If it's for cosmetics then I don't agree but for medical reasons then I think I'm inclined to agree with it.

The thing that annoys me the most are these die hard protesters who cause damage, march round our ring road causing delays (I live in Huntingdon) and once were even outside my sons school 'cos a person from HLS lived opposite. Seeing these adults dressed in black masks, screaming abuse and throwing things is something I'd rather my children not be scared by.

I would like to turn round and say No I don't agree with animal testing, emotionaly I feel it's wrong but when being rational I believe that there are just some forms of testing that we do need to do in the interest of medical research.

I agree with Sange it upsets me that animals are being tested on, but in the cases of medical research its probably neccessary, I think testing on animals should be the last resort.

I guess my feelings are kind of coloured in the knowledge that if it weren't for animal testing for medical research, neither of my little brothers would be here today...

I think it's a very emotive issue, with good arguments for both sides capable of being made. Having said that, at the end of the day, if a decision has to be made between a human life and an animals life, there really is no choice.
I think the protesters can get up to some quite outrageous things, human life doesn't seem to matter to some of them the way they act.

Great
They're building it on the main route from my house to the pub I go to in Cambridge. If them protesters delay me tomorrow night.......

P.S. That was a joke before anyone jumps on me (well a half joke anyway )

Well I'm quite happy to be species-ist. Humans first, the rest later (dependent on cuteness).

I eat meat, wear leather, poison wasps, slugs and other pests, and so I really have no problem with rats, dogs, monkeys, whatever, being abused in the search for cures to cancer, AIDS, or whatever.

My opposition to animal testing of cosmetics is not because of the harm to animals, but because time and again it has been shown to be innacurate and far better methods of testing cosmetics available. I would argue for the end of animal testing of cosmetics for the good of humans, not the rest of the animal kingdom.

God Dammit! They're out marching today and half the towns carparks are closed and they're clogging up the streets

The march was delayed - I got parked easily at 12.00 and was still in the middle of town a few hours later when suddenly around 2ish about 20 police officers dashed down to the high street from the direction we were. The intention being to keep them contained to the route they were supposed to be taking.

I didn't go and look, but many people were commenting that they were staying well out of the way as they had encounted lots of abuse and been hit for trying to move around when they were shopping.

I don't agree with animal testing for cosmetic reasons as that is just pampering to the will of vain people (admittedly though I've never looked on the packets of things I'm buying makes mental note to check next time) But testing on animals is no way the same as testing for reactions on humans - so it does seem to make it more pointless

I'm categorically against making animals suffer to feed the successors to Narcissus, but I don't have any moral problems with medical testing, provided it doesn't cause unnecessary cruelty and isn't employed to keep costs down.

I think there's a tendency to anthropomorphise animals these days. Where there's a question of sentience, as with primates and some seaborne mammals, I don't believe any testing can be justified, but with other species, I think the benefits to people take precedence. I wear a leather jacket and boots, eat meat, and don't see medical testing as being any radical diversion.

the problem with testing on animals for what ever reason is that it doesnt work. FACT! to many times have drugs been released onto the market which are dangerous or useless to the human being yet seem to work just fine on artificially created viruses and deseases in animals...hmm i wonder why it used then? probably because it costs almost 60% cheaper to use animals in research over say cultered human cells , even though it doesnt work. And the goverment gets Subsidies from big pharmaceutical companies who in turn get a blind eye to their mistakes. Too many times have properly discovered drugs been thrown aside because the pharmacutical companies or Charity 'businesses' haven't discovered it themsleves or its too cheap to produce. EG breat cancer drug thats now being funded independently by a Australian businessman because the major charity groups will not due to 1 -they wont make anything from it as they didnt discover it
2 - If a cure was found they'd be out of business in a shot!
And this drug is cheaper to produce than paracetemol so most of the big companies wont finance it cos they wouldnt make a profit.
so down to it Animal research is not about finding cures for people but keeping funds going as its cheaper to run. nothing about it working for our benefit.

---

by nemesis
the problem with testing on animals for what ever reason is that it doesnt work. FACT! to many times have drugs been released onto the market which are dangerous or useless to the human being yet seem to work just fine on artificially created viruses and deseases in animals...hmm i wonder why it used then? probably because it costs almost 60% cheaper to use animals in research over say cultered human cells , even though it doesnt work.

---

You've just used two arguments in conjunction which I've seen used by other opponents to primate research, and yet the two together don't make sense. Namely:

1) research on animals is ineffective
2) it's cheaper.

It being cheaper is no use unless it is also effective. The method would not be used if it wasn't: faulty research is no use to anyone, including those trying to make money.
It's not 100% effective - few methods are. However, the only alternative in some cases is experimenting on humans (in the very late stages of drugs testing this will be done anyway, but only after it has been shown to be safe on animals and in models). Personally, I hold human life higher.

