This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Part Troll and part genuine question
From today onwards with all our scientific advancements, do we still need to test/experiment on animals?
From today onwards with all our scientific advancements, do we still need to test/experiment on animals?
In reply to The Lemming:
From a medical standpoint, yes. Our knowledge of complex biological systems is at best incomplete, at worst, poorly understood.
From a medical standpoint, yes. Our knowledge of complex biological systems is at best incomplete, at worst, poorly understood.
Post edited at 14:54
In reply to The Lemming:
Depends what you want to learn. People do experiments on tissue cultures etc as an alternative but sometime there is no getting away from the using a whole organism. We have got much better at minimising our animal testing partly because it is expensive to test on animals. I think labs are also much more sensitive about the welfare implication of any experiment.
Depends what you want to learn. People do experiments on tissue cultures etc as an alternative but sometime there is no getting away from the using a whole organism. We have got much better at minimising our animal testing partly because it is expensive to test on animals. I think labs are also much more sensitive about the welfare implication of any experiment.
In reply to The Lemming: No we don't. The benefits have convinced many that we should, but we could choose to stop.
In reply to PeterM:
You need more than a single lemming to test on though!
> ...or stupid people....
You need more than a single lemming to test on though!
In reply to PeterM:
h
hang on... what have I done?
I have taken meds for money though!
h
> What about an mh554? Would that provide a suitable cohort?
hang on... what have I done?
I have taken meds for money though!
In reply to Kid Spatula:
+1
You *can* avoid tests on animals but the test subjects would then be humans... clearly not going to happen.
+1
You *can* avoid tests on animals but the test subjects would then be humans... clearly not going to happen.
In reply to Andy DB:
exactly.. we can do a lot of prelim work at the culture level, but you then need to trial it on smaller rodents, primates and finally humans.
> Depends what you want to learn. People do experiments on tissue cultures etc as an alternative but sometime there is no getting away from the using a whole organism.
exactly.. we can do a lot of prelim work at the culture level, but you then need to trial it on smaller rodents, primates and finally humans.
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
So what is the hidden meaning?
No more test from today? and therefore stagnate as we are because we got as far as we need to?
So what is the hidden meaning?
No more test from today? and therefore stagnate as we are because we got as far as we need to?
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
So if we didn't test on animals we wouldn't really be able to get anywhere with a lot of medicine. So whilst it is not essential to the survival of our species testing on animals will significantly reduce the suffering of a lot more humans than animals will be used in the testing and is therefore in my opinion the lesser of two evils.
Animal testing of cosmetics though just seems wrong.
So if we didn't test on animals we wouldn't really be able to get anywhere with a lot of medicine. So whilst it is not essential to the survival of our species testing on animals will significantly reduce the suffering of a lot more humans than animals will be used in the testing and is therefore in my opinion the lesser of two evils.
Animal testing of cosmetics though just seems wrong.
In reply to The Lemming:
Which is why it's never done in the UK anymore (with the exception of Botox).
Which is why it's never done in the UK anymore (with the exception of Botox).
In reply to The Lemming:
Well, I suppose as far as medicine is concerned, advances in modelling techniques might mean we're almost certain it'll be safe before we start trials. Therefore, we might reach a point where animals are rarely harmed by testing.
That said, you'll always have to finally test on humans before the medication is released to the masses, so still best stick an animal (or paedo) in the trials beforehand.
Well, I suppose as far as medicine is concerned, advances in modelling techniques might mean we're almost certain it'll be safe before we start trials. Therefore, we might reach a point where animals are rarely harmed by testing.
That said, you'll always have to finally test on humans before the medication is released to the masses, so still best stick an animal (or paedo) in the trials beforehand.
In reply to The Lemming:
Yes. We can do a lot more than we used to in silico and in cell and organ culture, but at some point you need to know what happens in a whole animal system.
Yes. We can do a lot more than we used to in silico and in cell and organ culture, but at some point you need to know what happens in a whole animal system.
In reply to The Lemming:
Test what? Why? Define "need". Without those your question is unbounded and effectively unanswerable.
As I understand it, every proposed piece of work involving animals is incredibly well bounded by these terms and others, and the decision on (dis)allowing every proposed piece of work is taken based on these terms and significant consideration.
> From today onwards with all our scientific advancements, do we still need to test/experiment on animals?
Test what? Why? Define "need". Without those your question is unbounded and effectively unanswerable.
As I understand it, every proposed piece of work involving animals is incredibly well bounded by these terms and others, and the decision on (dis)allowing every proposed piece of work is taken based on these terms and significant consideration.
