Animal rights; which is your view?

kobi_3

I'll start by saying that I know that this is an emotive subject.
I carry out animal research at a University. My role is to try to model diseases (as close as we can) and try to discover compounds that combat the disease that we can take to clinical trials (testing in humans).

One problem with the confrontation between animal rights organisations and the scientific community is that the public usually only hear one aspect – scientists rarely admit to doing animal research and those that do end up on black lists and require the police to sift through their mail for suspect packages (e.g. Colin Blackmore). The scientific community has failed to successfully educate the public about the benefits of animal research.

The vast majority of prescription drugs have been discovered using animals – i.e. if you have taken a prescription drug you are directly benefiting from animal research (my own personal feeling is that all prescription medicines should come with a label reading ‘animals were used in the discovery and testing of this product’).

Prescription drug are required to undergo animal testing to determine safety – i.e. you can take a pill and be assured that it won’t have any major unknown side effects - the reason that the disaster that befell the recent highly publicised clinical trial (where people swelled, went into a coma etc.) doesn’t happen more often is due to stringent animal testing (there are thousands of similar clinical trial every year).

A proportion of the money that the public give to charitable organisations (e.g. for cancers, Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease etc.) funds animal research. Unfortunately for scientists, charities are also shy about advertising its benefits (I have seen a cancer research stand next to an ‘against animal testing’ stand and people happily signing both petitions unaware of the contradiction).

There are also stills myths about animal research which don’t help the public perception.
There is no testing for make-up products in this country (it is illegal).
There is no LD50 experiments carried out in this country (experiments designed to find out the dose which would kill 50 % of the animals – there are more refined ways to work out toxic doses for man, such that it is no longer a legal requirement for new drugs).
There is a reason why the posters on animal rights stands look like there were taken 30 years ago. A lot has changed in the past decade and animal research is highly regulated and supervised by the Home Office, Veterinarians, Universities and ethic committees (which contain a high proportion of lay people).

Animal research has hugely increased the quality of life of today’s society and as long as society continues to require it (by taking medicines which are the product of animal research) and as long as it remains a legal activity, people directly or indirectly involved in it should be free from violent persecution or fear.

Coveredinbees!!!!

MORPH3US wrote:

Well I think you should volunteer!!!



In the same way that "animal rights activists should all volunteer for human testing if they feel so strongly" maybe you should volunteer to dress up as a fox and get chased after by packs of dogs and idiots on horses. Then get torn to pieces after being chased for miles on end!!

M

Firstly I don't thank you for your post

Secondly a better idea would be for me to ride the horse and you to play the fox. I'll only fire darts with a few drug on that need testing, sounds fair to me.:rotfl:



I didn't get to the top of the food chain to eat broccoli and wear sandals

MORPH3US

Coveredinbees!!!! wrote:

Firstly don't thank you for your post

Secondly a better idea would be for me to ride the horse and you to play the fox. I'll only fire darts with a few drug on that need testing, sounds fair to me.:rotfl:

Nice to see you are clever enough to TOTALLY miss the point of the post :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Its idiots like you that undo all of the good work people like Kobi do on here in putting across a well educated, reasoned and well thought out argument, whether I agree with it or not!!



M

Coveredinbees!!!!

Pardon, don't call me an idiot. Post reported.

nej

MORPH3US wrote:

You claim it is wrong for people to target other people working in / for pharmacutical companies etc, but why should everyone who is an Animal Rights Protestor be labeled a terrorist and be persecuted because of their opinions and beliefs - very similar to Hitlers views abd we all know about that.

Not everyone who is an "animal rights protestor" believes that peoples grandparents should be dug up from their graves and that peoples brake lines should be cut!!

M

So if I were to join Al-Qaida (I know I can't spell it!) because I supported their ideals, but not their methods, that would be Ok? No, I'd be labelled a terrorist and rounded up and rightly too. Same thing.

Outlaw animal rights protest groups and only outlaws will be animal rights protestors.

I do accept that there are peaceful groups, and that is Ok (if a little pointless), but it seems to me that the outwardly-peaceful groups have their own little factions (splinter cells, if you will) that get together to carry out their dispicable acts.

MORPH3US

nej wrote:

So if I were to join Al-Qaida (I know I can't spell it!) because I supported their ideals, but not their methods, that would be Ok?

I don't know enough about the ideals of Al-quaida (sp?) to comment, but look at it the other way round. Lots of people support the libberation of iraq and the downfall of Sadam Hussain, but not all of those people support the war in Iraq. So if the "ideals" of Al Quaida are the removal of all US troops from Iraq then it is perfeclty fine to support that if that is what you wish, what is not fine is trying to blow up said US soldiers to get them to go!

nej wrote:

I do accept that there are peaceful groups, and that is Ok (if a little pointless)

But is it really pointless? If it is, then should everyone just act like lemmings and do everything they are told because fighting against anything is either extremist and therfore illegal or peaceful but pointless?!?

M

MORPH3US

Coveredinbees!!!! wrote:

Pardon, don't call me an idiot. Post reported.

I stand by my post.

