[kick52]

Hi.

Please vote.

I saw this video ( http://www.iamscruelty.com/iams-video.asp ) and i thought it is really sick to do that.

Do you believe in animal testing?


kick52

[von Wrangell]

yes, of course.

[paul w]

Deepends on what but yes. For cosmetics, maybe not.

[screamingFit]

Testing on animals for any reason is morally and ethically wrong.

The testing IAMS is doing is just plain stupid and has no merit whatsoever.

[waxcrash]

Originally Posted by kick52

Do you believe in animal testing?

Yes. A human life is more important. The testing done on the animals have saved human lives.

[TETENAL]

Of course animal testing is already allowed. The alternative would be to test on humans first. I know few people who would prefer that and volunteer.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by screamingFit

Testing on animals for any reason is morally and ethically wrong.

The testing IAMS is doing is just plain stupid and has no merit whatsoever.

So you'd like us to step back decades back in time regarding medicine? You'd rather spare a couple of rats or mice instead of finding a cure for cancer?

[von Wrangell]

Just one question for those opposed to animal testing.

Do you know the rules and regulations for both keeping test animals as well as conducting tests on animals?

[Doofy]

Yes for medical purposes (where the results are likely to be similar to those found for humans and the tests can't be performed by other means such as computer simulation).
No for cosmetic purposes.

I believe that different companies testing on animals at the same time for the same research is wrong. Maybe there should be a centralised database of who's working on what or even a centralised facility where the testing is done.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Yes for medical purposes (where the results are likely to be similar to those found for humans and the tests can't be performed by other means such as computer simulation).
No for cosmetic purposes.

For medicine you can take it out of the parenthesis as that is the requirement today. And I agree with you about the cosmetics tests. Those should simply be banned.

I believe that different companies testing on animals at the same time for the same research is wrong. Maybe there should be a centralised database of who's working on what or even a centralised facility where the testing is done.

There are a few problems with that. You need to have the "duplication" to verify the results. Often a minor error in the procedure can cause some severe errors in the results. So you need to allow for duplication. Although I agree that some restrictions should be put in place regarding how often a certain study is made using animals. But IIRC that might already be the case. :finds regulations and reads it over again:

[screamingFit]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

So you'd like us to step back decades back in time regarding medicine? You'd rather spare a couple of rats or mice instead of finding a cure for cancer?

Yes.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by screamingFit

Yes.

You'd rather let your mother die than sacrifice a few rats? I'm sorry but that's just weird.

[MacNStein]

Absolutely! They should be tested constantly. We can even make a new law, the "No sheep from behind act". Wouldn't want our critters to dip below the Int'l avg, now would we?

[Eriamjh]

My bird has never taken a test.

[olePigeon]

I think animal testing is fine, but restrictions on human testing should be lowered or even removed. Animals have the slight disadvantage in that they can't volunteer. But humans can.

I'm 100% against cosmetics testing, though. But I'd stand by medicinal and therapeutic.

It's also annoying that, like the WWF, they use the "cute" animals to raise sympathy. No one's going to raise money for the "ugly" tormented and/or endagered species.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Absolutely! They should be tested constantly. We can even make a new law, the "No sheep from behind act". Wouldn't want our critters to dip below the Int'l avg, now would we?

If you're in the military, you can't lay with sheep. That was a law put forth during the Civil War.

[iMOTOR]

My ideal has always been that animals are equal to humans. It is a difficult subject however, if I had to choose between saving my child or saving an animal, I would certainly favor the human, I pray that I'm never faced with that decision though. And that doesn't mean I support testing on animals.

Societies that conduct research in medicine have been established for centuries, and as long as man has turned to science in an attempt to cure disease, they have been testing on animals. Since then, not only have many diseases and conditions not been cured, but many new diseases have formed. Over the last few years, the medicine community has told us they have exhausted the possibilities with traditional medicine, and can only cure disease with the help of fetal stem cells. Before stem cells were even a concept, the medicine community would have combated any opposition to animal testing by advising that diseases can only be cured by testing drugs on animals.

When we find that that testing drugs on animals and harvesting stem cells from fetal tissue does not cure disease, then what?

If our society can justify testing on condemned animals and harvesting parts of a condemned fetus, then at some point our society will justify medical testing on condemned humans.

[Monique]

No because our bodies are absolutly not the same. And many medications that were tested on animals then approved turned out to be fatal or dangerous on human.

Also, the cruelty of it all, keeping chimp. in small cages and seeing them deteriote after just for the fun of it; it is terrible.

Also, but using computer simulations turns out to be more accurate.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

It's also annoying that, like the WWF, they use the "cute" animals to raise sympathy. No one's going to raise money for the "ugly" tormented and/or endagered species.