In reply to The Lemming:
- Do we need to? As mentioned, no. But if we seek to further our knowledge and continue making medical advancements, yes.
- Can we use humans instead? No. Sure, human can be used at the final stages of testing, but we are far from an ideal model. Firstly, there are not enough people to experiment on (assuming volunteering for testing (or even some less ethical 'press ganging' of criminals)). For example in 2012 4.11 million procedures were carried out under the 1986 A(SP)A, where I believe a 'procedure' involves one animal (so repeated daily injections for example only count as one procedure. Roughly half of these procedures were to do with lab animal breeding work (a regulated procedure), which brings me onto the next reason people are a poor choice - people are genetically different. You can easily inbreed strains of rodents/fish to quickly produce genetically identical populations - providing much better controlled studies. Breeding of specific genetically modified animals such as specific gene knockouts is possible, however in humans it would not be (well, theoretically perhaps, but the time scales involved would be ridiculous).
- But what about tissue culture? This is widely used for lots of reasons, and very often can supplement in vivo work, but the applications are very different. You could not test a new surgical technique on cells grown in vitro, conversely you would be not try to elucidate the mechanisms behind certain biological changes in vivo, when faster, more repeatable, more ethical, cheaper results can be generated in vitro. In vivo and in vitro work are tools that should be used to compliment each other, they are not, nor ever will be, mutually exclusive.
- Cosmetic testing has been banned in the UK, however the testing of the compounds that go into the end products has not...
The ethics of testing are a whole different debate, but are irrelevant to your question of 'do we need to?'
- Do we need to? As mentioned, no. But if we seek to further our knowledge and continue making medical advancements, yes.
- Can we use humans instead? No. Sure, human can be used at the final stages of testing, but we are far from an ideal model. Firstly, there are not enough people to experiment on (assuming volunteering for testing (or even some less ethical 'press ganging' of criminals)). For example in 2012 4.11 million procedures were carried out under the 1986 A(SP)A, where I believe a 'procedure' involves one animal (so repeated daily injections for example only count as one procedure. Roughly half of these procedures were to do with lab animal breeding work (a regulated procedure), which brings me onto the next reason people are a poor choice - people are genetically different. You can easily inbreed strains of rodents/fish to quickly produce genetically identical populations - providing much better controlled studies. Breeding of specific genetically modified animals such as specific gene knockouts is possible, however in humans it would not be (well, theoretically perhaps, but the time scales involved would be ridiculous).
- But what about tissue culture? This is widely used for lots of reasons, and very often can supplement in vivo work, but the applications are very different. You could not test a new surgical technique on cells grown in vitro, conversely you would be not try to elucidate the mechanisms behind certain biological changes in vivo, when faster, more repeatable, more ethical, cheaper results can be generated in vitro. In vivo and in vitro work are tools that should be used to compliment each other, they are not, nor ever will be, mutually exclusive.
- Cosmetic testing has been banned in the UK, however the testing of the compounds that go into the end products has not...
The ethics of testing are a whole different debate, but are irrelevant to your question of 'do we need to?'
In reply to mh554: No hidden mesaning, we don't need to progress, and maybe we could progress at a far slower rate. All I mean is, it's a real choice, let's not pretend it isn't.
In reply to wintertree:
I see you have identfied his M.O.
> Without those your question is unbounded and effectively unanswerable.
I see you have identfied his M.O.
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
You are right, but in a rather pedantic way. I think we can take it as given that we, the human race give or take a few bedreadlocked f^ckwits, value progress in medicine above the value of a few animals that help us achieve it. So I read the question as "can we achieve what we obviously want without animal testing" to which the answer is simply, "no".
> No hidden mesaning, we don't need to progress, and maybe we could progress at a far slower rate. All I mean is, it's a real choice, let's not pretend it isn't.
You are right, but in a rather pedantic way. I think we can take it as given that we, the human race give or take a few bedreadlocked f^ckwits, value progress in medicine above the value of a few animals that help us achieve it. So I read the question as "can we achieve what we obviously want without animal testing" to which the answer is simply, "no".
In reply to Jon Stewart: I wasn't trying to be pedantic, and I don't think I was. As I understand it, animals suffer and die so we have improved medical care. In my opinion, saying we 'need' to experiment doesn't acknowledge that it's a real choice. Saying we 'want' to experiment would be more honest. Even saying that, what do people really want. Do most of us even understand when and how we use animals? I don't. Do most of us understand what progress can be made without using them? I don't. But it is still a choice.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Its interesting though, because our continued persuit of medical advances could very easily bankrupt our current economic models through the increased average lifespan, and problems with working into old age
Its interesting though, because our continued persuit of medical advances could very easily bankrupt our current economic models through the increased average lifespan, and problems with working into old age
In reply to balmybaldwin:
It could also free us up. I work in Ageing research.. we Cannot say we want to extend lifespan.. only healthspan.
