Forums > Social Discussion > Is Testing on Animals Acceptible?
Login/Join to ParticipateBRONZE Member
chemical attraction
1,097 posts
Location: Ilkeston, Derbyshire, England
chemical attraction
1,097 posts
Location: Ilkeston, Derbyshire, England
Posted:
I am interested in everyones opinion as to whether they agree or
disagree with testing new drugs or products on animals before
they are released on to the market.If you do not agree how else
would you make sure they were safe and if you do agree please
tell me why...thanks
I am interested in everyones opinion as to whether they agree or
disagree with testing new drugs or products on animals before
they are released on to the market.If you do not agree how else
would you make sure they were safe and if you do agree please
tell me why...thanks
Member
152 posts
Location: London, england
152 posts
Location: London, england
Posted:
the thing that does it for me though is why some laboratories have to be so inhumane when testing. there seems to be a lot of scientists here, so tell me what the standards are. are there any enforcment agencies that maintain certain levels of humanity, or is it just left to people to choose what to do with animals. remember that the only news some people hear of animal testing comes form the media and the internet, of which a lot is propaganda and complete bulls**t.
i never see pictures or read reports of animals being kept humanely, and by humanely i mean as if they were wild, with large spaces to excercise in and other animals to play with. i only ever see pictures of tiny 'cells' in wich the animals are packed in small areas around many more animals living in squalid conditions. mayb there are labs out there that do care about the animals as much as the humans, and vice versa, but we never hear about them. so tell us about them!
the thing that does it for me though is why some laboratories have to be so inhumane when testing. there seems to be a lot of scientists here, so tell me what the standards are. are there any enforcment agencies that maintain certain levels of humanity, or is it just left to people to choose what to do with animals. remember that the only news some people hear of animal testing comes form the media and the internet, of which a lot is propaganda and complete bulls**t.
i never see pictures or read reports of animals being kept humanely, and by humanely i mean as if they were wild, with large spaces to excercise in and other animals to play with. i only ever see pictures of tiny 'cells' in wich the animals are packed in small areas around many more animals living in squalid conditions. mayb there are labs out there that do care about the animals as much as the humans, and vice versa, but we never hear about them. so tell us about them!
Kiss me now, You're beatiful, For these days are truly the last.
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
Yes i hate that too
Yes i hate that too
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
veteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
So? In the news you only ever hear about fathers when they've abused or killed their kids; does that mean that that's what all fathers do? No, it just means that you only hear about the worst cases and not the majority who don't and wouldn't act like that.
Written by: buzzingtalk
i never see pictures or read reports of animals being kept humanely, and by humanely i mean as if they were wild, with large spaces to excercise in and other animals to play with. i only ever see pictures of tiny 'cells' in wich the animals are packed in small areas around many more animals living in squalid conditions. mayb there are labs out there that do care about the animals as much as the humans, and vice versa, but we never hear about them. so tell us about them!
So? In the news you only ever hear about fathers when they've abused or killed their kids; does that mean that that's what all fathers do? No, it just means that you only hear about the worst cases and not the majority who don't and wouldn't act like that.
"Moo," said the happy cow.
Member
152 posts
Location: London, england
152 posts
Location: London, england
Posted:
thats what I am saying though, I know there must be some sicentist out there setting good examples through worthwile research, its that i have no connection to that section of life so therefore i was askin people here that obviously work in these institutions to tell me stuff about standards.
thats what I am saying though, I know there must be some sicentist out there setting good examples through worthwile research, its that i have no connection to that section of life so therefore i was askin people here that obviously work in these institutions to tell me stuff about standards.
Kiss me now, You're beatiful, For these days are truly the last.
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
No there is not as much space as you'd hope, but rats for example are kept at a certain group size so they have someone to cuddle and play but don't get aggressive. Cages have only gotten higher a while ago because research showed rats prefer to be able to stand up on 2 legs more, so regulations have been changed accordingly.
For everyone... please please PLEASE don't become an activist because you've seen stuff on telly before even researching it in more detail. The internet's a great place for that, for legislation etc.
When animals get into a new place there are no experiments run for a while until they feel at home. Researchers are REQUIRED to come in and get them used to touch and their environment, or to ask some of the people in the animals facilities to handle them. If your rat gets sick on a Friday afternoon you don't go home, you look after it, and come in on the weekend if needs be.
