What's your view of animal research solely for human benefit?

[Bonn1997]

Poll question: What's your view of animal research solely for human benefit?

Animal research for human benefit

[NightWatcher]

1. are we talking for cosmetics or cancer cure?

there IS a difference

[Bonn1997]

3. Well we can discuss either one. My answer doesn't depend on the goal of the research. So I left that

out of the question.

[quakerboy]

21. My answer would depend on that as well

I am not ok with what we do to animals. Then again, I am not ok with what we do to people.

I am ok with animal research in what I deem to be important medical needs. I have done surgery on live animals in a lab setting, and I do not find it to trouble me on a moral sense. I ensured the animal felt no pain, and in the end it was put down and fed to a snake.
If it had woken up, it would have had a few days of discomfort but no long term issues, however the regulations we were under required that once we amateurs operated, it not wake up, just in case it would cause "torture".

I am not ok with it for cosmetics.

I eat meat, and do not see a problem with the concept, though I have been trying to source my meat more responsibly.

In the end, I would be happy if we were able to do more with cultures and grown tissue to acomplish our needs, both in food and medicine. Given what I know, we probably could start moving that direction fairly easily. But it would cost money, and as long as money is valued more than our neighbors lives, I don't think animal research will change much.

[Patiod]

39. I agree

Depends on the goal. AND let's reduce the testing we do as much as possible, saving animal testing for when there's just no other option

And it would be nice if Americans did put our neighbor's lives above money, but good luck with that.

I get frustrated on here because sometimes there's a little too much black-and-white thinking. Someone on GD today was saying that pharma companies want to keep us sick, and are witholding a cure for diabetes because they make more money that way. Big Pharma does a lot of bad things (let's start with their lobbying efforts, and then we can talk about shady marketing) but they're not exactly sitting on a cure for diabetes and cancer, either.

[Madrone]

2. It sucks.

I don't support torture.

[TZ]

5. And dying of cancer isn't torture?

Got news for you most animals used in medical research are treated well...there are MORE regs for animals than people. I bet you've never been around Stage four cancer. Horrible. But people suffering is perfectly acceptable to you. At least half my family would be DEAD without the benefits of medical research.Oh and maybe it would help if you'd actually been in a medical research lab where the researchers take good care of their animals and even get attatched to them. It's much easier to just call us all Nazis though . God I hate judgemental bullshit

[GirlAfire]

10. "Most Animals?"

Back that up.

And I'm pretty sure being against torture of animals does not equal being for, or at least unconcerned with, torture of humans via cancer (or any other disease). That is a false dilemma; you are arguing as if there are not alternatives to animal testing, which there most certainly are.

Wtf, who said that the suffering of people is acceptable?

[Madrone]

20. I didn't call you or anyone else a Nazi.

And I'm not judging you at all. Honestly.

I'm also not saying I have any solutions - just that it makes me terribly uncomfortable. And perhaps not *all* animal research is torturous to animals, but a lot of it is - and I have an issue with that. It's MY issue. I'm not transposing it onto you and I'm not condemning you either. It's how I feel, and I am sorry that it upsets you.

[Deep13]

31. an enthusiastic +1

:yourock:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

65. I watched my grandmother die of ---

pancreatic cancer.

Guess what? I still hate what goes with animal testing. :shrug:

[flvegan]

4. Had you put this in GD, it would be flames and tears by now.

I am, of course, against it in every form.

[TZ]

6. I'll do ir

I think you know I don't appreciate people calling me and mine torturers without knowing the actual conditions.

[flvegan]

7. I didn't call anybody anything.

[GirlAfire]

8. I am unconditionally against it. n/t

[vadawg]

9. people come first, though animals are our companions and pets

they are also our food, so i see no problem with using them in order to help people..

[LeftyMom]

11. I'm opposed to the exploitation of any animal, human or non, without their consent.

[flvegan]

12. Your hamburger didn't give any damn consent either!

Oh, wait...nevermind.

[LeftyMom]

13. If you're not vegan that makes you a hypocrite then!*

*Actual argument some newb tried on me in GD once. :rofl:

[flvegan]

14. Psst...

that's why I put it in my name. Skips a step.

[LeftyMom]

17. Well, except for that one guy who missed it.

God, that was funny. I forget the context now, but it was another one of those "You're not vegan are you? Because if you eat animals you don't get to complain about (feeding live chickens into wood chippers or electrocuting monkeys or whatever the current thing was) or you're a hypocrite" things. And they thought they'd stumped you with that one.

I swear, literacy is a real problem in this country.

On edit, I seem to recall it was one of the pro-whaling posters who seem to have evaporated in the last few.