We want to work towards the perfect death.. "I have a lifetime appointment and I intend to serve it. I expect to die at 110, shot by a jealous husband." Thurgood Marshall.
But the period of morbidity before death is a huge cost, 95% of your total lifetime care costs come in the last 6 weeks of life. Its the morbidity we look to tackle. The problem is we are just pissing in the wind with dementia at the moment. But a breakthrough on some of those and we will make huge savings in costs. Already we are making strides against heart disease and cancers.
It could also free us up. I work in Ageing research.. we Cannot say we want to extend lifespan.. only healthspan.
We want to work towards the perfect death.. "I have a lifetime appointment and I intend to serve it. I expect to die at 110, shot by a jealous husband." Thurgood Marshall.
But the period of morbidity before death is a huge cost, 95% of your total lifetime care costs come in the last 6 weeks of life. Its the morbidity we look to tackle. The problem is we are just pissing in the wind with dementia at the moment. But a breakthrough on some of those and we will make huge savings in costs. Already we are making strides against heart disease and cancers.
In reply to The Lemming:
Animal Experiments are wrong. To inflict pain, Suffering and Death on any being that feels pain and emotion is wrong.
Or where do you Draw the Line? Seems people try and use genetic Similarity. Eg some say ok to test on Mice but not dogs. Others say ok to torture dogs but not monkeys. Others say ok to abuse monkeys, but not apes. I can Take that further but would Godwin the thread.
Animal Experiments are wrong. To inflict pain, Suffering and Death on any being that feels pain and emotion is wrong.
Or where do you Draw the Line? Seems people try and use genetic Similarity. Eg some say ok to test on Mice but not dogs. Others say ok to torture dogs but not monkeys. Others say ok to abuse monkeys, but not apes. I can Take that further but would Godwin the thread.
In reply to sweenyt:
Yes, that. I can cope with either of those standpoints, but struggle with the large part of the population that would like a cure for cancer (etc) tomorrow, but don't support animal experimentation.
> - Do we need to? As mentioned, no. But if we seek to further our knowledge and continue making medical advancements, yes.
Yes, that. I can cope with either of those standpoints, but struggle with the large part of the population that would like a cure for cancer (etc) tomorrow, but don't support animal experimentation.
In reply to Carolyn: I have some respect for those people. Even though they want something, they're aware of the price that'll be paid by other species, and they're willing to accept they won't necessarily get what they want because the cost to animals, not to us, is too high.
In reply to The Lemming:
Sadly i suspect most people are not of the opinion ' i would like cancer to be cured but am prepared to live with it as experimentation is cruel'. Rather they are stupid and say yes to the questions 'do you want cancer to be cured' and 'do you want a.e. To stop' whilst ignoring incompatability between them.
Sadly i suspect most people are not of the opinion ' i would like cancer to be cured but am prepared to live with it as experimentation is cruel'. Rather they are stupid and say yes to the questions 'do you want cancer to be cured' and 'do you want a.e. To stop' whilst ignoring incompatability between them.
In reply to Choss:
You use mice due to size and lifespan.. convenience. Mice, fruitflys and worms.. the classic model organisms.
Its heavily controlled though.
You use mice due to size and lifespan.. convenience. Mice, fruitflys and worms.. the classic model organisms.
Its heavily controlled though.
In reply to IainRUK:
Heavily controlled horror. Not convinced by that. Animal labs demean our humanity and are an insult to our Compassion as pornography is an affront to our sexuality.
> Its heavily controlled though.
Heavily controlled horror. Not convinced by that. Animal labs demean our humanity and are an insult to our Compassion as pornography is an affront to our sexuality.
In reply to Choss:
By showing that we prioritise benefits for our own species above others? We are animals like the rest, and nature dictates that species do not sacrifice themselves for others. We save animals' lives when it is in our interest too, we don't forgo benefits for the sake of them.
I can't really get into this. Pornography is just a consequence of us possessing libido that is (most) often not satisfied by our relationships and encounters alone. If someone can make money out of that, they will. What would stop them (other than some unspecified lofty moral code that you imply exists somewhere - I'm not aware of it).
> Animal labs demean our humanity and are an insult to our Compassion
By showing that we prioritise benefits for our own species above others? We are animals like the rest, and nature dictates that species do not sacrifice themselves for others. We save animals' lives when it is in our interest too, we don't forgo benefits for the sake of them.
> as pornography is an affront to our sexuality.
