Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

i'm starting a thread on this because i've just been offered a new job working in a lab where i will be conducting analysis on blood and DNA samples from animals that have been used for testing the effectiveness of drugs for combating cancer

so...where do the KMC members stand on this controversial subject?

i'm not sure how much of an issue this is in other parts of the world but here in the UK it's always been one of the most controversial issues around

workers are huntingdon life sciences have had their homes torched by animal protesters...the workers who built the new animal testing facility at Oxford university had to wear masks to cover their identities for fear of attacks from animal rights activists...a man who breeds animals to sell to testing facilities even had the corpse of his dead mother dug up and stolen and told it wouldn't be returned until he shut down his business

so whats the verdict...are you for or against it?...should i take the job or not?....is animal testing ok when used in drug testing but not in cosmetic testing?

discuss

I'm completely for it.

Animal testing saves lives and betters our way of life.

The only time I would be against it, is if there was a way in which we could get all the benefits from animal testing, without actually testing on animals, as it doesn't exactly do them good.

i think technology will eventually get to the stage where that will be the case...individually targeted proteins will be able to be tested against specific drugs designed to interact with those proteins.

the only problem with that method is that the drugs will also need to be tested against potentially all of the currently 20,000 known protein coding genes in the human genome in order to identify potential side effects

computer simulation of genes has also been touted as a possible method of seeing what a drug will do but it's debatable whether it will be valid

For animal testing. As others have said, it saves lives (including the 2nd in command of PETA). Fvck those animal rights activists. Some of the shit they're doing to try and prevent testing is absolutely disgusting.

Prefer human testing

Originally posted by jaden101
i'm starting a thread on this because i've just been offered a new job working in a lab where i will be conducting analysis on blood and DNA samples from animals that have been used for testing the effectiveness of drugs for combating cancer

shit, congrads man!!! that sounds like lots of fun!

Originally posted by jaden101
so...where do the KMC members stand on this controversial subject?

For it, unequivocally

Originally posted by jaden101
i'm not sure how much of an issue this is in other parts of the world but here in the UK it's always been one of the most controversial issues around

we, not myself though, do animal research at my school. Its really sort of hush-hush (as in, nobody talks about it), but it is under pretty tight security (for a Canadian university, meaning almost none in real terms) and I've seen no problems with it personally. I mean, like, no protesters or anything

There were those homes in California that were torched, where an animal researcher had to run, with his family, from the burning building to safety.

Originally posted by jaden101
workers are huntingdon life sciences have had their homes torched by animal protesters...the workers who built the new animal testing facility at Oxford university had to wear masks to cover their identities for fear of attacks from animal rights activists...a man who breeds animals to sell to testing facilities even had the corpse of his dead mother dug up and stolen and told it wouldn't be returned until he shut down his business

one of my profs is from the UK, and he has a friend there who works on animal research. His daughter was sent a letter bomb stuffed with HIV positive needles....

Originally posted by jaden101
so whats the verdict...are you for or against it?...should i take the job or not?....is animal testing ok when used in drug testing but not in cosmetic testing?

I'd say take the job, and I'm in favor of it unless there is a viable alternative, which I don't think actually exist at this point

Originally posted by jaden101
discuss

My big problem with limits on animal testing come from the fact that it is absolute censorship. It is, in essence, the state saying that some things are not ok to know. The enterprise of human discovery stops HERE!

lol, and the animal rights movement is a cult

I'm not for it if it's whatever kind of perfume a company wants to sell next.

I think it's quite shit.

-AC

For it, if it's for medical purposes, or something that "betters the world."

Against it if Clinique just wants to test out their latest blusher.

Take the job. In the cases such as yours (cancer research), obviously for it.

I'm also for animal rights too, as there should be guild-lines to curb unnecessary pain/suffering on the animals and animal testing for cosmetics is for the most part shit.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Prefer human testing

hmm... you provide an interesting alternative. No more stupid people!

Originally posted by AngryManatee
hmm... you provide an interesting alternative. No more stupid people!

That assumes that stupid people aren't continuous being produced.

Originally posted by Robtard
Take the job. In the cases such as yours (cancer research), obviously for it.

