Lab monkeys 'scream with fear' in tests (Cambridge documents reveled)

[truthpusher]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1407818,00.html

Lab monkeys 'scream with fear' in tests

Sandra Laville
Tuesday February 8, 2005
The Guardian

Secret documents describing how some monkeys can scream in misery, fear and anger during experiments were produced in the high court yesterday as evidence that the laws intended to protect laboratory animals are being flouted.

Excerpts from Cambridge University internal papers - one of several sites where primate research is carried out - give laboratory technicians and scientists advice on how to deal with problems during and after experiments. Presented in court by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV), they describe occasions when primates are "screaming, trying to get out of the box, defecating", and state: "This is an angry animal."

Scientists and technicians are advised in the documents to "punish" the bad habits of the monkeys, stating that these bad habits include the normal self-grooming.

more:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1407818,00.html

[ClarkUSA]

1. Horrid. My heart hurts for them. So many of these "lab" experiments..

have no purpose and are only used to get grant money.

[egoprofit]

61. of course they scream!!

i'm sure cows and chickens make noises before they are slaughtered.

[go west young man]

2. This is absolutely terrible....

monkeys are such amazing creatures. Its not fair they should be used in such a way. I hope that one day mankind will see the err of our ways.

[Triana]

3. I'm against animal testing - period

This is immoral and hideous - and disgusting.

:mad:

[dutchdoctor]

10. Are you really?

I hope you take the consequences. Since every medicine and almost every operation we know has been developed through animal research and has been tested for safety on animals, I hope you are consistent enough to refuse any treatment in a hospital if you get ill. If your child had cancer would you deny it chemotherapy? All chemotherapeutics available have been developed and tested through animal research.
Any serious scientist you talk to will tell you that there sometimes are no alternatives to research on animals.

I am against unnecessary suffering in animal tests, I believe animals should be treated as humane as possible, and an independent commission should explore the necessity of every experiment on animals.
However these rigorous standards apply already in most western countries.

It seems like these researchers in Cambridge made some serious mistakes for which they should be punished, but If you read the article you'll know that they were working on a cure for Alzheimer's disease, a lethal disease that will slowly eat away your cognitive ability until you die of dehydration, incontinent for urine or feces, unable to eat, drink or communicate to the people you once loved. An estimated 30% of us are expected to get this disease. A cure is desperately needed and will never be there without animal research!

Simply put, most people believe that animals do not have the same rights as humans (not that they don't have any). Most of us have no problem eating meat and should not be denied the possibility of cure of horrible diseases even if it takes the lives of thousands of animals

[Triana]

26. Yes. I am...

...I don't think it's realistic to expect that one can completely avoid using products and services that use animal testing, but we can do what we can do, within reason.

They can test a lot of this stuff without using animals. Might not be as convenient, but they can. Not all of it, but probably some of it. And if they think they MUST use animals then they ought to be treated humanely. Why not use convicted murderers, rapists, etc on death row for testing? The tests could be considered payment of their debt to society for their crimes. Are innocent animals lives worth less than theirs? I don't think so. And the tests would be more accurate, since they'd be done on humans. Would testing on these people be as accepted with the same self-righteous indignation as testing on innocent animals? Why not?

I don't eat meat...for much that reason. I don't appreciate the way it gets to the plate no matter what that way is or how 'humane' it supposedly is. Besides, it's usually tainted and I don't like the taste.

[dutchdoctor]

30. OK there we go...

They can test a lot of this stuff without using animals. Might not be as convenient, but they can. Not all of it, but probably some of it.
Untrue. All tests that can be done without the use of animals ARE done without animals. In fact it is against the law for a scientist to do an experiment on animals if there is an alternative that does not involve the use of animals. It results in criminal persecution.


And if they think they MUST use animals then they ought to be treated humanely.
OF course. They are being treated as humane as possible, all kinds of guidelines apply. Not following these, again, leads to persecution. This is exactly what is happening to the Cambridge scientists.

Why not use convicted murderers, rapists, etc on death row for testing? The tests could be considered payment of their debt to society for their crimes. Are innocent animals lives worth less than theirs? I don't think so.
Oh boy! This is just scary.. I know some criminals in Abu Ghraib, wanna use those? Is it up to us to decide the value of human life? Why not offer your own? Or better yet, take the moral high ground and just refuse to use drugs invented with animal research. It will save you from having been involved in harming animals.

And the tests would be more accurate, since they'd be done on humans.
Untrue. The numbers of individual animals/humas needed for research would mean that it would take centuries to come up with the results we have obtained from animals. Millions of people with diabetes that now live normal lives with antidiabetic drugs invented with the help from animal research would have been dead already.


Would testing on these people be as accepted with the same self-righteous indignation as testing on innocent animals? Why not?
Because the life of an animal is not the same as the life of a human being, even if it's a criminal. If you think otherwise, you should act accordingly, but please don't expect the vast majority of people in this world to share your views..

[Coventina]

36. Why do you have Buddha as your avatar?

Do you really think he would advocate animal testing?

Animal testing is a cowardly thing to do.
If we believe we have a cure for something, we should be willing to test it ourselves.

[bobthedrummer]

41. A good question, why have Buddha as your avatar?

Why not Ted Nugent?

[dutchdoctor]

52. The questions about my avatar

I am no buddhist, I liked the avatar. Sorry if I offend any buddhists out there. I don't know who Ted Nugent is, but I assume it is someone you'd rather not be compared with.
I do feel I can approve of animal testing for medical purposes and be at peace with myself at the same time. When strict guidelines are met and the purpose of research is to alleviate human suffering I am fine with it and I am worried that scientists are more and more being depicted as cold hearted ruthless drs Mengele just for working with animals.

[Coventina]

56. "working with animals"

Yes, it really sounds warm and fuzzy, doesn't it? Like a partnership.
Q: What do you do for a living?
A: Some monkeys and I are working together to save the human race. It's very rewarding.

You really ought to change your avatar. Or at least educate yourself about Buddhism.

[genieroze]

68. Ted Nugent is a right wing rocker. eom

[shugah]

136. i'm buddhist

and while i am not offended by your choice of avatar i do wish you would explore buddhism before displaying it.

~lovingkindness~

[Dave Reynolds]

104. Um..

"Animal testing is a cowardly thing to do."

It is also mandated by the FDA, overseen and regulated by the USDA.

I worked for an independant testing lab (not any more, bad for my psyche). Drug companies would absolutely NOT spend the millions of dollars involved in animal testing if it was not required by the government.

So: animal testing is the only lawful thing to do.


:hi:

[jdj]

134. here's a little bit from PETA, and I know how DUers love PETA

"The choice isn’t between animals and people. There is no guarantee that drugs are safe—even if they have been tested on animals—because the physiological differences between humans and other animals prevent the results of animal tests from being accurately extrapolated to humans. Some drugs that have been approved through animal tests can cause serious and unexpected side effects for humans. A 2002 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that in the last 25 years, more than 50 FDA-approved drugs had to be taken off the market or relabeled because they caused “adverse reactions.” In 2000 alone, the prescription drugs removed from the market were the popular heartburn drug Propulsid (removed because it caused “fatal heart rhythm abnormalities”), the diabetes drug Rezulin (“removed after causing liver failure”), and the irritable-bowel-syndrome treatment Lotronex (“removed for causing fatal constipation and colitis”). According to the study’s lead author, “Millions of patients are exposed to potentially unsafe drugs each year.”

If the pharmaceutical industry switched from animal experiments to quantum pharmacology and in vitro tests, we would be better protected from harmful drugs, not less protected."

http://www.peta.org/about/faq-viv.asp

[Dave Reynolds]

137. Yep.

Some of the results on tissue that I saw under a microscope made me scared. I don't really support animal testing, but (yes, this is a lame excuse) it is the way things are right now.

I would welcome anything that would change us away from animal research.

On another note, my own opinion of private research labs like the one I worked for: if they gave bad results to drug companies, would they not risk not being given any more work? I have seen a lot of the "save many people at the risk of a few" arguments, but I'm not buying.

:hi:

[girl gone mad]

128. Touche. n/t

[demgurl]

48. Ok, I don't get this.....

Why not use convicted murderers, rapists, etc on death row for testing? The tests could be considered payment of their debt to society for their crimes. Are innocent animals lives worth less than theirs? I don't think so.
Oh boy! This is just scary.. I know some criminals in Abu Ghraib, wanna use those? Is it up to us to decide the value of human life? Why not offer your own? Or better yet, take the moral high ground and just refuse to use drugs invented with animal research. It will save you from having been involved in harming animals.


