NO WAY-Pro-animal testing posters
Posted by AshleyKimball on Sep 10, 2007 · Member since Nov 2006 · 536 posts
So I was walking around my university's science building, when I entered a hall full of PRO ANIMAL TESTING POSTERS. >:(
WTF? I'm going to take pictures of them tomorrow and post them. I'm awfully tempted to go all peta on them and slather them in paint........
AK< where do you go to school? OSU?
Although I am not entirely against animal testing, I'm not sure why one would like to see an increased use of animals in research if, in the future, there are sufficient alternatives to animal testing!
...I have an extremely offensive poster lying around but I'm waaay too afraid to post it.
I don't know what school you go to, but we had one of these in the biology building. I thought it was a bit ridiculous.
I'll tell you the story from the other side as I knew many people from that side.
Some anti-animal testing people are extremists. So, basically, on your way to work (where you test on animals) and on your way from work, you're bombarded with people yelling at you, holding signs, slinging insults, etc. There was one case, where one person actually went into a hospital, and shot a researcher.
Now, I know this is the extreme side of things. But, the thinking on the researchers side is this: if they can have posters, so can we. If they're going to bombard us with posters, we'll fight right back. (That's why I always say antagonizing people never works.)
Plus, medical researchers get pissed off because the animal rights groups who picket outside of their work are protesting to the wrong side. They should be angry at the government. Because, in the medical industry, in America, before a drug goes to a clinical trial, you MUST test on animals. Without that animal test, your drug is not allowed to go through to human, clincal trials. That's the law. So, if your dream is to cure cancer or HIV or diabetes, you HAVE to test on animals - that's how it works in America. MANY researchers would dearly love to skip all that red tape, and go straight to human volunteers. But, they can't.
Further, what adds even more fuel to the fire is that all those protestors are using the SAME drugs researchers and scientists and doctors produced.
So, posters is their mild way of "fighting back."
Not saying I agree with animal testing ... just giving the other side of things. :)
Every single drug and vaccine must first be tested on animals, and the reason why our pets can go to the vet to get proper vaccinations and treatment is the result of animal testing. If they were not first tested on animals, little would be known of their effects - both animals and humans could develop severe side effects, so who is to blame: the government or the researchers? Currently, computer modelling which was thought to be a possible replacement for animal research, cannot replace animal testing, thus, for now, animal testing will still be in effect for biomedical research.
I know I may sound very inhumane, and I have such a great appreciation for the complexity of animals but the fact is simply that. PETA, please don't hate me! *crosses fingers*
Every single drug and vaccine must first be tested on animals, and the reason why our pets can go to the vet to get proper vaccinations and treatment is the result of animal testing.
I was going to post an open ended question along similar lines recently (until I got superbogged down. I shouldn't even be here now :o ).
I used to be ABSOLUTELY anti-animal testing until I also realized that most of the medicines we use to treat our pets come about as a result of just that. Tested on animals for the benefit of 'humans', but then it goes back around again is used to treat animals.
I'm not saying I agree with ALL testing. Certainly not testing cosmetics >:( >:( >:( but even not all medical testing either.
However, a wider awareness is needed I think. It's not all lose for the animals win for the humans.
Shinsei and many others are only alive today because of the animal-tested medicine they are using. I am very grateful to those that gave their life so others can benefit. Although I find it morally distasteful, I don't see it as a senseless or pointless death.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ferret Research: http://ferretknots.blogspot.com/
Ferret Resources: http://nippynihon.blogspot.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It isn't better to feel joy than to feel grief. It is certainly more fun to feel joy--but it isn't better. If something good is happening, it is appropriate to be joyful. If you have experienced loss, it is equally appropriate to be sad."
-LIFE AFTER LOSS, Bob Deits
While I agree that animals have been useful in testing drugs. There is also the flip side of this - there are countries out there who do not test on animals. They research extensively, and then they go to human, clinicaly trials right away. Their drugs go through the whole system much faster than in America - and, I highly doubt are any more dangerous than ours. Probably less, actually. Simply because I don't think the FDA is very partial.