That's nothing new. I don't know you remember but several years ago Bardot posed with a seal in the Arctic for IIRC Greenpeace to fight against the use of furs. There was only one problem with the ad though. It was taken on a set in Europe with a taxidermic (don't know if that's the term) seal. She cared so much for the seal that she objected to the travel to find real seals and also to being close to a real live one.

But this is the typical tactic of most animal "rights" groups. Nothing new.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by iMOTOR

My ideal has always been that animals are equal to humans. It is a difficult subject however, if I had to choose between saving my child or saving an animal, I would certainly favor the human, I pray that I'm never faced with that decision though. And that doesn't mean I support testing on animals.

I understand what you mean but there is one big problem with it. While you pray you won't have face that decision those working in medicine and medical research face that decision every day.

When we find that that testing drugs on animals and harvesting stem cells from fetal tissue does not cure disease, then what?

Stem cell research has decreased the need for animal models because most "basic" studies can now be done on the cellular level. But system wide studies are still needed and at the moment only animal models can provide that.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Monique

No because our bodies are absolutly not the same. And many medications that were tested on animals then approved turned out to be fatal or dangerous on human.

Absolutely not the same? Are you sure?

Also, the cruelty of it all, keeping chimp. in small cages and seeing them deteriote after just for the fun of it; it is terrible.

No one keeps these animals "just for the fun of it". And most of the animals used (mostly mice and rats) are kept better than in even the best conditions as pets.

Also, but using computer simulations turns out to be more accurate.

Complete and utter BS.

[residentEvil]

Use prisoners. We already have to pay for them with taxes (food, shelter, etc) might as well get something out of them that we can benifit from.

[iMOTOR]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

I understand what you mean but there is one big problem with it. While you pray you won't have face that decision those working in medicine and medical research face that decision every day.

Medical researchers save children everyday?

I think you missed my point. The medical community has touted the testing of animals and the harvesting of fetal stem cells as a necessary evil because it will lead to the cure of diseases. How many diseases have been cured within the last 20 years, and how many diseases still exist without cure? I don't see any new drugs curing diseases, they just help you not die as soon.

[jcadam]

1.) Animals ≠ Humans. Abd they should not be treated as equals. If you have some kind of deep emotional connection to animals something is wrong with you. If you enjoy torturing animals, something is wrong with you.

2.) Testing on human prisoners amounts to torture (i.e. "Cruel and Unusual punishment"). Though this didn't stop the Nazis and the Japanese during WWII, I suppose.

[ghporter]

The valid and ethical testing on animals of products that must be proven to not be harmful, and particularly the testing of medical procedures, techniques, drugs, etc. should all be (well regulated and) allowed.

However, there are a lot of INVALID testing protocols that have been used in the past. Testing like "does this eye makeup hurt the eyes of rabbits when poured straight in?" should NOT be tolerated. The only kind of cosmetic testing I would support would be in accordance with established instructions, not "used by some moron who's fishing for a lawsuit."

And remember, most lab animals are bred solely for the purpose of testing; they would not EXIST without testing.

[PacHead]

Hell yeah, testing should be done on animals. Is that worse than killing them and eating them for dinner ?

I wouldn't mind testing on humans also. We can start with the Gitmo terrorists.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by iMOTOR

My ideal has always been that animals are equal to humans.

that is just plain dumb.

[iMOTOR]

Originally Posted by jcadam

Testing on human prisoners amounts to torture

Originally Posted by jcadam

If you enjoy torturing animals, something is wrong with you.

So we've established that it's wrong to torture humans by using them as test subjects.

And it's wrong to torture animals.



So it automatically doesn't amount to torture if the test subjects are animals and not humans?

Either it's okay to torture animals or it isn't.

[as2]

Animal testing SHOULD be allowed for MEDICAL purposes, and is in fact a LEGAL REQUIREMENT here in the UK.

In the UK every single animal that is used in animal testing has to be shown to be essential for it to be allowed.

Medicines are tested on animals, not to test the effectiveness and find out how they work, but to assess safety. There is no way that an new drug can be tested on a human without knowing if it is toxic or not.

Yes, you can do some of the research using computer modelling, but that can only work to some extent.

Also, on the so called animal cruelty side of things, after working in the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industry, and knowing people who work and have worked directly with animal testing, this is shown as a greatly distorted truth.

In the UK anyone who has a license to test on animals has to be individually licensed by the home office.
Animals in research facilities have trained vets and veterinary nurses employed to look after them, and in my experience they are in better care than a lot of household pets.
The rules in the UK also state that if at any time an animal is in distress they must be put down humanely, whether or not the goal of the study has been achieved or not.

In the UK all pharmaceutical companies, and most cosmetic companies invest money in alternate research methods.