The majority of researchers are highly responsible people who volunteer to do a job that puts them at risk of having their grannies dug up from the cemetary to help advance medical research (and I'm not saying all activists are like this, but we got warnings sent through uni email a while ago that I posted on here, about some people from the animal facility being threatened, it does happen too often). They care about the animals, stroke them, try to make them feel at ease. Things that cause pain have to be done under sedation whenever possible, and animals are watched from injection of the anaesthetics to when they're fully awake again.
Training in how to do experiments is given in many courses that may lead you to having to work with animals at some point, and even then you have to do every technique supervised first. I had a basic course at my old uni, in which we were given the animals that were "left over" from studies or were going to be killed because breeders didn't sell them, to learn how to hold them and take blood samples etc. Useless and cruel, some might say, others including me think it's a necessary evil to avoid causing them unnecessary pain later. For that reason it was run by the animal protection office, not by the torture and cruelty department.
One reason you don't see pictures and reports is that noone working in an animal facility would want them to get into the public for fear of their employees or their families being harmed. Under the Freedom of Information act you have the right to enquire about animal experiments, but if you do, please make sure it doesn't get in the wrong hands.
No there is not as much space as you'd hope, but rats for example are kept at a certain group size so they have someone to cuddle and play but don't get aggressive. Cages have only gotten higher a while ago because research showed rats prefer to be able to stand up on 2 legs more, so regulations have been changed accordingly.
For everyone... please please PLEASE don't become an activist because you've seen stuff on telly before even researching it in more detail. The internet's a great place for that, for legislation etc.
When animals get into a new place there are no experiments run for a while until they feel at home. Researchers are REQUIRED to come in and get them used to touch and their environment, or to ask some of the people in the animals facilities to handle them. If your rat gets sick on a Friday afternoon you don't go home, you look after it, and come in on the weekend if needs be.
The majority of researchers are highly responsible people who volunteer to do a job that puts them at risk of having their grannies dug up from the cemetary to help advance medical research (and I'm not saying all activists are like this, but we got warnings sent through uni email a while ago that I posted on here, about some people from the animal facility being threatened, it does happen too often). They care about the animals, stroke them, try to make them feel at ease. Things that cause pain have to be done under sedation whenever possible, and animals are watched from injection of the anaesthetics to when they're fully awake again.
Training in how to do experiments is given in many courses that may lead you to having to work with animals at some point, and even then you have to do every technique supervised first. I had a basic course at my old uni, in which we were given the animals that were "left over" from studies or were going to be killed because breeders didn't sell them, to learn how to hold them and take blood samples etc. Useless and cruel, some might say, others including me think it's a necessary evil to avoid causing them unnecessary pain later. For that reason it was run by the animal protection office, not by the torture and cruelty department.
One reason you don't see pictures and reports is that noone working in an animal facility would want them to get into the public for fear of their employees or their families being harmed. Under the Freedom of Information act you have the right to enquire about animal experiments, but if you do, please make sure it doesn't get in the wrong hands.
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
buzzing, you missed Birgit's question. The one asking if that's you in your avatar photo and if you do use makeup and hair dye.... Do you?
If you really want to stand up for what you believe in, then I suggest making today the last day that you use cosmetics, ever. You're only helping to create the demand for these products and in a highly competitive market such as the beauty industry, demand fuels the need to further research better ingredients, to create more desirable things like long lasting lipstick.
Cosmetics research is completely different than life saving/enhancing medical research and it's all done so you can safely have fun while experimenting with something as frivolous as your appearance. Think of all those blinded bunnies next time you reach for that eyeliner
buzzing, you missed Birgit's question. The one asking if that's you in your avatar photo and if you do use makeup and hair dye.... Do you?
If you really want to stand up for what you believe in, then I suggest making today the last day that you use cosmetics, ever. You're only helping to create the demand for these products and in a highly competitive market such as the beauty industry, demand fuels the need to further research better ingredients, to create more desirable things like long lasting lipstick.
