the average mouse.
Now I've said a couple of times already (without getting a response) that there are areas such as biochemistry, immunology, genetics and other fundamental biological research where there are no alternatives. This lack of a response is surprising, because if you look at the figures for the EU (Figure 2.1 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/pdf/sec_2010_1107.pdf) you'll see that fundamental research is in fact the largest category of animal use at 38%.
You can argue that fundamental research doesn't benefit humans, and in the short-term you would probably be correct. Research is long-term but brings the greatest potential benefits. Thats right, potential. If you can calculate all the complexities of potential benefits from long-term research and put that in your equation then I'd love to see it. Us lesser mortals just content ourselves with arguing for reducing animal use as much as possible.
Here is a real scientific paper in the Blood Cancer Journal that looks at the role of microbes on tumour progression: http://www.nature.com/bcj/journal/v2/n6/full/bcj201219a.html It uses mouse monoclonal antibodies, mouse immunoglobulin G and refers to work on B16 mouse melanoma.
What is the harm-to-benefit (or potential benefit) ratio of this one paper? You must know, since you claim that the current ratio is not high enough for your liking. How did you calculate your ratio if you don't know?
Your various comments attribute blame to society ..majorities …authorities…etc.
Yes, thats right. Until we as a society are willing to apply, with the required consistency, basic morals such as 'the non-initiation of the use of force' to ourselves then I am not going to get worked up about applying them to lab rats or require scientists to.
Seriously though, to go down that track further would be getting into strawman territory
Yes, because as we agreed you are not taking the moral high ground at all. By arguing for a cessation rather than a reduction, you are attempting to hold the fields of science and medicine hostage until your particular subjective ratio of benefit-to-harm is promised. I asked what your demands were - your threshold in the ratio where you are happy to permit experiments to resume - and you didn't answer.
Now this hostage situation is also begging the question: Why your ratio and not someone elses'? What gives you the right to decide the arbitrary limit of a subjective morality ahead of the other 7 billion of us?
I wanna see a full blown , no holds barred , knock down , drag 'em out argument( discussion) between Ginger and Mrs N !
Careful what you wish for!
Posted: 6/18/2012 6:41:23 PM
Science should not be about glory and publication , but rather it should be focussed on doing good in the world.
I agree. And that paragraph I quoted earlier about publish or perish reveals much truth behind the façade.
I guess the arguement against animal experiments is cancer research. With the billions poured in every single year the BEST and most effective defence we have is early detection and that is it.. Yep. After all their research they have become very good at curing cancer in mice (after giving them cancer in the first place) but it hasn’t translated to humans in the same way. So some claim the answer is to keep testing on mice. D’oh.
You seemed to think of that as an excuse
Well yeah because in the context you first raised it, it was by way of explaining to me why individuals working in labs don't just not do it…and why a person who inflicts painful experiments on animals was no more responsible for it happening than someone on the street who didn't google it.. Dispersing accountability in order to excuse. You provided percentages trying to iindicate that their choice to do it was what x% of people would do and therefore, in context, were trying to convey that it is normal, expected, inevitable…and therefore very much an excuse. It ignored the fact that we all have the capacity to make choices.
My proposition was that increasing the quality of the parental guidance would therefore increase the base % of moral scientists. Nothing I said precluded doing that. Doesn’t mean individuals working in science now aren’t responsible for their chosen actions on the basis of asserting that they are merely doing what social statistics indicate the greater percentage of people in their situation would do. Hiding behind the “but lots of people agree/do/would” majority excuse…c’mon we all know Mum said “if your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?”
What that 50% showed was that your figure of 99.7% was unreliable.
How come you get to decide which one of those two was the unreliable one? Out of a population of ...etc etc. lol. And what about all the others I mentioned? And how come you keep ignoring the FDA figure?
Now I've said a couple of times already (without getting a response) that there are areas such as biochemistry, immunology, genetics and other fundamental biological research where there are no alternatives.
Without getting a response? In an early post I gave a link to an article that listed alternatives to animal testing, then in post 19 asked you to comment on those alternatives. Then in post 24 I listed more alternatives. And post 25 in its entirety was a cut and paste list of alternative test methods. So how does that qualify as not responding? Anyway, I didn’t see any response from you about any of them. Are there really no alternatives already mentioned that cover any of those research areas? None? Right…my final google session…
"Biomedical applications of computer models include aspects of kidney, cardiac and lung function, regulatory systems, endocrine function, sensory physiology, neurophysiology and developmental biology."
