Yeah, I know I've set up a similar thread before, but we were straying here from the animals rights issue, so maybe it's a good time to retouch on the issue.
My view, as a rather unsuccessful former lab biologist, is that animal experiments are a necessary evil. They're far from perfect as models for human health, but a lot better than the alternatives. Cell lines are useful but give us some very weird information, mainly because being grown for generations in a culture dish makes cells very weird. Computer models are only as good as the information we can plug in and at the moment we are simply not clever enough to programme them sufficiently well. Maybe we will be some day, but if so, the information we give them will probably be gained from experiments on animals.
I hate causing animals suffering uneccesarily. I don't eat meat because I don't need to, but if I would not turn down a drug I needed because it had been tested on animals and neither would I want to block research that might in future benefit myself or those I love.
So personally, I think we have a stark choice. Either we experiment on animals, which is unpleasant, or we deny treatments to people, which in my view is unacceptable.
I'm guessing some of you may disagree,
Rich.
Rich,
I think alot of the needs for taking medications has been because of the lack of education or simply not willing to take on the responsibility in wanting to be healthier.
By chosing wiser and living better we can dramatically decrease our needs for medications.
Then there would be no need for any animal experiments.
Drugs cause more harm then good.
We need to go back to basics
Clean Food
Water
Air
Meditation etc.
Big G.
Originally posted by biggPrepared to live (and die ) by that? Had appendicitis yet?
[b]Rich,
Drugs cause more harm then good.
Wander through an old cemetary and look at the ages on the gavestones. They lived a simple life, often in the country with no antibiotics or other drugs. Sometimes you even see a grave of 3 or more children, dead within a week.
I think we are so far removed from the killer infections we have forgotten about them.
Without animal experimentation, we would still not understand basic biology.
Originally posted by steerpikeactually, it may be somewhat difficult to understand basic human biology by experimenting on a platypus.
Wander through an old cemetary and look at the ages on the gavestones. They lived a simple life, often in the country with no antibiotics or other drugs. Sometimes you even see a grave of 3 or more children, dead within a week.
I thin ...[text shortened]... erimentation, we would still not understand basic biology.
killer infections follow interesting cycles and the drugs of which you speak often inspire them.
ever wander through the side effects of the drugs that are on the market? sometimes they are written on the labels - this wasn't required many years ago.
i am not trying to be iin the least bit trite here. i do know what you are saying and where you are coming from since i hung around there myself for more than 2 decades - and i will back up the above with documentation. whether you believe it or not is up to you, of course - all i am suggesting is it may be worth looking at the otherside of the story, which turns out to be most revealing.
btw, i did have appendicitis almost 30 yrs ago - but after the operation the surgeon (who really was an excellent fellow, i thought anyway), told me that the inflammation really wasn't as bad as the gp had thought it to be and the operation could have been avoided - he offered to give me the 'souvenirs' 😀
it was an interesting comment by an expert in his field which demonstrates how procedural medicine can be. i have similar story about what happened when i separated my shoulder after falling off my bicycle in which i was 'saved' by a 'thinking' doctor - which i will perhaps relate later.
in friendship,
orad
Fair enough. I had difficult appendicitis at 3 - any of my ancestors who had a similar case would have died. My younger briother had a burst appendix at 10 - again he survived. So I am thankful to modern medicine - both surgical techniques and drugs. I think animal experimentation may have had something to do with these advances - although perhaps they were discovered by meditation...
I was wondering - a couple of years ago, rats turned up under my house. They climbed up holes around waste pipes and invaded my kitchen each night - at least a dozen, some quite large and gettimg more bold and numerous as time went on. I used a large rat trap which I think was more humane than poison. As these rats are almost identical to the lab rats used in most animal experimentation, what would you guys have done?
Originally posted by steerpikeappendicitis at 3! wow! i do not deny that modern surgical procedures really are in many cases pretty spectacular. in fact, my father pioneered corneal grafting in india and to a large extent in canada too. i was supposed to be a doctor, but i wanted to work with really sick people instead (it's a joke i told my students each year, but they couldn't seem to see the humour in it for some reason). what i will be trying to show in later posts is that animal experimentation has led to some very misleading and dangerous results (as rich as already alluded to).
Fair enough. I had difficult appendicitis at 3 - any of my ancestors who had a similar case would have died. My younger briother had a burst appendix at 10 - again he survived. So I am thankful to modern medicine - both surgical techn ...[text shortened]... most animal experimentation, what would you guys have done?
as far as these advances not being discovered by meditation 😀 (ok we're even for my little bit about the platypus - though i really did mean it more seriously than it sounds). much of the surgical techniques learned is done on human cadavers. this makes sense when you consider the difference in physiologies. it makes more sense to learn the biology of a platypus from a platypus. come to think of it, 'meditation' may actually have played a fairly significant role though since many great discoveries in science do come about because of deep and free thinking - often it is possible to 'imagine' a solution when a practical model is insufficient.
