A victory for animal rights groups

[/dev/null]

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/08/22/animal

[Moose]

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/08/22/animal

752816[/snapback]

 

Here's another viewpoint.

 

The thing about animal research is that some of it is redundant, most of it is pointless and unnecessary, and ALL OF IT means BIG BUCKS for universities. Abuses are inevitable.

 

In the late 1980s, there was an "research" experiment at a SUNY university that sought to determine if thirst was primarily psychological or physiological in origin. The experiment used several Labrador Retrievers, in which the experimental group was deprived of water and the control group was not given water to drink, but was hydrated through a tube. I can't recall the results of the study, but at the end of the experiment, all the dogs were killed so their brains could be compared. Widespread negative publicity halted all further research. While the results of such experimentation improve the lives of NO ONE, the universities make a lot of money, animals suffer and die needlessly - and taxpayers, once again, get hosed.

 

My point is, simply, that it's not all cut and dry. Some "research" is a load of crap; YOU and I shouldn't have to pay for it, and animals shouldn't have to suffer for it. Here is an excellent resource for information.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Here is an excellent resource for information.

753334[/snapback]

 

PCRM is not an excellent resource for information. They're a front for PETA - not just "affiliated with", but actually run by PETA - intended solely to promote and advance PETA's platform.

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

PCRM is not an excellent resource for information.  They're a front for PETA - not just "affiliated with", but actually run by PETA - intended solely to promote and advance PETA's platform.

753448[/snapback]

 

 

I was watching "Penn and Teller Bullsh**" a while back and they did a special on animal rights looneys. The VP of PETA was diabetic and used insulin to stay alive. Insulin is only available due to animal research! When called out on it, she said something along the lines of "she needs to stay alive to help the animals"...But you or your family member should die if the cure required animal research. Peta also kills a higher percentage of the rescued pets they take in than nearly all shelters that they terrorize for euthanizing animals. Peta and their affiliates are a huge threat to society and should be hunted down like a delicious deer and put out of business.

 

If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat?

[Moose]

I was watching "Penn and Teller Bullsh**" a while back and they did a special on animal rights looneys.  The VP of PETA was diabetic and used insulin to stay alive.  Insulin is only available due to animal research!  When called out on it, she said something along the lines of "she needs to stay alive to help the animals"...But you or your family member should die if the cure required animal research.  Peta also kills a higher percentage of the rescued pets they take in than nearly all shelters that they terrorize for euthanizing animals.  Peta and their affiliates are a huge threat to society and should be hunted down like a delicious deer and put out of business. 

 

If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat?

753559[/snapback]

 

 

To suggest that all animal experimentation is beneficial to mankind is as simplistic as saying that none of it is. The reality is that there is pervasive abuse (which is not surprising given the multiple millions of dollars involved). Many experiments on animals are totally useless (repetitive, redundant or tell us what we already know) and outrageously expensive. Some experimentation actually prevents medical and scientific advancement because it focuses on one ( some say "outdated") model of research.

 

While some animal rights activists are indeed "loonies" it does not alter the fact that there are widespread abuses and that there are sound scientific arguments against animal experimentation as it relates to advances in human medicine.

[Wacka]

Moose,

Please give specific instances. Biomedical companies try to do the minimum amount of animal experimentation because of the great costs and regulations required. They do not wamt to waste $ on unnecessary experiments.

[The Avenger]

To suggest that all animal experimentation is beneficial to mankind is as simplistic as saying that none of it is. The reality is that there is pervasive abuse (which is not surprising given the multiple millions of dollars involved). Many experiments on animals are totally useless (repetitive, redundant or tell us what we already know) and outrageously expensive. Some experimentation actually prevents medical and scientific advancement because it focuses on one ( some say "outdated") model of research.

 

While some animal rights activists are indeed "loonies" it does not alter the fact that there are widespread abuses and that there are sound scientific arguments against animal experimentation as it relates to advances in human medicine.

753753[/snapback]

 

That's the problem - who gets to decide what is beneficial enough to justify animal experimentation?

 

Your previous example of the dogs and thirst - you seem to make the case that the research wasn't beneficial and the experiementation was needless. Another person could look at it as a way to determine whether troops in desert climates (Iraq) could one day be hydrated by tube, or is it pointless because they would always need to drink from a canteen, even when wearing full chemical suits?