From your previous posts, its obviously the only to communicate with you that you can understand.

nej

MORPH3US wrote:

I don't know enough about the ideals of Al-quaida (sp?) to comment, but look at it the other way round. Lots of people support the libberation of iraq and the downfall of Sadam Hussain, but not all of those people support the war in Iraq. So if the "ideals" of Al Quaida are the removal of all US troops from Iraq then it is perfeclty fine to support that if that is what you wish, what is not fine is trying to blow up said US soldiers to get them to go!

Interesting. We seem to be saying the same things but with different interpretations. I think though that you can't have one without the other. Everyone (Well, most) supports the liberation of Iraq, but that would not have been possible without the war. What they don't like is the civilian and military casualties. Fair enough, but if they don't want those then don't support getting rid of Saddam. Extended, though perhaps not quite as clear, the same applies in our discussion. You can support animal rights, but the only action that ever gets taken by these people is not appropriate.

MORPH3US wrote:

But is it really pointless? If it is, then should everyone just act like lemmings and do everything they are told because fighting against anything is either extremist and therfore illegal or peaceful but pointless?!?

This is a fair point, but since when did peaceful protest ever change anything? The men in charge will have their way and there isn't really a lot anyone can do about it. This is not neccessarily a good thing, but I do think that there are better things to do with my life than protest against a cause that, realistically, I can't change.

Personally, I put the rights of humans above the rights of animals (and the rights of law-abiding citizens above the rights of criminals).

Here's a question for the animal rights brigade: If you (or your spouse or child) were dying, but a transfer of an organ from an animal would save you (or them) would you accept it, given it would kill the animal? Or is it only the suffering, not the actual death that is the issue?

I think we shall need to agree to disagree.

shokadelika

kobi wrote:

I'll start by saying that I know that this is an emotive subject.
I carry out animal research at a University. My role is to try to model diseases (as close as we can) and try to discover compounds that combat the disease that we can take to clinical trials (testing in humans).

One problem with the confrontation between animal rights organisations and the scientific community is that the public usually only hear one aspect – scientists rarely admit to doing animal research and those that do end up on black lists and require the police to sift through their mail for suspect packages (e.g. Colin Blackmore). The scientific community has failed to successfully educate the public about the benefits of animal research.

The vast majority of prescription drugs have been discovered using animals – i.e. if you have taken a prescription drug you are directly benefiting from animal research (my own personal feeling is that all prescription medicines should come with a label reading ‘animals were used in the discovery and testing of this product’).

Prescription drug are required to undergo animal testing to determine safety – i.e. you can take a pill and be assured that it won’t have any major unknown side effects - the reason that the disaster that befell the recent highly publicised clinical trial (where people swelled, went into a coma etc.) doesn’t happen more often is due to stringent animal testing (there are thousands of similar clinical trial every year).

A proportion of the money that the public give to charitable organisations (e.g. for cancers, Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease etc.) funds animal research. Unfortunately for scientists, charities are also shy about advertising its benefits (I have seen a cancer research stand next to an ‘against animal testing’ stand and people happily signing both petitions unaware of the contradiction).

There are also stills myths about animal research which don’t help the public perception.
There is no testing for make-up products in this country (it is illegal).
There is no LD50 experiments carried out in this country (experiments designed to find out the dose which would kill 50 % of the animals – there are more refined ways to work out toxic doses for man, such that it is no longer a legal requirement for new drugs).
There is a reason why the posters on animal rights stands look like there were taken 30 years ago. A lot has changed in the past decade and animal research is highly regulated and supervised by the Home Office, Veterinarians, Universities and ethic committees (which contain a high proportion of lay people).

Animal research has hugely increased the quality of life of today’s society and as long as society continues to require it (by taking medicines which are the product of animal research) and as long as it remains a legal activity, people directly or indirectly involved in it should be free from violent persecution or fear.

You have not bothered to read the link in my first post.These scientists acted illegally WITH the protection and knowledge of the Home Office and the Government.It took a high court case to publish this information and you go on about "myths of Animal research"
I agree let all the truth(myths) come out show all the horrors inflicted on animals for useless drug (profits) not the benefit of humans.Using "sympathetic" charities to make these experiments justified is an excuse that is wearing thin.
You also run the risk by experimenting on Primates (and Pigs) our nearest relative of a virus or some other unmetionable jumping cross species.........Bird Flu anyone.
I cannot understand the people who work in these places!
What did you do today at work dear"
"oh!nothing much sacrificed a few (150) primates some illegally caught in the wild and put some piglet hearts into the stomach of others some had pig organs grafted to their neck"
"Mmmmm.pass the sausages."
Just because primates use different language does not mean to say they are any less intelligent than Humans and they certainly feel PAIN.

LD50 and cosmetic tests are carried out by companies domicled here offshore in other countries and well you know it!
As for the safety of drug testing shalll we mention Voixx around 150,000 deaths worldwide.
Thailidomide etc etc etc.or the 15000 deaths in this country alone from prescription drugs
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-1607618,00.html

shokadelika

.





Here's a question for the animal rights brigade: If you (or your spouse or child) were dying, but a transfer of an organ from an animal would save you (or them) would you accept it, given it would kill the animal? Or is it only the suffering, not the actual death that is the issue?

I think we shall need to agree to disagree.[/QUOTE]

I object to the pointless suffering in the "name " of supposed "medical Research"
funnily enough the link concerns pig to primate organ transplants pointless from the start!

http://www.xenodiaries.org/deception.htm