I suggest you look at this article: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3241968.stm

Nemesis, putting FACT in big capital letters does not count as evidence for your arguments and allegations. If you have any actual evidence, it might add something to the debate...

---

by Nemesis
the problem with testing on animals for what ever reason is that it doesnt work.

---

Blanket statement. You believe that no testing on animals has ever been of any use? I don't think you can support that. Obviously, an animal can never be a perfect physiological match for a human, so testing on them will never be 100% reliable. The only answer to that would be to use 'laboratory humans'. Testing on human cells can be effective, but is a relatively recent development. But you cannot test a surgical procedure on a dish of cells, you can't see how parts of the brain interact with other parts using a dish of cells.

---

by Nemesis
Too many times have properly discovered drugs been thrown aside because the pharmacutical companies or Charity 'businesses' haven't discovered it themsleves or its too cheap to produce.

---

Interesting. Which drugs exactly? Now, I'm no lover of pharmaceutical companies, but refusing to produce drugs because the production is too cheap?? Surely the cheaper they are to produce, the more profit they could squeeze out? There are a lot of reasons to despise the big pharmaceutical compnaies, but you're way of beam here.

---

by Nemesis
EG breat cancer drug thats now being funded independently by a Australian businessman because the major charity groups will not due to 1 -they wont make anything from it as they didnt discover it
2 - If a cure was found they'd be out of business in a shot!

---

Not sure about this, do you have a name I can search on or a link or anything? The only way I can see that "they wont make anything from it as they didnt discover it" is if someone has patented the drug? In which case, they wouldn't be able to produce it. Confused, please explain further.

---

by Nemesis
Animal research is not about finding cures for people but keeping funds going as its cheaper to run. nothing about it working for our benefit.

---

Ok, so you think it is all about profit, how do you explain that non-profit making organisations also feel that animal testing is a viable source of information. Eg. academic research centres, etc?

---

by Demona
(quotes)

You've just used two arguments in conjunction which I've seen used by other opponents to primate research, and yet the two together don't make sense. Namely:

1) research on animals is ineffective
2) it's cheaper.

It being cheaper is no use unless it is also effective. The method would not be used if it wasn't: faulty research is no use to anyone, including those trying to make money.
It's not 100% effective - few methods are. However, the only alternative in some cases is experimenting on humans (in the very late stages of drugs testing this will be done anyway, but only after it has been shown to be safe on animals and in models). Personally, I hold human life higher.

I suggest you look at this article: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3241968.stm

---

I have read that article and a passage made me remember a similar one used before
"We do have the choice to opt out of certain research approaches, even if this research might potentially deliver an understanding of these disorders or even a cure. "

this is sooo similar to a quotes used after the second world war from scientists trying to justify using research gathered from trials on concentration camp victims.Their case was that the knowledge gained outweighed the suffering caused to the victims.
As to your question about my two arguements not making sense. It makes perfect sense. The very fact that so much research goes on with animals is due in part to its inherent flaws and that is why tests are continued.
'It being cheaper is no use unless it is also effective. The method would not be used if it wasn't'
sorry to burst that bubble but it does go on all the time.
I hold human life dear , but i do not think we are that superior that we can think that what we do to other lifeforms is our right. As ive used before i sometimes think after looking at the way we run this planet that most other animal life on this planet is superior, after all you don't see them messing each other over a tax break!But thats just my oppinion.

---

by nemesis
(quotes)
...after all you don't see them messing each other over a tax break!

---

Been watching Aliens recently, have we? (Although Ripley did put it in slightly more colourful language )

---

by Avenger
Nemesis, putting FACT in big capital letters does not count as evidence for your arguments and allegations. If you have any actual evidence, it might add something to the debate...
(quotes)