I can't really get into this. Pornography is just a consequence of us possessing libido that is (most) often not satisfied by our relationships and encounters alone. If someone can make money out of that, they will. What would stop them (other than some unspecified lofty moral code that you imply exists somewhere - I'm not aware of it).
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
The best possible medical care?
I worked for a pre-clinical trials company as a temp. It wasn't particularly surprising what was going on there, I don't think the level of knowledge has much baring on the discussion.
I don't understand it, but I know some biology and I can't imagine effective ways of developing drugs with animal testing.
I agree I'm just saying that it's a choice like "shall I use the toilet, or shall I just sit here and shit my pants?". One doesn't need to think hard about the pros and cons.
> Even saying that, what do people really want.
The best possible medical care?
> Do most of us even understand when and how we use animals? I don't.
I worked for a pre-clinical trials company as a temp. It wasn't particularly surprising what was going on there, I don't think the level of knowledge has much baring on the discussion.
> Do most of us understand what progress can be made without using them? I don't.
I don't understand it, but I know some biology and I can't imagine effective ways of developing drugs with animal testing.
> But it is still a choice.
I agree I'm just saying that it's a choice like "shall I use the toilet, or shall I just sit here and shit my pants?". One doesn't need to think hard about the pros and cons.
In reply to Choss:
Have you worked in them? I have, I worked at a leading research centre in TX so was involved in it.. TBH I did struggle watching mice euthanised.. but they are treated well whilst alive.
Have you worked in them? I have, I worked at a leading research centre in TX so was involved in it.. TBH I did struggle watching mice euthanised.. but they are treated well whilst alive.
In reply to Jon Stewart: Seems like you would like to sanction all testing, regardless of the level of suffering, and regardless of how minor the ailment?
In reply to Choss:
Sorry, but you are just demonstrating your ignorance here. You know (I assume, given the certainty of your comment), that anything that equals or exceeds the pain/suffering/distress of a hypodermic needle stick is a regulated procedure. So therefore every vaccine or drug that is administered to test its efficacy, counts as testing. Not much suffering there. (human and animal vaccines can be tested, so this isn't just for our sake...). Behavioural testing involving changed light cycles, changed food types etc all count as regulated procedures. So not everything that is 'animal tested' is actually a 'horror' as you like to put it. You are equally aware I assume, that by law every procedure that is more painful/stressful than the administration of an anaesthetic, must be carried out under anaesthesia (unless under very rare and very specific exemptions)?
I can only assume you have read and understood all the home office guidelines for the use of animals in research, you have read and understood a project licence application and seen the colossal amount of justification needed before any animal work is allowed, that you understand the principles of reduction, refinement and replacement, that you understand the supervision required to ensure all procedures that are carried out by personal licence holders do so in the least offensive way possible to the animals involved, that you understand ALL the reasons behind the use of animals, not just the ones you choose to disagree with... I could go on.
So assuming that the answer is yes to all of those bits, and you still disagree with testing, then fair enough. I just hope that you have the balls to stick to you morals, so you don't use anything that has been tested on animals. So no medicine (knowledge or physically like surgery), no drugs etc. Oh, and don't forget that equally applies to your dog, as every drug/vaccine/tin of food etc will have been tested ON ANIMALS.
Basically (and I'm sorry to go on), we cannot live a modern life without the use of products/knowledge that has been acquired through animal testing. So perhaps become a bit better educated, a bit less morally absolute and a bit more realistic before making comments such as:
> Heavily controlled horror.
Sorry, but you are just demonstrating your ignorance here. You know (I assume, given the certainty of your comment), that anything that equals or exceeds the pain/suffering/distress of a hypodermic needle stick is a regulated procedure. So therefore every vaccine or drug that is administered to test its efficacy, counts as testing. Not much suffering there. (human and animal vaccines can be tested, so this isn't just for our sake...). Behavioural testing involving changed light cycles, changed food types etc all count as regulated procedures. So not everything that is 'animal tested' is actually a 'horror' as you like to put it. You are equally aware I assume, that by law every procedure that is more painful/stressful than the administration of an anaesthetic, must be carried out under anaesthesia (unless under very rare and very specific exemptions)?
I can only assume you have read and understood all the home office guidelines for the use of animals in research, you have read and understood a project licence application and seen the colossal amount of justification needed before any animal work is allowed, that you understand the principles of reduction, refinement and replacement, that you understand the supervision required to ensure all procedures that are carried out by personal licence holders do so in the least offensive way possible to the animals involved, that you understand ALL the reasons behind the use of animals, not just the ones you choose to disagree with... I could go on.