Cosmetics research is completely different than life saving/enhancing medical research and it's all done so you can safely have fun while experimenting with something as frivolous as your appearance. Think of all those blinded bunnies next time you reach for that eyeliner
Member
152 posts
Location: London, england
152 posts
Location: London, england
Posted:
I use cosmetics form here --->
https://www.honestycosmetics.co.uk/
Their policy is that they dont use new products after a cut off point, so that no more animals are harmed. this isnt perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. i personally believe that animal testing will never stop, there will always be debates like this, and the majority (pro) will always 'win' as they get to carry on doing their tests. waht i dont understand is why the cosmetics industy continues to test new stuff, there is no need for it, why cant people just take what is here and leave it like that? if something works, why try and fix it?
I use cosmetics form here --->
https://www.honestycosmetics.co.uk/
Their policy is that they dont use new products after a cut off point, so that no more animals are harmed. this isnt perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. i personally believe that animal testing will never stop, there will always be debates like this, and the majority (pro) will always 'win' as they get to carry on doing their tests. waht i dont understand is why the cosmetics industy continues to test new stuff, there is no need for it, why cant people just take what is here and leave it like that? if something works, why try and fix it?
Kiss me now, You're beatiful, For these days are truly the last.
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
not to kick a dead horse and all but
Even if products were around before, (what you have determined as before, I am unclear) like pain killers in natural products like willow bark. It is testing that helps determine at what level it is harmful for you. These tests help us avoid cancers, ulcers, toxic overdoses.
Whether these products have been tested on animals I don’t know, but it falls under the whole progression thing, but how do you treat your period? Do you still have the belt with the rag attached? There is a reason why guys looking for a reason why your angry asks “Are you on your rag?”
While I do not really advocate testing for make up—makeup used to contain lead.
not to kick a dead horse and all but
Even if products were around before, (what you have determined as before, I am unclear) like pain killers in natural products like willow bark. It is testing that helps determine at what level it is harmful for you. These tests help us avoid cancers, ulcers, toxic overdoses.
Whether these products have been tested on animals I don’t know, but it falls under the whole progression thing, but how do you treat your period? Do you still have the belt with the rag attached? There is a reason why guys looking for a reason why your angry asks “Are you on your rag?”
While I do not really advocate testing for make up—makeup used to contain lead.
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
It is a step in the right direction, and in an ideal world cosmetics companies would stop researching newer and better ingredients, but unfortunatly this isn't an ideal world.
That's not to say that Honesty's ingredients haven't been tested on animals in the past, but if you're happy using a product made from ingredients that haven't been "updated" since 1976, then more power to you.
But just how long ago should an ingredient have been animal tested before you deem it acceptable? I know it's a subjective question, and somewhat leading, because my next one would be....What about ingredients that are being tested today? Would you find those acceptable in another 20 years?. It might not be an issue today but down the road, when the wrinkles start to appear, will you still be happy with pre 1976 ingredients?....Something to keep in mind.
Animal testing may stop, eventually, but it probably won't be in our lifetimes. Whoever can develop an acceptable alternative is, quite frankly, going to make a fortune.
Scientists aren't engaged in animal testing for fun
It is a step in the right direction, and in an ideal world cosmetics companies would stop researching newer and better ingredients, but unfortunatly this isn't an ideal world.
That's not to say that Honesty's ingredients haven't been tested on animals in the past, but if you're happy using a product made from ingredients that haven't been "updated" since 1976, then more power to you.
But just how long ago should an ingredient have been animal tested before you deem it acceptable? I know it's a subjective question, and somewhat leading, because my next one would be....What about ingredients that are being tested today? Would you find those acceptable in another 20 years?. It might not be an issue today but down the road, when the wrinkles start to appear, will you still be happy with pre 1976 ingredients?....Something to keep in mind.Animal testing may stop, eventually, but it probably won't be in our lifetimes. Whoever can develop an acceptable alternative is, quite frankly, going to make a fortune.
Scientists aren't engaged in animal testing for fun
SILVER Member
veteran
1,286 posts
Location: My House, United Kingdom
veteran
1,286 posts
Location: My House, United Kingdom
Posted:
actually the majority of products tested on eyes are tested on eyes of already dead animals from other tests, therefore reducing the number of animals used. the number of forms that have to be filled in before these experiements and approval of experiements is phenominal, scientists dont just go out, get a load of cute rabbits and blind them for fun. Im not for animal testing but until a feasable alternative comes along im not against it either.