You appear to be for animal testing and yet I would agree that it would be a sound thing to take the US Army war criminals, at Abu, and give them the same type of torture (through experiments) that they gave the innocents in the prison itself. I think you came up with an excellent way to teach these people a lesson. To me, the war criminals at Abu (and Guantanamo and so many others) are more animals than any chimp could ever be. I honestly think you have hit on something here.

[dutchdoctor]

53. Well these guys do need to be punished I agree..

although that would seem a bit harsh..

[egoprofit]

60. why do you compare tortured iraqis to jesus???

are you insane???? seriously.

[DrWeird]

64. They're both human beings...

they're both tortured. They're both middle eastern. Why not compare them?

[egoprofit]

70. well...

1) they were tortured for fun and amusement -> not like Jesus
2) Jesus is the son of God -> not like iraqis

.. that alone is enough to not compare them. in my opinion at least...

[DrWeird]

71. 1) you're right. Jesus was guilty of a crime.

and sentenced to capital punishment. So that makes the Abu Ghraib torture worse.

2) well, that's your opinion.

[dutchdoctor]

145. OK, that's it, I am giving up.

This will be my last post on this thread..
People start questioning my sanity, comparing doing research to cowardice , "idiot of the year" with no further explanation..pfff I just don't know where to begin.
Let me react to a few small things:

-I'll remove my Buddha avatar right after this. No big deal

-My comparison of Jesus to tortured Iraqis has nothing to do with this thread, it's in my sig line for the following reason: Your new Attorney General believes that the things that happened in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo do not constitute torture. People getting beaten, attacked by dogs, raped and humiliated. If these guidelines were applied to Jesus, then most of what he went through did not constitute torture either (save perhaps the actual crucifixion). My picture is trying to debate this in terms that the religious right may be able to understand. Think about it, go to http://www.wasjesustortured.com. The U.S. government is approving torture and therefore the U.S. are no longer a civilised country.

-OK One last thing about animal experimentation: I never knew so many people are so vocal against experimenting on animals. Yet NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON is willing to take the consequence and refrain from using drugs that have been developed with knowledge gained from animal experiments. When people don't want animals killed for food they take the consequence and become a vegetarian, but when they don't want them killed to develop new drugs they attack the scientist/pharmaceutical companies. Be consistent: BOYCOTT modern medicine if you feel so strongly about it!

-For those who say modern medicine has never yielded any cure: of the thousands I could name here is my last shot:

I hope some of you get to visit the Netherlands someday. If anyone would be so unfortunate to brake a leg so badly it needs to be operated on please remind me NOT to use the anesthetics that were developed with knowledge gained from animal research. I'll give you a quick swig of whiskey, just like back in the middle-ages!


OK that's all from me now, sorry to have bothered y'all!

:toast:

edited for spelling

[Maru Kitteh]

164. I am......... I am willing to die rather than kill another being to

temporarily continue my life. Is this what you were looking for? I did spend 56 hours in labor with no more relief than snow so don't EVEN THINK about telling me about pain. I'll give you a swig a whiskey and slap you back to humility.

consider these:

"Of what use are all your sacrifices to Me? I have had enough of the roasted carcasses of rams and of the fat of fattened beasts. I take no pleasure in the blood of calves, lambs and goats . When you spread out your hands, I close My eyes to you; despite however much you pray, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood! Wash yourselves clean! Put away your misdeeds from before My eyes and stop doing evil.
-Isaiah 1:11, 1:15-16


Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet. -Albert Einstein


The beef industry has contributed to more American deaths than all the wars of this century, all natural disasters, and all automobile accidents combined. If beef is your idea of 'real food for real people,' you'd better live real close to a real good hospital.
-Neal D. Barnard, M.D

Ever occur to you why some of us can be this much concerned with animals' suffering? Because government is not. Why not? Animals don't vote.
-Paul Harvey

Realize that by whatever criteria you employ someone could deny basic rights to you if they objected to your species, sexual preferences, color, religion, ideology etc. Would you eat your housecat, or force a mentally retarded child to ingest oven cleaner? If not, then why is it ok to eat cows and test products on sentient animals? I believe that to knowingly commit actions that cause or condone suffering is reprehensible in the extreme.I call upon you to be compassionate and treat others as you want to be treated. If you don't want to be beaten, imprisoned, mutilated, killed or tortured then you shouldn't condone such behavior towards anyone, be they human or not.
-Moby

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Misunderestimator]

76. Being against animal testing does not require one to reject any and all

treatments resulting from such testing. Certainly not chemotherapy or any other life-saving therapies if there are no alternatives. Where there are alternatives, like in the cosmetics industry, it's deplorable that the practice is still allowed.

Being against animal testing is to be against its continued use and to encourage the industries that do it to explore other avenues, as well as to monitor it against severe abuses while we are on the path to the goal of no animal testing.

I suppose you think anyone against the raping our world of its oil and destroying our ozone with emissions shouldn't drive a car either.

[Triana]

77. exactly...

...thanks misunderestimator :)

I'd rather not drive either. But, where I live I've no choice and I just learnt bu$hit cut funding for the commute/transit system they're trying to build here. As is, we have no transit system - no public transportation save a few buses.

We ought to be investing ooodles of $$$ in public transport...but - oh well.

[jdj]

133. alzheimers was unknown til about 100 years ago, came on the

scene about the same time as silver-mercury dental amalgam.

The phrase "mad hatters" came from the hatters that used mercury in hat-making who had this habit of just going senile at early ages for no reason.

Course now the ADA is onto it. Go into a dentist office nowadays to have your mercury fillings taken out, and whadya see? Well, they handle those old silver fillings like they are freaking RADIOACTIVE WASTE or something.

It slays me to hear about humans looking up our assholes for cures to all these auto-immune disorders that we brought on ourselves with heavy metal toxicity. Lupus, leukemia, type 2 diabetes, mono, Epstein-Barr, Chronic fatique, parkinsons, alzheimers, rheumatoid arthitis, Crohn's syndrome, blah, blah, blah...it would be rolling on the floor hilariouos if it weren't so unbelievably tragic. And Doctors and big pharma are making a freaking killing off of these people instead of trying to fix what is really broken in the person's body, and they just keep clanging that cash register.

[Jamastiene]

172. Ahem,

if scientists want to study the effects of blindness, they can ask a blind person some questions. Sewing a cat's or a monkey's eyelids shut isn't necessary. Much research can be done on brain damage just by asking neocons questions to find out why they think like they do. As a matter of fact, that is how clinical depression is diagnosed. A psychologist asks some generlized standard questions, then diagnosed someone mentally ill. Of course, they are the same ones who used to do cruel and inhumane research on humans.

[barb162]

141. Me too. If a product is for humans it should be tested on

volunteer humans; and leave the poor innocent animals alone.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[freeplessinseattle]

5. I had a couple classes that shared a wall with the psych lab

in undergrad, oftentimes we could hear them screaming and rattling their cages, it was very distressing and all I could do to keep from running down to the lab director's office and having a shit fit. My prof was very much against animal testing so I don't know how he stood it every day, year after year (that was his own classroom). god it made me ill.

[Payback Time]

6. Is there a substitute for animal testing?

I hate cruelty to animals so much. It is a terrible, terrible thing. I worked at a medical school for 20 years and the doctors told me that animal experimentation is the only way to effectively d learn about helping humans. Even if this is the case, there must be a way to keep them warm, comfortable, calm (tranquilizers? meditative music?)and in nice surroundings at least. I just read that the Tom DeLay and his group want to give anesthesia to fetuses that are aborted at more than 20 weeks because they believe they can feel pain. If this is true, I am all for it. But real Christians care about the rest of creation, too. In fact, I've been reading that there is a serious Christian movement towards "creation care" (they won't call it environmentalism -- sounds too "liberal.")

[sybylla]

27. Yeah, it's called human testing

Fortunately the lines are pretty short so you should be able to move to the front in no time at all.

Don't get me wrong. Like you, I have a great deal of respect for all creatures and want to see research conducted in the most humane and comfortable circumstances possible. But I understand the realities of the situation and know there are things that can't be tested any other way until we are willing to turn humans into guinea pigs, metaphorically speaking. As a society, I don't see that we are there yet.

[jdj]

88. well, then there's science.

do me a favor, the next time you hear about a drug being taken off the market by the FDA, or hear of another class action suit, ask yourself, "why did they kill the animals they killed in the testing of this product?" The answer is, of course, to make sure the drug was safe for humans.

Odd, then, that about once a week the FDA comes up and says, oopsie, this drug is not safe for humans.

The irony is that people who care about the useless and unscientific experimentation on animals are accused of anthropomorphism while over and over the testing on animals fails FOR THE VERY REASON that the pro-testing people claim to find distasteful in animal rights activists, because drugs and chemicals react differently, sometimes totally and fatally differently, in humans than in other species.