So assuming that the answer is yes to all of those bits, and you still disagree with testing, then fair enough. I just hope that you have the balls to stick to you morals, so you don't use anything that has been tested on animals. So no medicine (knowledge or physically like surgery), no drugs etc. Oh, and don't forget that equally applies to your dog, as every drug/vaccine/tin of food etc will have been tested ON ANIMALS.
Basically (and I'm sorry to go on), we cannot live a modern life without the use of products/knowledge that has been acquired through animal testing. So perhaps become a bit better educated, a bit less morally absolute and a bit more realistic before making comments such as:
> Animal labs demean our humanity and are an insult to our Compassion
In reply to sweenyt:
I have often thought that our whole attitude to animals lacks coherence. Besides conducting experiments on some animals, we have abattoirs for others, and sanctuaries for yet others. In some countries a particular animal is eaten with relish, in another to do so would cause an outcry.
We destroy vast swathes of habitat, and in doing so directly or indirectly cause the deaths of the animals that live there.
To single out animal experiments as being uniquely cruel seems odd to me.
Where is the sense in all of this?
I have often thought that our whole attitude to animals lacks coherence. Besides conducting experiments on some animals, we have abattoirs for others, and sanctuaries for yet others. In some countries a particular animal is eaten with relish, in another to do so would cause an outcry.
We destroy vast swathes of habitat, and in doing so directly or indirectly cause the deaths of the animals that live there.
To single out animal experiments as being uniquely cruel seems odd to me.
Where is the sense in all of this?
Post edited at 10:06
In reply to mbh:
Indeed. If pet owners were held to the same standards as animal research, and under the same legal requirements, the courts would be a busy place. It would not surprise me if the total suffering of pet animals in the UK exceeds that of those in laboratories. Likewise if animal farming was held to the same standards...
> I have often thought that our whole attitude to animals lacks coherence.
Indeed. If pet owners were held to the same standards as animal research, and under the same legal requirements, the courts would be a busy place. It would not surprise me if the total suffering of pet animals in the UK exceeds that of those in laboratories. Likewise if animal farming was held to the same standards...
In reply to sweenyt:
More and more medical Professionals disagree with you these days.
Im with them.
You keep your watered down sanitised version of the reality of animal testing, and ill keep mine.
More and more medical Professionals disagree with you these days.
Im with them.
You keep your watered down sanitised version of the reality of animal testing, and ill keep mine.
In reply to sweenyt:
It could also be rational to decide that whilst we've made huge advances through animal experimentation, we've reached a point where further progress isn't necessary, or doesn't justify the suffering. That doesn't necessarily mean refusing treatment based on historical work.
It could also be rational to decide that whilst we've made huge advances through animal experimentation, we've reached a point where further progress isn't necessary, or doesn't justify the suffering. That doesn't necessarily mean refusing treatment based on historical work.
In reply to Carolyn:
Oh absolutely. I'm not saying it is the right thing to do, and I very much think there are scales and each persons level of what is acceptable will be different.
However when people are massively ignorant, such as our friend Choss appears to be, it makes me quite frustrated.
Oh absolutely. I'm not saying it is the right thing to do, and I very much think there are scales and each persons level of what is acceptable will be different.
However when people are massively ignorant, such as our friend Choss appears to be, it makes me quite frustrated.
In reply to The Lemming:
Yes.
And yes, it's an ethical minefield. Diabetes UK has a well-written position statement on the use of animals in medical research which, to my eyes (I have no connection with Diabetes UK and do not have diabetes), is about as good as you can get today http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Research/Our-approach-to-research/Research-posit...
I chose diabetes as an example as most people know what it is and probably someone who has it and without animal testing, we'd be no further forward in treatments for it. As it is, treatments have been found and progressively improved; for both people and animals. There's a piece about that here http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/why/human-health/insulin-for-... (again, I have no connection).
Whilst our understanding of the way biology works at an atomic and molecular level is improving, and our ability to use computer modelling to replicate what happens at an atomic and molecular level in the context of whole cell systems and beyond is also improving, we're not yet at the point where we can use that knowledge to remove the need for some animal testing. It reduces the need through pre-screening of candidate drug molecules for example, but it doesn't yet remove it. Time, money and much research using damn big computers and research facilities such as synchrotrons (nice piece about the Diamond synchrotron on the Guardian website today http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/01/diamond-britain-large-hadron... ) may, over many decades, move us further towards this but we're not there yet.
In the meantime, we should do as little as possible and only where there is no alternative. But we must still, regrettably, do it.
T.
> From today onwards with all our scientific advancements, do we still need to test/experiment on animals?
Yes.
