So I was having an argument with my flatmates last night about animal testing. I mentioned I was against it, particulary the expirement that invlove killing and/or maiming the animal. My flatemates thought this was ridiculous - they think that the stories from PETA about testing products in a rabbit's eye are bullshit, that this sort of thing doesn't happen. (these are the same girls who think that 'barn fresh' eggs are just as good as free range...because battery farming doesn't really happen, does it? ) Anyway, I was wondering if anyone had concrete proof (or at least knew of a respected website with such proof) that I could show my flatties to help convinvce them that vivisection isn't about setting animals free in a happy field full of endless sunshine and big rainbows? I really need to know what drug companies (and especially cosmetics companies) are doing, who is doing it and i need evidence.. I really apreciate anyone who can help. thanks, from soph.
www.navs.org www.aavs.org http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/archive/research.html (Warning: disturbing pictures) http://www.hsus.org/ace/12508 (Download PDF file) Straight from the horses mouth... http://www.primateproducts.com/ (Click on 'Handling', then on 'Restraint Chairs') http://www.promed-tec.com/005guillotine.htm (small animal guillotine) http://www.promed-tec.com/001jack-restr.htm (Restraint jackets for animals) You can find plenty more in a simple internet search.
thanks - yeah i tried the net search - I was told that I "shouldn't believe anything I can find through a search engine" (wtf? ) But thanks, that should help.
there is an ethical question here though... Since humans have the capabilities to invent these drugs that can save peoples lives..do we not owe it to our fellow humans to invent them and save their life? While i agree that cosmetic companies and shampoo producers who test on animals should be shot.....I think it would be wrong for us to let fellow human beings die, when we have the capability to save them. Of course, we should try and find alternatives to animal testing...
our particular argument was about cosmetic testing and the fact that they didn;t believe animals were hurt in the testing..(whatever). Anyway, as for medicine...I just don't know how similar we to rats, mice, bunnies etc... I am crap at science, but it just seems to me that are quite different from animals, genetically speaking, and as a result what works for aniamls may not have the same effect on humans? I think i remeber reading a paper on this for ethics - there was some drug in the UK (i think) that showed no side effects on the mce, rats etc... it was tested on but when humans tried it it fucked them up. Like I said, I am awful at science, so i don;t really know what i am talking about, lol. My politics tutor from last year was a miliant greenie though - he DESPISED people doing stuff like injecting chimps with AIDS - his alternative was to inject those on death row and study the effects on them....
death row? new zealand? I thought only the US had the death penalty in the "western world." Anyways, i know very little about science too...but we must be close enough in some regards that testing the drugs works with some reliability....but thats a big assumption.
I dont know anything about anything of Cosmetics on animals, The science issue is very simple though, Places that test animals for scientific reasons are searching for either cures or what new substances introduced into an organism can inflict cancer or any other sicknesses. Carcinogens dont discriminate between species whatever can cause cancer or illness in a rat or guiena pig can do the same to a human. It is nescassary for the public to know of all possible carcinogens no matter how little the threat may be. It is nescassary for animal testing to be able to find cures for certain threatning diseases, first they give a subject the illness/virus on purpose and test it and try various cures or procedures to see if it stops, slows down or completly wipes out the ilness. IT IS NESSCASARY!
I know I'm gonna catch major shit for this but I'm all for testing on the death row inmates that are guilty ( without a doubt proven and admitted ) of heinous crimes. The pedophiles, serial killers, serial rapists. I know many will argue that that's "cruel and unusual punishment" but I say why not inflict that shit on humans that deserve it? The results would be way more relative to the reasons for the experiments. And if it's cruel to do it to humans why isn't it considered cruel to animals. Why should species differences have anything to do with what we deem to be abuse and torture? Besides a lot of those experiments are done out of nothing but sick curiosity, like the fucked-in-the-head scientists who sewed two dogs together. What the fuck did that prove?! That two dogs can't live after being sewn together?!?! I think if we tested shit on humans there would be a lot less useless experiments like the afore mentioned and a lot more positve results because we would at least be dealing with the same genes and cell structure as we are experimenting for. I really don't get why we feel it's our right to do whatever the fuck we want to animals. It makes me sick. oh yea.. and Frozen Moon.. about your roommates, they're just in deep denial. It's a common defense for those who can't handle the truth. It's sad but true.
