Animal rights - are they serious? Animal research & sustainable meat

henryscat

Well-Known Forumite
tek-monkey said:
Who said it wasn't? I said it was, but the scientists screwed up the tests. They didn't factor that chemicals used on parens carried through to the children, that is not a failure of animal testing more a failing of testing in general. Animal testing did not hinder nor hold back this development. Instead it proved that our scientists needed to be aware of a lot more than they currently were.
Your argument makes no sense in the context of the facts put forward.

Thalidomide was animal tested before it went on the market. Putting that aside, following its release onto the market there was very quickly an irrefutable evidence base from humans that it caused birth defects in humans. It should have been withdrawn immediately based on this evidence. It wasn't. Instead scientists spent five years trying to re-create the results in animals with very little success... So even if extensive animal based teratogenicity testing (which where I'm assuming you think "scientists screwed up") on that scale had been carried out before thalidomide's release onto the market, it is still unlikely the disaster would have been averted. Read the evidence....!!!
 

henryscat

Well-Known Forumite
tek-monkey said:
If your source is somehow more reliable than mine, please provide a link for your information.
Here's one for starters.... http://www.safermedicines.org/quotes/teratogenicity.shtml

(though as I said my info wasn't off the internet, but this source says pretty much the same)
 

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
genetic-modified-piglets--006.jpg

Observer said:
At first glance, the creation of a chicken that glows in the dark seems a disturbing and unnecessary one. With a jellyfish gene inserted into its DNA, a hen modified this way acquires the power to fluoresce in a bright green hue when illuminated with blue light – an unsettling ability, to say the least. After all, who needs poultry that can shine a light on itself? More important, why go to the trouble of mixing the DNA of two such dissimilar creatures in the first place?
Story

Haven't read yet - when did Sunday get so busy that you don't have time to read the Sundee papers?

What d'ya reckon henryscat?
 

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
Withnail said:
when did Sunday get so busy that you don't have time to read the Sundee papers?
I last bought a Sunday newpaper in 1982.

It was an Observer, I believe - is that still going?..
 

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
Despite Mr. Rusbridger's best attempts it is indeed.

No telly, no Sunday newspaper - the kicks on the B5066 must be mighty fine.
 

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
Withnail said:
no Sunday newspaper
Don't exaggerate, man. No newspaper at all - except the free stuff that gets shoved in my box randomly.

Although I do get Private Eye, of course, but that is bought for me by a client. It is possibly the only real newspaper left..
 

db

#chaplife
i have absolutely no doubt in my mind that animal testing provides at least some useful data, no matter how small, in preventing harm to humans when developing and testing unknown substances.. i have no data to back this up, it just makes probable sense in my mind.. (this is obviously baseless opinion and i have clearly stated it as such; please do not use this in your inevitable rebuttal, henryscat)..

henryscat, unless you can point us towards proof that animal testing is, without question, 100% completely useless, then all of your arguments are moot.. is its relevance questionable? yes.. are animal physiologies similar enough to humans to warrant statistically significant results? probably not..

irrelevant.. if there is even the slightest chance that animal testing is helping save human lives, then the vast majority of people are going to be all for it, and all the huffing and puffing and quoting of reports you can muster will not (and should not) change that..

to summarise: unless you can prove 100% that animal testing is 100% useless, we are all going to carry on.. thanks :)
 

Trumpet

Well-Known Forumite
We tested some Aldi Texan Style Barbeque seasoning on some venison steaks on Saturday night (Who killed Bambiiii?) and found it to be very palatable washed down with a keg of Iceberg from The Sun.
Don't think we'll be trying it on humans though.
 

db

#chaplife
Trumpet said:
Don't think we'll be trying it on humans though.
well that just makes you an evil person, with maladjusted morals.. here, let me try and badger you into believing the same as me by quoting endless real-world sources (non of these facile internet sources; i sneer on them from my ivory tower)..
 

Trumpet

Well-Known Forumite
db said:
Trumpet said:
Don't think we'll be trying it on humans though.
well that just makes you an evil person, with maladjusted morals.. here, let me try and badger you into believing the same as me by quoting endless real-world sources (non of these facile internet sources; i sneer on them from my ivory tower)..
I would perhaps like to continue experimenting with endless real world sauces, if that's acceptable.
 

henryscat

Well-Known Forumite
db said:
i have absolutely no doubt in my mind that animal testing provides at least some useful data, no matter how small, in preventing harm to humans when developing and testing unknown substances.. i have no data to back this up, it just makes probable sense in my mind.. (this is obviously baseless opinion and i have clearly stated it as such; please do not use this in your inevitable rebuttal, henryscat)..
Baseless opinion.... you said it....

So is there equally no doubt in your mind that duff results from animal testing don't kill as many people as you think are saved by the apparently wonderfully useful results?