My apologies! didnt realise this was a courtroom!
here you go-
There are many reasons to oppose animal testing. For example, enormous physiological variations exist among rats, rabbits, dogs, pigs,monkeys and human beings. A 1989 study to determine the carcinogenicity of fluoride illustrated this fact. Approximately 520 rats and 520 mice were given daily doses of the mineral for two years. Not one mouse was adversely affected by the fluoride, but the rats experienced health problems including cancer of the mouth and bone. As test data cannot accurately be extrapolated from a mouse to a rat, it can't be argued that data can accurately be extrapolated from either species to a human.
The drugs thalidomide, Zomax, and DES were all tested on animals and judged safe but had devastating consequences for the humans who used them. IN the USA a General Accounting Office report, released in May 1990, found that more than half of the prescription drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 1976 and 1985 caused side effects that were serious enough to cause the drugs to be withdrawn from the market or relabeled. All of these drugs had been tested on animals.
Animal experimentation also misleads researchers in their studies. Dr. Albert Sabin, who developed the oral polio vaccine, cited in testimony at a congressional hearing this example of the dangers of animal-based research: "[p]aralytic polio could be dealt with only by preventing the irreversible destruction of the large number of motor nerve cells, and the work on prevention was delayed by an erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys."
and as to using primates such as chimps-
Chimpanzees are now popular subjects for AIDS research, although their immune system DOES NOT succumb to the virus. Chimpanzees are also used in painful cancer, hepatitis, and psychological tests, as well as for research into artificial insemination and birth control methods, blood diseases, organ transplants, and experimental surgery. Their use in military experiments is suspected, but such information is kept secret and is hard to verify. Because they are in short supply,do to captive chimps not breeding successfully and wild chimps being rarer to catch, captive chimps are often subjected to multiple experiments, each of which can last an average of two to four years.
Chimpanzees are highly active and very socially oriented. When kept isolated in laboratories with no regular physical contact with either humans or other chimps, they quickly become psychotic.Chimpanzees are highly intelligent, probably more so than human-based tests are able to measure. They make and use tools, cooperate with and learn from each other, and can learn various forms of expression and communication, including American Sign Language and computer symbols. Chimpanzees also have good memories.
Because adult chimpanzees are strong and often unmanageable, and because infected chimpanzees cannot be placed in zoos or existing sanctuaries, many chimpanzees are killed before the age of 10. (The normal lifespan of a chimpanzee is 40 to 50 years. How we can justify using our nearerst relative because they are not us is unjustifyable, when there are non animal tests out there that are far more acurate.


[quote]by Avenger
Blanket statement. You believe that no testing on animals has ever been of any use? I don't think you can support that. Obviously, an animal can never be a perfect physiological match for a human, so testing on them will never be 100% reliable. The only answer to that would be to use 'laboratory humans'. Testing on human cells can be effective, but is a relatively recent development. But you cannot test a surgical procedure on a dish of cells, you can't see how parts of the brain interact with other parts using a dish of cells.
(quotes)


The main reason for the late development of alternatives is the reluctance to fund these, due to most Vivisectors and funders making too much money of what they already use.
Many scientists and doctors disagree with animal vivsection
Dr. Charles Mayo, founder of the Mayo Clinic, explains, "I abhor vivisection. It should at least be curbed. Better, it should be abolished. I know of no achievement through vivisection, no scientific discovery, that could not have been obtained without such barbarism and cruelty. The whole thing is evil"
Dr. Edward Kass, of the Harvard Medical School, said in a speech he gave to the Infectious Disease Society of America: "[I]t was not medical research that had stamped out tuberculosis, diphtheria, pneumonia and puerperal sepsis; the primary credit for those monumental accomplishments must go to public health, sanitation and the general improvement in the standard of living brought about by industrialization"
There are alternatives to animal testing that are used espcially here in Britian.Pharmagene Laboratories, based in Royston, England, is the first company to use only human tissues and sophisticated computer technologies in the process of drug development and testing. With tools from molecular biology, biochemistry, and analytical pharmacology, Pharmagene conducts extensive studies of human genes and how drugs affect these genes or the proteins they make. While some companies have used animal tissues for this purpose, Pharmagene scientists believe that the discovery process is much more efficient with human tissues. “If you have information on human genes, what's the point of going back to animals?” says Pharmagene cofounder Gordon Baxter.
Using computers, scientists have built an accurate working model of a human heart that will allow researchers to test new treatments electronically before they are attempted on humans. Computerized “virtual organs” predict how drugs will be absorbed and metabolized, so drug companies can now test the effects of substances electronically before ever trying them on a person.
In medicine, perhaps the most informative research takes place not in test tubes, but in hospitals and clinics and the offices of statisticians and epidemiologists. Clinical surveys, human volunteers, case studies, autopsy reports, and statistical analyses permit far more accurate observation and use of actual environmental factors related to human disease than is possible with animals confined in laboratories, who contract diseases in conditions vastly different from the situations that confront humans. Long before the famous “smoking beagle” experiments began, statisticians and epidemiologists knew that cigarette smoking caused cancer in humans, yet programs to warn people about the hazards of smoking were delayed while more animal tests were carried out (to the satisfaction of the tobacco industry) and proved “inconclusive.

[quote]by Avenger
Interesting. Which drugs exactly? Now, I'm no lover of pharmaceutical companies, but refusing to produce drugs because the production is too cheap?? Surely the cheaper they are to produce, the more profit they could squeeze out? There are a lot of reasons to despise the big pharmaceutical compnaies, but you're way of beam here.
(quotes)


Many times Animal research prolonges the release of drugs and treatmentsor prevetns harmful things from being taken off the market for example - In 1985, the EPA determined that three animal tests had not shown a sufficient degree of danger in the pesticide Alar, and it called on the manufacturer to conduct still more cancer studies on animals. Now, years later, these studies are still incomplete. Although the EPA has pulled Alar from the market, non-animal tests would have taken a matter of days or months, not years, and could have meant that fewer consumers would have come into contact with Alar-treated products.
When a drug becomes too cheap to make a decent profit from it becomes worthless,as its too easy for other to make aswell, so the only alternative is to slap a very expensive patent onto it. That why many life saving drugs are soo expensive and why so many drugs are brought out that are carbon copies of previous ones.Of the millions of drugs on the market, only 200 are considered essential by the World Health Organization.