Written by: stout
Think of all those blinded bunnies next time you reach for that eyeliner
actually the majority of products tested on eyes are tested on eyes of already dead animals from other tests, therefore reducing the number of animals used. the number of forms that have to be filled in before these experiements and approval of experiements is phenominal, scientists dont just go out, get a load of cute rabbits and blind them for fun. Im not for animal testing but until a feasable alternative comes along im not against it either.
Proudly Owned By The BMVC
Are You Sniffing My Mitten?
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
I'm actually doing a PhD on looking for alternatives in cosmetic testing. I don't think make-up is necessary for anyone, with the exception maybe being people with health issues or after accidents that feel they have to cover up scars, bad acne etc. Which is not to say I don't use it (I put some eyeliner on about once a month, and I use bodypaint for shows every now and then), but if you're really against cosmetic testing I think you shouldn't be using make-up, period.
Why do we need new cosmetics? For the same reason that we need bigger televisions, plasma screens, mobile phones for everyone and not just emergency organisations, new fashion, bigger wicks, flashier UV poi, etc: to make ourselves look better and to get the economy going. Unless someone finds a different system to live in that works, selling new products will pay for things like health insurance, universities, schools, safe roads etc. And it'll make some people feel superior to the poor sods that can't afford it.
I'm actually doing a PhD on looking for alternatives in cosmetic testing. I don't think make-up is necessary for anyone, with the exception maybe being people with health issues or after accidents that feel they have to cover up scars, bad acne etc. Which is not to say I don't use it (I put some eyeliner on about once a month, and I use bodypaint for shows every now and then), but if you're really against cosmetic testing I think you shouldn't be using make-up, period.
Why do we need new cosmetics? For the same reason that we need bigger televisions, plasma screens, mobile phones for everyone and not just emergency organisations, new fashion, bigger wicks, flashier UV poi, etc: to make ourselves look better and to get the economy going. Unless someone finds a different system to live in that works, selling new products will pay for things like health insurance, universities, schools, safe roads etc. And it'll make some people feel superior to the poor sods that can't afford it.
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
Member
152 posts
Location: London, england
152 posts
Location: London, england
Posted:
im not actually one of those people that wears makeup a lot by the way, like birgit says i slap a bit of eyeliner on when i go out and do a bit of rave make up every so often.
there has to be an alternate way its just a matter of finding it. like i say im not a sicentist so i am not informed on stuff like this, the only reason why i comment on this post is to learn, stuff like vampiric acid said, all of the factual scientific sutff that is said is making me have more faith in animals being treated a bit better in testing scenarios more than i thought beofre. as i said i probably have a really out dated view on what exactly animal testing consists of! its a learning curve
im not actually one of those people that wears makeup a lot by the way, like birgit says i slap a bit of eyeliner on when i go out and do a bit of rave make up every so often.
there has to be an alternate way its just a matter of finding it. like i say im not a sicentist so i am not informed on stuff like this, the only reason why i comment on this post is to learn, stuff like vampiric acid said, all of the factual scientific sutff that is said is making me have more faith in animals being treated a bit better in testing scenarios more than i thought beofre. as i said i probably have a really out dated view on what exactly animal testing consists of! its a learning curve
Kiss me now, You're beatiful, For these days are truly the last.
SILVER Member
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Posted:
Here's some good news for all of us who love our animals but love our fellow human too :
Artificial Hip - the inventor, John Charnley, refused to experiment on animals. The hip which he developed is still regarded as the 'gold standard' by orthopaedic surgeons.
Childhood (acute) Leukaemia drug - the first effective drugs for childhood leukaemia were introduced in the 1940s, through study on patients. They were not tested on animal leukaemias until after they were shown to be useful in people. Methotrexate, one of those drugs, is still important in the treatment of childhood leukaemia and other cancers.
Asthma drug - sodium cromoglycate (Intal) is used to prevent asthma. It was discovered by a doctor who had little faith in animal experiments. He was allergic to guinea pigs so he exposed himself to them to induce asthma attacks, against which he tested over 600 new drugs.
More examples of medical progress without the use of animals:
Anaesthetics - introduction of chloroform, ether, nitrous oxide, and cocaine.