[yinkaafrica]

7. I was kicked out of the program over this

that was twenty tears ago!
My God, what have we become.

[magellan]

8. I agree with everything said and can only add one correction

Primates are apes and humans, not monkeys. This article is likely talking about chimps as they're the ape most commonly used in lab research. I wish journalists would get it right.

Just as a matter of interest, chimps are our closest living genetic relatives, and vice versa: our genomes are 98.4+% the same. Chimps actually share more DNA material in common with humans than they do with the other great apes, gorillas and orangutans.

[countryjake]

9. Not necessarily disagreeing...

since we never know what really goes on in most primate research centers, but it is the Rhesus monkey who is most commonly used for primate studies & they have whole colonies of them, which are sustained & cultivated specifically for experimentation in labs across the USA. Chimps, baboons, & apes are usually treated with something akin to respect by saving them for later, more humane specialized testing...it's the Rhesus who are the real guinea pigs. Don't know about the UK though.

[magellan]

39. Ah, you're right

I didn't realize Rhesus Monkeys were classified as primates. My bad!

[jdj]

94. someone told me chimps are more similar to humans than

Asian and African elephants are to each other. That's no way to treat family.

[Dave Reynolds]

105. Actually

the lab I worked for used mainly long-tailed Macaques imported from China. There were no chimpanzees in the building.

[magellan]

130. Sorry, this OT caused by my ignorance

The article referred to Primate Research and that's where I went wrong; my interest tends to the great apes, chimps et al, and I assumed that's what the article meant. I didn't realize macaques were also primates. Of course, their place on the taxonomic chart should by no means reduce our interest in the unnecessary cruelty they suffer.

For clarity, the Long-tailed Macaque and Rhesus monkey are Old World Monkeys, genus Macaca, of the order Primates. I hope I've got it right now! :)

[IndianaGreen]

11. The film Planet of the Apes shows what happens when roles reversed

Many of those that support animal testing would recoil in horror if an advanced alien civilization were to take over the Earth and began to conduct experiments on humans.

Racism extends to an species when it believes that they can do what they please with Creation and its creatures.

[dutchdoctor]

17. I will take this as your pledge to refuse any drug that has been tested..

on animals. It's easy. All FDA approved drugs have been, it is a legal requirement.

Let me remind you of your pledge when you contract a disease like AIDS (which I certainly don't hope of course). The disease is deadly if untreated, but people treated with the latest generation drugs, developed and tested with the use of primates will generally remain stable for decades. Yes we made little progress in medicine, but the progress that we did make was in part due to animal research.

As for your "Martian" argument: That is just bizarre.. I believe that animals have fewer rights than humans. The law and every major religion agree with me. If you disagree, feel free to live a lifestyle to suit those principles. Just don't deny me the possibility of developing new therapeutic strategies for horrible diseases.

[SOS]

29. AIDS

crossed the species barrier due to the vile bushmeat trade. If the humans hadn't killed and eaten their closest relatives in the first place, they wouldn't need to torture more animals to find the "cure". And so far no viral disease has ever been cured through any medical science research. How many millions of animals need to be tortured before even one disease is cured? Cancer, AIDS, Parkinson's, MS, Lupus, ALS, Alzheimers...all with no cure.
No need to refuse an animal research-based cure for any of these diseases, because there is none.

Aids warning over bushmeat trade
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/file_on_4/3954963.stm

Revenge of the ape
http://www.aegis.com/news/afp/2002/AF020703.html

[mudderfudder77]

31. It's still up for debate

As to how the AIDS virus crossed species. Could have been meat, could have been in the polio vaccine, might have been both.

[kypper]

153. Not the polio vaccine

Projecting the relative rate of mutation of HIV puts the development of AIDS in the 30's, not the 60's when the polio vaccine contamination was supposed to have taken place.

[dutchdoctor]

32. so people with AIDS should die because other people eat bushmeat?

Your other points:
-Aciclovir has saved the life of thousands of people with viral meningitis. Developed with knowledge obtained from animal research and tested on animals before
-The latest antiretroviral drugs have turned AIDS form a lethal infection to a chronic condition with the life expectancy of infected people now near normal. Developed with knowledge..you get it..

Viral diseas that have been eradicated/greatly reduced with vaccines based on animal materials/research:
polio
smallpox
Influenza
the list goes on but you get the idea..


I know there is no cure for every disease in the world, for Chrissakes I'm a doctor. The point is we're doing research to find out more about diseases and their possible cure. We don't "torture animals" and we don't do research for fun!

So if you believe there is no cure, as you say in your last line, is that a promise that you will never enter a hospital, not even if you have a potentially fatal, but very treatable appendicitis?

[mudderfudder77]

35. Thank you

For bringing some sanity to this thread.

[bobthedrummer]

44. Smallpox is part of bio-weapons even though eradicated in 1977.

:cry: :grr::argh::puke::mad::nuke:

[Angry Girl]

74. So how did the Chinese survive?

They have been healing people and animals for over 5000 years.

They never cut any living being open to learn how either. Something about Taoism and Buddhism and harming living creatures stopped them from doing so.

Yet they were able to discover and make use of such powerful, noninvasive techniques as acupuncture, qigong, and herbal medicine. These techniques are cheap and simple and allow tens of millions of Chinese to be treated cheaply and quickly for things that Western medicine can't even begin to cure.

[mudderfudder77]

75. Like?

I'd be interested to know what diseases Chinese medicine has cured. Any links would be appreciated.

[DrWeird]

97. Well, know, they didn't.

Chinese lifespans mirrored the rest of the world, seeing only a recent upswing with the advention of westernized medicine.

It's fun to pretend, though.

[jdj]

127. I think we are on the downswing.

wait for it.

we are obsese and our arteries are plastered.

[mudderfudder77]

147. So I see...

We just post these outrageously over the top stories and then provide no credible evidence to back it up...

[SOS]

83. Points

1. The SIV connection has been proved. New HIV strains are entering the human population due to the bushmeat trade. The existent viruses are rapidly mutating in response to both PIs and NRTIs. The source has to be dealt with first.

2. According to the Meningitis Consensus Panel (Washington, D.C.) in May 1999: "The issue with viral meningitis is that there are no available treatments." Acyclovir is used to treat the extremely rare herpes encephalitis only.

3. The most import advance in the development of a polio vaccine came in 1949 when Enders, Weller and Robbins showed that the polio virus could be grown in human tissue. They were awarded the Nobel Prize for this discovery. Sabin himself made an argument against vivisection when he testified to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs in 1984 saying, "...work on prevention was delayed by an erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease, based on misleading experimental models in monkeys."

4. Jenner never tested the smallpox vaccine on animals.

5. Using new and improved statistical models, CDC scientists estimate that an average of 36,000 people die from influenza-related complications each year in the United States. Hardly eradicated.

6. The conditions in many of the labs constitute torture. There are plenty of web sites that document the barbarity of vivisection.

7. I don't "say" there is no cure for the diseases I mentioned. There is no cure.

7. Because I oppose vivisection, I can't see a doctor? Surgical advances came through antiseptics, anesthesia and antibiotics, all of which were perfected without animal experimentation. As for pharmaceutical drugs, I don't use any.

[DrWeird]

98. points.

1. the conspiracy theory about AIDS coming from polio vaccines has been soundly disproven.

2. Sure, if you disagree with animal experimentation, you can go ahead and use medical treatment that was derived from animal research, it'd just make you a hypocrite if you did. That includes all modern antiseptics, anesthesias, and antibiotics, and pharmaceutical drugs that you may end up taking.

[SOS]

100. OK

1. Agreed.
2. Antiseptics were not developed through vivisection. Neither were antibiotics. You'll recall that penicillin was derived from mold on a piece of bread. Fleming did test penicillin on rabbits, where it did nothing, thereby delaying the advent of antibiotics. Only when tested on humans did Fleming realize that it worked. Had Fleming relied only on his rabbit tests, we might not have antibiotics at all.

Anesthesia utilizing opium has been around for centuries.
Modern anesthesia, developed in the late 19th century also owes nothing to animal testing:

"In 1912 the UK government held a Royal Commission into vivisection. Page 26 makes a clear-cut statement: 'The discovery of anaesthetics owes nothing to vivisection'. Dr Hadwen wrote of the discoveries of anaesthetics: 'Animals had nothing to do with the discovery of any of them. In fact, I am credibly informed that, had animal experiments been relied upon in any of these cases, we should have been so misled that probably humanity would have been robbed of this great blessing of anaesthesia - one of the greatest blessings ever conferred on mankind'"

As far as pharmaceutical drugs, there are thousands. I'd take penicillin or morphine, if absolutely necessary, and that would not make me a hypocrite.

