quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio although I really dont want this to turn into a pro/anti animal testing debate I would like to point out that a lot of people legitimately believe that 99.9 % if not all animal testing is not needed or necessary.

Well I would agree with you 100% that we should abolish animal testing that doesn't need to happen (primarily corporate animal testing). However, I'm (reluctantly) for animal testing when it comes to biological/medical research. Here's an interesting question: Should companies be allowed to conduct paid testing on people?

___________________
Retro ...

For some reason, the statment I am about to make has come to be viewed as unsensitve, but I am really at a loss as to why. People are far more important than animals. If I am put with the choice of using 100 laboratory animals, in a humane way, in order to save the life of only one human, I'd do it in a heartbeat. There has to be a line drawn in the pecking order of things, and I draw it just below human.
If we are going to be so upset with mammalian lab animals being used for experiementation, why wouldn't our logic tell us that all life deserves the right to a peaceful existance, free from human testing? If that's the case, why should reptiles, nematodes, even bacteria for that matter be used for testing? My point is, unless you find willing human participants, biological research has to be done on its target, life. We like to draw a line at what is "cute, fuzzy and near and dear," but this is rediculous since, in the case of medical research, we must test in an environment that mimics the human body.
As far as education is concerned, I believe the act of pithing frogs is useful. You may think you can learn everything about the physiology of muscle action from a book, but I whole-heartedly disagree. To me it is like telling a doctor, there is no need to learn anatomy through the use of a cadaver, or how to perform medical proceedures through the use of human subjects, because it can all be read about in a book. There must be real life, hands-on learning to understand the advanced form and function of life. I'm not saying eveyone should go around pithing frogs for the hell of it, but if you're to the point of taking a physiology class that requires it, and you have a large objection to it, perhaps you are going into the wrong field. Everyday I cause my patients pain at the hospital, but I know it is ultimately for there own good, much the same way I know the pain I may have caused an animal for educational purposes was for my own good and the good of other humans.
There is an excellent short story by Ray Bradbury about the future of animal rights. In his future, animal rights are taken so far as to implement "bacterial rights." With these rights, antibiotics are outlawed, and millions die of infection, as it was a hundred years ago. I'm not saying we are headed in that extreme of a direction, but somehow equating the life of a human to the life of an animal or any other living thing, is in itself inhumane.
People are far more important than animals.

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio And regardless of necessity I dont think anyone here would aruge that its reasonable to test drugs on someone who is black, or asian or any other minority.

Thousands (if not millions) of humans have voluntarily undergone drug testing upon themselves in which financial compensation is often involved. Others do it or have done it for a cause that they believe in, or perpaps are dying of (e.g. cancer or AIDS). I'm assuming you meant to say "involuntary" or "forced" testing.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I'm with adagnitio. So long as the material being taught is "accurate", I see nothing wrong with instilling consciensciousness and compassion into the mind-set of younger people. I'd certainly rather leave behind a generation of over-sentimental hippies than a generation of neo-rightist eco-biggots.

Hey! Easy now there buddy!

The question is in teaching ideals verse reality. Should we teach them a view of how things happen, or a tool so they can make their own view?

There seems to be a growing trend these days that institutions of education MUST teach you everything you should know. Well they shouldn't, instutions should teach you the basics, and arise your interest to learn on your own and make you own opinions of things. It is not I beleive the place of these institutions to teach us everything we should know or view in life, it is simply not possible.

I remember in elementray school I was also taught about the evils of animal testing.. never was I told about the utility of testing on animals... but I already had the tools to understand that people don't do something just do be bad, or to make a cheap buck, and there must have been a good reason for it.. and by questioning I discovered it does have proper and necessary utility.

In my view, the fundamental problem is this:

The question of the moral value of various types of animal testing is not within the domain of science, but instead is a philosophical issue.

In order to intelligently discuss the complex ethical issues involved in animal testing, large amounts of time must be devoted to defining criteria for what is "humane", whether or not various species deserve "humane" treatment, etc...

The actual fact that animals are used in scientific testing is incidental. The question is not one of biology, it's one of philosophy - of ethics. Therefore, it does not belong in the science curriculum, but in a philosophy curriculum.

If huge amounts of time are spent converting science classes into philosophy classes, as would be required in order to teach the pro-animal rights curriculum in an intelligent rather than dogmatic manner, I find it hard to believe that sufficient time would remain to adequately teach the science itself.

If the curriculum is taught in a purely dogmatic manner, it is of no use to the children and is a complete waste of their time. One might as well be teaching them creationism. Such an education would not be conducive to producing educated free-thinking individuals, and hence, in my opinion, would be contradictory to the purpose of education itself.

Well I wouldn't mind turining this into an animal-testing vs. animal-rights debate ... sounds better than the usual dribble we go through every day. At any rate, I once wrote a paper for my business ethics class on the morality of conducting animal testing ... I'll see if I can find it. I'm pretty sure that I came to the conclusion that it was more immoral to NOT conduct animal testing, thereby allowing the death of human than it was to conduct animal testing to begin with (under the circumstances of saving human lives). I'll try to rebuild my argument if I can't find that paper.

___________________
Retro ...

which leads me to question a report I read about research done the other day...

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarep...29cancer29.html

Research was conducted on mice to prove that green tea helps prevent cancer.

So my question is how excatly did they get the mice to drink green tea? Did they just replace their water with hot green tea and force them to drink it since they had nothing else? Or was it some harmful green-tea injection.

And since the green-tea-drinking mice were saved from cancer, can this be seen as animal-alturism?

Or if the mice burned their tounges, is this a severe abuse of their rights?