"Pharmagene Laboratories, based in Royston, England, is the first company to use only human tissues and sophisticated computer technology in the process of drug development and testing. With tools from molecular biology, biochemistry, and analytical pharmacology, Pharmagene conducts extensive studies of human genes and how drugs affect those genes or the proteins they make. While some companies have used animal tissues for this purpose, Pharmagene scientists believe that the discovery process is much more efficient with human tissues. “If you have information on human genes, what’s the point of going back to animals?” says Pharmagene cofounder Gordon Baxter"
" ICCVAM Recommends Non-animal In Vitro Method to Identify Potential Endocrine-active Substances"
Cell and tissue culture (in vitro) studies are used to screen for anti-cancer, anti-AIDS, and other types of drugs, and they are also a means of producing and testing a number of other pharmaceutical products, including vaccines (eg. immunology), antibiotics, and therapeutic proteins. The U.S. National Disease Research Interchange provides human tissue to scientists investigating diabetes, cancer, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, glaucoma, and other human diseases. In vitro genetic research has isolated specific markers, genes, and proteins associated with Alzheimer’s disease, muscular dystrophy, schizophrenia, and other inherited diseases. A 3-dimensional model of breast cancer has recently been developed that will allow investigators to study the earliest stages of breast cancer and test potential treatments. Rather than studying cancer in rodents, this model, which uses both healthy and cancerous human tissue, effectively allows the study of cancer as it develops in humans
The 3T3 Neutral Red Uptake Phototoxicity Test uses cells grown in culture to assess the potential for sunlight-induced (“photo”) irritation to the skin.
Human skin model tests are now in use, including the validated EpiDerm™ test, which has been accepted almost universally as a total replacement for skin corrosion studies in rabbits.
The use of human skin leftover from surgical procedures or donated cadavers can be used to measure the rate at which a chemical is able to penetrate the skin.
Microdosing can provide information on the safety of an experimental drug and how it is metabolized in the body by administering an extremely small one-time dose that is well below the threshold necessary for any potential pharmacologic effect to take place.
new technologies in the areas of human tissue engineering (e.g. artificial lymph nodes), relevant cell-based approaches, “omics” technologies (transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics (which we have investigated in the context of skin inflammation), bioinformatics, advanced analytical methods, computer modelling (including systems biology) and new data interpretation/integration algorithms. Combined application of these tools and technologies in complementary and integrated ways should provide an enhanced scientific and increasingly more mechanistic basis for consumer safety assessment as well as enabling us to move away from animal testing to more human relevant analyses.
I think that's at least touched on everything on your list for which there are apparently 'no alternatives'. Maybe those scientists who still support animal testing are also still hanging onto their 80’s brick phone and their beta video player? There was lots more, btw, particularly from John Hopkins, ECVAM, ICCVAM , but some of it was over my head and I can't easily identify which field some of the alternative test methods strictly fit into because I am not a scientist. And I figured if I was going to delve that deep into sciency stuff, I might as well enrol in a science course and get the bit of paper.
Also, I did ask a few things of you (without getting a response). Just sayin’…. :)
'the non-initiation of the use of force' to ourselves then I am not going to get worked up about applying them to lab rats or require scientists to.
Your choice of course, but why? Cos it's easier? Cos if we have to suffer from ourselves we should make damn sure every other species does too? Cos they should be punished for us being how we are? Cos we are just out for ourselves? Cos we can only care about one thing at a time? Cos it's somehow deemed the greater character flaw to be compassionate, than to be hardened or staunchly self-interested? Cos if we can't fix one problem we are better off to fix no problems? Cos you feel so caged and experimented on in your life that you see that as a greater suffering? Cos empathy isn't represented by a mathematical formula? Cos we consider ourselves above illness and death and we will kill every last one of them if that is what it takes to maintain the illusion that we will eventually evade it? Cos they can’t plead for mercy in a language we can understand? Cos our lives having so much value to us stops us seeing that they feel the same about their life? Cos they can’t hire a lawyer or go to the media? All of the above? None of the above?
