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?
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.
__________________
You don't need good rear vision because you're always in front!
shit, congrads man!!! that sounds like lots of fun!
For it, unequivocally
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.
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....
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
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!
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.
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...
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.
KMC Community Forums
Sep 24th, 2008 10:28 PM
Thanks Passione