Asepsis - understanding of sterile techniques in surgery.
Blood - understanding of the blood groups and Rhesus factor.
Circulation - understanding of how the blood circulates around the body.
Drugs - introduction of beta blockers for blood pressure; digitalis for heart failure; morphine as a pain killer; nitrite drugs for angina; quinine for malaria; salicylic acid, the active ingredient of aspirin.
Epidemiology - discovery of the link between cancer and smoking; the causes of heart disease; and the causes of many other diseases.
Hormones - identification and purification of insulin for diabetes.
Surgical procedures - removal of the appendix; removal of bladder stones; Brock's technique for blue baby surgery and mitral stenosis; repair of cardiac aneurysm; removal of cataracts; removal of gall stones; repair of inguinal hernia; removal of the ovaries for tumours.
Here's some good news for all of us who love our animals but love our fellow human too
:Artificial Hip - the inventor, John Charnley, refused to experiment on animals. The hip which he developed is still regarded as the 'gold standard' by orthopaedic surgeons.
Childhood (acute) Leukaemia drug - the first effective drugs for childhood leukaemia were introduced in the 1940s, through study on patients. They were not tested on animal leukaemias until after they were shown to be useful in people. Methotrexate, one of those drugs, is still important in the treatment of childhood leukaemia and other cancers.
Asthma drug - sodium cromoglycate (Intal) is used to prevent asthma. It was discovered by a doctor who had little faith in animal experiments. He was allergic to guinea pigs so he exposed himself to them to induce asthma attacks, against which he tested over 600 new drugs.
More examples of medical progress without the use of animals:
Anaesthetics - introduction of chloroform, ether, nitrous oxide, and cocaine.
Asepsis - understanding of sterile techniques in surgery.
Blood - understanding of the blood groups and Rhesus factor.
Circulation - understanding of how the blood circulates around the body.
Drugs - introduction of beta blockers for blood pressure; digitalis for heart failure; morphine as a pain killer; nitrite drugs for angina; quinine for malaria; salicylic acid, the active ingredient of aspirin.
Epidemiology - discovery of the link between cancer and smoking; the causes of heart disease; and the causes of many other diseases.
Hormones - identification and purification of insulin for diabetes.
Surgical procedures - removal of the appendix; removal of bladder stones; Brock's technique for blue baby surgery and mitral stenosis; repair of cardiac aneurysm; removal of cataracts; removal of gall stones; repair of inguinal hernia; removal of the ovaries for tumours.
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
member
162 posts
Location: Birmingham, UK
162 posts
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posted:
yes.. sometimes, dont hate me.
yes.. sometimes, dont hate me.
member
33 posts
33 posts
Posted:
Edit: I had it written different before.
I did nothing of the sort. You just took it that way.
People doing experements may not try to cause pain, but thats not the point. These animals are put in tiny cages and taken out only to be tested on. Oh, and the product I was reffering to. I don't think we test ideas on animals. Its simply a product.
I think natural order is the way to go. Run around, kill things, eat them, be eated, game over. Nothing fancy.
We don't need all these medical advancement. We did just fine before. So what we didn't live 100 years. We evolved not to for a reason!!! Herbalism is a time tested method that cures the same things we test on animals for!
Of course I use the stuff we have. I love showers and heaters. but thats just because their avilable.
I really want to elaborate more on this! Not right now tho.
EDITED_BY: SugarCoatedHell (1142986632)
Edit: I had it written different before.
Written by: Sunbird
we are supposed to put the work in, we DO need science. and in your STUPID comment, you have just dondemmed my girlfriend to death, schizophrenics to psychosis, psychotics to homicide charges.how naive and oppinioated you are.
Sunbird walks away chuckling!
I did nothing of the sort. You just took it that way.
People doing experements may not try to cause pain, but thats not the point. These animals are put in tiny cages and taken out only to be tested on. Oh, and the product I was reffering to. I don't think we test ideas on animals. Its simply a product.
I think natural order is the way to go. Run around, kill things, eat them, be eated, game over. Nothing fancy.
We don't need all these medical advancement. We did just fine before. So what we didn't live 100 years. We evolved not to for a reason!!! Herbalism is a time tested method that cures the same things we test on animals for!