[flvegan]

18. Oooh, I forgot about that poster.

Yeah, that was pretty funny.

[LeftyMom]

19. In his defense,

if it was who I seem to recall it was, I couldn't troll a message board in Norwegian half as well as he did in English.

[stray cat]

46. Vegetables are living organisms - why are they abused?

[LeftyMom]

73. Yep, never heard that one before.

:ticks box on checklist:

[Mojambo]

15. I'm fine with it for serious medical research. n/t

[JonLP24]

16. I wouldn't want to be that animal n/t

[Deep13]

32. You're not that animal. nt

[JonLP24]

36. I never said I was n/t

[Deep13]

37. That's true. nt

[iris27]

22. Apparently, I don't believe in it enough to do it myself.

I just discovered that about myself this very week.

I am trying to get a research assistant job (of any sort, not necessarily animal-based), and the easiest foot-in-the-door position is the animal care tech, like what Annie Le's murderer did at Yale. Cleaning cages, refilling water, basic observation and husbandry. None of the invasive stuff. I completed and submitted an app, resume, and cover letter for this position at the university I currently work for, plus a couple others...and then withdrew them from consideration the next morning.

While reworking my resume, I kept creating little animal categories in my head..."well, as long as they don't use dogs or cats, I'll be ok." "Well, if they use rodents, I'd set traps if there were mice/rats in my house, so how is that different?" Stuff like that. But when I was lying in bed the night after submitting my info, I realized I could never work in a room filled with cages of animals - any animals - who were being deliberately subjected to harm in order to study methods of treatment, and then killed to acquire tissue samples for further study. Even though MY job would just be taking care of them; food, water, clean cages, etc. I just can't do it. It would be like...well, I won't say what I feel it would be like, as I know such a comparison would seem incredibly hyperbolic and offensive to many.

I believe very strongly in the importance of research, in all fields, but I am deeply conflicted when it comes to the use of animals for these purposes. And yes, I eat meat, too. The whole realm of human/animal relationships is an area of huge cognitive dissonance for me, where what I believe and what I do about it don't match up at all. But I don't have to have that part of my life resolved to be able to fiercely advocate for better treatment of all animals - in research, in factory farming, wherever.

[flvegan]

24. Good for you.

The abyss didn't gaze back.

I hope you do get the job you desire.

[Godhumor]

23. When a medicinal researcher reaches the point of ADME testing I'm all for it

For things like cosmetics, I don't support it at all.

As an FYI, ADME stands for absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion. In other words, how a drug affects the entire organism and not just the targeted tissue.

[The2ndWheel]

25. Like any good corporation

we privatize the profits and socialize the costs.

I figure human testing for human progress. But, again, profits and costs. I'd like to see every animal have a fighting chance, however small that chance might be. I say that as someone who was raised in a supermarket, just part of the machine. Food, experimentation, zoos. They don't live or die for their own sake. We breed them according to our narrow requirements, which are, once again, about profits and costs. Mass produced products. Not that people aren't mass produced products, but, at least the standardized and interchangeable human cogs in the machine get some benefit.

What are you going to do though, you know? Nothing. Wake up, go to work, pay your taxes, buy something so that everyone has a job, and that's it.

[PVnRT]

26. I guess, according to DU, I shouldn't have insulin, then

'Cause guess where we first got it from?

[dropkickpa]

27. Since I work in Biomed cancer research, I'm for it

Having had cancer, I'm for it. Knowing the REAL ins and outs of it instead of standing on a soapbox far away, I'm for it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

48. yes as much as i think monkeys are cute, my friends who are HIV positive

are cuter.

[VMI Dem]

28. I think any idiot that equates animals with humans should be researched on,

in place of the stupid animals.

[Bonn1997]

29. What criteria do you use to reach the conclusion that humans are superior to animals?

I'm just playing Devil's advocate.

[Deep13]

33. We're humans.

Specificly, we are human animals. We have always used animals for our survival and without that we would still be sleeping in trees. This is no different than eat or wearing animals and most people in this world do both. So its not such much that we are better than test animals as it is a question of humanity protecting humanity. And saying all animals are equal in theory is not the same as watching someone you love die of a disease in practice. None of the modern medicine we take for granted would be possible without animal research.