if your point is that students need to learn techniques on animals first before they proceed on humans, you may be surprised to learn that many countries not only uphold the right of a student to refuse to dissect, many countries have banned dissection of animals altogether from their schools (hsus.org). what this suggests is that the connection between doing the stuff on animals and then doing it on humans is not all that strong and can be in fact misleading.
now the rat infestation. it is great that you think of doing it in as humane way as possible - many people wouldn't care less. the poison is generally very painful - also, it can get into other creatures. however, if you really want to trap them you can buy 'humane' traps which catches them live and then release them somewhere else.
our solution was rather different than either. we created an open compost pile near the house and sealed up the openings that the rats got in through. the rats (my son figures there are at least 70 of them now) live in the wood pile and attic in one part of the house and come to feed at the compost regularly. it's been like this for 4 years now. they are really cute - just as long as they stay out of the house! we actually took in a badly crippled baby one last spring - very affectionate little fellow that would try to cling to whatever hand was in its vicinity. unfortunately, it died after being with us for 9 days.
btw, the compost also solved our ant problem which happens each spring for a couple of weeks. since they have plenty of stuff to eat outside they don't come en mass inside. we still get some visitors for a few days during the 'heavy' season, but we just scoop them with a piece of paper and toss them outside. at another house we lived at 10 years ago, we prevented ants from entering using cayenne pepper in key entry points for a while, and then used murphy's wood oil since it wsa easier to apply.
anyway, thanks for asking and good luck with it! i'll see if some of the AR sites have other ideas for the rats and if i find any, i'll post it here for you.
in friendship,
prad
You are consistent - I wonder if some are opposed to animal experimentation but would use poison on their own rat infestation. You must have tolerant neighbours!
Live and let live is great - unfortumately I live in a place so isolated no land mammals get here unaided by man. Great and unique birds, some flightless but I suspect not as smart as the average rat. Strategy to avoid being eaten is to freeze - pretty good against a hawk, useless against a mammal hunting by scent. Rats can kill and eat small birds and chicks - climbing trees to do so. Can't blame the rats - but it is pretty tough for species nearing extinction. If you kill widl cats, rats, stoats and other small killers the birds can just hold their own. Get them on a predator free island and life is good for them. Sometimes it seems we have to decide which animals shall live. Conservationists in this country usually have guns.....
I agree that cadavers play a big part in surgical techniques and there are other useful techniques such as cell lines. The ethical arguments against animal testing have accelerated development of alternatives and forced more questioning of the relevance of individual experiments - I regard this as positive.
However - whole living animal experiments are still critical to progress, both in the past and future. For example - grazing deer belch methane gas and are a contributor to global warming. An exhaled breath sampling device is strapped to the deer's head and the deer grazes normally. I agree the deer is possibly subject to ridicule within the herd and may find it hard to pull a good looker for a date after wearing such a nerdy outfit but how else would you do this? Is this legitimate research?
http://masseynews.massey.ac.nz/2003/masseynews/june/june30/stories/methane.html
Originally posted by steerpikeactually the neighbours don't know about the rats or about the compost (a properly maintained compost doesn't smell bad). actually, AR activists come in many shapes and forms. i had a tenant several years ago in ontario, who used to break into labs in england to rescue research victims - he ate meat, because his concern was for that particular group of animals and was sufficiently disociated from the others whose parts were wrapped in cellophane. generally speaking though, most AR activists are usually vegan or pretty close to it - all vegans are by no means into AR since some are concerned primarily with the nutritional benefits.
You are consistent - I wonder if some are opposed to animal experimentation but would use poison on their own rat infestation. You must have tolerant neighbours!
Live and let live is great - unfortumately I live in a place so isolated ...[text shortened]... sey.ac.nz/2003/masseynews/june/june30/stories/methane.html
it is always difficult when humans upset the balance by introducing a lifeform that overpowers the native flora or fauna. the rabbits in australia way back when are a case in point. certainly, something should be done to restore the balance. however, too often the 'conservationist' argument is applied as an excuse to hunt. sometimes predators are kept in check by catching and transporting them elsewhere.
the example you give is in my mind at least more legitimate that using animals to test the next drug that comes out. at least, you are getting the results regarding the deer from the deer - rather than extrapolating it to the methane content of human emissions. whether it is something that needs to be done or could be avoided in the larger scheme of things, of course is another matter. it is interesting that this is being conducted on deer since apparently a similar proposal by members of the new zealand government regarding sheep emissions was turned down - possibly, because they wanted to implement it through a 'fart tax' applied to the sheep farmers? in any case, i don't know if a lot of serious research needs to be done in this area because it seems unlikely that the deer population will ever get as large as the sheep population (unless of course you are not talking about wild deer - the article ssaid 'grazing deer'😉. i doubt, as do you, whether this is much more than an insult to the deer, but the whole matter could be avoided quite easily if certain industries were terminated - of course, if it were that simple no one would smoke either would they?
this is why i think we need to first evaluate whether progress is really progress, before assuming that the 'whole living animal experiments are still critical to progress'. this is one of the issues i question in the posts i'll do later in this thread.
so, i've enjoyed our exchange and appreciate your perspectives (as well as that link) and hope it will continue. for now, though, good night from the other side of the pacific 🙂
in friendship,
prad
ps you must live in a beautiful place, from even the little you describe!