This is very irrational If your all for animal rights and junk, and your for experimental testing on death row inmates then your morals and ethics are thrown out the window because your supporting the torture and execution of people. Goverment funded scientific research testing is not done out of "Sick Curiousity" it is done for the benefit of mankind and i highly doubt they saw dogs in half and put em back together, the case you mentioned is obviosly some quack who thought he would have a good laugh You sound more like a nazi at one of the concentration camps ready to open up some jews. Human life is held higher in regard to any species. I dont see how you can be FOR animal rights and the freedom and Protection for animals if you turn around and promote that we use people instead..it makes no sense and it will never make sense An justified death is a swift one,
It may not get the headlines of the "rats vs. people" arguments, but the real key to replacing animal tests is maintaining steady support and funding of alternatives that reduce and replace the use of animals. Many responsible animal rights organizations are helping to fund the development of alternatives, as well as pushing Congress to allot more funds to alternatives research. Unfortunately, inertia in the scientific community is hard to slow down, and the money alloted for all sorts of animal research projects (including those that are painful and of dubious value) far surpasses the trickle of public and private funds earmarked for finding ways to reduce the number of animals. Before making blanket statements in favor of vivisection, or falling into the endless "prisoners vs. animals" argument, I suggest taking a more critical look at the industry and the number of far-from-lifesaving projects that are funded each year. Also, the need to adequately fund alternatives--at one time, the live rabbit pregnancy test and the LD-50 test were once considered irreplacable and necessary, too. www.navs.org is a good site, as is the book "Sacred Cows and Golden Geese".
nah, no death penalty here (pretty sure we dont give AIDS to chimps here either...) - my tutor was talking on more of a global scale, seeing testing a worldwide problem, not just a kiwi one. that was great oh, and peacegal - definitley. I'm not saying that I nessecariy agree with my tutor, I absolutley think that viable aletnatives to animal testing should be found, or at least the testers should make an attempt to search for alternatives.
save a human life by killing an innocent one...nice I know this will draw the ire of probably everyone in here. But my loyalty is to innocent people first. If i had to chose to save a child or a dog..i'd pick the child everytime. I dont agree with cosmetic companies testing on animals...but testing things like penicilin have saved countless amount of lives around the world. Was the testing on some rabbits and mice so horrible that you would have rather traded the deaths of countless individuals?
The history of penicillin....may be more complex than many assume. There is evidence that misleading animal tests sidetracked the use of this drug. http://www.curedisease.com/FAQpenicillin.html Like many have pointed out, the "children vs. animals" argument makes for good soundbites and appeals to our emotions and desire for clearcut debates. However, the issue is more complex, and in many cases, it is no longer a generous race to rescue the populace from disasterous disease. Business interests, grant monies, politics and the status quo have all entered the playing ring--slowing down developments that could continue research and reduce animal use and suffering.
right, but that article itself even claims that penicilin was proved to work through animal testing... "The Greeks go on to claim that "He later had a very sick patient, and since he had nothing else to try, administered penicillin. The rest is history." In fact, Florey gave Fleming the purified penicillin. The vital part played by Chain and Florey in isolating it, proving it by using mice, and developing it, is largely ignored in their book."
there are stacks of scientists who oppose vivisection, not because of animal rights ethics but because it doesn't work. this book is really good read too imo http://www.health.org.nz/cover.html personally i think vivisection is wrong, even if it was needed to help humans(which it is not). Humans are in the position where we can choose to be merciful and kind or we can choose to hurt and kill. I know which choice i think belongs to a so called 'superior' species. Killing and hurting animals just cause we can is so gross, its barbaric and belongs in the dark ages.
I definately and foremost believe in finding alternative methods above all animal and human testing too. That would be the most ideal.