[Bonn1997]

38. Research is more optional than eating.

Nevertheless, we don't need to eat animals to survive, and it's not clear we even benefit from eating them.
Here's some relevant info.:
"In contrast to the thesis that meat is necessary for human survival, the anthropolog-
ical and historical record suggests that the earliest hominids were not prodigious
hunters, but rather were limited to opportunistic scavenging of carcass remnants
abandoned by carnivores (Speth, 1989). According to the American Dietetic Associa-
tion, “Most of mankind for much of human history has subsisted on near-vegetarian
diets. The vast majority of the population of the world today continues to eat vege-
tarian or semi-vegetarian diets for economic, ecologic, philosophical, religious, cul-
tural, or other reasons” (1980, p. 62). Moreover, human physiology departs
significantly from the physiology of most mammalian carnivores (Cox, 1980). Hu-
mans have long bowels well suited for fermentative bacteria, rather than short bow-
els adapted for rapid expulsion of putrefactive bacteria. Humans have short teeth and
no claws, rather than long teeth and retractable claws. Humans jaws move laterally
rather than strictly up and down, and unlike carnivores, humans secrete relatively lit-
tle hydrochloric acid to dissolve bones. Human saliva also differs from the saliva of
most carnivores in containing ptyallin for predigestion of starches."
From psychologist Scott Plous's book, "Understanding Prejudice and Discrimination"

[Deep13]

41. I didn't say it was necessary.

I said we do it. And research is far more necessary than eating animals.

[Bonn1997]

50. Okay, you didn't say eating animals was necessary. I must have misunderstood what you meant or

were implying when the first justification for unequal treatment you gave was, "We have always used animals for our survival." What did you have in mind with the word "used" and can we really justify future behavior on the grounds that we did it in the past anyway?

[stray cat]

44. or bacteria. or viruses or fungi or vegetables?

which we kill or eat

[datasuspect]

60. two criteria

1. predation, namely being the supreme predator in the food chain

2. the ability to reason

[LeftyMom]

74. Humans are animals.

[Deep13]

30. Acceptable? It's absolutely necessary. nt

[Bonn1997]

34. Why? We survived long before we started doing animal research.

I understand that we can continue to increase the human lifespan by doing more research. I think justifying the research by that outcome requires judging us humans to be superior to all other animals. Are we superior to other animals? There's a lot of criteria that could be used to evaluate that question. The one commonly used is that we have the most advanced cognitive abilities.

But what if we used other criteria to evaluate each species including our, such as
1) how much harm vs. good does to the planet we're fortunate to live on does each species do? (I suspect we'd rank pretty low here.)
2) how pro- vs. anti-socially do members of the species commonly behavior? (We wouldn't be at the bottom but not near the top either.)

[Deep13]

40. response

"Why? We survived long before we started doing animal research."

Not very well. We died young, often as children and often taking our mothers with us in childbirth. Life sucked before modern medicine.

I'm making no judgment call about superiority. Frankly, bacteria own this planet and will be here long after complex life is extinct. Does this mean we commit mass murder every time we wash our hands? It's more like humans protecting humans out of common decency. And denying someone help in theory is a lot different than watching a loved one die--often horribly--in practice.

"But what if we used other criteria to evaluate each species including our, such as
1) how much harm vs. good does to the planet we're fortunate to live on does each species do? (I suspect we'd rank pretty low here.)"

Frankly, this is irrelevant, especially since we are using artificially created, standardized species for experiments. The Earth as a whole is not suffering because we are doing research.

"2) how pro- vs. anti-socially do members of the species commonly behavior? (We wouldn't be at the bottom but not near the top either.)"

Odd how this factor only occurs to humans. Many species are completely antisocial. So what, both our value of community and tendency toward violence are part of our natural behavior. So is our tendency to project human values onto nonhuman critters. The bottom line is you are uncomfortable with what we have to do to protect ourselves and our loved ones because you have projected human ideals onto animals incapable of feeling or understanding them. (I blame Disney for that.)

[Bonn1997]

51. Nothing you said contradicts what I said even though you think it does.

"Many species are completely antisocial."
Agreed and never said otherwise
"both our value of community and tendency toward violence are part of our natural behavior."
Define "natural behavior." Do you mean "evolved" behavior? If so, the evolutionary psychology literature on this is unclear. Are you including violence toward innocent victims that can't defend themselves AND pose no threat to you or your ingroup? We also do an immensely long list of things that contradict our evolved nature because we have decided to. So the idea that a behavior is natural or evolved is irrelevant.

[AlienGirl]

56. Will you donate any pets you're done with to your local university lab? nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

58. how exactly does one get done with ones pet? its a companion animal

as long as you need company you need your pet. so i dont exactly get how one would get done with ones pet.

[stray cat]

45. or before we had medical care - we could get rid of that as well

[Bonn1997]

52. I was merely pointing out that the claim we need to eat animals to survive is false. You seem to

think I was implying we should get rid of *everything* our ancestors didn't need to survive. You will not find any statement that I made indicating such a viewpoint though.