[jdj]

124. the old saw about life saving drugs is so lame anyway.

It's not about life-saving drugs.

It's about Maybelline's New Ultra Slutty Tar Black Mascara and how many rabbits they can blind with the dye in it. (Draize Eye Test)

It's about Clorox Anti-Heathen Bleach, and how much a rabbit or mouse or rat must consume before it kills 50% of them (L/D 50 test, LD= Lethal Dose, 50= 50%) Anyone who works with any kind of chemical can get the MSDS and look for the LD 50 number to see how much of the chemical you are holding in your hand was forcefully ingested into a group of, say 50 animals until it poisoned half of them to death.

The fucking fact and tragedy of the matter is that "life-saving drugs" is not what animal testing is about. It is about some sicko nerd scientist trying to put himself into the history books on tax-payer funded grant money, at whatever cost it takes.

And no one yet has answered my question about why U.S. citizens don't have a policy of discernment for animal testing with regards to which tests, certainly a severe minority, that can be justified because of their use in finding "life-saving drugs", (which half the time have horrible side effects that don't show up in animals, or end up killing a bunch of people, or harming them irreparably until they become the subject of a class action suit).

[jdj]

129. wrong about polio, the in vitro work was the Nobel winner.

flu was treated with penicillin, not developed through animal testing, developed on moldy bread.

But I suppose your profession relies on spreading this myth around to keep yourselves in cahoots with big pharma.

Isn’t animal testing responsible for every major medical advance?”
Medical historians have shown that improved nutrition and sanitation standards and other behavioral and environmental factors—rather than knowledge gained from animal experiments—are responsible for the decreasing number of deaths from common infectious diseases since 1900 and that medicine has had little to do with increased life expectancy. Many of the most important advances in the field of health care can be attributed to human studies, which have led to major medical breakthroughs, such as the development of anesthesia, the stethoscope, morphine, radium, penicillin, artificial respiration, x-rays, antiseptics, and CAT, MRI, and PET scans; the study of bacteriology and germ theory; the discovery of the link between cholesterol and heart disease and the link between smoking and cancer; and the isolation of the virus that causes AIDS. Animal testing played no role in these or many other important medical developments.


“But weren’t animals used to develop many of the important treatments that we use today, such as the polio vaccine?”
In fact, two separate bodies of work were done on polio: the in vitro work, which was awarded the Nobel Prize and did not involve animals, and the animal tests, in which a staggering number of animals were killed. Nobel Laureate Arthur Kornberg noted that for 40 years, experiments on monkeys who had been infected with polio generated “limited progress” toward a cure. The breakthrough came when scientists learned how to grow the virus from human and monkey cells

http://www.peta.org/about/faq-viv.asp

[kypper]

155. You're quoting PETA

That's like quoting George Bush about the dangers of oil drilling.
Jesus Christ, find a more objective research source.

Hope you don't support stem cell research, and acquiesce that neural loss is permanent. Breakthrough research being done right now can't be done without animals.

[kypper]

154. You're fighting an uphill battle

I hate to say it, but people are idealists... yuppies.
They believe everything can be achieved without harming anything else, and it can't. Saying all lives are equally valuable is a complete crock of shit; these same people eat living plants, kill living bacteria with antibiotics, and slap an insect that infests their prized orchid.

Oddly, nobody bitches about how many animals are killed from stem cell research, but all are furious over the cluster of cells being injected.
These same people beg doctors to use all means necessary to save a loved one dying of Alzheimer's.

Hypocrites.

[justiceischeap]

117. Got to get involved now... sorry

I believe that animals have fewer rights than humans. The law and every major religion agree with me.

Just because you, the law and every major religion believe this to be so does not make it right or any less inhumane. The idea that these animals are treated well is naive at best. There may be a handful of facilities that treat these animals well (as well as an experiment can be treated) but the majority are horrendous. Most of these animals are lucky to be fed let alone be given pain medication.

Columbia University is currently conducting a study where they implant steel bars into female rhesus macaques heads to test the effects of stress during the menstral cycle. After the bar is implanted they are given the equivelent of an aspirin. This is a western university. This is a wasteful study and it's ridiculous that you could say this is needed. There a more studies like this than there are for your miracle cures.

You also totally overlooked the point of the FDA recalling drugs because they are unsafe. Just because animals are used in clinical trials doesn't make the drug safe for humans. They may as well flip a coin because at best all they are making is an educated guess.

And since when has this government, who is run by special interst groups, including pharmaceutical companies, had the best interest of anyone at heart?

Lastly, Buddha does not agree with your philosophies.

Buddha says:
For it is true, as has been said:

"Harm another and you harm yourself"

"Think badly of another and you think badly of yourself"

"Diminish another and you diminish yourself"

He also says:
I Gauthama Siddhartha Buddha give you my blessings in your endeavour. For yes you can truly change the world, Seek not to feel separate, for in truth you can never be separate. The absolute truth is that WE ARE ALL ONE. Understand this, know this. Know my unending compassion. Place this in your heart. This is the key. You may turn this key and open the door to the compassion which dwells forever in your heart. You may turn to me. You may say very simply: "Lord Buddha, teach me compassion. Help me to be more compassionate".

[IndianaGreen]

173. "The law and every major religion" also support mass murder

Look at how the law has been subverted to justify a racial war in the Middle East, all in the name of "freedom" and "democracy" (code words for Christianity).

Good post, thecorrection!

[robcon]

12. Animal research is absolutely essential to medical progress.

It should continue.

[IndianaGreen]

14. We Martians will conduct medical research on humans

because it is absolutely essential to medical progress.

Not since Nazi Germany has the world witnessed such callous and brutal treatment of human beings. They mutilate and maim. To them, we're an inferior species and they treat us as one.

http://www.war-of-the-worlds.org/Aliens/

[Guaranteed]

15. "We'll make great pets." nt

[IndianaGreen]

16. Only if we are neutered and declawed first!

:hi:

[soothsayer]

23. declawing----that's another brutal practice that should be banned

It's disgusting what they do to those cats. Horrible! Don't get a cat if you don't want it to scratch things, a-holes---don't mutilate the poor thing.

[Maru Kitteh]

165. Indiana, I think I love you

but it could be just a crush. :j

[retread]

20. As a thinking, feeling being you have no reservations about any

of this?

[DrWeird]

59. As a thinking, feeling being...

no. I don't have any reservations about this.

Are you feeling thinking being, are you prepared to boycott all products that are a result of animal testing?

[retread]

99. I do have reservations about cavalier attitudes toward sentient

beings. I suspect most research using animals is NOT the only path to benefit humans. You seem to indicate the only choice is to accept ALL or boycott ALL. It doesn't seem to me you really want an honest discussion. It's your way or the highway, so bye!

[found object]

151. These are medieval times for science

A by-product of man playing the role of god, or for some, acting with "god's permission."

[Maru Kitteh]

166. yes, I already am

not that hard either.

[jdj]

90. Thank God some ethical doctors are taking a stand against it.

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is a great group that take these on case by case, there are articles on the site about how stupid and useless and cruel these tests are (example below)

http://www.pcrm.org/about/index.html

Research Advocacy
We encourage higher standards for ethics and effectiveness in research:

We oppose unethical human experiments. While great strides have been made in eliminating such experiments, problems remain. For example, children are still given synthetic growth hormone in experiments to make them taller, and both children and adults are exposed to unnecessary new drugs which have toxic effects.
We promote alternatives to animal research. We have worked to put a stop to gruesome experiments, such as the military’s cat-shooting studies, DEA narcotics experiments, and monkey self-mutilation projects. We also promote non-animal methods in medical education. Currently, more than three-quarters of all U.S. medical schools have dropped their animal labs for medical students.
Organization
Founded in 1985, PCRM is a nonprofit organization supported by physicians and laypersons who receive Good Medicine each quarter. PCRM programs combine the efforts of medical experts and grassroots individuals.



Beyond Animal Research
By Jonathan Balcombe, Ph.D.
February 2005


Animals Still Used in Motion Sickness Experiments

If you’ve ever suffered motion sickness, you know that it’s a miserable feeling. Other animals are also vulnerable, and for at least 50 years scientists have been subjecting monkeys, dogs, cats, rats and other species to experiments designed to make them ill. Here are some recent examples:

At the University of Texas, female dogs had electric charges delivered directly to their small intestines via implanted electrodes. Depending on patterns of charges and drugs, dogs suffered different degrees of vomiting and other motion sickness-like symptoms.1
At the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, rats were rotated 1,350 times over 45 minutes to observe the effects of various anti-emetic drugs on vomiting rates.2
Experimenters at the University of Tokyo induced vomiting in house musk shrews by injecting vasopressin either into the blood stream or into the brain.3
Scientists at Shimane University in Japan force-fed tree-frogs, then subjected them to “parabolic flight.” Motion sickness was measured as the presence of vomitus in a frog’s cage.4
One can only wonder what utility these inhumane studies could possibly have. Motion sickness is a subjective experience, and animals cannot report it to us. The only clear objective measure is vomiting.

http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/beyond/motion_0502.html

[leftchick]

13. it is horrible and reprehensible...