 

I think there are very few, if any, experiemnts that have no benefit - its just a matter of who is evaluating that benefit and assigning value to it and determining whether the value justifies the experiment.

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

To suggest that all animal experimentation is beneficial to mankind is as simplistic as saying that none of it is. The reality is that there is pervasive abuse (which is not surprising given the multiple millions of dollars involved). Many experiments on animals are totally useless (repetitive, redundant or tell us what we already know) and outrageously expensive. Some experimentation actually prevents medical and scientific advancement because it focuses on one ( some say "outdated") model of research.

 

While some animal rights activists are indeed "loonies" it does not alter the fact that there are widespread abuses and that there are sound scientific arguments against animal experimentation as it relates to advances in human medicine.

753753[/snapback]

 

 

Where in my post did I state that ALL animal experimentation is beneficial. I'm sure out of the millions of experiments you could find something that is questionable. The main point I was getting at is that the amount of hypocrisy among animal rights groups is astounding. If you are anti-animal testing, do not accept any medical care that is a result of animal testing. If you are not prepared to die as a result of your crusade, don't expect others to die for beliefs that they do not share. The eco-terrorists that are funded by groups like PETA are willing to sacrifice your life and your families life in order to save some animals. I wonder if you could sit back and watch your child die because animal testing is banned? Would you still send in your donation to the WWF and Humane Society of America?

[Moose]

Moose,

Please give specific instances.  Biomedical companies try to do the minimum amount of animal experimentation because of the  great costs  and regulations required.  They do not wamt to waste $ on unnecessary experiments.

753851[/snapback]

 

Sorry for the delay - I've been mega-busy at work lately. Anyway, the majority of the more questionable experiments are performed in universities. (BTW, some companies help fund their own research by taking advantage of government grants and conducting the research through universities. When the results prove marketable, American taxpayers are the victims of double-dipping because they helped fund the research and will pay premium prices for the resulting drug or treatment.)

 

Here are some examples of needless/questionable experiments:

 

British researchers blinded two domestic tabby kittens by sewing up their conjunctivae and eyelids. The kittens were then placed in a special holder and horseradish peroxidase was injected into their brains. The kittens were then killed.

Three researchers conducted an experiment in which female hamsters were distracted with sunflower seeds so that their babies could be removed from the nest a few hours after birth.

Under 'hypothermic anaesthesia' the baby hamsters had their left eyes removed. They were then returned to their mothers. The scientists used fifty-nine golden hamsters in this experiment and removed the left eyes from 'about half'.

At the United States Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, a researcher spent nine weeks forcing thirty-nine monkeys to run on a cylindrical treadmill known as an 'activity wheel'. If the monkeys failed to run for long enough they got an electric shock.

Researchers funded by the UK Medical Research Council gave ferrets a drug that made them vomit at between half minute and five minute intervals. The researchers gave the ferrets another drug and concluded that under some circumstances the ferrets did not stand up to vomit and that under the influence of the second drug their vomiting was less forceful.

Three adult female cats were selected for a Welsh laboratory experiment because they were very docile. Wires from the cats' eyes were connected to a device held in place on the cats' skulls with selftapping stainless steel screws. The cats were kept awake and their eye movements measured while their bodies were rotated and tilted and stimulated in other ways.

American researchers separated young kittens from their mothers to see what effect this had. At the end of the experiment the scientists concluded that separated kittens cried more than those who remained in close contact with their mothers. The scientists added that the crying seemed to denote stress.

Two eminent researchers working in America conducted a series of experiments designed to make baby monkeys depressed. To begin with they created a cloth, surrogate mother which could be triggered to blow out high pressure compressed air. When the baby monkey went to give its fake mum a hug the researcher would press a button and try to blast the baby monkey away. However, this did not work and the baby monkey merely clung on tighter. The researchers then built a surrogate monster mother that was designed to rock so violently that the baby's 'head and teeth would rattle'. Again, the baby monkey just clung on tightly. The third monster had a wire frame built into its body. The frame was designed to throw the baby away from it. This worked to a certain extent in that it did successfully separate the baby from its fake mother but the baby monkey just picked itself up and went back to its fake mother immediately afterwards. In a final attempt to alienate, terrify and thus depress the baby monkey the researchers built a 'porcupine' mother from which, at the press of a remote switch, sharp brass spikes would leap out. Once again the experiment was a failure for although the baby monkey was upset by the spikes it simply waited until the spikes had been withdrawn before returning to its mother.

