Animals for Science?

[curious george]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?...ectID=10341535
In case link goes away...
Nearly a fifth of the animals used in experiments and other research or teaching, suffered, says a national advisory watchdog.

Of the 246,122 animals "manipulated" in 2004, 13.3 per cent underwent "moderate" suffering and 5 per cent "severe" or "very severe" suffering, said the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee.

In the Animal Welfare Act, "manipulation" means subjecting an animal to an unusual or abnormal procedure, such as exposing the animal to any parasite, micro-organism, drug, chemical, biological product or environmental condition, or enforced activity, restraint, nutrition, or surgical intervention, or depriving the animal of usual care.

Death is not counted as manipulation -- there is no distinction between the humane killing of research animals and the killing of animals for food or because they are unwanted.

In 2004, 48 per cent of animals used in research died or were humanely killed, compared with 44 per cent in 2003 and 51 per cent in 2002.

Of the 106,157 sheep used, one underwent very severe suffering, 81 severe suffering, and 1285 moderate suffering.

But 9906 rodents -- mainly rats used for testing animal health products, and mice used in testing shellfish for biotoxins -- underwent very severe suffering, just over 10 per cent of the 92,427 used. Another 43 had severe suffering and 42,691 had moderate suffering.

Among the 1627 possums used, six had moderate suffering, 156 severe suffering and 549 very severe suffering.

Most of the possums and some of the rodents were used to test new or improved poisons, toxic baits or traps.

An anti-vivisection lobby, the National Anti Vivisection Campaign (NAVC), today said that it had no faith in the animal ethics committees that oversaw animal research.

"Hundreds of thousands of animals are being killed in experiments all over the country, and the institutions that carry out these experiments, often with public money, refuse to release detailed information on the types of experiments being carried out" said NAVC spokesman Mark Eden.

He said 10,459 animals were subjected to "very severe suffering" last year, but not enough information was released to allow independent assessment of the claim that the experiments were necessary.

- NZPA

[curious george]

Just a thought here.... Without knowing specifics of the experiments, is it a bad thing?
Suffering/torture is never good, it makes me sad to see it in animals, but is it justified for the betterment of mankind?
We have the power to do whatever we like to these animals, with no repercussions except for our own conscience.
Does the fact that we all here have benefitted from these experiments change anything?
Or perhaps do we 'know enough' to stop doing these experiments, perhaps use computers instead? (or prisoners, as someone has just suggested...)

[Indiana_Jones]

I guess the reality is we have to test some of this stuff don't we? And very few people would be singing up for the early testing stages
But I don't like to see animals suffer, I think we should worry more about dickless pieces of shit who burn dogs and cats etc 'cause they we bored', Pricks

-Indy

[SARGE]

Just a thought here.... Without knowing specifics of the experiments, is it a bad thing?
Suffering/torture is never good, it makes me sad to see it in animals, but is it justified for the betterment of mankind?
We have the power to do whatever we like to these animals, with no repercussions except for our own conscience.
Does the fact that we all here have benefitted from these experiments change anything?
Or perhaps do we 'know enough' to stop doing these experiments, perhaps use computers instead? (or prisoners, as someone has just suggested...)

now i consider myself quite an animal lover.. but if experimenting on a rat saves a few million human lives..

bring on the jumper cables
not talking about piddley-assed skin tests either.. rats with makeup is sad..)

im all for prisoner experimentation too.. life without parole or death sentance??.. there you go! test subjects..( and Organ Donors)
serial killers and child pornographers get the cool disease tests..hit them with some flesh eating bacteria and try to cure it
use the minor felony prisoners to test shampoo and makeup..

[curious george]

Yeah, I've not much time for cosmetic/makeup experiments... drop that shit in your own eyes to see it it stings bitch!
I like your idea of kiddie fiddlers on murderers testing antidotes for ebola and stuff

From my research and stuff, you could validate most of these tests, but the suffering is... makes you sick actually...
Where do you draw the line?
What counts as a useful death? I'll go ask the cat
*puss puss puuusss*

[Ogri]

now i consider myself quite an animal lover.. but if experimenting on a rat saves a few million human lives..

bring on the jumper cables
not talking about piddley-assed skin tests either.. rats with makeup is sad..)

im all for prisoner experimentation too.. life without parole or death sentance??.. there you go! test subjects..( and Organ Donors)
serial killers and child pornographers get the cool disease tests..hit them with some flesh eating bacteria and try to cure it
use the minor felony prisoners to test shampoo and makeup..