And yes, it's an ethical minefield. Diabetes UK has a well-written position statement on the use of animals in medical research which, to my eyes (I have no connection with Diabetes UK and do not have diabetes), is about as good as you can get today http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Research/Our-approach-to-research/Research-posit...
I chose diabetes as an example as most people know what it is and probably someone who has it and without animal testing, we'd be no further forward in treatments for it. As it is, treatments have been found and progressively improved; for both people and animals. There's a piece about that here http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/why/human-health/insulin-for-... (again, I have no connection).
Whilst our understanding of the way biology works at an atomic and molecular level is improving, and our ability to use computer modelling to replicate what happens at an atomic and molecular level in the context of whole cell systems and beyond is also improving, we're not yet at the point where we can use that knowledge to remove the need for some animal testing. It reduces the need through pre-screening of candidate drug molecules for example, but it doesn't yet remove it. Time, money and much research using damn big computers and research facilities such as synchrotrons (nice piece about the Diamond synchrotron on the Guardian website today http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/01/diamond-britain-large-hadron... ) may, over many decades, move us further towards this but we're not there yet.
In the meantime, we should do as little as possible and only where there is no alternative. But we must still, regrettably, do it.
T.
In reply to sweenyt:
You Mean when people have a different outlook to you, and dont buy in to your thinking you get Frustrated.
My view is different to yours. That doesnt make me ignorant. That Assertion of yours says more about you than me.
You Mean when people have a different outlook to you, and dont buy in to your thinking you get Frustrated.
My view is different to yours. That doesnt make me ignorant. That Assertion of yours says more about you than me.
In reply to Choss:
Yes, given you earlier said " To inflict pain, Suffering and Death on any being that feels pain and emotion is wrong."
Eating meat and dairy products undoubtedly inflicts some suffering on animals. Some may consider that OK, others won't.
I have mixed feelings about using animal experimentation, but given I'm happy to eat animal products (which is arguably less justifiable than medical experiments as there are clearly alternative foods) I err towards it being OK under strict regulation (as it is in the UK).
> Is that relevant?
Yes, given you earlier said " To inflict pain, Suffering and Death on any being that feels pain and emotion is wrong."
Eating meat and dairy products undoubtedly inflicts some suffering on animals. Some may consider that OK, others won't.
I have mixed feelings about using animal experimentation, but given I'm happy to eat animal products (which is arguably less justifiable than medical experiments as there are clearly alternative foods) I err towards it being OK under strict regulation (as it is in the UK).
In reply to Carolyn:
Yes, i am a Vegan. I also dont buy leather, etc. Hence my threads on Vegan Friendly Climbing shoes and walking boots Occasionally.
Yes, i am a Vegan. I also dont buy leather, etc. Hence my threads on Vegan Friendly Climbing shoes and walking boots Occasionally.
In reply to Choss:
Fair enough. The reason I asked has been succinctly stated by Carolyn above.
I cannot understand anybody who objects to medical testing on animals but still eats meat.
Fair enough. The reason I asked has been succinctly stated by Carolyn above.
I cannot understand anybody who objects to medical testing on animals but still eats meat.
In reply to IainRUK:
That's a classic line
To the OP:
For years the military people insisted that testing atomic weapons by actually exploding them was "essential to our security", then for various reasons, including scientific progress, it wasn't and computer simulations took over, but it wasn't the military bods who decided this it was those above them. In the same way all (most?) the scientific "experts", even those posting on ukc, insist that using live animals is essential for our well being, they always will because they are too close to the subject to see the moral implications for human beings, let alone the more down to earth ones for the animals.
As said above it is a moral choice and to change things it would have to become a political one, the scientific experts would have to accept just as the military ones did.
> ...but they are treated well whilst alive.
That's a classic line
To the OP:
For years the military people insisted that testing atomic weapons by actually exploding them was "essential to our security", then for various reasons, including scientific progress, it wasn't and computer simulations took over, but it wasn't the military bods who decided this it was those above them. In the same way all (most?) the scientific "experts", even those posting on ukc, insist that using live animals is essential for our well being, they always will because they are too close to the subject to see the moral implications for human beings, let alone the more down to earth ones for the animals.
As said above it is a moral choice and to change things it would have to become a political one, the scientific experts would have to accept just as the military ones did.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
I'm not sure the parallel you draw is a valid one.
It isn't just your 'scientific experts' that would have to accept it; the end users of such work - the global public - would have to accept it too. It's an inevitable consequence that people would suffer and die without some animal testing; computer modelling of a system as complex as the human body, with all its cells and neurones and biological processes that interact in such strange and interdependent ways, is not yet sophisticated enough to replace animal testing.