Have you ever considered that, rather than this view of putting it last on the priority list, stopping being nasty to animals first might be the start of stopping being nasty to each other? Didn’t someone once say that you can judge a society by how it treats its animals? (the weakest and most vulnerable) Have you ever considered that if we weren't so intent on hardening ourselves (machines are emotionless, so they must be our heroes), or on actively scorning those who demonstrate compassion for other beings, that we might like ourselves a whole lot more?...even find a sense of contentment or happiness that we’re perhaps seeking? Fairly sweeping statements I know...bordering on crazy talk (I’m bilingual…proficient in crazy talk)... and yet even these beloved scientists of ours have determined that being around animals (when we aren't killing or torturing them I mean) increases in us a sense of wellbeing, improves demanour, increases positivity, and has tangible health benefits to boot. Maybe there's a message in that that we could take more notice of. Wouldn't it be ironic if, say, spending time hugging rabbits made happier humans than taking antidepressants that have been tested on rabbits.
Don't worry, I anticipate mocking and derision from someone (not necessarily you, although… feel free) for saying such a thing because clearly humans are too clever and complex and important and superior for such piffle, and popping a pill is far more repectable. Plus so much as mentioning hugging rabbits is probably a foolish choice on my part, because when it comes to animal advocacy it doesn’t matter how many facts you list, or how much research you offer, or how much logic you apply, or even whether you have the education and credibility of Michael Kirby or Peter Singer… those people who just don’t want to care about animals will be entirely able to block out all of that and just conveniently reduce everything an animal advocate says to being merely an emotional response to fluffy bunnies. So in the eyes of those intent on retaining that narrow view of it all, I’ve probably just negated every researched fact I’ve posted so far. C’est la vie.
I asked what your demands were - your threshold in the ratio where you are happy to permit experiments to resume - and you didn't answer.
My demands are a plane with enough fuel to get to Lebanon, bowls of M&Ms with all the green ones removed, and for you to wewease Woderick. That aside, I did answer actually. What I didn’t do is give you the sort of colour-by-numbers answer you seem to think is required. If you so badly want an immovable formula for morality, one that covers every situation in life that removes the need to ever think again, or rethink, or factor in new information… proud with rigid consistency and moral absolutism... you'd really like religions. (Some of them feature cows)
I wanna see a full blown , no holds barred , knock down , drag 'em out argument( discussion) between Ginger and Mrs N ! It would probably end up in the interwebs melting down due to the sheer volume of well researched , massive essayed posts :) ( I love you guys but ! )
Love your sense of humour. I have really enjoyed debating with Ginger but admit that googling for this has started to become a bit of a study-avoidance tactic for me and I need to stop now. That means Ginger will get the last word, damnit. Thanks for the debate Ginger. It's been fun. :) (Never be afraid to trade your cow for magic beans.)
Posted: 6/18/2012 6:49:31 PM
|(Never be afraid to trade your cow for magic beans.)|
Posted: 6/18/2012 10:37:34 PM
Science should not be about glory and publication , but rather it should be focussed on doing good in the world ...so why do so many of us query the Carbon Tax...is it NOT scientific fact?
Sadly using an animal for what I consider moral research is appropriate...use a rat to enable a quadriplegic to walk but be damned if I would use the right colour lipstick!!!
I believe nothing will alter our minds until a judge proclaims the law....and the bible then would no longer be relevant....morals come from the 10 commandments .
If we are to believe in science...then all those women hundreds of years ago should NOT have been burned at the stake for having the ability to swim and/or drown...you know what I am trying to express?
Science is only a belief until confirmed and sadly refuted for the mistakes of decades gone by....still we have a high moral belief...do NOT use a human to be tested....we’d rather use a rat...correct?
Posted: 6/18/2012 11:51:48 PM
...so why do so many of us query the Carbon Tax...is it NOT scientific fact?
Global warming is apparently the current trend ( until it cools down again lol )
Govt the world over have seen this as a great scare tactic to impose extra taxation ..
As soon as you introduce penalties rather than solutions , the scientific "fact " goes out the window and statisticians rule the roost for justification purposes of said taxation .... instead of build it and they will come , it is " Spin it correctly thru the media ... and they shall pay"
Science and morals will always clash , unfortunately Governments the world over do not believe in either , unless they are a means to an end :)
Animal testing ( bringing it back on track ) is unnecessary in many cases , in some , like the quadraplegia example for instance I would agree with ... I think we agree , it is a necessary evil , but using animals to provide funding for fundings sake , or where common sense and established scientific methods already predict an outcome is just morally wrong .
