Do you think animal experimentation is right?

I think it's all right in some cases.

I think you're oversimplifying the question.

If it's what I think, I think it is cruel.

It can be.

I don't think so. What levels of expirements? Awful Avon types? Or seeing if they get dizzy on a ferris wheel type?

Under some circumstances, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few....or the one.

I think that's relative to the type of experiment and purpose of the experiment. I also think capital criminals should have to participate in some experiments.

I do think animal testing for some products/drugs is necessary. Those who argue that computer modeling can replace animal testing forget that what goes into a computer model is only what is already known. What we don't know about most of life's processes could fill volumes.

However, I see no use for animal testing in products that have already been widely used by humans, or have already been thoroughly tested on animals. Believing in the necessity of animal testing for new products/compounds is not the same as favoring pointless cruelty to animals.

No. We should be testing on paedophiles and murderers instead. Surely the results from a human's test would be much more relevant than one done on an animal?

I don't like the term "right"... I don't think making this topic entirely a moral issue covers all dimensions of this.

I think it's easy to just say "no, it's not right". But, doing that disregards all the benefits our society has gained from it. Benefits, that surround as and affect most aspects of our lives today.

My understanding is that a great deal of science, especially medical advancements, have relied heavily on using animals for testing. I also believe that the scientists and researchers are generally concerned with the humane treatment of the animals and will often develop some bond with the animals they work with. That said, I'm sure there have been things that were done that were cruel and unfortunate. But, I think we need to look at the other side of the equation. The benefits that society has gained from this are significant.

Also, lets put this in perspective. There are a great many ways in which humans don't treat animals very well. Why focus on just experimentation? What about the thousands of abandoned pets that end up in shelters (most of which are euthanized, 1,000 a day I think). Then, what about animals we use for food, how they are treated and slaughtered is another big issue.

Mankind's history at the top of the food chain is a bit ugly. In the past, attitudes about animals have been far less compassionate. Maybe we're getting to a point where we're evolving toward more compassionate treatment of animals. I'm for that, though I think we should try to see the big picture here.

No.

People experimenting with animals or animals being experimented on in labs??? I think both are wrong by the way.

I don't know. I'd be happier about it if human beings who have proven to cause nothing but pain on society should participate as well.

Sure, let animals experiment.

This is a tough one. I lean towards no.
Human experimentation is bit of toughie too, since only the lower classes take such risks.

It would be different if there were a national lottery, and anyone might be called upon to test out a new shampoo, tanning lotion, or psych med. I think you could be sure then that pre-test standards were much more vigourous.

If it causes the early/painful demise of an animal...

It depends on what the experiments are for. Life-saving medical procedures? Sure. Cosmetics? No.

Avon stopped animal testing in 1989.

I think a more accurate statement might be that Avon stopped testing on non-human animals. At some point, for any product that's going to be on animals, including humans, it has to be used for the first time. That's a test.

Yes, they test on humans.

I hope it burns a little.

I guess their surveys said it wasn't right

> I think it's easy to just say "no, it's not right".

Try saying it like this:
"THAT aint right!"
It's easy, fun and makes it's point without the moral judgement.

Every corporate decision is about money.

better than experimenting on human

Without animal experimentation, I would probably be dead. If I was very lucky, I might be alive, but with just one leg and a vastly reduced life expectancy. My older brother would, at the very latest, have died six years ago. My fledgling career would be based on supposition and old wives' tales - or simply on trial and error inflicted on hapless patients.

I'm definitely pro-animal testing. That doesn't mean I don't believe that there should be stringent rules in place to ensure that it is not misused.

"My fledgling career would be based on supposition and old wives' tales - or simply on trial and error inflicted on hapless patients." - But now, thanks to modern science, it's based simply on trial and error inflicted on hapless animals?

At least the humans can respond "Hey doc, I don't think this stretching my ears is really reducing my migraine". With the cat, they'll just howl, and it will be presumed that the migraine is still bad, and thus more stretching of the ears is required (of course they may conclude that with the human too).

If animal experimentation were at the level where we were basing our assessments on their verbal response, then I don't think we would have made many breakthoughs at all.

I was hoping you were about to say "..then we probably wouldn't be testing on animals."

You've got to admit it's a bonus though.

- The difference between a human and a cat..
Doctor: "B.P. and heart rate are still normal. This pill is a success!"
Cat: "Yroowwl!"
Human: "But my whole body feels like I've been dipped in a volcano while being electrocuted!"

The main difference in my book though is that the humans can consent.

> - The difference between a human and a cat..
> Doctor: "B.P. and heart rate are still normal. This pill is a success!"
> Cat: "Yroowwl!"

Doctor: "Now we can proceed to human trials."


> Human: "But my whole body feels like I've been dipped in a volcano
> while being electrocuted!"

Doctor: "Back to the drawing board I guess."