DB, unless you can point us towards proof that animal testing is, without question, 100% completely useful, then all of your arguments are moot..
FTFY


if there is even the slightest chance that animal testing is helping save human lives, then the vast majority of people are going to be all for it, and all the huffing and puffing and quoting of reports you can muster will not (and should not) change that..
The vast majority of people, like yourself, are making assumptions made on a complete ignorance of the scientific facts and ethical issues.
 

db

#chaplife
henryscat said:
DB, unless you can point us towards proof that animal testing is, without question, 100% completely useful, then all of your arguments are moot..
FTFY
doesn't work in reverse.. humans are more important than animals.. it doesn't need to be 100% useful, it just needs to be useful.. even if that is only 0.000000001%..

henryscat said:
db said:
if there is even the slightest chance that animal testing is helping save human lives, then the vast majority of people are going to be all for it, and all the huffing and puffing and quoting of reports you can muster will not (and should not) change that..
The vast majority of people, like yourself, are making assumptions made on a complete ignorance of the scientific facts and ethical issues.
i am making no assumptions.. i have asked you to provide one thing, irrespective of any assumptions.. you cannot..

give me evidence that animal testing is 100% useless..

humans are better and more important than animals.. although you will doubtless call this an assumption..

fortunately, those in the world who are in power and make decisions will always disagree with you..
 

henryscat

Well-Known Forumite
db said:
if there is even the slightest chance that animal testing is helping save human lives, then the vast majority of people are going to be all for it,)
On a related note, if its lives you want to save, then investment in preventing disease in the first place is what is needed. Around three-quarters of disease is entirely preventible, because they are caused by lifestyle factors like smoking, bad diet, lack of exercise and drinking too much.
 

henryscat

Well-Known Forumite
db said:
humans are more important than animals..
On what basis......

it doesn't need to be 100% useful, it just needs to be useful..even if that is only 0.000000001%..
You haven't weighed up your quoted fraction of a percent benefit against the dis-benefit.


henryscat said:
give me evidence that animal testing is 100% useless..
I have. Lots of it. There is only so much I can type out...

humans are better and more important than animals.. although you will doubtless call this an assumption..
Same question as before - on what basis?

fortunately, those in the world who are in power and make decisions will always disagree with you..
Fortunately? And since when have people in power made the correct decisions and not the decisions they are lobbied to by vested interest.
 

db

#chaplife
henryscat said:
On a related note, if its lives you want to save, then investment in preventing disease in the first place is what is needed. Around three-quarters of disease is entirely preventible, because they are caused by lifestyle factors like smoking, bad diet, lack of exercise and drinking too much.
certainly not going to argue with that..

i heard someone "joke" on twitter the other day: deliberately give all the world leaders HIV tomorrow and just see how quick we cure it :cynic:
 

db

#chaplife
henryscat said:
db said:
humans are more important than animals..
On what basis......
granted, that is relative.. i mean, i dare say a pig is better than me, if we are talking in terms of which is tastier in a bap..

other than that, if you need it explaining to you why humans are more important in terms of evolutionary achievements (which, as best as we can ascertain at this juncture, is the meaning of life) then there's really no hope..

henryscat said:
db said:
fortunately, those in the world who are in power and make decisions will always disagree with you..
Fortunately? And since when have people in power made the correct decisions and not the decisions they are lobbied to by vested interest.
i never said they always made the correct decisions.. christ, a lot of the time they don't, that's clear to everyone!

i was just saying, for all your preaching and pontificating, this argument is moot since humans > animals and on this subject the law-makers agree..
 

henryscat

Well-Known Forumite
db said:
other than that, if you need it explaining to you why humans are more important in terms of evolutionary achievements (which, as best as we can ascertain at this juncture, is the meaning of life) then there's really no hope..
i was just saying, for all your preaching and pontificating, this argument is moot since humans > animals and on this subject the law-makers agree..
Well, evolutionary achievements are debatable given the ongoing destruction of the planet in terms of plundering resources, pollution and elimination of other species....

You haven't actually answered the question though. Put in a different way: on what basis do you assert the right to inflict suffering on another species? Do alleged "evolutionary achievements" by themselves confer that right? You would (presumably) think it wrong to torture another person, because it inflicts suffering. Why, then, is it not wrong to do the same to another species that feels pain/suffering in the same way that you do?
 

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
I've always been a little sceptical about attracting extra-terrestrials - in case they have the same sort of attitude as we do.....
 

ToriRat

Is that a Moomin?
Gramaisc said:
I've always been a little sceptical about attracting extra-terrestrials - in case they have the same sort of attitude as we do.....
Indeed :P

At the end of the day I am pleased that vaccinations are available for my children so they do not die, that the makeup I wear does not cause me to come out in a rash and that I can eat tasty food. And if that has been achieved by testing on animals I salute their furry little souls and hope we can once day test things without resorting to crude methodology but at the moment we do and there is very little that can be done about it at this time.

Maybe we should up the human cloning programme than we could test stuff on them, as obviously they would'nt be as good as the orignal person. I could get a clone of me to try out my dodgy cooking on so I dont give myself food poisoning.
 
Top