Here is the catch - the FDA won't approve any of those drugs even though people have been using them in their countries for years, decades sometimes. Why won't they? Well, it has to do with money and who pays them ... so I won't bore anyone with that. ;)
So, you have very wealthy people in America going to a less wealthy country in order to use their drugs because it's illegal for them to have access to it here. Which is ridiculous, IMO.
I can give an example of something so simple as birth control. In India there is a drug called Centrochman. It is not approved in the USA. But has been in use in India for decades as birth control. It has FAR fewer side effects than the pill in America. Moreover, it doesn't have any of the dangerous side effects like the pill, i.e. stroke.
I know several American women who actually get it privately (and illegally) sent to them from India, and use it as birth control. My mom being one of them. There's a whole message board about women's experiences with it. I used it for a time, before I discovered the IUD. The FDA has approved more dangerous drugs than this, heck they approved the pill! The big problem is that Centrochman uses something like one pill per week and is VERY cheap. The birth control industry wouldn't like that, lol. I forget which is the "official" excuse of the FDA not to approve it ... but it's laughable when you see the side effects on the American pill.
So, the whole "drugs must be tested on animals for our own safety" is true. In America. And in the past. But it's not the whole story, and not the only way to do it. All we have to do is look at the countries who don't test, and have successfully completed clinical trials with their drugs, without harming animals - human or otherwise.
So, the whole "drugs must be tested on animals for our own safety" is true. In America. And in the past. But it's not the whole story, and not the only way to do it. All we have to do is look at the countries who don't test, and have successfully completed clinical trials with their drugs, without harming animals - human or otherwise.
That's a very interesting point. I wonder if Japan tests... oops, never mind, I know they do. But I wonder if that is so they can publish their results in American SCientific Journals??
Also, for countries that don't test, has anyone looked into the down sides. Has anyone studied the 'whole story' from that angle? (Besides big companies not making money.) Statistically, do they produce fewer or more drugs? Are their drugs overall more effective or are weaker? Overall, what kind of side-effects--more or less?
This would be as compared to countries that use animal testing. And of course, not individual cases, but in general, taken all together.
Also, I think this problem of testing on animals is likely linked to the same reason of why the FDA refuses to back herbal studies - there are literally laws in place that discourage US pharmacuetical companies from investigating herbs. The same mentality, if you will.
>:( >:( >:(
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ferret Research: http://ferretknots.blogspot.com/
Ferret Resources: http://nippynihon.blogspot.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It isn't better to feel joy than to feel grief. It is certainly more fun to feel joy--but it isn't better. If something good is happening, it is appropriate to be joyful. If you have experienced loss, it is equally appropriate to be sad."
-LIFE AFTER LOSS, Bob Deits
MANY researchers would dearly love to skip all that red tape, and go straight to human volunteers. But, they can't.
Hmmm... the ethical dilemma of this issue is staggering. Even if you tell a volunteer about the probability (extremely high) that an issue could arise, unless the volunteer is highly educated, he/she might not necessarily be able to understand the exact ramifications of taking an experimental drug. Informed consent can't be completely informed, because the volunteer isn't trained in medicine. Furthermore, the compensation for volunteers would have to be extremely high, and then you run the risk of attracting a certain demographic: the poor. Then discussions about the poor playing "lab rat" for the rich would inevitably come up. I'm pretty sure this happens to some extent already... I've heard from a couple friends who work in biomedical research labs that some countries *cough* Brazil *cough* will put up their sick in order to be tested on... and that will substitute for pre-clinical trials. That might just be a rumor, though... (I really hope it's just a rumor).
I worked in a lab that performed primate research... and the veterinarians were extremely particular about the treatment of the monkeys. There were loads of specific protocols and clearances required for the sacrifice of each one. The problem is that not all labs are like this... there has to be legislation passed regarding the proper care of animals undergoing experimentation.