Experiments on all animals is needless is so many cases. Despicable.
:(

[dutchdoctor]

18. So is Alzheimer's disease (in all cases).. n/t

[The Stranger]

28. That's not good enough justification.

In fact, it is pathetic.

[dutchdoctor]

33. How is that pathetic?

Personal attacks are much more pathetic IMHO..
Let me explain my train of thought:
Someone posted that animal research is horrible and reprehensible. The research is carried out to find a cure for Alzheimer's. It is truely one of the worst diseases you can have as I pointed out somewhere else in this thread. If this research brings us any closer to a cure and is conducted according to official guidelines with a minimum of animal suffering than it is not only worth it, but the researches should be celebrated.

I hope this clears things up, I am curious to know what thoughts lead to your comments..

[The Stranger]

45. The post says that the justification is pathetic.

Yet you seem quick to throw around the term "personal attacks." (A reaction which is, in itself, a bit pathetic as well).

In any event, massive medical research labs backed by billions and driven by capitalist corporatist greed to find the next cure for human ailments causes great pain and suffering for everyone involved, in this case unspeakable horrors upon animals much like you and me. You speak for the billions seeking a cure that does not yet exist.

I speak for those who have nothing, who suffer now, and whose terror is muffled by the billions and the greed, and who cannot speak for themselves.

[mudderfudder77]

47. As I said earlier.

I would rather a million mice suffer, than one child with diabetes. It's a trade off I'm willing to make, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find any parent who wouldn't.

[The Stranger]

57. That is an interesting calculus for the value of life.

But the underlying premise is inavalid. First, the cure may never come -- no matter how many millions of animals are put to death in the search. Millions (perhaps billions) could be sent to their death for no reason.

Second, your neat little analogy (or talking point, since you seem to repeat it) involves mice. What about other animals? When does the balance shift? What about primates? If primates are okay, what about humans?

Life doesn't seem to comport well with a simplistic neat little calculus.

[mudderfudder77]

65. Primates are okay

as they are not human. You're right the cure may never come, but for many it is already here because of animal testing. We'd still be walking around with leg braces if Jonas Salk hadn't chopped up some monkey kidneys and mixed them with polio virus.

[DrWeird]

66. humans are primates.

But you're right. Humans are more important.

quoting Dennis Leary:

"If hooking a raccoon up to a car battery is going to cure AIDS five years from now, I've got two things to say about it. The red is positive and the black is negative."

[mudderfudder77]

67. Oops...

you know what I meant though...

[The Stranger]

80. No, the fact is that humans are primates.

And primates are the subject of the news story in this thread. And the bizarre world of trying to draw the line as to what types of animals and/or humans you can torture to death for the vague hope of some distant cure is where you have left yourself.

Perhaps you didn't know what you meant after all.

[The Stranger]

69. Wow, I didn't know Dennis Leary was such an imbecile.

Thanks for the information.

[DrWeird]

72. He's right.

The red is positive and the black is negative. And if some rodents have to die to cure AIDS, so be it.

[The Stranger]

78. No, he's just fried his brain on too many drugs.

Apparently it has destroyed his ability to deal with anything but the simplest of concepts, like the tops of car batteries.

[DrWeird]

79. So the red is negative and the black is positive?

Care to test that hypothesis?

[The Stranger]

81. You and Denis must have quite a bit in common.

How's that for a hypothesis?

[jdj]

85. what if they don't have anything better to do?

what if it has nothing to do with curing AIDs or any other disease, what if it is just about getting grant money and getting tenure and getting published? What then?

Where is the discernment, where is the discussion about the value of these experiments, and what they will and won't contribute to humanity?

Before you justify them, remember that the repukes used the same rationale to commit vote fraud this year.

They felt it was justified no matter the cost, which is how we got to where we sit.

[DrWeird]

96. People don't research on animals for the fun of it.

Animal research is tightly regulated. It has to be justified.

What this has to do with vote fraud, I haven't the foggiest.

[jdj]

119. what planet are you living on?

tightly regulated? yeah right.

[livinginphotographs]

110. So help me out here.

Explain to me your reasoning behind why it's okay for us to inflict suffering upon a "primate" and not a human. And don't use any of that biblical stuff, or "that's just the way it is" stuff. I've yet to find one person who spouts the same thing as you who can logically explain why they think humans are better.

Please, indulge me.

[flvegan]

111. Ego, LIP...that's all there is.

We (humans) are superior to all others as we are able to impose and inflict our will on other, supposed lesser-species.

Sounds sort of, you know, Republican to me.

Think.

[dutchdoctor]

51. OK, forget about the personal attack. I used it those words too quickly.

Anyway:
"massive medical labs": would you be happier if they were small, would it make a difference?

"backed by capitalist corporatist greed": perhaps, but also by government funding, charity etc. The main drive of scientists doing medical research is to find ways to alleviate human suffering. I am sorry if profit is sometimes the motivation but that doesn't mean science or its achievements in itself is bad..

"unspeakable horrors": That would be illegal and punishable, at least in the Netherlands, by a prison sentence

"like you and me" They are LIKE humans (that is why they are used), but they are not. Most people find this and animals have always used for al kinds of purposes. They SHOULD be treated as humanely as possible as I have repeated many times in this thread.

"whose terror is muffled by the billions and the greed" Their terror is kept to minimum as per government regulations. The billions and the greed? Or the desire to end human suffering?

edit: spelling

[Matriot]

19. So what about the involuntary experiments against humans...

Let's see, radiation on African American inmates, soldiers with above ground bomb testing, haunta virus, Anthrax , small pox as well as on our veterans right now????

[soothsayer]

24. It's allowed by law (on soldiers)

But I'm sure they still do it on the unsuspecting public, too.

[Matriot]

159. It most certainly is not allowed by law to experiement on soldiers

Why do you think we got the anthrax vaccination stopped?

[Maru Kitteh]

167. Sure, everything is better now just like it was after Tuskegee

the government would never lie to us........... Everything is fixed now..........................................................................................................................................................................

[greymattermom]

21. monkey testing

Nearly all the monkeys in research are being used to work on possible AIDS vaccines. Think about that.

[retread]

22. Your source??? n/t

[Bridget Burke]

25. Really?

What's your source?

[flvegan]

112. You're sadly disillusioned.

You really don't know what you're talking about. Admit it. Then, let it go. Better yet, try your best to back THAT bs up.

[jdj]

131. no, honey.

and sadly, all this propaganda is affecting your judgement.

It ain't about saving anybody's life, save for a very small sector of big medicine.

It's about avoiding lawsuits.

Running these tests, killing torturing and maiming all these different animals in various and sundry ways, so that a company can say "but we did all the tests" when someone or a bunch of people croak or get crippled from drugs they haven't tested on the right species. The first group of humans is the "guinea pig" group, so to speak. And I'm sure they have their little accountants calculating risk and loss so they figure out exaclty how much loss to the dime they are gonna take via potential suits before they pull the plug.

It's a sick, sad business, but the least of it is about saving anyone's life.

[DeaconBlues]

34. I once sat in on a seminar about the effects of smoking on calcium rates

the lecturer said the way he had measured this was by injecting about a thousand mice with nicotine for so many weeks, killing them, and then grinding their bones.

This is an example of the "absolutely essential" medical research on animals that so many in this thread keep talking about. It seemed like an absolute waste of life to me.

[livinginphotographs]

158. But, if they hadn't killed all those mice...

We wouldn't know that smoking is bad for you! There was absolutely no other way! /sarcasm

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

37. NO MEDICAL TREATMENT for ultra-leftist veggie/animal rights activists.

As usual the scientist are protrayed as the bad guys in these types of stories. Well here's a proposal for those on the ultra-left veggie/animal rights front who feel that any and all animal research is immoral...

When you become ill or need something to sustain your life that was derived from the experimentation of animals or is derived from animal byproducts, YOU GET NOTHING. Come on, be prepared to DIE for your convictions. Don't be hypocrites.

JB

[Coventina]

38. So ANY means is justified if a human life is extended?

That's pretty selfish.