I'm also for animal rights too, as there should be guild-lines to curb unnecessary pain/suffering on the animals and animal testing for cosmetics is for the most part shit.

Same.

Originally posted by Robtard
That assumes that stupid people aren't continuous being produced.

That only calls for more rigorous testing.

fook...it never ceases to amaze me how extreme the animal rights protesters go to put across their supposed "argument"...the irony, of course, being that humans are animals as well...and that somehow they rationalise that infecting an animal with a disease is abhorent...yet them infecting a human with a disease is acceptable "protest"...

it's similar to the pro-life movement advocating killing abortion doctors in the name of life

anyway..i honestly thought there would be more opposition to animal testing in any form by the members of KMC...you lot have actually surprised me this time...

Against it. Medicines created for humans should be tested on humans. Medicine created for animals should be tested on animals. Simple as that.

Originally posted by Tempe Brennan
Against it. Medicines created for humans should be tested on humans. Medicine created for animals should be tested on animals. Simple as that.

So then where should we get our test-humans from?

The homeless?

I'm all for testing on animals in anyway shape or form. Of course, they shouldn't go too far with it. For instance, if the administration of a test drug takes a turn for the worst on the animal, it should be killed as soon as possible to prevent unnecessary suffering. I'm sure you guys could think of a million and one of those scenarios.


I'm not sure where the line should be drawn. In any instance that an animal can be used to help save a human life, go ahead. A human life should always be worth more than an animals.

All in all, we should use animals in anyway shape or form as long as it doesn't physically harm us directly or indirectly. (I'm referring to the environment.) If a billion animals have to be killed (but not taken from the natural environment as supply for testing, but produced by humans specifically for testing) to save one human life that has a very rare disease, then it's worth it.

hard to say. preemptively killing sum1 for greater betterment isnt exactly a justofyable thing. technically im against it {after all, how wud we feal, if we were in the position of those animals} but their practical affects cant be denied. although, that point of view is based solely on us giving far more value to a single human life then a single animal life, which isnt exactly true. but really, i dont think people are about to realise that any time soon.

Being involved in medical research, and having used animals for research, I can't say I'm impartial on the issue, but I'm also unequivocally for it. Much of the basic research that is done simply isn't feasible without animal models.

Additionally pretty much any (Western) medical research facility will have to conform to ethical guidelines to minimize any potential suffering; most all have internal animal ethics bodies, from which approval for any experiments must be sought. Generally these are required to have a veterinarian, a layperson from the community and/or a representative from humane societies against animal cruelty.

Furthermore it's rather hypocritical in that often these animal rights people will use products tested on animals, use treatments found in part via animal models and/or be omnivorous.

I'm not particularly for cosmetic testing of animals; as the outcome is really only geared towards vanity rather than actual improvement of human health; although I'm not always aware of what has or hasn't been tested on animals so I'm not sure if that's an entirely reconcilable stance - things like shampoo, or toothpaste? Meh.

^it isnt hypocritical to use the products, the animals are already dead, not using the products wont bring them back, only cause possible harm to you.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^it isnt hypocritical to use the products, the animals are already dead, not using the products wont bring them back, only cause possible harm to you. It is, as it funds the companies that do test on animals thereby creating more capital for them to test on animals.

no. a million such interconnections occur. these arent connected with ideology. if it has already been done and taken care of, then there is no point in not utilising it. kind of like psychology/alcehmy-chemistry

Originally posted by leonheartmm
no. a million such interconnections occur. these arent connected with ideology. if it has already been done and taken care of, then there is no point in not utilising it. kind of like psychology/alcehmy-chemistry I just remembered why I avoid talking to you. Someone else may explain it to you.

ur thinking pattern is too linear, and you get more stubborn simply because ur talking to me.

It always amazes me how debaters end up posting things that make absolutely no sense, let alone having no relevance.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
ur thinking pattern is too linear, and you get more stubborn simply because ur talking to me. I get more stubborn because you don't spell a word right in any post you ever made. And thinking too "linear" is pretty much a good thing usually. It's mostly the wackos that can't form a coherent thought that find that "thinking too linear" is bad.