Which is a shame, and I hope one day it will be. Sadly though, I don't think it will be in my lifetime.
T.
> the scientific experts would have to accept just as the military ones did.
I'm not sure the parallel you draw is a valid one.
It isn't just your 'scientific experts' that would have to accept it; the end users of such work - the global public - would have to accept it too. It's an inevitable consequence that people would suffer and die without some animal testing; computer modelling of a system as complex as the human body, with all its cells and neurones and biological processes that interact in such strange and interdependent ways, is not yet sophisticated enough to replace animal testing.
Which is a shame, and I hope one day it will be. Sadly though, I don't think it will be in my lifetime.
T.
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
Dont bother.. the use of the term "experts".. to suggest that us in science don't actually know about it properly and are too close to see..
Those who work in animal research know how hard it is, how well regulated the science is and how much you have to jump through hoops working with the animal ethics people.
There is a big drive to reduce to use of model organisms.. The 3R's.. reduce, refine and replace the use of higher animals in research.
http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/business/collaborative-research/tsb-competitions/adv...
Currently we do not know enough to stop animal research, that doesn't mean there is a drive to keep on reducing.
Dont bother.. the use of the term "experts".. to suggest that us in science don't actually know about it properly and are too close to see..
Those who work in animal research know how hard it is, how well regulated the science is and how much you have to jump through hoops working with the animal ethics people.
There is a big drive to reduce to use of model organisms.. The 3R's.. reduce, refine and replace the use of higher animals in research.
http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/business/collaborative-research/tsb-competitions/adv...
Currently we do not know enough to stop animal research, that doesn't mean there is a drive to keep on reducing.
In reply to Kid Spatula:
There are plenty of people that say "No" to this question that understand how biological science works.
> All the people saying "No" have no idea of how biology as a science works.
There are plenty of people that say "No" to this question that understand how biological science works.
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
They wouldn't have to accept because if this came about - the meeting of improved modelling methods with public distaste for using live animals growing then it would have been the public who caused the change to come about. If public opinion doesn't then the political drive wouldn't happen. At present it's clear that there is no massive moral dilemma for the majority of people so those who feel they need to use other species to advance human knowledge have nothing to worry about.... unless they have their wown moral qualms, of course.
Mostly scientists only do what the public wants them to do, and provides them the financial means to do.
> the global public - would have to accept it too
They wouldn't have to accept because if this came about - the meeting of improved modelling methods with public distaste for using live animals growing then it would have been the public who caused the change to come about. If public opinion doesn't then the political drive wouldn't happen. At present it's clear that there is no massive moral dilemma for the majority of people so those who feel they need to use other species to advance human knowledge have nothing to worry about.... unless they have their wown moral qualms, of course.
Mostly scientists only do what the public wants them to do, and provides them the financial means to do.
Post edited at 18:50
In reply to Bruce Hooker: As I said, you'll be waiting a good while for those improved modelling methods.
T.
T.
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
Not really, the testing has to have tangible benefits and obviously the suffering should be minimised.
I'm just saying that the rules we have - that testing is legal and heavily regulated - encode what I see as a moral 'no brainer'. It's not nice, so minimise it and makes sure it is done at a high quality (through regulation), but goodness sake don't ban it.
> Seems like you would like to sanction all testing, regardless of the level of suffering, and regardless of how minor the ailment?
Not really, the testing has to have tangible benefits and obviously the suffering should be minimised.
I'm just saying that the rules we have - that testing is legal and heavily regulated - encode what I see as a moral 'no brainer'. It's not nice, so minimise it and makes sure it is done at a high quality (through regulation), but goodness sake don't ban it.
In reply to aln:
No we dont.. we can use inverts and we can use tissue cultures. But things change as you move up the animal groups.. to the higher mammals.. and then we may know how a drug works on its target tissues but not other side affects at the organismal level.
If we want to stop many childhood diseases, transplants, and many cancers then for now we have to keep testing. That doesn't mean we should not follow the 3R's.
No we dont.. we can use inverts and we can use tissue cultures. But things change as you move up the animal groups.. to the higher mammals.. and then we may know how a drug works on its target tissues but not other side affects at the organismal level.
If we want to stop many childhood diseases, transplants, and many cancers then for now we have to keep testing. That doesn't mean we should not follow the 3R's.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
To a point you are right, but in a very general sense. Science though, fundamental science, looks much further ahead that the public have no idea about. Nanoscience for example, that was being worked on before anyone had a clue.