Originally posted by Mad Cowanyou are not wrong!
the problem with animal testing is that it is used, and seen as acceptable, where it is not necessary. i think you would be hard pressed to find some--who isn't profiting from the matter--who didn't disagree with gratuitous animal torture. am i wrong?
animal testing has been done (though somewhat lessened due to pressure from AR groups and the general public) for all kinds of ridiculous things from cosmetics to cleaners to even car crash testing. GM was the last company to give up this department about 5 years ago, i believe.
most people will see this sort of thing as not only unnecessary, but also stupid.
animal research (the medical stuff) gives the appearence of being more legitimate, because it supposedly has saved human lives (they usually don't mention the lives it has killed or destroyed) or because of the claim that there is no other way (ie the alternatives are not adequate).
of course, as you so rightly have stated "the problem with animal testing is that it is used, and seen as acceptable". while that dogma is accepted, alternatives will be slow to be developed and implemented.
much of the problem of course lies with the legal system that also moves very slowly. for their own protection, companies do animal tests because that way they are 'legally' safe - even though the test may not have the slightest legitimacy with respect to human health.
in friendship,
prad
Exactly what was reported in today's paper. Wallabies introduced from Australia are living on an offshore island - valuable because it can become predator free. The wallabiy species is almost extinct in Australia - so it is live capture and repatration. Everyone is happy.
it is always difficult when humans upset the balance by introducing a lifeform that overpowers the native flora or fauna. the rabbits in australia way back when are a case in point. certainly, something should be done to restore the balance. however, too often the 'conservationist' argument is applied as an excuse to hunt. sometimes predators are kept in check by catching and transporting th ...[text shortened]... n friendship,
prad
ps you must live in a beautiful place, from even the little you describe![/b]
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?thesection=news&thesubsection=&storyID=3538176&reportID=162576
However we aslo have an estimated 60 million Australian marsupial opposums - from a few let loose to start a fur trade. But fur is murder so they live in the forest and there are no predators. As well as killing trees, they eat eggs -and the Australians don't want them back. The best solution may be a treatment that makes them sterile using an antidody - so more animal research into marsupials.
Originally posted by steerpikepretty hard to fix a mess that someone else has started, isn't it?
However we aslo have an estimated 60 million Australian marsupial opposums - from a few let loose to start a fur trade. But fur is murder so they live in the forest and there are no predators. As well as killing trees, they eat eggs -and ...[text shortened]... le using an antidody - so more animal research into marsupials.
it may be the best solution, it also may not work - remember what happened when they tried to infect the borg with a virus on TNG 😀
also, i'd be interested in knowing what the AR groups sugggest the problem be dealt with.
the solutions that appear are usually biased by the objectives of the proposers. for instance, the barbaric seal hunt in canada has it's 'scientific' arguments on both sides (beyond the obvious presentation of the hunters). the fishing industry has come up with 'evidence' that it is a good idea to kill the seals because they eat the fish which is detrimental to the industry. the other side has presented the argument that the fishing industry has done itself in by not managing their 'greed' properly and that they wipe out the fishes at a far greater rate than the seals ever did - everyone on this side don't care about the seals of course, some are just interested in the fish surviving (for whatever reasons be they enviromental or sport) while some are, i seem to recall, foreign fishing interests who are constantly at war with the canadian government as to who has the right to fish where.
i was once asked to be on the board of a commssion to restrict a lumber company from ravaging the local estuary. the arguments from the board's side of course were those of the hunters and fishermen who wanted to preserve the estuary for their own 'recreational' purposes. of course, they thought it better i not be on the board after they learned a bit more about me.
i think it is really important to get the true motivations out in the open, because then the playing field is a little more honest. in the situation you describe, the sterilization may turn out to be the only alternative - i don't know. forced sterilization is not an unusual occurence even within the human species.
and sometimes people feel, despite their values, that there is no other way. i'll try (have to find it) to post just such a story in which peta people killed over a 1000 chickens. before the "CHOPS,STEAKS,BACON,SAUSAGES,CHICKEN" lovers from the animal rights thread start screaming hypocrisy or worse start salivating, they need to appreciate the circumstances under which this tragedy took place.
in friendship,
prad
ps i was curious to see you write 'fur is murder'. is there a strong enough movement against fur in new zealand?
Originally posted by pradtfhey steerpike! here are some ideas for dealing with your rats that you might gve a try:
i'll see if some of the AR sites have other ideas for the rats and if i find any, i'll post it here for you.
in friendship,
prad
http://www.livingwithwildlife.org/wildlifehelp/animals/rat.html
more later as i find them
in frinedship,
prad