Example .. hmmmm this hair conditioner has a slight alkalinity to it , lets rub it on a rabbits eyes ... they know its gonna damage them , they just want to see how quickly and to what extent ... sheer bloody mindedness for bloodymindedness sake
Posted: 6/19/2012 2:57:36 AM
I need to stop now. That means Ginger will get the last word, damnit
No my friend, that would not be fair. I will only address a few questions you asked me directly since not answering would be rude.
What that 50% showed was that your figure of 99.7% was unreliable.
How come you get to decide which one of those two was the unreliable one?
I don't. If results are so wildly divergent then they can't be trusted without a lot more investigation.
And what about all the others I mentioned? And how come you keep ignoring the FDA figure?
Because they were besides the point that the subcategory of testing as human disease models is not what the majority of animals are used for, and even in this minority of cases there are recent developments such as transgenic mice that are game changers that greatly imrpove the applicability of these tests.
Without getting a response? In an early post I gave a link (...) And post 25 in its entirety was a cut and paste list of alternative test methods. So how does that qualify as not responding?
They seemed to be addressing alternatives to the subcategory of testing as human disease models rather than fundamental research.
Are there really no alternatives already mentioned that cover any of those research areas? None?
No wonder you have to stop now, they are some well-researched examples you listed there. Human tissue engineering is indeed at the cutting edge of attempts to improve the scientific rigor of the tests and reduce further the use of animals. This will be some time in coming to full-scale, widespread use but is definitely promising. Not yet a replacement for mice in most labs other than those pioneering it though.
'the non-initiation of the use of force' to ourselves then I am not going to get worked up about applying them to lab rats or require scientists to.
Your choice of course, but why? Cos it's easier? Cos if we have to suffer from ourselves we should make damn sure every other species does too? (...) All of the above? None of the above?
Because if we're just talking relative morals such as a benefit-to-harm ratio, and no-one can calculate the benefits and potential benefits, and even if we could we have differing points of view of where the acceptable threshold is, then a constant reduction is the only rational course of action. Immediate cessation is irrational when to cease would lead to the loss of unknown (but possibly significant) benefits. The only rational way to argue for immediate cessation would be to argue that no matter what the unkown benefits, it is always wrong. ie. the absolute moral argument that also leads to the dissolution of the state.
Have you ever considered that if we weren't so intent on hardening ourselves (machines are emotionless, so they must be our heroes), or on actively scorning those who demonstrate compassion for other beings, that we might like ourselves a whole lot more?...
If you go right back you will see that I was advocating a focus on the treatment of animals in agribusiness since I see it as a greater harm with less potential benefit than scientific testing which is much smaller and will naturally reduce itself further through technological advancements. This is hardly scorn against compassion, merely a matter of getting our priorities right.
Wouldn't it be ironic if, say, spending time hugging rabbits made happier humans than taking antidepressants that have been tested on rabbits.
No reason you can't do both. They breed like...
Thanks for the debate Ginger. It's been fun. :)
No worries, anytime. I'll even forgive you the religious remark, which was quite below the belt. lol
Posted: 6/21/2012 5:03:46 AM
|Well I enjoyed reading it all....thanks you two :-)|
Have to admit, it has not changed my opinion on the subject at all, has probably strangthened it if anything (sorry Ginger). But I do love hearing others opinions and a good debate.
Posted: 6/21/2012 5:46:01 AM
Well I enjoyed reading it all...
Crikey, you read it all? I didn't even read it all and I wrote half of it! lol
I do completely understand and respect your opinion and never intended to change it. Rather just to explore the issue and share the other side of the story.
Every scientist who has ever had any experience in this goes through the personal dilemma of animal testing and has to decide for themselves if it really is a necessary evil or not. Those who refuse on moral grounds are (in my experience) respected, not vilified. It is certainly not a cut-and-dried problem with an easy answer.
Those who do choose to use animals in experiments are using them not because they have no compassion for them, but despite their compassion. Because they hope that the good it will do for other people in the long-run will outweigh the harm to the animal and the blot on their conscience.
Thanks for the interesting thread!
Posted: 6/21/2012 4:17:58 PM
I'll even forgive you the religious remark, which was quite below the belt. lol
lol. Thought you might like that. And thanks for answering the rest of my questions, although most of them were rhetorical really. :)
Ironically enough, as I dutifully stopped googling for this and returned to only using it in relation to my studies, the first thing I sourced happened to be an MSDS for a hazardous substance in an office environment (the enthralling world of OH&S....explains why I was so very willing to be distracted) and of course my selection contained info on test results from making rats breathe in photocopy toner. Oh c'mooon Google, lead me not into temptation. Lol
Have to admit, it has not changed my opinion on the subject at all, has probably strangthened it if anything (sorry Ginger).