Of course I use the stuff we have. I love showers and heaters. but thats just because their avilable.
I really want to elaborate more on this! Not right now tho.
EDITED_BY: SugarCoatedHell (1142986632)
There are no witholding taxes on the wages of sin.
~ It ain't a sin to crack a few laws, just don't break them. ~
~ I lost my reputation young, and never missed it. ~
~ She's the kind of girl who climbed the ladder of success, wrong by wrong. ~
GOLD Member
What a Bummer
3,224 posts
Location: Shatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
What a Bummer
3,224 posts
Location: Shatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
Sugarcoatedhell, sorry for ripping apart your first post, but like you said, its lacked explanation etc etc. And as for what you have to say on it, feel free to, take time explaining yourself.... Now, with that said...
In what context?
Humans are extremely clever animals, and would it not be a waste of such intelligence if we stuck to an old fashioned existence?
Another thing, the "indians" you speak of, they may have had immunity to certain diseases, but not all. You may argue that some of these virus' and diseases are products of our own sucess (antibiotic resistance strains etc) but what about a child born with cerebal palsy. There is nothing in nature I know of that can give the same treatment that has been researched today. For example, I know a young boy with cerebal palsy. He was estimated only 2 years of life when born, and without medical research, ie living in nature, I can garauntee it would be less than that. He's now past 7 years and his life is getting easier and easier with every development science makes.
Those comforts like showers and heaters, are products of human evvolution. Are you saying we should stop evolving, whilst other animals do? Because this would make us different to other animals... something your arguing against.
Sugarcoatedhell, sorry for ripping apart your first post, but like you said, its lacked explanation etc etc. And as for what you have to say on it, feel free to, take time explaining yourself.... Now, with that said...
Written by:
humans are not different than animals, so why do we get different treatment?
In what context?
Humans are extremely clever animals, and would it not be a waste of such intelligence if we stuck to an old fashioned existence?
Another thing, the "indians" you speak of, they may have had immunity to certain diseases, but not all. You may argue that some of these virus' and diseases are products of our own sucess (antibiotic resistance strains etc) but what about a child born with cerebal palsy. There is nothing in nature I know of that can give the same treatment that has been researched today. For example, I know a young boy with cerebal palsy. He was estimated only 2 years of life when born, and without medical research, ie living in nature, I can garauntee it would be less than that. He's now past 7 years and his life is getting easier and easier with every development science makes.
Those comforts like showers and heaters, are products of human evvolution. Are you saying we should stop evolving, whilst other animals do? Because this would make us different to other animals... something your arguing against.
member
33 posts
33 posts
Posted:
Going against nature is not the only way to devlop. Microbiology is very interesting, and works with the earth to solve problems.
And evolution has NOTHING to do with our development. Evolution = nature Development = human
O and you didnt rip apart my first post its all opinions STUPID or not.
Edit: There are other ways to do things!!! We do not have to destroy our earth to make it an extra year!
EDITED_BY: SugarCoatedHell (1142986871)
Written by: Asena
Humans are extremely clever animals, and would it not be a waste of such intelligence if we stuck to an old fashioned existence?
Going against nature is not the only way to devlop. Microbiology is very interesting, and works with the earth to solve problems.
And evolution has NOTHING to do with our development. Evolution = nature Development = human
O and you didnt rip apart my first post its all opinions STUPID or not.
Edit: There are other ways to do things!!! We do not have to destroy our earth to make it an extra year!
EDITED_BY: SugarCoatedHell (1142986871)
There are no witholding taxes on the wages of sin.
~ It ain't a sin to crack a few laws, just don't break them. ~
~ I lost my reputation young, and never missed it. ~
~ She's the kind of girl who climbed the ladder of success, wrong by wrong. ~
GOLD Member
What a Bummer
3,224 posts
Location: Shatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
What a Bummer
3,224 posts
Location: Shatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
There are, but there ARE limits to what nature can give us.
And not everything humans do is going again nature. Many compounds used in medicine come from natural sources, they get refined by my industries, so they are safer than if just taken naturally. You didnt seem to have an answer to my cerebal palsy comment, which isnt just cerebal palsy, ITS MANY OTHER CONDITIONS.
Are you suggesting you take away everything we have developed? What would this achieve?