The same researchers also created a 'well of despair' for monkeys. They built a vertical chamber with stainless steel sides and a rounded bottom and put young monkeys in it for weeks at a time. On this occasion the two researchers were successful. The monkeys eventually sat huddled at the bottom of the chamber looking depressed.

Scottish scientists pushed fine polythene tubes into rats' brains. They then put balloons into the rats' brains and blew them up. They found that all the rats suffered brain damage but that the smaller balloons did not produce as much damage as the big balloons.

Four British research scientists surgically joined together 224 individual rats to make 112 sets of 'fake' siamese twins.

Rats' tails were immersed in hot water so that the experimenters could study pain in rats.

Balloons made from condoms were pushed into dogs' stomachs through metal tubes and then filled with water. During the experiment the dogs, which were hung in slings, were kept awake.

Cuts were made in the bodies of pregnant rats and metal screws cooled in liquid nitrogen were held against the developing heads of the baby rats. The baby rats were later killed and their brains removed so that the amount of damage could be assessed.

Two researchers in London found that if they breathed heavily on ants as they came out of their nest early in the morning the ants panicked.

Three research workers shot around twenty monkeys just above the eye and then watched to see how long it took them to die. One monkey survived for over two and a half hours.

A psychologist removed a monkey's visual cortex and then kept the blinded monkey for six years so that he could study her behaviour.

Researchers have kept the brains of animals alive outside their bodies and have transplanted the heads of monkeys onto the bodies of other animals. Such experiments have taken place in a number of laboratories.

An American researcher gave a pair of rats a total of 15,000 electric shocks in seven and a half hours. Later the researcher heated the cage floor so that the rats inside jumped about, licking their feet, as the floor got hotter and hotter.

Researchers clipped the hair from forty beagle puppies. They then put kerosene-soaked gauze onto the beagles' naked bodies and set fire to the gauze.

In a series of experiments conducted in France, over thirty baboons were killed in forty miles an hour fake car crashes. A number of monkeys were killed when their skulls were hit with a hammering device. The experiments showed that animals would be endangered if they drove cars into walls at forty miles an hour.

In a Canadian experiment three polar bears were made to swim through a tank filled with crude oil and water. When the oil coated their fur the bears tried to lick themselves clean. They swallowed so much oil that they developed kidney failure and died. The conclusion was that polar bears should be kept away from oil slicks.

Two experimental scientists designed a drum rather like a tumbledrier for traumatizing alert, awake animals. The drum was made so that it turned over forty times a minute with the animal inside falling from one side to the other twice during each rotation. During a five minute experiment an animal inside the drum fell four hundred times. The animal's paws were taped together so that it could not break its own fall and interfere with the traumatizing process. Animals traumatized in the drum suffered broken teeth, concussion, bleeding and bruising of the liver.

To study the result of head trauma, primates were strapped in machinery to receive high-impact blows to the head that left them with severe brain damage; they were also subjected to taunts from vivisectors, as was documented by video evidence.

To examine severe burns on live tissue, pigs were restrained to prevent their escape and then burned alive with a flamethrower until the charred flesh could be removed from the live animals in large pieces.

To measure recovery from injuries, dogs were strapped down, and vivisectors mutilated the dogs' knees by cutting apart skin to leave flaps. At the end of the study, all dogs were killed.

To demonstrate the eye's protein levels are not different in sight deprived monkeys compared to normal ones, vivisectors sewed the monkeys' eyelids shut.

To demonstrate that deaf cats 'meow' louder than cats with hearing, kittens aural canals were destroyed, and vivisectors then measured the loudness of their cries.

To create an illness not previously seen in cats, vivisectors successfully created a feline disease that results in jaundice seizures, delayed mental and motor development, and premature death. The diseased animals are bred for other animal experimentation laboratories.