How is thinking too linear good?

Originally posted by lord xyz
How is thinking too linear good? Our world is largely, if not entirely, linear.

For example?

Originally posted by lord xyz
For example?

Well, one thing follows from another. It's all pretty straightforward...from the right axioms everything follows. So if you are thinking outside the box, it tends to either be a euphemism for "insane" or it is just a sort of quite linear thinking that hasn just not been considered before.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, one thing follows from another. It's all pretty straightforward...from the right axioms everything follows. So if you are thinking outside the box, it tends to either be a euphemism for "insane" or it is just a sort of quite linear thinking that hasn just not been considered before. Isn't it more, planar?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Isn't it more, planar? Dude, don't be a ****.

Hahaha.

so on top of being a grammer nazi and a baby, you are also under the illusion that non linear thinkers are insane.....................

Originally posted by leonheartmm
so on top of being a grammer nazi and a baby, you are also under the illusion that non linear thinkers are insane.....................

No, what I actually said instead.

^its the same thing, u just dont wanna see it.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^its the same thing, u just dont wanna see it. Please, I am sure I know better what I think abour certain people than you. And yes, if your reasoning lacks any sort of logical approach I will find it silly.

6thays the thing, u dont really, your just overconfident in your self analysis.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
6thays the thing, u dont really, your just overconfident in your self analysis. Sorry? Again in real English, please.

theres the thing, u dont really know, ur just overconfident in your self analysis. and arrogant

Originally posted by leonheartmm
theres the thing, u dont really know, ur just overconfident in your self analysis. and arrogant Oh right. Well, I must disagree there.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^it isnt hypocritical to use the products, the animals are already dead, not using the products wont bring them back, only cause possible harm to you.

You do realise if no one used products that harmed animals, those cosmetic companies (for eg) would cease to test on animals, as making a product that won't sell isn't profitable, right?

Originally posted by Robtard
You do realise if no one used products that harmed animals, those cosmetic companies (for eg) would cease to test on animals, as making a product that won't sell isn't profitable, right?

In his defense, I thought he was referring to using the drugs, no cosmetics. At least, that would make the most sense if he meant that.

However, his logic fundamentally flaws because of what you said. If the product that hundreds of animals had to die for, are continually purchased, the manufacturers will obviously continue to research and develop those products in a profitable way...through animals.


Liability Insurance is the first expensive item to come to mind which is required to test on humans. I've never heard about insurance to test on animals, before. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. but logic dictates that the insurance on humans would be much much more because an animals mother/uncle, etc. will not turn around and sue for the loss for millions of dollars.

Originally posted by jaden101
i'm starting a thread on this because i've just been offered a new job working in a lab where i will be conducting analysis on blood and DNA samples from animals that have been used for testing the effectiveness of drugs for combating cancer

so...where do the KMC members stand on this controversial subject?

i'm not sure how much of an issue this is in other parts of the world but here in the UK it's always been one of the most controversial issues around

workers are huntingdon life sciences have had their homes torched by animal protesters...the workers who built the new animal testing facility at Oxford university had to wear masks to cover their identities for fear of attacks from animal rights activists...a man who breeds animals to sell to testing facilities even had the corpse of his dead mother dug up and stolen and told it wouldn't be returned until he shut down his business

so whats the verdict...are you for or against it?...should i take the job or not?....is animal testing ok when used in drug testing but not in cosmetic testing?

discuss

I'm for animal testing in certain cases. This is one where I think the circumstances allow for you to take the job without a lot of guilt. However, I think that the practices should be forcibly monitored. There is not one excuse for animal cruelty. I've seen videos of fur farmers ripping the skin and hair off an animal while the damned thing was still alive. It had it's pelt pulled off, started to scream and the guy, holding it by the tail, just slammed it against the table. Another video I saw had the animal's skin ripped off of it while it was alive and it laid there screaming with no skin, not even a way left to it to close it's eyes while it was dying.

The major problem I have with food companies abusing animals is that it's often times swept under the rug in favor of not effecting the profits. I eat meat. But I don't think that the animal should have to suffer needlessly for me to get it. Even in nature you don't see predatory animals torturing their prey just to be sadistic.