[PVnRT]

57. Do people who have benefitted from such research deserve to die?

That's essentially what you're saying. Maybe you should go say it to them face-to-face.

[brendan120678]

35. For medical research, I don't really see it as a problem...

if you're testing out cosmetics, however, I don't consider that to be an ethically sound practice.

[nomorenomore08]

81. +1

[La Lioness Priyanka]

42. i am fine with it for many many reasons.

[stray cat]

43. I'm against antibiotics or treatment for infectious diseases -

they protect people at the expense of bacteria or other life forms. Survival of the fittest is the way to go! :sarcasm:

[supernova]

47. For medical research it's unavoidable

right now and I am fine with it. I've benefited directly from animal research, so I honor those animals who have to be used for this purpose. I'd be a hypocrite otherwise.

Testing for cosmetics and such is awful though. If you think it might be harmful, why put it concoctions for your face in the first place?

Seeing into the future, I'll be very happy and supportive when our technology allows us to do research with life-like models and perhaps minimize or even do away with animal testing.

[lightningandsnow]

49. I'm absolutely fine with it for medical research, but....

I think, at this point, it's unnecessary for cosmetics and the like. For the cosmetics I use, I try to buy things that have not been tested on animals.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

53. the operative words here are " at this point", because most of the testing has already occured

had it not occured it would be necessary because people market product not viable for humans and many people have been very disabled/killed/maimed because of it

[dropkickpa]

61. The reason they haven't been tested

Is that the individual components were all previously tested.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. The only acceptable answer is that it is acceptable.

The people voting that it should be stopped do not know what they are talking about.

[Bonn1997]

72. You have a pretty low opinion of about half of DU apparently...what unites us here is that we're all

on the same side and battling against conservative Republicans. I would never make the kind of statement you just made based on one issue regarding about half the people here.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. No, just 27 of them.

But yeah, I've a pretty low opinion of them. Fucking ignorant asses.

[AlienGirl]

55. Would you donate your pets, when you're through with them?

Laboratories often have difficulty finding socialized, easy-to-handle animals, and your spare pet would no doubt be a valuable contribution.

Tucker

[La Lioness Priyanka]

59. do pets have a set number of days/months/years before we give it up for recycling?

what crap logic

[VMI Dem]

62. 2 years 4 months and 3 days.

[dropkickpa]

63. An obviously uneducated answer

Most biomedical facilities use class A dealers for any research involving a cat or dog. Why? Because class A dealers breed on-site and maintain records of the health of the animal from birth along with guarantees. For research purposes, this is vital and necessary as you get a standard consistent research subject so that a research project can be, if needed, repeatable with as few variables as possible. A "former pet" or random source animal introduces unknown and uncontrolled variables that are confounding factors to research which have serious implications both not only to the scientific results but to the bottom lineas well. If you have to spend money ruling out these confounding factors or treating for them during the course of the experiment, you have less to spent on the actual research itself and, with the lack or research funding in the last several years, this is a risk most researchers haven't been willing to take.

[LeftyMom]

75. You left off the part about class B dealers

who sell animals pulled from shelters and stolen pets to laboratories.

[dropkickpa]

86. Many institutions now shun class b's

because their staff refuse to work with them. At my institution, as huge one, in the top 10 for NIH funding, we (the institution staff) successfully shut down the use of all class b dealers in less than 3 months and did it using valid scientific arguments. Because of the huge downturn in funding for research, many researchers have turned away from class b's for solely the scientific reasons I listed. The animals are unsuitable for scientific research, plain and simple.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

64. I really hate it.

The more we discover about the animals being "researched" on -- about their intelligence, particularly -- the more I absolutely hate it. I think it is all pretty barberic.

Read the book "Next of Kin" by Roger Fouts and then tell me how you feel about animal research.

[proteus_lives]

66. I'm for it.

It helps save lives.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

67. "Human" lives.

Destroys thousands of other lives, though.

[PVnRT]

68. You're right. We should stop all medical research.

If you have an illness, you deserve to die. It's nature's way.

[JonLP24]

71. Deserve doesn't have anything to do with what is being discussed

No one has said this in this thread except you. When it comes to deserve does a non-human animal 'deserve'(meaning to merit, earn, etc) to die for the benefit of another species?

For the record I don't have a position on this issue because I don't know everything about it. What I am is thankful that I wasn't born a test animal.

[PVnRT]

85. That is the implication

Testing is cruel, so we should not do it. Whether or not they come out and say it is irrelevant. It is the only logical conclusion of their argument.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

69. yes, and i think human life is more important than animal life

if i didnt i would be vegan.

[proteus_lives]

70. Yep.

Sorry but human lives are more important then animal ones.

