Nanotechnology and the nerve cell or Who said animal testing was useless again? - by SubJeff
Rogue Keeper on 14/3/2006 at 16:24
And who made that oxygen atmosphere, Saint Proverbius? :)
What's your take on balance?
Agent Monkeysee on 14/3/2006 at 16:25
I don't think those of you saying "let's just use people instead" know what medical research on animals often entails. It's not like "Hamster A is drinking Pepsi while Hamster B is drinking Coca-cola Zero. Let's see which one gets fat first".
Animal research is a necessary evil unless we want to throw all medical ethics out the window and dissect the poor.
Also ALF is about as relevant to regulating animal research as ELF is to the EPA. ALF hasn't affected anything ever, no one takes them seriously, and StD's claim that they actually have a sobering effect on medical research is laughable. There are a number of legitimate animal rights and humane society organizations that work with medical researchers in ensuring animal abuse isn't rampant. ALF is like that raging teenager who "effects" changes in US foreign policy by posting angrily about it on their blog and then cutting their arm.
Mortal Monkey on 14/3/2006 at 16:25
I am somewhat dissapointed that we haven't been able to kill the earth's ecosystem (or even earth itself) despite the combination of nuclear weapons, power-hungry leaders, elusive terrorists, hallucinogens, countless hackers and all the nutcases.
Clearly someone with all these properties combined would be the pinnacle of evolution itself.
PS ninjar edit: I laugh at your medical ethics.
Stitch on 14/3/2006 at 16:33
can we get some more teenagers itt
Aerothorn on 14/3/2006 at 17:16
I suppose what bothers me about animal research is that there's no end to it. The justification is "sure, these animals have to be horribly tortured, but if we're able to do it we'll get this scientific breakthrough and all of socieity will be better for it". So you'd think that eventually once we had all these we'd all be better and we wouldn't have to do the testing anymore. But of course, that's not how science works, it doesn't stop, its just a constant stride for progress...so no matter what we get from these experiments, we'll continue to find excuses for animal testing...so yeah, I am really against it. And while I totally understand the practical problems of doing it on humans - they would just end up grabbing homeless people off the street - at least if they did it on humans people would more easilly feel empathy about it/realize how horrible it is.
Oh, who am I kidding, no they wouldn't. Yeah, it's just fucked all around.
Uncia on 14/3/2006 at 17:31
Quote Posted by BR796164
And who made that oxygen atmosphere, Saint Proverbius? :)
Saint Cyanobacteria, Esquire.
SD on 14/3/2006 at 19:05
Quote Posted by Ajare
I'm not a huge fan of using animals for experiments either, I doubt many people are. It's not very nice for them. But you have to think more practically - the only two alternatives are using humans, or no/hugely-limited scientific progress in the relevant areas. Unless you're prepared to seriously advocate one of these, there's simply no practical point in going on about how unkind it is.
I'm not opposed to the use of animals in medical experiments,
per se (although as a vegetarian I find them hugely distasteful and atavistic). However, I would seriously question whether all of the experiments we perform on animals these days are entirely necessary.
Take the experiment mentioned in the original post, for example (the one that prompted the poster to label animal rights activists as "tards"). Was it really necessary to make hamsters blind so that we could find out if their sight could be restored?
Would it not have been a damn sight more useful if we had performed these experiments on humans who were already blind (and don't try and tell me you wouldn't have a queue of volunteers longer than the Gulf War casualty list if there was even a slight chance that their blindness could be cured)?
What it boils down to is that experiments on unwilling animals are, for one reason or another, a hell of a lot cheaper than experiments on willing human participants. It's this "screw morals, let's think of the money" approach that sickens me more than the actual experiments themselves.
Quote Posted by Selkie
Once again, SD, you excel yourself in the 'tard stakes.
Oh come on. Nobody ever took notice of Irish Republicanism until the IRA started blowing up minibuses and kneecapping Protestants. Any political movement that hopes to effect real change really does benefit from having a gaggle of angry miscreants bringing up the rear.
Now this isn't to be taken as tacit support for the ALF. The point is that when you have a group like the ALF fighting the same battle, moderates like me look rather less like a bunch of hippy loonies and rather more like People You Can Deal With.
Quote Posted by Selkie
That's some good "checking" the ALF's doing there:
Okay, I'm just playing Devil's advocate here, but:
would never have happened if that mink farm hadn't been in this country in the first place (which is perhaps the more pertinent point).
This story I take with a pinch of salt, largely because (a) it appeared in the Mail on Sunday and (b) the guy who was "branded" ran straight to the papers without actually notifying the police (which I find hugely suspicious in itself).
Barbaric, but effective. Like I say, not wishing to condone the actions of the ALF, but financial institutions that are willing to handle accounts for Huntingdon Life Sciences are about as rare as rocking horse shit these days. Personally, I find it rather sad that it took direct violence to persuade these people not to do business with such a vile bunch of people as HLS.
Chimpy Chompy on 14/3/2006 at 19:29
A "moderate" unable to bring himself to outright condemn the lunatic fringe. Sadly familiar.
TheGreatGodPan on 14/3/2006 at 19:36
It was all the girl's fault I raped her. She wouldn't have sex with me. At least I make the rest of you guys look good enough in comparison so you can get some tail.
Chimpy Chompy on 14/3/2006 at 19:38
Oh wait, does that mean I have Pan on my side?
As a moderate supporter of animal testing I hereby publicly distance myself from any crazy types who might support the cause!