One of most hypocritical companies when it comes to Animal Testing is the Body Shop.

Cosmetics that have not directly been tested on animals, must have had their constituent parts tested at some point in the past.

The claim by the body shop that none of it's products have been tested on animals is strictly therefore not true. The Body Shop is however the only company that does not contribute to alternate research methods. Does this make them hypocrites?

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Medical... YES. As long as the animal does not suffer.

Makeup/cosmetics?.. Hell no.

I really don't think the use of anything other than mice is appropriate for anything.

[MacNStein]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Medical... YES. As long as the animal does not suffer.

Makeup/cosmetics?.. Hell no.

I really don't think the use of anything other than mice is appropriate for anything.

`cause everyone knows that mice suffer less than other critters.

[DeathToWindows]

Ok, animal testing for medical and scientific research purposes should be allowed, under the current guidelines (which are EXTREMELY strict). Cosmetic testing should just get bagged.

If one was to eliminate all animal testing, most biological sciences would grind to a halt. Do you really want me testing a new stroke therepy on you when you've stroked out, or would you rather that the initial pilots are done in animal models? How do we learn about the brain - wait for another Phinneus Gage? How do we learn about the actual details of the mind/brain interaction - by regressing to the Behaviorist perspective?

Also, animal housing regs (in the US and governed by the USDA) are so strict that the animals live better than most pets. As a general rule, an animal facility is better kept and cleaner than most labs in the same building.

Without animal testing of medications and treatments, we're down to human trials or just letting medicine and science stagnate and die. You may be a neo-Luddite, I'm not.

And those of you who put forth the ideas on prisoner experimentation: look at the World War Two experiments carried out by the Axis Powers (Nazi Prisoner Experiments - see "Nuremberg Doctor Trials" and the Japanese experiments at Pingfan). Now prisoners are considered a protected subset by IRBs and essentially cannot be used in scientific studies - and they're NOT a useful representative population for the overall human population, so even if you could, no scientist would want to.

Ok. End rant.

[jcadam]

Originally Posted by iMOTOR

So we've established that it's wrong to torture humans by using them as test subjects.

And it's wrong to torture animals.



So it automatically doesn't amount to torture if the test subjects are animals and not humans?

Either it's okay to torture animals or it isn't.

I said if you enjoy torturing animals. It is ok to cause pain/death to animals if the purpose for doing so brings benefit to mankind. I was only implying that if you get w00d while watching animals suffer, you have problems.

And it all comes back to humans and animals not being equals. Animals are to be viewed as a natural resource, the same as oil, coal, lumber, etc. To be used wisely and responsibly.

[iMOTOR]

Originally Posted by jcadam

I said if you enjoy torturing animals. It is ok to cause pain/death to animals if the purpose for doing so brings benefit to mankind. I was only implying that if you get w00d while watching animals suffer, you have problems.

It's certainly not okay to cause pain or death to a human being simply because it might benefit others, correct?

So do you make the distinction between humans and animals on the basis of mental capacity and ability?

Originally Posted by jcadam

And it all comes back to humans and animals not being equals. Animals are to be viewed as a natural resource, the same as oil, coal, lumber, etc.

Oil, coal, and lumber cannot be tortured.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by iMOTOR

So do you make the distinction between humans and animals on the basis of mental capacity and ability?

YES... that's the f*cking point.

[iMOTOR]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

YES... that's the f*cking point.

If you ever have heart failure, it won't be difficult to find someone who possesses only a fraction of your mental capacity and ability, so feel free to take their heart and make it your own.

[screamingFit]

Originally Posted by DeathToWindows

[snip] Now prisoners are considered a protected subset by IRBs and essentially cannot be used in scientific studies - and they're NOT a useful representative population for the overall human population, so even if you could, no scientist would want to.

Yes. And lab animals are SO much closer to a representation of a human.

And, animals as natural resources along the same lines as coal and wood? How do you come to a conclusion such as that? Is it based on religious beliefs or just a personal opinon? (Mind you, this isn't an attack on religion, just that I've heard a lot of religious Christian people with the same viewpoint but they've never been able to give me a straight answer as to why this is .)

Animal testing is pretty much only being done now as it's required by a backward goverment to CYA. There isn't anything very useful they're able to apply to humans from testing species other than humans. Find a reputable scientist and they will most likely agree with that fact. Or, just use common sense.

[Maflynn]

Yup, you betcha,

Now with that said, you cannot say that all animal testing is wrong, broad based statements fail to consider the subtleties of the question.

I believe human life is more precious then animal life and I think that we need to keep a proper perspective on that. Because its more precious then some animals need to be used to save people, simple as that. Someone's mother, child, brother may live logner.