[quote]by Avenger
Not sure about this, do you have a name I can search on or a link or anything? The only way I can see that "they wont make anything from it as they didnt discover it" is if someone has patented the drug? In which case, they wouldn't be able to produce it. Confused, please explain further.
(quotes)

Im trying to find the article about that treatment, as it was something that stuck in my mind, mainly due to personal experience with breast cancer sufferers. But there are many cancer drugs that are withheld from the public.
For example,An American doctor (Dr. Gold) developed Hydrazine Sulfate , and the American government, doctors, and even The American Cancer Society has done everything in its power to block this drug from getting to the public. Why? Because the drug costs approximately $3.00 per day and would put them out of business. This drug has also helped AIDS patients..and is given freely in Russia where many cures are reported from terminal cancer ("roughly half of all the patients who have received it".
Many of the large charity groups are run for profit. If their researcher don't find 'breakthroughs' or treatments they can not use them for marketing purposes or promotion of their research over another group.Many of these charities work in conjunction with large pharmaceutical companies to produce 'treatments' that will benefit both parties.


[quote]by Avenger
Ok, so you think it is all about profit, how do you explain that non-profit making organisations also feel that animal testing is a viable source of information. Eg. academic research centres, etc?

---

Im sorry, i meant Pharmaceutical companies are all about profit.Its cheaper for them to use animal tests yet the tests themselves are far more expensive, again it boils down to profit, drag out a test for longer and your grant is longer.
In terms of academic research,More and more medical students are becoming conscientious objectors, and many students now graduate without having used animals; instead, they learn by assisting experienced surgeons. In Britain, it is against the law for medical students to practice surgery on animals. Many of the leading U.S. medical schools, including Harvard, Yale, and Stanford, now use innovative, clinical teaching methods instead of old-fashioned animal laboratories. Harvard, for instance, offers a Cardiac Anesthesia Practicum, where students observe human heart bypass operations instead of dog labs.
If students can graduate without using animal research then what is its validity?
sorry if my post is rather large but you wanted evidence...well you got it

---

by nemesis
Im sorry, i meant Pharmaceutical companies are all about profit.Its cheaper for them to use animal tests yet the tests themselves are far more expensive, again it boils down to profit, drag out a test for longer and your grant is longer.
In terms of academic research,More and more medical students are becoming conscientious objectors, and many students now graduate without having used animals; instead, they learn by assisting experienced surgeons. In Britain, it is against the law for medical students to practice surgery on animals. Many of the leading U.S. medical schools, including Harvard, Yale, and Stanford, now use innovative, clinical teaching methods instead of old-fashioned animal laboratories. Harvard, for instance, offers a Cardiac Anesthesia Practicum, where students observe human heart bypass operations instead of dog labs.
If students can graduate without using animal research then what is its validity?

---

And yet it is Cambridge University which is asking for the centre. It has nothing to do with teaching, it is planned as a research facility, which even a cursory look at articles on the subject would have told you.

Academic careers rest on this research and faulty research seriously jeopodises the careers of a great many academics. They have no interest in using faulty research methods, or building an entire specialist facility (which it now looks like they may not be able to fund even if they got permission) if they could use alternative methods alone with a greater degree of accuracy.

I and Avenger have already said that it is not a method which delivers 100% accurate predictions - if any method could human trials would never be necessary. A few counter examples in which the method did not prove fruitful is far from establishing your case.

---

by Whistler
(quotes)

Been watching Aliens recently, have we? (Although Ripley did put it in slightly more colourful language )

---

its a good quote and still is valid! lol and yeah i had to work out how to say it without the colourful language!

[quote]by Demona
(quotes)

And yet it is Cambridge University which is asking for the centre. It has nothing to do with teaching, it is planned as a research facility, which even a cursory look at articles on the subject would have told you.
(quotes)

i read the article, i was giving evidence to a specific question given by Avenger.

[quote]by Demona
Academic careers rest on this research and faulty research seriously jeopodises the careers of a great many academics. They have no interest in using faulty research methods, or building an entire specialist facility (which it now looks like they may not be able to fund even if they got permission) if they could use alternative methods alone with a greater degree of accuracy.
(quotes)

And yet i have found so many statements that say how most researchers dislike animal research for its very innacuracy.So many researchers are doing vivisection because it is the form of research most used not becasue it is the most useful.