Animal testing has, rightly, been controlled, and increasingly so. You just cannot propose research easily, it takes a good year to get funding, you have to satisfy the 3R's, you have to explain your impact in society, the ethics of your research, its advances. Its a huge process, a royal pain in the ass but they are giving us 100's of K's of public money, so rightly it should all be transparent and regulated.
To a point you are right, but in a very general sense. Science though, fundamental science, looks much further ahead that the public have no idea about. Nanoscience for example, that was being worked on before anyone had a clue.
Animal testing has, rightly, been controlled, and increasingly so. You just cannot propose research easily, it takes a good year to get funding, you have to satisfy the 3R's, you have to explain your impact in society, the ethics of your research, its advances. Its a huge process, a royal pain in the ass but they are giving us 100's of K's of public money, so rightly it should all be transparent and regulated.
In reply to IainRUK:
Exactly. We don't have to, we choose to.
> If we want to stop many childhood diseases, transplants, and many cancers then for now we have to keep testing.
Exactly. We don't have to, we choose to.
In reply to aln:
exactly.. but we want to stop people dieing early, for now this is how. Most of us would be dead without testing.. vaccinations.. drugs..
exactly.. but we want to stop people dieing early, for now this is how. Most of us would be dead without testing.. vaccinations.. drugs..
In reply to IainRUK:
But even we agree that we want to stop people dying early, you could debate if medical science is currently the most cost effective way to achieve that.
Even in the UK, if you stopped funding research, and put that money into preventative public health work (eg better housing, breastfeeding support, better diets, adequate heating - and better planned than the odd leaflet campaign), you'd probably have a greater effect on average life expectancy, and you'd likely reduce the current inequalities between poor and rich areas.
Expand that to the developing world, and you might well achieve as much by ensuring clean water and nutrious food as with vaccination or drugs.
Clearly medical research is likely to make further breakthroughs, and that's the reason to continue, but we could do a lot more in the short term to make sure what we know is used to best effect. And that always made me slightly uneasy when I worked in research.
> exactly.. but we want to stop people dieing early, for now this is how. Most of us would be dead without testing.. vaccinations.. drugs..
But even we agree that we want to stop people dying early, you could debate if medical science is currently the most cost effective way to achieve that.
Even in the UK, if you stopped funding research, and put that money into preventative public health work (eg better housing, breastfeeding support, better diets, adequate heating - and better planned than the odd leaflet campaign), you'd probably have a greater effect on average life expectancy, and you'd likely reduce the current inequalities between poor and rich areas.
Expand that to the developing world, and you might well achieve as much by ensuring clean water and nutrious food as with vaccination or drugs.
Clearly medical research is likely to make further breakthroughs, and that's the reason to continue, but we could do a lot more in the short term to make sure what we know is used to best effect. And that always made me slightly uneasy when I worked in research.
In reply to Carolyn:
But that involves persuading people to be less greedy, less focused on short-term profit, less easily manipulated by politicians and religious zealots, less factional, less tribal and less apathetic.
We need to be practical and concentrate on simple, soluble problems like Alzheimer's, cancer, drug-resistant TB and killer pandemic influenza.
> Clearly medical research is likely to make further breakthroughs, and that's the reason to continue, but we could do a lot more in the short term to make sure what we know is used to best effect. And that always made me slightly uneasy when I worked in research.
But that involves persuading people to be less greedy, less focused on short-term profit, less easily manipulated by politicians and religious zealots, less factional, less tribal and less apathetic.
We need to be practical and concentrate on simple, soluble problems like Alzheimer's, cancer, drug-resistant TB and killer pandemic influenza.
In reply to Carolyn:
Stop medical science and all the heating and healthy diets in the world won't save us. You'll have a fine and dandy year or decade and then a new virus or bacteria will emerge and you'll have a global catastrophe. Plagues and such like used to be awful killers, and that was back before the days of high speed travel.
You can't pause research in a field, globally or selectively. If you stop one area it has knock on effects to others, and you can't expect to keep trained researchers and facilities around "just in case" whilst not allowing them to work in the mean time.
You're right that preventative health focused policy could achieve a lot - just look at Cuba - but that should not be at the cost of medical research.
> you could debate if medical science is currently the most cost effective way to achieve that.
Stop medical science and all the heating and healthy diets in the world won't save us. You'll have a fine and dandy year or decade and then a new virus or bacteria will emerge and you'll have a global catastrophe. Plagues and such like used to be awful killers, and that was back before the days of high speed travel.
You can't pause research in a field, globally or selectively. If you stop one area it has knock on effects to others, and you can't expect to keep trained researchers and facilities around "just in case" whilst not allowing them to work in the mean time.
You're right that preventative health focused policy could achieve a lot - just look at Cuba - but that should not be at the cost of medical research.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...