That's the problem I have with the process. People do sadistic things and I'm not sure if it's because they're sadistic people to begin with or if the job desensitizes them because of the nature of it, which is killing. these animals serve a purpose to humans, but that doesn't mean they're just fodder. If they benefit us in some way, we should at least be able to return some portion of the favor by not tormenting them or abusing them. We shouldn't neglect their environment or their feeding, just because we're going to use them in a lab exeriment in the morning. We should make them as comfortable as we can until the time comes for them to play their part in it.

On the other side of the issue is the animal advocates, who often become as sadistic and twisted as the people they rail against. They hail Ghandi as a prophet or example and then ignore his eye for an eye advice.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
So then where should we get our test-humans from?

The people who make the drugs. They are obviously too shit scared to try the drug on themselves so they have to test it on an innocent animal.

On your packet of painkillers, it will often say not to give to animals. That drug was tested on animals, yet it suddenly becomes unsuitable for animal consumption? Sound a little strange to you?

Originally posted by Tempe Brennan
The people who make the drugs. They are obviously too shit scared to try the drug on themselves so they have to test it on an innocent animal.

On your packet of painkillers, it will often say not to give to animals. That drug was tested on animals, yet it suddenly becomes unsuitable for animal consumption? Sound a little strange to you?

No

so, lets compare the world with animal testing to the world without animal testing...

like, during the patent medicine eras, where instead of using guinea pigs as guinea pigs, companies used the public at large.

but hey, I'm sure that's more effective. They did think heroin was a good cure for morphine addiction.

Originally posted by inimalist
so, lets compare the world with animal testing to the world without animal testing...

like, during the patent medicine eras, where instead of using guinea pigs as guinea pigs, companies used the public at large.

but hey, I'm sure that's more effective. They did think heroin was a good cure for morphine addiction. Great punchline.

Originally posted by inimalist
so, lets compare the world with animal testing to the world without animal testing...

like, during the patent medicine eras, where instead of using guinea pigs as guinea pigs, companies used the public at large.

but hey, I'm sure that's more effective. They did think heroin was a good cure for morphine addiction. Well, it does cure close to 100%.

I thought morphine was heroin, or they are of the same substance anyway.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Great punchline.

lol, even a broken clock is correct twice a day

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, it does cure close to 100%.

touche, haha

Originally posted by lord xyz
I thought morphine was heroin, or they are of the same substance anyway.

it would be something like giving crack to a coke addict. (though, I don't know how discriminating opiate addicts are)

Animals are not people too.

Testing on animals is good, but I think testing on criminals who are going to die anyway, OR perhaps give criminals on life imprisonment the choice to go into testing, those guys may be so bored, tired of the same old thing that it may be of interest. animals are just as innocent as some humans, if not less innocent.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^it isnt hypocritical to use the products, the animals are already dead, not using the products wont bring them back, only cause possible harm to you. So it's not hypocritical to protest, sometimes violently, the use of animals in the testing of products be they pharmaceutical or cosmetic; and then to use those self-same products because "the animals are already dead, and they're not coming back."

These people aren't protesting the principle of using animals for testing, a continual reality; but rather they are protesting in mourning for the already dead animals and thus this absolves them of any hypocrisy in continuing to use or eat animal products?

Wow, that's some craptastic "non-linear logic."

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
sometimes violently

No. Sometimes violence is the only reason people will listen. When it becomes hipocritical, then you have to wonder.

I don't follow...

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't follow...

How do you know where the line is unless you cross it?

Use your Byakugan?

Or that gas that spies use to see the LAZAR L-EYE-NS!!!

Originally posted by xmarksthespot

Wow, that's some craptastic "non-linear logic."


Didn't you hear? Linear thinking is out...just too boring and correct.

Originally posted by Tempe Brennan
The people who make the drugs. They are obviously too shit scared to try the drug on themselves so they have to test it on an innocent animal.

On your packet of painkillers, it will often say not to give to animals. That drug was tested on animals, yet it suddenly becomes unsuitable for animal consumption? Sound a little strange to you?

Boards of ethics - go and learn about them.