[Bonn1997]

77. Why? What criteria do you use to determine importance?

No one answered last time I asked. I guess I'll try again.

[JonLP24]

78. I think a poster replied to you with two reasons

(paraphrasing)
1. Humans are on top of the food chain

2. Humans have the ability to reason

I'm not for or against you at this point. Just answering your question with what another poster said. :hi:

Edit/Post #60 is where datasuspect replied to you.

[Bonn1997]

80. Fair enough. I didn't see that reply but he/she did HALF answer what I was hoping for.

No one explained the other half--WHY those should be the criteria,

[Sky Masterson]

79. Ask my cat Obie...

He was set for extermination when we saved him.
He,as well as two siblings were reserve kittens for animal research.
The kittens in this test had certain chemicals put in their eyes to see if the chemical(medicine) had any long term effects.
When the testing was over all kittens that were tested on were put down...Obie was a reserve kitty and wasn't tested on.These kittens spent their time locked in cages.
Today Obie still loves the cage. I believe it is because it was the only place he felt safe from the men in coats.

Here he is now..
They call it a necessary evil..
Maybe it is..But I sure f'ing hate it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

84. i have much sympathy for the animals. i don't believe we should torture them for the fun of it

but to cure sicknesses/disabilities..to know what could be poisonous or not, is a different story

so, i totally got with the, necessary evil but i hate it

[nomorenomore08]

82. Equating non-human life with human life is one thing. The problem with doing so in this case

is that, almost by definition, it involves placing non-human life *above* human life, considering the many live-saving treatments that most likely wouldn't exist today without some form of animal-based research. And if you want to prioritize non-human animals above humans, that's your call, I won't tell you what to believe. But don't be surprised if you upset people who've suffered, or watched a loved one suffer, a life-threatening illness like cancer or diabetes.

[Fire Walk With Me]

83. Why not leave the beautiful animals alone and use Bush and Cheney as test subjects?

[baldguy]

87. If you accept the benefits that come from animal research, you shouldn't criticize the need for it.

It's our duty as moral creatures to be sure that such research is done only when necessary & in a humane manner.

[SteppingRazor]

88. Medical research on animals is absolutely vital.

Here's a good article on it:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/2756

"Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century – for both human and animal health. From antibiotics to blood transfusions, from dialysis to organ-transplantation, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, bypass surgery and joint replacement, practically every present day protocol for the prevention, treatment, cure and control of disease, pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained through research with animals."

<snip>

"Approximately 95 percent of all lab animals are specialty-bred rats and mice. Non-human primates account for less than ¼ of one per cent; dogs and cats combined, less than ½ of one percent. The balance includes rabbits, guinea pigs, woodchucks, pigs, sheep, armadillos, leeches, zebra fish, squid, horseshoe crab, sea snails and fruit flies."

<snip>

"Thanks to animal research, many diseases that once killed millions of people every year are either treatable or have been eradicated altogether. Immunizations against polio, diphtheria, mumps, rubella and hepatitis save countless lives and the survival rates from many major diseases are at an all time high thanks to the discovery of new drugs, medical devices and surgical procedures. According to the American Cancer Society, the “War on Cancer” has seen 24 significant biomedical advances made in the past 30 years. None of them could have occurred without animal research. Eight of the discoveries required the use of living animals and virtually all of those that did not use animals relied on information gained from earlier animal studies. Six of the discoveries were recognized with a Nobel Prize, among them: the bone marrow transplantation technique (E. Donnall Thomas, M.D.); cloning of the first gene (Paul Berg, Ph.D.) and discovery of proto-oncogenes in normal DNA showing that a normal cell could have latent cancer genes (J. Michael Bishop, M.D. and Harold Varmus, M.D.).

Animal research for animal health has also resulted in many remarkable life-saving and life-extending treatments for cats, dogs, farm animals, wildlife and endangered species. Pacemakers, artificial joints, organ transplants, freedom from arthritic pain and vaccines for rabies, distemper, parvo virus, infectious hepatitis, anthrax, tetanus and feline leukemia contribute to longer, happier and healthier lives for animals. New treatments for glaucoma, heart disease, cancer and hip dysplasia can save, extend or enhance the life of a beloved pet and exciting new reproductive techniques are helping to preserve and protect threatened species."

<snip>


******************

The whole article's worth reading. Completely contrary to the idea that animal research is cruel, I would argue that withholding such research for medical purposes is, in fact, the real cruelty. Such a ban would subject millions of humans and animals to poor health and an early demise each and every year.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

89. thats a really good article.

[mike_c]

90. using human children is better...

...but difficult to get past ethics review. *sigh*