NOW you're talking.

Coincidentally, I got involved in a little fracas yesterday - was happy at my work when I heard dogs fighting. Looked out the window and there is this "person" (initially it was hard to tell whether it was male or female - turned out to be female), with a pitbull attached to each arm by rope! Both dogs had locked on to each other and this female thinks its funny. Then she starts kicking the shit out of them and standing on their backs (and believe me she was no Twiggy) to try and separate them. Everyone at work is going, oh look at that, that's terrible that is. Me? I wade in (not between the dogs - I'm not that stupid) verbally and this female starts giving me the full range of her very limited vocabulary. Local council official turns up and takes her name and address (which would probably be false). I can't stand to see deliberate cruelty (or in some cases, ignorance). If it had been two blokes fighting - I would have had a look and let them get on with it. But animals - without sounding to soppy, cannot speak for themselves and cruelty and abuse is something I won't stand back and ignore.

And no, I am not a vegetarian. As all things in life, there is compromise and understanding.

OK, I'm getting off the soapbox now. Thankyou and goodnight.

[Biff]

It's one thing experimenting on defenceless animals in the name of advancing our knowledge of diseases and medicines, but for companies like L' Oreal to kill and main thousands of animals every year in the name of cosmetics - now that makes me sick.

But from I hear (via the Dicovery Channel no less, so it must be true...) there now exisits extremely powerful computer simulation software, so we should never have to experiement on animals ever again.

[curious george]

there now exisits extremely powerful computer simulation software, so we should never have to experiement on animals ever again.

It's a nice idea, but you have to tell the computer what to do, so to do that, you need to measure a pain/irritation scale. Enter the small surry animals.
Having worked with animals in a similar regard, there is a totally different responce from the operator.
If the computer programme gets sick/unwell/dies, no problem, but when you have life at the end of your stick, it brings up a totally different set of emotions.
It's a very different thing, and although I can see a day when a computer will do it, I suspect it's some way off. Pity.

[Hitcher]

Call me old fashioned, but I'd much prefer guinea pigs to be used as guinea pigs, rather than have stuff tested on people.

I almost got whacked by a retail assistant at the Bodyshop once when I asked how they knew their stuff was really safe when it hadn't been tested on animals...

[MacD]

Call me old fashioned, but I'd much prefer guinea pigs to be used as guinea pigs, rather than have stuff tested on people.

I almost got whacked by a retail assistant at the Bodyshop once when I asked how they knew their stuff was really safe when it hadn't been tested on animals...

Don't worry Hitcher, they use natural ingredients. You know, natural, like ethanol and nicotine...

[Beemer]

I love the word "manipulated" - makes me wonder if that will be the excuse of the rabbit fucker - "but your honour, I was only 'manipulating' them". Yeah, right!

I am not a fan of animal testing, especially for things like cosmetics where the ingredients have all been tested before and there is no advantage in testing them again. For disease treatments I really don't like the thought of things being tested on animals. Didn't they test thaliodomide or a similar drug on animals and when it was used on humans it had devastating effects?

I must confess I am in two minds here, mainly because there have been some advancements where they had discovered what makes an animal's physiology respond in a particular way and they have been able to translate that to humans. But I hate the thought of any animal suffering unnecessarily so I really wish there was another way.

[SDU]

I agree that testing on animals for cosmetics is so wrong and should be outlawed, there is enough research done (as Beemer said.)
I think that the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee need to have tighter guidelines to help them assess each case before giving approval for research on animals that is cruel, may harm or result in death.
There should be limitations on numbers (- why do so many researchers have to repeat what has already been done by others with known probable results) you can get the same information from a study of a few suffering rather than of thousands and all care should be taken to provide lab animals with reasonable living standards & quality of life. A bit contradictory I know but remember not all experiments cause illness or pain and some are for animal meds and behaviour too.
Some institutions only choose animals from slaughter for food to use as the studies for dissection for their students rather than some raised pacifically for the purpose in a cage, at least the animal (hopefully) has had a reasonable quality off life prior to death.
The animal welfare standards are minimal at best for pets and farm animals let alone lab animals.
There is not enough info out their for us to know what is really happening at times. It is confusing.
Sorry I blabbed.
SDU