Yeah same. The more I read the more I was stunned by the consistently high failure rates and how it contrasted with the public perception of animal testing helping to protect humans. But the thing that pleased me was to see how many overseas facilities are now dedicating themselves to finding alternatives....for the sake of humans and animals.
Posted: 6/24/2012 5:35:47 AM
|When I first read this topic I had images of animals getting about with white lab coats and clipboards carrying out experiments|
Posted: 7/1/2012 9:15:33 PM
|Well one things for sure, i ain't gonna volunteer to be crippled on the premise that they can make me walk again.So sure use the rats and mice, they are only vermin anyway.|
Posted: 7/2/2012 2:08:20 AM
they are only vermin anyway.
In who's opinion?.....oh yeah...that would be ours. Funny that hey!
There is a quote by Charles Magel which says it all for me....
"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction."
People will use any illogical logic to justify the way they treat other species. But at the end of the day, if we can't use them, make money from them or benefit from them in some way, then we label them and mis- treat them. When we do benefit from them, we see that a reason to mis-treat them so its a lose/lose situation for most things unlucky enough not to be born human.
I find it shameful.
Posted: 7/2/2012 2:46:14 AM
|It isn't a black or white "like us" or "not like us". There are degrees of separation, with some similarities and some differences. It should be:|
Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are similar enough to us to get what we need to investigate potential benefits to future generations."
Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are different enough to us to allow the potential benefits to outweigh the tangible costs in the eyes of a majority of society."
There is no logical contradiction. Something can be similar in some ways and different in others at the same time.
Posted: 7/24/2012 6:09:15 PM
|Animal testing is wrong its animal cruelty these poor animals don't get a chance to enjoy a happy healthy life they are just science experiments.. if it was a dog or a cat or even a human there is no why this would be happening...|
Posted: 7/25/2012 3:23:19 AM
|Imagine this ,if you or a loved one sucumbed to an incurable disease and were told you only had a few months to live.In the meantime the scientists have found a cure for you or your loved one based on the research they did on animals.Would you not be thankful for experiments on animals? I would.Also the first living being that went up into space was a Dog.Might have been a Chimp i'm not sure.|
Posted: 7/25/2012 3:53:39 AM
|Got to admit, when I saw the story mentioned, I was thinking of my friend who is in RNS and has been for several months, 19, recenyt quad due to a river rope swinging accident, his daughter was born, and apart from a face nuzzle, he can barely touch his child, and I thought wow. I hope this brings changes to paralysis.|
I used to have pet rats and loved them so much, our little sebasitian died of cancer and we were shattered..yes sad over a pet rat as rats make awesome pets.
No one tells lions and cougars to stop tearing up deer and zebra and animal pain is part of life, but so is human pain.
I think we need to be "socially responsible"
if pain and cruelty can be avoided Then work at it. Choose free range, ethically prepared products, make sure you buy cruelty free products and raise awareness
but do not fret about what is out of human control...and focus what can be done. :)
Posted: 7/25/2012 5:26:37 AM
|back in the day the church they say, would find a young child they thought could be good leadership material and they'd abuse him, then they'd guide him. They rekon having your boundaries broke at such a young age realy opens up the brains ability to learn and not just learn but apply. |
Now they rekon they screen military people for an abusive experience under 5 ,but mainly had a decent upbringing, they say they make excellent special forces ...
That weird fat guy who smells and they gossip that he hears voices, you see in the mall, well think of the thousands of humans that had drugs tested on them,involuntary mostly, so that fat guy in the mall could take drugs that would probably mean he'd never think he was an evil batman.
Posted: 7/29/2012 1:48:41 AM
|In the USA, they use prisoners for medical experiments. Many are from a minorty group.|
Posted: 7/29/2012 5:05:19 AM
|Prisoners? What if the prisoners are not guilty because they had poor legal representation. Human experimenting on non willing volunteers has to be some sort of human rights violation.|
Joseph Menegele was a shocker for experimenting on cruel and unusual practises. The Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies and Disabled the choice of the day. Cruelty beyond cruelty.. fast forward to today some of his evil experiments, the results "can" be used for good now, but many doctors and scientists are not feeling morally able to use the research, due to the cruelty of the experiments, think Human Centipede sort of stuff.
Its a tough call for them, if a life can be saved over hundreds of small children being tortured alive till death?