I believe that animal testing is a necessary evil, but it can be done while preserving the animal's dignity. There is pretty much no way of replicating the interaction of biological systems in a living/breathing model on a computer (one of PETA's suggestions).
I don't think the posters are trying to increase animal testing... that'd be a little weird. I think they're just saying that they think animal testing is ok...
Contact the PCRM regarding animal testing. There are so many tests being done in schools and by the FDA (as Estatic mentioned) that are done over and over yet yield the same results. Results they already know about before the testing, cruelty and the abuse of the animals even begins.
They have been very successful in getting many medical schools to stop animal testing and will even provide schools computer models free of charge.
Here's their take on the issue:
http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/index.html
http://www.pcrm.org/resch/meded/
I believe that animal testing is a necessary evil, but it can be done while preserving the animal's dignity. There is pretty much no way of replicating the interaction of biological systems in a living/breathing model on a computer (one of PETA's suggestions).
I would have to disagree with that (that it is a necessary evil). The PCRM has developed many many teaching methods that can be performed without harming an animal. Being physicians, they walk the walk and talk the talk when it comes to this issue. I do not value my life more then an animals. It's why I'm vegan. Many don't agree with that train of thought...but it the way I choose to live my life...hopefully on the same level as animals. Just because I can out think a cow, goat, pig or monkey, it does not mean my life is worth any more then hers or his.
PCRM link again regarding Medical School Animal Testing and the methods they have developed that eliminate the need for it:
http://www.pcrm.org/resch/meded/
Great points DIENEKES88.
I've also done experimentations with animals, but I have always been extremely careful about their treatment. There is an association called The Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International that accredites organizations which demonstrate excellent animal care. In my school, we do have computer models to act as simulations (particularly with mutations) but they are not considered to be replacements, but instead, as giving you a general idea of what you might expect.
I go to Ohio Northern University, and I know for a FACT the school conducts animal testing.
This is going to sound way harsh....but do we really need all these medicines and shit? Is living longer actually a good thing? From a biased standpoint excessive medicine is good when it saves your loved ones.....but other than that....if you look at it subjectively it's not that great. Excessive medicine=overpopulation, antibiotic resistent diseases, animal testing, cushier live=no more survival of the fittest......
I agree...it's too much. I'm for minimizing suffering where it exists, but they just need to STOP with wanting to medicate every single thing in the world. Restless leg syndrome has yet to kill anyone ::)
If we/society ate a better, healthier (whole, plant-based foods) diet we wouldn't have the need for as many or as much drugs in the first place. But drug companies, possibly even some disease/illness research foundations, certainly don't want us to know that. :(
Yep, every university does conduct animal testing (as well as mine).
Overpopution is a problem, and one way we can deal with it, is to allow people who are sick to die...why would we need people who produce offsprings who are unfit to breed (eg. people with AIDS) to "contaiminate" our gene pool? Why should people live longer lives, despite the fact that they are no longer fit to breed? Subjective it is, and from an evolutionary stand point, it's true. However, we don't want people dying and suffering so I guess that's why we need medicine :-[
This is going to sound way harsh....but do we really need all these medicines and shit? Is living longer actually a good thing? From a biased standpoint excessive medicine is good when it saves your loved ones.....but other than that....if you look at it subjectively it's not that great. Excessive medicine=overpopulation, antibiotic resistent diseases, animal testing, cushier live=no more survival of the fittest......
Well, as someone who loves life and living ... I would say getting to live longer IS a good thing.
I'd love to live 1,000 years if I could. I'd love to live forever, in fact. It's why I'm freezing myself when I die ... on the off chance that someone will figure out how to defrost me and bring me back. I wanna live!
You could look at it another way - people live too short of a life to care about the longterm, hence all the pollution, resistant bacteria, bad food, over population, etc. If we all lived 1,000 years each, we'd re-think A LOT of our policies reall quick. Because no one wants extreme devastation in their lifetime. Everyone is safe in their idea that states "it will never happen in my lifetime." Well, if we all lived longer, it would, and so we would HAVE to care for the earth in a better way.
