research on animals for human benefit

[sanctus]

As I said in the thread about the stem-cells, here I start this thread.


I'm against any research on animals to find cures to human illnesses and this for a simple reason, who are we to decide if other living beings have to suffer? I do not believe that humans are in any way more important than other animals, just because they've got a brain to think logic. Therefore I can't justify killing tousands of animals for human life (as well as I never could justify the other way around, i.e.:killing humans for saving animals).
I've to say that a research on animals that treats them well, I would not condamn as much, but it never seems to be the case (maybe because it's impossible??)


P.S.: in case i wasn't clear,this discussion is not about using medicaments which were found that way, but about looking for new ones that way!

[Freethinker]

We have made significant gains in fighting cancer. Almost all has come intitially thru experimentation on lab animals.

Would you rather that we never made this advancement? That cancer was still ravaging the human race at the pace it did before?

Or should we intentionally develop cancer in humans instead of other animals for research purpose?

[TINNY]

how about killing animals for their meat. That's also for the benefit and survival of humans right?
so if you think there is no justification in making animals suffer for the good of humans, then we should all be vegetarians.
hmmm. i don't think you're vvegetarian.

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: sanctus
As I said in the thread about the stem-cells, here I start this thread.


I'm against any research on animals to find cures to human illnesses and this for a simple reason, who are we to decide if other living beings have to suffer? I do not believe that humans are in any way more important than other animals, just because they've got a brain to think logic. Therefore I can't justify killing tousands of animals for human life (as well as I never could justify the other way around, i.e.:killing humans for saving animals).
I've to say that a research on animals that treats them well, I would not condamn as much, but it never seems to be the case (maybe because it's impossible??)

I'm in favour of research on animals. We can't think it's more right to try out new drugs and treatments on humans - if we thought that would be a better alternative, then I wonder how much we really wish to improve people's lives.

P.S.: in case i wasn't clear,this discussion is not about using medicaments which were found that way, but about looking for new ones that way!

But of course not. Apparently these drugs and treatments are useful.

[Freethinker]

However I have to wonder about the continued usage of animals for medical research. We are or should be reaching a point at which computer modelling will provide faster more accurate results.

[sanctus]

Originally posted by: Freethinker
We have made significant gains in fighting cancer. Almost all has come intitially thru experimentation on lab animals.

Would you rather that we never made this advancement? That cancer was still ravaging the human race at the pace it did before?

Or should we intentionally develop cancer in humans instead of other animals for research purpose?

You forgot to read my P.S.



[quote]
Originally posted by: Stargazer

But of course not. Apparently these drugs and treatments are useful.

And you didn't understand what I meant.


As the animals suffered so that we got the medicaments, it would be much worse not to use them, they would have suffered for nothing.

[sanctus]

As I was a bit tired when I opened this thread I didn't explain myself very well. A crucial point that I said just quickly as

I've to say that a research on animals that treats them well, I would not condamn as much, but it never seems to be the case (maybe because it's impossible??)

So I agree, that we can use animals to research new drugs at the condition that we do not create suffering of the animals.

I have to say I don't see myself as one of those animalists somwhere floating in the air, that puts animals in front of all, I just have a bad conscience knowing that my cancer has been cured because 100'000 animals died suffering for it.
I try to be clearer: for me it is cruel to think that we've got the right to make animals suffer with whatever the purpose is, because we can think and therefore know what pain is.

[sanctus]

Originally posted by: TINNY
how about killing animals for their meat. That's also for the benefit and survival of humans right?
so if you think there is no justification in making animals suffer for the good of humans, then we should all be vegetarians.
hmmm. i don't think you're vvegetarian.

I don't know why you think I'm not vegetarian, I actually used to be. You are right now I'm not anymore and the reason I can be that without being inconsistent is:
a) I only eat meat that I know where it comes from and that the animals lived there what I call a good life, without suffering (on that very alike to the one they would have in nature), and a good death (nothing like those industries where 300 cows a day are slaughtered-by the way very well explained in the book "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser)

b)killing is not making suffer the animal in question (I agree maybe the rest of the group....)

c)even if you say that killing is making suffer, there is one fondamental difference in the case of animals for research they often die for nothing (they become just start of a statistic...), in case of animals for food there is a direct use almost every part of the animal is used (their death never becomes worthless).

d) in australian standards (and from what I hear also in US standards) I'm vegetarian: I eat meat about once a month (if not less).

[sanctus]

The point in which I don't understand all of you is, what makes you think that we are better than animals? What are the criteria?

I think there are no criteria and therefore no sense saying one is better than the other, what puts us on the same level.

[Freethinker]

Sanctus, I think the problem is reflected even in the basic question as you originally stated it.

research on animals for human benefit

As humans we ARE animals. It is the religious community that attempts to put humans on a level seperate from/ above the "animal kingdom". If we dropped the arbitrarly division, the question would not even make sense. If we truly assigned humans to be on the same level as other animals, it would be:

research on animals for animal benefit

or

research on humans for human benefit

We often assign based on perceived intellect/ awarness/ perception. Starting with "dumb animals" that can't "feel"/ aren't "aware" of the pain, even though they obviously react to it. But we don't carry that to the next "logical" level. If the determining factor is level of intellect/ ability to reason/ ... then we'd use "inferior" humans with low IQ's or comotose as subjects of experimentation. Which we did not long ago. And that included races that were considered "inferior".