On the other extreme end is some of the cruel testing that occurs for makup or other non life critical needs,. this is totally gross. I mean, why should we tortue a rabbit to see if eye liner will hurt. Lets be real here.

To summarize
Medical/saving lives is good
cosmetics is bad.

[DeathToWindows]

Originally Posted by screamingFit

Yes. And lab animals are SO much closer to a representation of a human.
Animal testing is pretty much only being done now as it's required by a backward goverment to CYA. There isn't anything very useful they're able to apply to humans from testing species other than humans. Find a reputable scientist and they will most likely agree with that fact. Or, just use common sense.

Wrong - the only way to do all of the studies that are currently done with animal subjects (at least in real research - I'm not counting cosmetics) is to use said subjects. These procedures are generally too experimental to try on human subjects and results are needed in a much faster timeframe.

Your second statement, about animals being poor analogues for humans, is patently false - all mamillian creatures have some similarities with humans - rats on a gross level of immunological response, felines in regard to the visual cortex, swine on an organal level and suchlike.

Just TRY to get IRB approval to do human testing - and see how much of a pain it is.
Then try to get approval from the IRB/A at an institution (animal subset) and the approval of the local USDA rep.

But until you do research in a field that understands the need for such testing and yet feels awesome regret every time an animal must be put down at the end of an experiment, you had best hold your tongue.

[screamingFit]

DTW, I understand your points and I'm replying not trying to start a bickering war.

But, you must agree that after animal testing is completed, humans are then used. Why is that if animal testing gives you your results? There are many cases where animal testing was completed and green lighted and human testing began and results were completely different.

I would also assume that you are a person of science and that these are procedures you use in life, judging be your candor. Would you agree that the more "publicized" of the animal experimentations are pointless such as the primate torture at Columbia University? I would assume that the majority of animal experimentation has no benefit to human life. As more and more prescription drugs kill more and more people, I see this current state of affairs as nothing more than making money - at the expense of humans and animals.

Regradless, my personal opinion is that sentient creatures should not be subjected to pain, humiliation or degredation by man-kind. Life-threatening disease, even if it's with a family member, is needed. The overpopulation of the earth and loss of resources and habitat make the need for these diseases NOT be cured and wouldn't be suprised if disease is nature trying to bring back order.

[ghporter]

To get back on track, let's look at a big distinction here: wild animals versus domesticated animals. In fact, let's go a bit farther and note that lab animals are bred specifically for testing. They would not exist without the need to test various things on them. And in that context, they are valuable comodities that are usually well treated-except for the discomfort involved with the particular testing they are involved in. Current ethical rules (in general) call for the animals to be given very careful treatment, and to have pain relief when appropriate. Further, testing is not to be carried out beyond what is necessary to establihs the experimental purpose-to go farther is unnecessary and unhelpful.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by iMOTOR

Medical researchers save children everyday?

I think you missed my point. The medical community has touted the testing of animals and the harvesting of fetal stem cells as a necessary evil because it will lead to the cure of diseases. How many diseases have been cured within the last 20 years, and how many diseases still exist without cure? I don't see any new drugs curing diseases, they just help you not die as soon.

Cures for diseases aren't easily found. It's very seldom that a scientist just somehow figures out how to cure a disease. It takes years of basic research and then years of development of new drugs and then years of testing the drugs and so on and so on.

What you call "not die as soon" other call an increase in the quality of life. Cancer patients that about 20 years ago could expect to live 6 weeks after diagnosis now can live 6 years and in many cases can be cured. That's worth sacrificing rats and mice for. Perhaps the best thing you could do at the moment is to find a list of different cancers and the life expectancies for them 20 years ago compared today. It might change your mind. Or not.

[wdlove]

God put the animals on Earth for us to have dominion over them. They should be treated with respect. It is done to benefit humans. Being a nurse, I have seen many sad things with humans that are sick also.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by jcadam

2.) Testing on human prisoners amounts to torture (i.e. "Cruel and Unusual punishment"). Though this didn't stop the Nazis and the Japanese during WWII, I suppose.

Don't forget the U.S. with testing on Native Americans and African American slaves.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by iMOTOR

If you ever have heart failure, it won't be difficult to find someone who possesses only a fraction of your mental capacity and ability.

A fraction? Then yes, it won't be hard to find someone less intelligent. That's about 90% of the population.
You for instance probably rank in at about the lowest fiftieth percentile. Yet I still wouldn't stick you in a cage to see if you responded to a new cancer treatment. Your dog, kitten, hell even your hamster... them I would be cool with sticking on a slab and dissecting to see if Tylenol had any side effects.

[Y3a]

Perhaps IF the companies were to have to use the members of the Stockholders Board
as the testing subjects that sloppy science and stupid cosmetics would actually be safe on the public.