Animal testing - right or wrong?

paigetheoracle · 06-20-2006

Animal Rights activists I believe are prolonging the testing of animals in research laboratories and forcing it underground, when without resistance it might stop anyway as new methods are found to acheive the same aims in more humane ways. I base this belief on how someone as practically orientated as Temple Grandin, didn't try to stop the slaughter of animals but tried to make their passing more comfortable and less distressing than previous through trying to find out what actually upset them.

Idealists try to change what they don't like - realists try to understand causes and change them, which is why the first create chaos with their hatred of something but never change it for the better as they never comprehend it and the second do because they accept things as they are, learn from them and modify what is going on, leading to real progress within the subject (ergo as an experiencer, she discovered the truth and changed it, proving her humanity in a practical way for the animals as opposed to rebelling against what she found repugnant for her own gratification and changing nothing: War is resistance that prolongs agony/ peace is acceptance that speeds up evolution).

Buffy · 06-20-2006

Now, that's simple and clear! Great post, and I agree...

Animal testing is very much a Melvillian dilemma. There are clear benefits and costs and you can be well to this side of Mengele, and still think its a good thing. I'm for it myself, but we're very fond of cute critters around here too.

Maybe someday we won't need it any more, but if that something is going to be, for example, expert computer modelling, there's going to have to be more "data gathering" to get there. So if you limit it now, it will take longer to get to the day where we don't need it anymore....

Fur, Fashionable or Felonious,
Buffy

Racoon · 06-20-2006

There is a lot of unnecessary Animal testing.

I feel bad for the people who administer these tests. I wouldn't want that job

I'm not a vehement Animal Rights guy, but c'mon...
Medical testing is needed, but using Animals as opposed to humans still leaves effectiveness/ conclussions in doubt. what works for mice, doesn't mean it will work for homo sapiens.

Companies use animals for redundant irritancy and toxicity tests, which kill or seriously maim hundreds of thousands of animals, from many species. Many of these animals are bred specifically for this purpose, or are seized from pounds.

Alternatives exist to Animal Testing. In vitro tests use human or animal cells specimens which can be grown in a laboratory. Cell and tissue samples can measure irritancy and toxicity.

Link: top google search.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~rabbit/aniexp.htm

Kayra · 06-20-2006

I spent quite a bit of my teen years on my uncles farm.

Since I was no longer isolated from the "events" that created my food and clothing, one thing I learned very quickly is that practicality rules everything.

The animal is born.
You feed the animal.
You care for the animal if it is sick
You worry about the animal
You water the animal
You clean up after the animal.
You have pride in the animal.
You kill the animal
You dismember the animal
You eat or sell the animal.

The animal, from birth, is bound to mankind's purposes.
It is what nature created. (Anyone that speaks of natures "intentions" does not understand nature)

While every animal farmer I have ever met was a practical person, I have never met a successful farmer that did not have some measure of pride and concern for his animals. Torture was out of the question. (slaughter houses are a different issue)

With that in mind, I have no concern whatsoever for the use of animals in testing of almost any aspect of science, and even most commercial testing. I do, however, take issue with the torture of such animals.

To be humane is to be human. Only institutions and training can overcome this basic fact of humanity.

EWright · 06-20-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Racoon

There is a lot of unnecessary Animal testing.

I feel bad for the people who administer these tests. I wouldn't want that job

I'm not a vehement Animal Rights guy, but c'mon...
Medical testing is needed, but using Animals as opposed to humans still leaves effectiveness/ conclussions in doubt. what works for mice, doesn't mean it will work for homo sapiens.

Companies use animals for redundant irritancy and toxicity tests, which kill or seriously maim hundreds of thousands of animals, from many species. Many of these animals are bred specifically for this purpose, or are seized from pounds.

Alternatives exist to Animal Testing. In vitro tests use human or animal cells specimens which can be grown in a laboratory. Cell and tissue samples can measure irritancy and toxicity.

Link: top google search.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~rabbit/aniexp.htm

In general a necessary evil... in many respects overused and unecessarilly cruel.

Kayra · 06-20-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by EWright

In general a necessary evil... in many respects overused and unecessarilly cruel.

Evil implies an intent to do harm simply to enjoy the results of the harm.

pgrmdave · 06-20-2006

I'm often torn on this issue, I think that animal testing is necessary, and helps humans, but I think that there are some times when it is unnecessary, and could be performed equally well without harming anything. However, all these thoughts are based on absolutely no data. Does anybody know some good sources to go to where I could learn about what is tested, how it's tested, why it's tested, and the benefits of the testing?