God, we are just assholes. Can't even take care of our monkeys.

[JanMichael]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080807/ap_on_re_us/research_monkey_deaths

This shit makes me sick.

And before the "humans are more important" dumb asses respond to this thread---the ones that think compassion is finite, and needs to be doled out according to whatever they think is important---

We live in the South. We are well aware of people who die from heat problems. If you come on this thread whining about "poor humans," don't expect a response from me.

[flvegan]

1. Charles River Labs, supplier of animals to vivisection.

Lowest forms of life out there. Don't expect APHIS to do anything about this either, bunch of ineffective morons.

[JanMichael]

3. I don't.

sickening.

We didn't want to become vegetarians---seriously. But, we treat animals so badly in this country that we had no other choice.

[JustAnotherGen]

2. Not a humans are more important

"dumb ass"

But monkeys and dolphins are. I have a soft spot for these 'animals'. Breaks my heart. Breaks my heart even more that it was cute little monkeys that are so like us . . . :-(

[liberalmuse]

4. There was another thread about this.

It's disgraceful, is what it is. Anyone with a soul who's been around animals a lot knows they are sentient beings. You don't treat intelligent beings like this. What we do to animals in this world is unforgivable. Humans aren't worthy to live on the same planet as them. When you look at human history, and then look at the animals and get close to nature, you kind of get the idea that humans are for the most part, an abomination on this planet. I guess I just did the opposite of what you feared. No lab has any business experimenting on animals, and this particular lab needs to be shut the hell down.

[TZ]

5. Okay

Don't ever get treated by a doctor or a hospital..cause these research animals have saved countless lives...
I suppose we could just experiment on humans..that sooo much more ethical....:sarcasm:

[JanMichael]

6. We are aware of research done on animals.

this is no longer a viable argument--you know darn good and well that conditions on organ research can be simulated in a lab at this point--

Sorry. We love you as a poster, TS, but you are dead wrong on this one.

Besides, here's something for you to get good and pissed about so you can quit worrying about animals vs humans---who does all that neato research benefit, anyone?

You? Me? Are you a killizionaire? We aren't.

[Godhumor]

12. The goal of most researchers is to minimize animal testing, but it is still needed

Anything that is designed to interact, change or influence the human body must go through a final stage of testing called ADME (Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism and Excretion). Computer models cannot predict ADME, as ADME studies effects on entire systems instead of isolated organs.

ADME testing is now generally undertaken only when the pharmanceutical in question is one step away from live human testing. Rats are considered the gateway for testing as they share a genome that is 99% similar to ours and have "disease" genes that are 90% identical. If rat-based testing passes muster an animal that has a strong organ similarity (for example, dogs are used for cardiovascular based drugs) will be used for testing.

Every US university now posts animal testing guidelines, and researchers at all US medical facilities must lay out in detail the type of animal to be used, how many will be used, what is hoped to be gained, and the immediate cut off point where no more testing will be done if results are inconclusive or negative.

The animal rights movement has greatly reduced the amount of animal testing, but it will not end it completely. At the end of the day, interactions not expected or accounted for in a computer model must have a chance to come to light in a live subject, and, like it or not, you will not find more than a handful of medicinal researchers who will put animals on an equal plane to humans.

Finally, I'm not sure what you mean about who neato research benefits--surely, you are not saying animal testing has never produced a medical benefit.

[Bob Dobbs]

7. Actually, experimenting on humans would be infinitely more ethical.

As long as we are talking about ethics.

[flvegan]

8. More accurate as well.

But, without allowance, a huge violation of their rights. Though, it should be the same for animals.

[Bob Dobbs]

10. Correct.

Of course human testing would have to be with consent.

That is why testing on animals is unethical, they are definitely not consenting.

[grilled onions]

9. If We Came Before The ape...

primates would be extinct by now. We are beyond careless with other life forms.

[leftchick]

11. I saw some horses today that I will report tomorrow

no food or water in 90 degree heat! Disgusting!