In truth, I don't think it's living longer or shorter that's the essential problem. It's HOW we choose to live that is an issue.
In regards to the ethical issue of human volunteers ... well, it's the same problem now. Just because they tested it on a rat or monkey doesn't mean a homo sapien will react in the same way. Not to mention, the incidents where the FDA approves a drug only to recall it a few months later because people are dying.
Life is a risk. If I were a terminally ill patient, and my last home was this clinical trial - sign me up, baby. Because my only other option is death anyway.
Cancer patients, and others who are terminally ill, don't have 20 or 30 years to wait until the researchers are done with animal testing to move into clinical trials. A lot of them would volunteer their last days on earth on the hope that the drug would work. Because what else is there? Just waiting around to die.
However, we don't want people dying and suffering so I guess that's why we need medicine :-[
Im pretty cool with people dying/suffering in a traditional sense. Ya know, like their vision deteriorating/osteoporosis/getting this horrendous disease/cancer/messed up genetic condition/etc. Dying and suffering are natural processes! Im cool with my family suffering/dying. It happends to everyone eventually. I think our world is moving too far away from the natural order of things anyway.
But anyways, back on track, pro-animal testing posters? seriously? Hmph they must be trying to clear their conscience of their evil ways. One poster had a picture of some lab mice and the caption read: They've saved more lives than 911. Are there any anti-animal testing posters hanging next to them? no. Would complaining about the posters be a smart thing to do? My school is the 12th most homogenous campus in america:Rich, white, methodist. Will they even get my point? Is presenting my point a waste of time? So far the staff people I've dealt with on other issues have been rigid and have this "We'll sweep these problems under the rug" approach to everything. I know there's no way I can get them to stop their testing, but maybe once I earn some senority (yeah.......6 years from now) I might be able to change it. Any ideas for the mean time?
Ashley, is there some way you can investigate what goes on in your university's lab rooms? Maybe you can see how the experiments are being conducted, and make suggestions for alternatives to the supervisor/professor if you consider them inhumane. That's the only thing I can think of for now...it's for a good cause what you're doing.
I believe using a computer is a great idea. I think it can be done. It needs some redigning.If something doesn't work it means just that it doesn't work that way not it doesn't work period.
Overpopution is a problem, and one way we can deal with it, is to allow people who are sick to die...why would we need people who produce offsprings who are unfit to breed (eg. people with AIDS) to "contaiminate" our gene pool? Why should people live longer lives, despite the fact that they are no longer fit to breed? Subjective it is, and from an evolutionary stand point, it's true. However, we don't want people dying and suffering so I guess that's why we need medicine :-[
:o
Wow, very subjective. So if your mother, father, brother, sister- loved one- contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion, or a young niece or nephew, or your own child was born with a physical or mental malady, or you were unfortunate enough to developed diabetes at some point in your life, or suffer seizures because of a high fever at some point in your life, or have cognitive problems because of a traumatic injury to your head, or your sibling and his/ her spouse had a child who was born with a health problem etc., you feel it's ok to judge any of these people as less worthy of reducing their pain or problems because they're not as "genetically strong" and not worthy of having the same rights as other humans (ie: experiencing the joy of having children)?? Surely not. :)
Im pretty cool with people dying/suffering in a traditional sense. Ya know, like their vision deteriorating/osteoporosis/getting this horrendous disease/cancer/messed up genetic condition/etc. Dying and suffering are natural processes! Im cool with my family suffering/dying. It happends to everyone eventually.
I disagree. I don't think suffering or dying because of diseases such as cancer, getting osteoporosis, diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, etc are natural for anyone. So suffering because of them isn't natural and shouldn't be expected if people knew we could prevent the majority of these illnesses with a healthy plant-based diet, less pollution, exercise,etc.
I think we'd see less childhood born (genetic) health issues, too.
Pages