[mudderfudder77]

42. I don't think

anyone here has said that. (Admittedly maybe I skipped a post or two and missed it) But if you mean testing of animals in a controlled environment where the suffering is limited as much as possible, than yes thats what I'm saying. I'm sorry but when the option is between a million mice and one child with Diabetes, I'd rather end the childs suffering...

[jdj]

126. your suggestion would be wonderful.

when you find out the name of the fairy land you are describing, let us in on it. It certainly isn't anywhere on this planet, though Britain is edging that way more and more.

People are starting to figure out that healthy non-suffering animals mean a healthier human body for those who choose to consume them, and a hell of a lot healthier enviroment.

Pseudo-scientific animal testing is fading slowly from the horizon, thank God, as failure after failure of these drugs to manifest side effects in animals suddenly show up in people to the tune of lawsuits and millions (or billions) of dollars for big pharma. The bottom line is always the bottom line for the right, who control corporate america including bigpharma and agribusiness.

[kypper]

156. Where in the hell are you getting your data?!?

"Pseudo-scientific animal testing is fading slowly from the horizon, thank God"

Must be a PETA paraphrase.

You can't blindly develop drugs without understanding the pathways. The general pathways between animals and humans are very similar, so we must study them to design the drugs. Doing it on humans is more immoral than animals, thus we must test on animals.
In fact, what you see with the parmaceutical companies is NOT derived from animal testing problems, but from insufficient testing and profit-driven timelines. The companies want their product out so the money starts flowing, so they rush testing on the animals, ensure minimal problems, then move on to the volunteer HUMAN subjects (who are often grasping at any possible improvement in the treatment for their particular issue). HUMANS are being hurt here because there is NOT ENOUGH TESTING (in part ON ANIMALS) by the drug companies.

Pull your head out of your pet's ass and read up farther than PETA.org.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

49. Moral relativism extended to other species...very weird philosophy

Whether you like it or not, WE ARE AT THE TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN. And, YES, if it is a decision between the life of a human being and that of an animal...human beings should win out. Of course, feel free to sacrifice yourself for an animal. I won't stand in your way.

That being said, I firmly DO NOT believe in cruelty to animals. And, animal research should be carried out as humanely as possible, but this doesn't mean that it should be nixed completely. If the deaths of a small group of lab monkeys means that hundreds, if not thousands, of humans will live...then it's not a tough choice.

JB

[Coventina]

54. So might makes right?

Your anger is coming through loud and clear, but not the "liberal" part.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

58. Human makes right...not cow makes right or squirrel makes right

I know it's a hard concept to fathom, but evolution has shaped our ascendency to the top of the food chain. If at some point in our ancient history, cows or some other lower animal were selected to possess the intellect to supercede our species then the shoe would be on the other foot.

Again, please feel free to demonstrate your willingness to sacrifice yourself for an animal. The animal will be indifferent to your sacrifice, but you will be dead.

I may be angry, but I also am positing logical arguments and carrying out extensions of your philosophy of inter-species moral relativism...none of which you have attempted to address except for empty slogans and making the ad hominem that anyone who counters your philosophy is not liberal.

Let's get something straight. Liberal is not just anti-conservative. Liberals should be BOUND by reason, something I see lacking in your knee-jerk retorts.

JB

[Coventina]

62. I do not see the logic in your arguments

I see you saying that we are justified in our actions because evolution has chosen us. That we are entitled to treat every other form of life on this planet according to what feeds our selfish desires. That we are the "master race".

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

101. Uh, yeah.

JB

[jdj]

86. where do you get off basing ascendancy on intellect?

where do you get the ascendancy from anyway? (or the intellect, for that matter)

Is it a God thing? Because it sure sounds like it. God gave humans dominion. That is the opposite of logic. No logic can logically be applied to your argument, because your argument has no basis in fact.

Is ascendancy based on food? That's appealing, but not logical. Whomever eats whom is the smarter one, so a snake is smarter than a rat? So logically a snake can run tests on a rat but not vice versa? Huh?

[PaulaFarrell]

87. I don't think it's the death that's the issue

it's what happens to them before they die

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

102. I can buy into that. Animal cruelty is bad and shouldn't happen.

That being said, animal experimentation is necessary and as long as pain or discomfort is minimized it is NOT a cruel practice in of itself.

JB

[flvegan]

115. Drink that KoolAid, buddy

Cuz you just bought in. Those deaths mean very little in the grand scheme of human survival. Research your data before exposing your opinion. No diff than the Rethugs...

BTW, bacteria and virus are the TOP of the food chain. Sad you didn't see it.

[flvegan]

113. Okay, AWL, let's talk

I'm no hypocrite. However, that's not the point. It's the ongoing BS experiments. Don't let bigpharma frame the discussion for you.

The scientist isn't the bad guy. The scientist is the guy/gal being held back.

Don't paint with such a broad brush.

[jdj]

125. eek. what if we alla sudden start living longer than anyone else.

Think about Okinawa.

They live longer than anyone, and they ain't that rich, and certainly not on a western diet. Don't have a lot of heart problems, or obesity. They don't eat much protein, what they do eat is mostly fish.

By now you should be starting to see that without treatment veggies would still whip most fat american plagued-up arteried asses.

So come up with another challenge. This one won't work out in your favor.

[Maru Kitteh]

168. The main components of the Japanese diet are GRAINS and VEGETABLES

anyone getting 4 to 5 servings of varied veggies and fruits need not worry for a single second about their protien intake.

Inland Asians and indeed most of the world is mostly vegetarian.

[madison2000]

40. Did Gonzales write the laws for this too?

If we think so little of torturing humans, why would we treat animals any better?

[DemoTex]

43. Abu Ghraib torture victims 'scream with fear' too.

That's the part that gives Bu$h, Cheney, Rummy, and Alberto G. their power hard-ons. Torture is torture, whether it is monkeys or men. There are laws protecting both and those laws are being wantonly ignored.

Scientists and technicians are advised in the documents to "punish" the bad habits of the monkeys, stating that these bad habits include the normal self-grooming. For these bad habits, all the monkeys need is a Falwellian version of Jesus.

[JackieO]

46. Primate Freedom Project

http://primatefreedom.com

Check it out.

[KittyWampus]

50. FUCK Corporate Medicine & All It's Toadies. This Is The Kind Of Thing

that illustrates how depraved society can get.

It's all I can do to keep from launching into a profanity laden rant

[Placebo]

55. No offense, but...

who cares about monkeys? Certainly not me, they gross me out.

Still don't want to see them in any pain though. But what's next, ruling out experimentation on mice? Rats? Bunnies? :shrug:

[jdj]

92. why aren't you asking the question why? when? on what? for what purpose?

According to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, about three quarters of universities have dropped animal testing from their programs.

Since tuition continues to skyrocket, if I were going to a school that did unnecessary cruel 'just for the hell of tenure' experiments I would start raising hell.

And since so much of the experimentation is done with public money, like the National Institutes of Health studies, we are ALL paying for this unnecessary bullshit.

It slays me that people who can display discernment by saying "I supported the war in Afghanistan, but not the war in Iraq" or whatever, can fail to comprehend that we have a right to demand the end of unnecessary and dangerously misleading testing on animals WITH OUR TAX MONEY.

[donheld]

63. One of the saddest things i've read in a long time.

[barb162]

140. and totally UNNECESSARY!!!!

[pokercat999]

73. Proof there is no god. nt

[jdj]

93. Jefferson: "I tremble for my species when I reflect that God is just."

[evolvenow]

82. AS LONG AS INNOCENT ANIMALS ARE TORTURED, HUMANS WILL SUFFER...

the lack of emotional intelligence on this planet is exactly what is leading the devastation of all life on this planet.

IT IS NOT OK TO INJECT A TERMINAL ILLNESS INTO INNOCENT SENTIENT BEINGS!!!

Computer models, tissue experiments, etc. and then volunteers only...

What people leave out of this, is the fact that the pain, terror, and inhumanity involved in animal testing for the God called Human, is the fact that because primates, while very close in terms, are still genetically different, meaning that even after years of subjecting intelligent beings with f*cking human diseases, manmade or otherwise, they still have to be tested with humans....
Because of these differences, many, many people have terrible experiences with many drugs including death...

Until we adopt a non-harmful style of interaction with all of life...we are doomed, and innocents will suffer needlessly.

Years from now, it will be discovered that most of the incurable diseases will be cured with electromagnetics, light and other cool, non-damaging, non-radioactive technologies.

Most medicines, long term have detrimental and immune-suppressive effects, unlike older, indigenous practices of nutrition, herbs, energy healing.

HUMANS HAVE NO RIGHT TO CAUSE SO MUCH DAMN PAIN, WHILE HUMANS POUR POLLUTANTS INTO EVERY CORNER OF THE WORLD, RAPE AND PILLAGE THE PLANET AND ALL OF ITS SPECIES.