 

Also, some of the results of some animal research can be harmful when applied to humans:

 

Link

[Moose]

If you are anti-animal testing, do not accept any medical care that is a result of animal testing.  If you are not prepared to die as a result of your crusade, don't expect others to die for beliefs that they do not share.  The eco-terrorists that are funded by groups like PETA are willing to sacrifice your life and your families life in order to save some animals.  I wonder if you could sit back and watch your child die because animal testing is banned? Would you still send in your donation to the WWF and Humane Society of America?

754406[/snapback]

 

And if you are a proponent of animal testing, then you should relinquish all legal recourse if an experiment that deemed a drug or treatment "safe" proves to be harmful to humans. Fair is fair, eh?

 

BTW, I think we should incrementally replace all animal testing with al-Qaeda testing. We could eventually eliminate one problem while solving a myriad of others in the process! (I would particularly enjoy seeing the various "head trauma" experiments carried out on osama and his spawn.)

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

And if you are a proponent of animal testing, then you should relinquish all legal recourse if an experiment that deemed a drug or treatment "safe" proves to be harmful to humans. Fair is fair, eh?

754741[/snapback]

 

Riiiiight. I can see how that rationally follows from what he said...

[Wacka]

Sorry for the delay - I've been mega-busy at work lately. Anyway, the majority of the more questionable experiments are performed in universities. (BTW, some companies help fund their own research by taking advantage of government grants and conducting the research through universities. When the results prove marketable, American taxpayers are the victims of double-dipping because they helped fund the research and will pay premium prices for the resulting drug or treatment.)

 

Here are some examples of needless/questionable experiments:

 

 

 

Also, some of the results of some animal research can be harmful when applied to humans:

 

Link

754736[/snapback]

 

Moose, I will only cite one or two of these because of time. I am flying to Buffalo tomorrow and don't have the time to go into all of them. I might reply tomorrow, but will be gone for a week. If I had the time, I would cover all of them.The experiments listed were probaly done a long time ago. I know the one with the surrogate monkey mother was done in the 1950s or 60s. It is a famous psychological experiment and I have seen photos of it many times.

 

British researchers blinded two domestic tabby kittens by sewing up their conjunctivae and eyelids. The kittens were then placed in a special holder and horseradish peroxidase was injected into their brains. The kittens were then killed.

 

Not having a citation for this I am going to assume it is similar to other experiments I have read about. It probably is the same one. The kittens were used when they were just opening their eyes. The purpose of the experiment was to learn the development and organization of vision in the brain. Only one eye was sewn shut. The sewn eye was a control. These surgeries are done when the cats are anesthetised. The open eye is only shown a certain pattern for a period of time. The holder is so that the cats will only see the pattern, not look around and see other things. The horseradish peroxidase can stain active neurons.The cats are put to sleep and the brains are dissected and thin sections of the visual cortex are made. The patterns seen with the staining helped them determine how the visual cortex developed and is organized.

 

How would you propose to determine this using people or cell cultures?

 

Also, read some of the links at the end of the article you linked to. One states that the article you cited actually showed the opposite of what you think it did.

[Moose]

Riiiiight.  I can see how that rationally follows from what he said...   

754757[/snapback]

 

 

Let's see...

 

HE said: If you are against animal testing, then you and your family should never be able to reap any benefits thereof forever and ever.

 

 

I said: If you support animal testing, then live with the consequences, bad included, thereof.

[Moose]

How would you propose to determine this using people or cell cultures?

754856[/snapback]

 

I am completely in favor of testing on humans.

 

 

Briefly getting back to your question, many of those experiments have been repeated several times, with little alterations here and there. A lot of the experiments that attempt to replicate human "stress" in primates or other mammals use electric shock or some other ghoulish method... but, honestly, how relevant or useful is that when comparing it to how a human reacts to the stress of such things as not being able to pay the bills, traffic jams, or finding out your kid got arrested for running a meth lab?

 

BTW, safe travels to Buffalo!

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

Let's see...

 

HE said: If you are against animal testing, then you and your family should never be able to reap any benefits thereof forever and ever.

I said: If you support animal testing, then live with the consequences, bad included, thereof.

754979[/snapback]

 

 

I'll explain the differences for you. I realize and accept that some animal testing may be flawed or incorrect, but accept that possibility due to the numerous gains made in medicine due to animal testing. I don't blindly support ALL animal testing no matter what the logic behind it is. An animal rights activist does not accept any animal testing no matter what the results are. They blindly discount ALL animal testing.