Whether we go with animal testing or not, tests are conducted on humans at some point. The point of animal testing is to see if there are such adverse effects that it is not worthwhile to proceed to human trials.

What is right? What is wrong? Most people would define 'wrong' as something that causes suffering or is cruel.

Therefore, animal experimentation that causes pain and discomfort is WRONG.

Period

I realize that, but I'm a vegetarian, not into harassing unconsenting animals.

Recently dead flesh from donors is enough to test a lot of stuff. Small doses can do feedback tests. Possibly virulent nanotech can be tested on blood samples. Heart bypass surgery can be tested on someone consenting who's going to die otherwise anyhow.

There was that cow at the restaurant at the end of the universe who spoke quite proudly of being in the most succulent health, however.

For things like cosmetics, there's no excuse. A human can say their scalp itches, long before a rabbit demonstrates a problem with their skin falling off.

Except for shampoos, there's not actually any regulation of cosmetics anyhow though. They can still use things like lead or pthalates. I suppose class action suits for gross negligence or voluntary manslaughter are enough laws in such matters.

..and some people think it's ok to kill a person to save 50 others.

> Except for shampoos, there's not actually any regulation of cosmetics
> anyhow though. They can still use things like lead or pthalates. I
> suppose class action suits for gross negligence or voluntary manslaughter
> are enough laws in such matters.

This is not, strictly speaking, quite true. I worked for a short while as a compounder in a cosmetics factory in Port Jervis, New York.
While I'm not entirely sure exactly what was in a lot of the stuff we used, I do know we used titanium oxide as a white pigment, a number of FD&C dyes and such. Several times whole batches of eyeshadow or pancake had to be thrown out for failure to pass QC and micro inspections. They may be more regulated than you are thinking.

Oh, one pigment we used was carmine. This stuff came in a cardboard container a little bigger than a 1 pound Starbucks coffee bag. Cost to the company, around $3,000. It was made from the inner wings of a beetle from India. They also use this same carmine pigment in Ocean Spray Ruby Red Grapefruit drink. If you're a vegetarian, you might want to be aware of this. Do insects or insect parts count as "meat" for you? I know they are not considered "meat" in terms of kashrut, but kashrut allows only crickets, grasshoppers and locusts as food.

Well since we cannot experiment on babies, animals are the next best substitution...

Try testing on humans. Since the product is usually for them. I don't see lipstick on chickens. Do you???

I'm not too worried about insects as long as we aren't endangering them. I eat the occasional chicken and fish too, not terribly strict. I'm also fond of suede clothing. If we were primitives, I'd believe in scavenging.

Who did the QC though. I just got my info from radio news, and you can't believe everything you hear.

My degree's in studio art. I'm a bug fan of pigments. Hmm, timely typo.

> Who did the QC though. I just got my info from radio news, and you
> can't believe everything you hear.
>


Well, the short answer is, "The QC Department." But that isn't what you want to know. Actually, the micro-analysis was part of the QC procedure, though micro was separate from the rest of the QC, so I don't actually know what the qualifications were for working in the QC Department. Micro, of course, employed actual microbiologists, with degrees and everything.

What I am saying is that it sounds like self-regulation.

> What I am saying is that it sounds like self-regulation.

Actually, cosmetics are regulated by the FDA. Check this out: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-cfr.html

So apparently, they are required to label ingredients (I pretty much observed that much).
The commissioner can halt use of a suspect imminent health hazard until analysis and a formal hearing creates a ruling.
Cattle products are regulated and require bookeeping.
Ammonia and hexachlorophene (toxic antibacterial) are regulated.
Ozone damaging chlorofluorocarbon propellants are banned.
The following ingredients are banned in most circumstances:
bithionol, mercury, vinyl chloride, halogenated salicylanilides, aerosol zirconium, chloroform, and methylene chloride.

That's a pretty slim list, and apparently at least what the lecturer said about lead and pthalates being permissable is true.

I guess the industry is hardly-regulated, which is still much better than unregulated.

I seem to recall seeing lead as an ingredient before, which is pretty strange in the context of efforts to ban it from paint, thermometers (oh wait, that's mercury), and European electronics. At least it's listed on that paragraph of 1.5 pt. font that comes with your shimmer lipstick.

Speaking of mercury, that's another amazement, that they're still working on banning that from dental fillings. There are regulations on it's safe removal, but still no regulations against putting it in. That actually makes slight sense, as it's during the heat of drilling that it's most likely to vaporize, I'd think. Probably the best one can hope for is to breathe through your nose, hope the assistant keeps busy with the vacuum, and that your insurance covers non-amalgam fillings.

If they are like us enough to learn more about ourselves then they are like us enough to have the same rights. Planet of the Apes comes to mind....

> If they are like us enough to learn more about ourselves then they
> are like us enough to have the same rights. Planet of the Apes comes
> to mind....

So.... just plain NO!!!!

noo wayy.

No, but sometimes they have to for medical reasons.