ENOUGH ALREADY!!! DO NOT BUY A SINGLE PRODUCT FROM COMPANIES THAT PRACTICE OR RESOURCE ANIMAL TESTING. LET THEM KNOW.
GO VEG. Stop the Suffering!!!!!!

[countryjake]

84. Are most of you also against the harvesting of embryonic stem cells?

The rant we get from so many of the fanatical "religious" conservatives is that human life begins at the moment of conception & collecting pluripotent cells from a blastocyst is the equivalent of "murdering" an unborn infant. These people disregard the fact that having the ability to work with cells that are "undecided" in their function is invaluable for any scientist attempting to research the very early development cells, such as motor neurons, which may someday be the key to ending diseases such as Alzheimer's or Parkinson's.

Much of the progressive study done with these stem cells may eventually result in the use of "lower" primates, as that is the next logical step in researching the effects of creating, altering, or "fixing" the cells damaged by neuro-system diseases. And this is the very research that the conservative right-wing is so adamantly denying to scientists all across our nation, under the guise of "right to life" campaigns. The intent is to restrict studies which might actually improve the quality of all life on this planet, from the curing of debilitating illnesses, to the realization of the effects of chemicals & pollution on living organisms, & possible discoveries that prove all of our primate species are indeed so closely linked that creationism may be debunked as the myth that it is.

You will be hard-pressed to find a worker in a primate research center who does NOT firmly believe & understand evolution. It is because of their respect for the minute differences of our ape-cousins that many deign to take on such study, in the first place, & to condemn them all as inhumane does nothing to further the cause of animal rights. That, effectively, does just the opposite.

[NorthernSpy]

89. I'm having a lot of trouble deciding...

... which I hate more:

'Caring', 'humane' people who torture non-human animals? Or hypocritical, moralistic vegan-types who advocate torturing humans instead...


Gawd, I just hate them all so much!

[jdj]

95. wow.

don't torture yourself like that. Someone might call you a hypocrite.

[Dirigo]

91. Disheartening to Cousin Monkey Boy In the White House

How 'bout some update on the use of stun guns? They'll only admit they used stun guns on one pig and four dogs before the head of the dreaded Homeland Security Apparatchuk made $6M plus touting taser guns for the police. On that basis, 1 pig and only 4 dogs that would not constitute cruelty to animals.

[Merope215]

103. I don't know about that...

Cruelty is cruelty, regardless of how many suffer from it.

[Dave Reynolds]

106. Okay, dammit.

Here is the process used at ONE specific, FDA-approved, USDA inspected facility. (Lesser apes only, no Great apes used)

The animals are kept in colonies. There is a program in place to ease the anxiety of the situation, namely letting the primates (yes, that is the proper term) stay in large troops, with climbing apparatus available, copious fruits and vegetables served, and temperature and humidity set to jingle-like settings. This is all recommended (I do not know if it is required) by the USDA.

When randomly chosen for a study (studies are usually paid for by pharmaceutical companies) the primates are taken out of their colony setting, numbered, vet checked for suitability, and placed in study cages.

Administration of whatever agent is determined by a study protocol. Study protocols are strictly adhered to in order to satisfy FDA requirements. During the study (usually with 32 primates) the primates are tended by vets and vet techs around the clock. Needless to say, the animals are NOT happy, but the people tending them do their best to soothe them.

At the end of the study protocol, the animals are to be sedated to a surgical level of anesthesia. (This is checked by corneal reflex).
When proper anesthesia is attained, the animal is (in all studies I was involved with) exsanguinated by cutting the radial and femoral arteries. When death is determined by stethoscope, necropsy is performed (much like a human autopsy).

Histological studies are carried out after that, and during the study blood chemistry is checked daily.

Sorry to sound off about this, but it's not like we did this shit for our fucking jollies. This was a service performed for pharmas and universities, as mandated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

That is all.

[smbolisnch]

107. Nobody is saying it's done for anyone's "jollies".

It's still sickening and wrong. Where did this story come from?

[Dave Reynolds]

108. From a research lab

in Everett, Washington.

I was a histotechnologist there, and that was the gist of most primate studies.

I left there (broke contract, actually, and was sued by the company) because, while it may be a required thing, I was unable to be a part of it. I performed the exsanguination and necropsy of over 100 macaques and marmosets. I still have nightmares about it, occasionally.

I was just trying to pre-empt any "those sick lab people" statements that I felt were possibly coming, is all.

Peace

[smbolisnch]

114. Well, I am glad you left that place.

That's just so sad and terrible. :(

[jdj]

120. "administration of whatever agent"?

wow, that sounds really scientific.

and administration of whatever agent why?

[Dave Reynolds]

122. I try to keep things simple.

Don't want to confuse anybody.

Agent, meaning a drug or chemical under investigation for possible marketing by drug companies for human consumption.

Don't be a dick.

[jdj]

132. "possible marketing"?

gee, that's honest.

what about "life-saving" and alla that?

[Dave Reynolds]

139. Life saving

is not what big pharma is about.

Sorry about the insult. Won't happen again.

[AlienGirl]

142. Do you think the monkeys left behind missed their family members?

How were the monkeys "numbered"? Tattooed? Branded? On what part of the body?

When you say the monkeys "were not happy" during the tests, what exactly do you mean? Were they scared? Bored? Terrified? In pain?

How do the vets and vet techs "do their best to soothe" the monkeys? Talking gently to them? Allowing them to hold each others' hand (or is that against protocol)? Offering a caring look now and again?

Are we, on the outside, allowed to know these things?

Tucker

[Dave Reynolds]

144. I can't answer about the families, but

the study monkeys were tattooed, usually on the back.

Study cages are fairly small (think small dog cages). The monkeys were not happy being handled daily by humans, and demonstrated fear, some by cringing, others by attempting to bite or scratch. The cages do not allow contact with other monkeys.

"Enrichment items" (a USDA term) in the form of toys and (if protocol allows, each protocol has some variation) extra treats were offered. The vet techs did talk to them.

The owner of this particular lab is a Japanese corporation, and they have a shrine on the premises to honor the spirits of the animals. (A Shinto thing, apparently).

[evolvenow]

109. A Simple Test. Would it be OK to do these experiments on human babies? No,

and that is the only correct answer.

Cruelty is Inhumane. Universities and the Pharma Industry are EVIL.
They care about profit and published ego insanity. That is why there has not been medical cures to Aids, Cancer, etc....it is the wrong way to find a solution.

Most of the worst diseases are caused by exposure/ingestion/injection to man-made pollutants, heavy metals, pesticides, vaccines, cig smoke, meat, synthetic hormones, petroleum, gases, chemicals, mercury, lead, anomalous electromagnetic waves from towers, cell phones,etc. and of course man's worst decision ever...using uranium, DU and radioactive materials, blowing them up all over and under the land and oceans, and trucking waste around.... INSANITY.
Why in the world should innocent animals suffer for HUMAN STUPIDITY!!!
I agree that it is terrible that people suffer with diseases, but working cures are much more likely to be found faster using non-animal models.

There are many other ways to test that do not involve animals.

Google: medical testing without animals, here are a few

 Web  Results 1 - 10 of about 2,750,000 for medical testing without animals. (0.39 seconds)  
     
Is Animal Testing Wrong?
Product safety is important, are
there alternatives? Find out more!
www.HSUS.org

Novivisezione.org - Useful links
... Towards a Europe without animal testing: Four initiatives to improve both human-animal relations and the quality of bio-medical research in Europe. ...
www.novivisezione.org/links_en.htm - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

Dr Hadwen Trust Research Programme. The UK's leading medical ...
... The UK's leading medical research charity without using animals. Funding non-animal research and alternatives to animal testing, animal experiments and ...
www.crueltyfreeshop.com/drhadwen/research.htm - 36k - Cached - Similar pages

PETA Media Center > Factsheets
... Alternatives to animal tests are efficient and reliable, ... Learning to Help Without Harming. More and more medical students are becoming conscientious ...
www.peta.org/factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=87 - 24k - Cached - Similar pages

Animal Testing Without Animals
... Will this device allow companies to explore the feasibility of testing without animals? ... Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments. ...
biology.about.com/library/weekly/aa041599.htm - 34k - Cached - Similar pages

www.navs.org.uk | vivisection | animal experiments: the facts
... testing, and persuaded more and more companies to drop animal testing of ... there is a long history of medical progress without the use of animals. ...
www.navs.org.uk/vivisection/thefacts/ - 17k - Cached - Similar pages

ANIMAL TESTING
... Secondly, one can fight against animal testing without calling for a ... of the budgets of those companies that do medical testing on animals be used to ...
www.dawnwatch.com/animal_testing.htm - 12k - Feb 6, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages

Know What Animal Testing Entails: All Critters ~ Pawprints and Purrs
... (Read the medical advances made WITHOUT animal testing). However, every year millions of animals suffer and die in painful tests to determine the ...
www.sniksnak.com/ac/testing.html - 21k - Cached - Similar pages

[DemoTex]

118. Again, good point.

Another alternative is to give up another year or two of life-at-the-end (your last years) to live now. Death is a given. Why torture animals to gain a few months of life? That really blows my mind. Animal research outside of torture might be OK. Of course that depends on whose definition of "torture" you use.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

121. I look forward to hearing about your volunteering in the lab animals place

Put your convictions where your mouth is...volunteer for any and all experiments being conducted on lab animals. Come on! Do it. Save those lab animals through your own self-sacrifice. It would be stupid, but noble.