[Nervous Guy]

As a person who does this stuff on a daily basis I have to call bull sh-- on some of these statements. The animal welfare committee's at universities and private firms are required to follow very strict guidelines on what you do to animals...back in the 80's those committee were basically nonexistant. We have to spell out everything we do with animals and have to wait approval of the committee...the membership on these committee's include people from outside the institution, so they don't just rubber stamp the proposals. Contrary to your belief we are not ghoul's who love to torture animals...

 

Anyway...working for a big drug company we do this stuff everday in the hope that we may help cure or treat some of the maladies that afflict mankind...we treat the animals with respect, I can't site one example of an animal being mistreated purposefully in the 20 some years I've been involved with animal testing...furthermore, animal testing is very expensive and therefore very few redundant or dumb experiments are conducted.

 

AFA mimicing paying bills, traffic jams, etc...those stressfull events produce a physiological consequence that can be modeled in animals...if you can modify those physiological events in animals, you most likely can modify those events in people....it ain't that complicated.

 

BTW Moose, are you a Ned Lamont supporter?

[Ramius]

As a person who does this stuff on a daily basis I have to call bull sh-- on some of  these statements.  The animal welfare committee's at universities and private firms are required to follow very strict guidelines on what you do to animals...back in the 80's those committee were basically nonexistant.  We have to spell out everything we do with animals and have to wait approval of the committee...the membership on these committee's include people from outside the institution, so they don't just rubber stamp the proposals.  Contrary to your belief we are not ghoul's who love to torture animals...

 

Anyway...working for a big drug company we do this stuff everday in the hope that we may help cure or treat some of the maladies that afflict mankind...we treat the animals with respect, I can't site one example of an animal being mistreated purposefully in the 20 some years I've been involved with animal testing...furthermore, animal testing is very expensive and therefore very few redundant or dumb experiments are conducted.

 

AFA mimicing paying bills, traffic jams, etc...those stressfull events produce a physiological consequence that can be modeled in animals...if you can modify those physiological events in animals, you most likely can modify those events in people....it ain't that complicated.

 

BTW Moose, are you a Ned Lamont supporter?

755235[/snapback]

 

Amen! I call bull sh-- as well! I wonder what kind of sh-- moose is smoking. As stated before, the majority of the "ghoulish" experiments were done in the 50's, 60's, 70's etc before the ACUC were formed at research institutes. I have done extensive research with animals as well, and the amount of paperwork and approval process you need is through the roof.

 

Also as you said, my bosses have alays been up my ass to get the experiment done with as few animals as possible, because of the insane cost of doing animal research. No animal gets wasted, and there are no "redundant" experiments. I dont know of a sinle professor that will spend $25 per rat at the bare minimum for a "redundant" experiment.

 

But, like a lot of people, moose isnt going to let facts get in the way of a good rant. Its much easier to toss out big words to scare the people, like "horseradish peroxidase" and make them sound bad when they are not at all harmful. Thats much easier than thinking for yourself and actually finding out whats going on.

 

Someone can tell you i used to paralyze rats with sodium pentobarbital, and it sounds bad. I can tell you we used it as a general anesthetic, and the rats are up and running around within a few hours. doesnt sound as bad now does it?

[Nanker]

I am completely in favor of testing on humans.   

Briefly getting back to your question, many of those experiments have been repeated several times, with little alterations here and there. A lot of the experiments that attempt to replicate human "stress" in primates or other mammals use electric shock or some other ghoulish method... but, honestly, how relevant or useful is that when comparing it to how a human reacts to the stress of such things as not being able to pay the bills, traffic jams, or finding out your kid got arrested for running a meth lab?

 

BTW, safe travels to Buffalo!

754981[/snapback]

 

Dr. Mengele would thank you, as would the good Japanese Doctors of Unit 731.

 

Of course, it's already been done in this country: Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment and Human Radiation Experiments

 

Life is life, whether it's the dewey black eyes of a soon-to-be-clubbed baby Harp seal you're looking at, or the writhing saline burned skin of a doomed human fetus in a bio hazard waste bag, neither sight is particularly charming.