JB

[jdj]

135. or...

we could demand that all unnecessary testing be stopped at once on the grounds that so many human beings have lost their lives because animal testing of drugs, devices and procedures gave doctors false assurance that such drugs, devices and procedures were safe for humans.

Then we could make a category for the gray area to be legislated. We could make a national data base to ensure that absolutely no tests are duplicated because two science nerds have the same animal torture fetish. We can demand that a ban be instated on all chemical product testing and have all corporations enter what data they have presently and will accumulate before the ban goes into effect into a central data base that companies can pull up, instead of killing hundreds of animals every time a chemical is re-formulated.

Once we get this hashed out, then, years from now, we can handle animal testing based on what tests (probably less than one-percent, if the truth be told) performed on animals in this country are done with the express purpose of saving human lives, on a case by case basis.

[SOS]

148. "Put your convictions where your mouth is"

Here's a proposal for you...Take Vioxx regularly.
Shown safe in animal tests. Approved by the FDA. Yet...

"Mr. Graham (20 year veteran of FDA safety research) estimated that between 88,000 and 139,000 people in the United States had suffered heart attacks or stroke as result of taking Vioxx and that as many as 40 percent of those, or about 55,000, died as a result."

55,000 dead.

Come on! Do it. Prove your faith in animal testing. There are still Cox 2 inhibitors on the market for you to take. It would be stupid, but noble.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

160. Touche' n/t

;)

JB

[evolvenow]

170. Clearly, you did not read my post. I do not believe in ANY ANIMAL TESTING.

If you are eating meat, or taking pharm drugs you are volunteering your health and well-being and supporting a disgusting industry.

I do not believe in the miracle of drugs or the omnipotent western medical doctor. My convictions are voiced and practiced DAILY, by being a voice for non-violence of ALL living beings. That includes an absolute stand against torture, violence, cruelty and inflicting suffering on others. I call that Intelligence. By boycotting cruel institutions and corporations, supporting organizations that are making a difference, educating and in living a veg life, eventually, animal testing will become obsolete. TORTURE/ MURDER is WRONG.

Google:vivisection

Oh and the crappy comments are worthless. People are very uncomfortable with the idea of realizing that animals as individuals: suffer, have strong emotional bonds, and feel terror and pain, just like we do. NOT OK to INFLICT TERMINAL ILLNESSES on INNOCENTS. That is the same thought form that allows wars to be waged on innocent people. Like the 120,000+ that have died in Iraq because we have an insane group of war criminals pushing an agenda of fear and domination.

[LisaL]

123. Would it be o'key to eat human babies? I would say NO.

Sorry, it's not the criteria for whether it's o'key to do animal research, never was, and never will be.
We use animals for food and clothes. I am sure those cows and pigs don't want to die either. Yet, the very same people who cry over some monkey suffering will eat their meat and wear their leather shoes. At least that monkey's suffering can cure some human baby some day.

[Lorien]

138. Oh yippee

another thread for the animal haters and sadists to come out in force, screaming "HUMANS ARE SO SUPERIOR THAT ANIMAL LIVES MEAN NOTHING!!!" because of their own feelings of insecurity (they MUST be superior to a great many things after all), or perhaps to justify the animal torture they participate in for "fun". I swear to God, animal rights threads bring out the very worst in DU. On this issue, there are a shocking number of Right Wingers among us.

"You can tell a great deal about a society by the way it treats it's animals". - M. K. Gandhi

[pedestrian]

143. Animals kill each other,

cats play with mice before killing them. Torturing them, in our terms. Many animals could not live, and would never have evolved into the creatures they are, without eating other animals. We would not have had the brain size that makes us human if our ancestors had not hunted other animals and eaten meat. The biblical myth of lions eating grass together with the sheep is beautiful, but it is just a myth.

If humans should treat other animals more gently than animals generally treat each other (and I think we should), that is a specifically human ethical standard. I don't see any reason why giving some sort of preference to human life is inconsistent with such a standard. Is there any universal code for how species should treat each other? The very word 'humane' suggests that considerate treatment has something to do with self-imposed human standards.

While I think it is entirely reasonable to value the life of a human over and above those of many mice, that does not mean that it is OK to rub unnecessary cosmetic products into rabbits' eyes, or keep pigs in overcrowded pens awaiting the sausage factory, or otherwise exploit animals without good reasons - and of course we must discuss what 'good reasons' may be, case by case. If we sometimes must kill animals to save humans, so be it. That does not give us license to treat animals any way we please. If we are cruel to animals we demonstrate that we are cruel creatures, and so that we are not 'humane', that we reject standards that are quintessentially human.

The Pedestrian

[livinginphotographs]

146. Oh, but I thought we were the superior species.

Shouldn't we start acting like it, instead of viewing the world as our personal plantation, and everything else in it as our slaves?

This argument, and all the others like it in this thread, that humans are more evolved/top of the food chain, etc. and therefore have some divine right to use animals however the hell we please comes down to one thing: might makes right.

And if you truly believe that, jump into a pen with an angry bull. By your standards, he'd be totally justified in goring you, seeing as "might makes right" and all.

[LisaL]

149. Well, what do you propose we do? Stop eating meat and other

animal products? Why in the world pick on animal research?

[livinginphotographs]

152. Um, yeah, that's exactly what I propose we do.

Haven't we played this before?

[LisaL]

162. And a lot of people would starve to death if everybody became

a vegetarian. Animal research is something that is done to benefit mankind. People want advances in medicine and in many cases animal research is necessary for that.

[evolvenow]

169. In reply to your post, I do not eat animals, or leather (40 years). Gross.

A solution to ending world hunger is a shift to a plant based diet. Many diseases and death are linked to animal diets. And for the truth...Animal research is not done to benefit mankind....although that may be the intention of some...it is to line the pockets and bank accounts of the Pharma-Evil corporations. If they gave a damn about the well-being of people, they would stop spending millions to advertise to entice, they would use alternative, non-animal model testing, and they would not profit while continuing to sell drugs that KILL people. They know damn well the side effects, and release dangerous drugs. Is that a benefit?

The addiction to meat, power, greed, money is the real reason for so much suffering. Why should it fall so heavily on the backs of innocent, sentient animals?

Google:vivisection
Google:meat, world hunger, disease, J. Robbins

Look at the pictures. Imagine the pain of these living beings, imprisoned, forced to live terrorized, with injections of terminal illness, separated from their friends and family. For PROFIT.

Taking drugs is the worst way to heal. The only way to heal is to limit intake/exposure to toxins. Eating dead carcasses and taking poison chemicals, just increases the amount of disease, torture and suffering on this planet. The Puritan ethic was bad, and continues to encourage the rape of all living things.
Until we become guardians of nature, we will destroy the very planet that supports all life. Cruelty is wrong. Torture is wrong. Killing is wrong.

[LisaL]

150. Well, hello-humans are the cruelest creatures on Earth.

Who else would kill each other for fun?
:eyes:

[kypper]

157. Animals kill each other for dominance

So do we.
There was also a study done that showed that when many rats that were crowded into a very small habitat and food/etc were plentiful, that they still became violent against each other.

Humans are only different because we have found a way to make the food plentiful while jamming ourselves into the smallest possible location. Animals just limit their breeding.

[libodem]

161. Did you see 60 minutes tonight

cerebral palsy children in a California institution were used as experimental subjects for radiation in the mid 50's and early 60's.Will they stop at nothing? I feel so sorry for the primates as well.

[candice]

163. These people are idiots if they don't know that animals feel pain

[frustrated_lefty]

171. I considered offering

a thoughtful reply to address concerns raised here. The thoughts raised here, though, are just too far into the fringe, so I'll leave you to protecting your tadpoles from the mutagenic rays from X-star-F!. The tinfoil is on the left on the way out.