From what I see, your fairly hypocritical. Your all about going back to basics, but when it comes down to it, EVEN SECOND HAND or FREE items are still from development, something you seem to loathe.
Edit: I feel this conversation has gone a little off topic, and we are moving from animal testing to human development.
SugarcoatedHell, I suggest if wish to continue this specific discussion to move it to the correct thread, or start a new discussion.
EDITED_BY: Asena (1142988755)
There are, but there ARE limits to what nature can give us.
And not everything humans do is going again nature. Many compounds used in medicine come from natural sources, they get refined by my industries, so they are safer than if just taken naturally. You didnt seem to have an answer to my cerebal palsy comment, which isnt just cerebal palsy, ITS MANY OTHER CONDITIONS.
Are you suggesting you take away everything we have developed? What would this achieve?
From what I see, your fairly hypocritical. Your all about going back to basics, but when it comes down to it, EVEN SECOND HAND or FREE items are still from development, something you seem to loathe.
Edit: I feel this conversation has gone a little off topic, and we are moving from animal testing to human development.
SugarcoatedHell, I suggest if wish to continue this specific discussion to move it to the correct thread, or start a new discussion. EDITED_BY: Asena (1142988755)
SILVER Member
Brown
288 posts
Location: Behind You!, United Kingdom
Brown
288 posts
Location: Behind You!, United Kingdom
Posted:
in response to the title of this thread.........yes.
in response to the title of this thread.........yes.
Official Nutella Fan Club
Go Nutella!
member
33 posts
33 posts
Posted:
Ummm I was answering to comments already made. Cerebral Palsy is very sad. So is killing animals. I can't say its ok if the kid dies, but is it ok to harm other creatures for his survival?
And to answer your questions:
I don't think you can judge my lifestyle. I use second hand because the law requres me to wear clothes. i have no choice. I never said to take away what we developed, simply move to a more sustainable way of doing things.
Are you saying what people have done is ok and not bad at all for animals? Or simply that its ok to hurt them for our continued growth?
Ummm I was answering to comments already made. Cerebral Palsy is very sad. So is killing animals. I can't say its ok if the kid dies, but is it ok to harm other creatures for his survival?
And to answer your questions:
I don't think you can judge my lifestyle. I use second hand because the law requres me to wear clothes. i have no choice. I never said to take away what we developed, simply move to a more sustainable way of doing things.
Are you saying what people have done is ok and not bad at all for animals? Or simply that its ok to hurt them for our continued growth?
There are no witholding taxes on the wages of sin.
~ It ain't a sin to crack a few laws, just don't break them. ~
~ I lost my reputation young, and never missed it. ~
~ She's the kind of girl who climbed the ladder of success, wrong by wrong. ~
GOLD Member
What a Bummer
3,224 posts
Location: Shatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
What a Bummer
3,224 posts
Location: Shatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
My opinion is as follows:
To continue from this point, I think i've written either in this convo or the discussion on clinical trials, I do not understand or support testing on animals for cosmetics. I see it as un necessary. I do not support animal cruelty, I get sad seeing images of animals left in poor conditions by people who neglect their pets etc. But in medicine development, I see it as necessary. Maybe its me being of a scientific background, and going into a career where testing will take place.
If one of my family members had a terminal illness, and needed a treatment that was tested on an animals, call me selfish, but my family would take priority over the animal. People may or may not agree with me, but its how I feel.
Sorry if my previous post came across offensive....
My opinion is as follows:
Written by: Me, silly silly me
...I feel, in the case of drug development, it is a necessary step that we need to take. Dont forget, animals also benefit from medicines. Everytime people take their pets to the vets, or animals need to be immunised, they are getting the benefits of the research. Its not just humans who benefit from drugs. I disagree on animal testing for beauty products, as it seems a waste of life just so we can look nicer.
I know animal testing isnt nice, and I suppose the harshest thing is we give the animals the disease or illness so we can test medicine on them to see if it works, but i feel it is for the greater good.
To continue from this point, I think i've written either in this convo or the discussion on clinical trials, I do not understand or support testing on animals for cosmetics. I see it as un necessary. I do not support animal cruelty, I get sad seeing images of animals left in poor conditions by people who neglect their pets etc. But in medicine development, I see it as necessary. Maybe its me being of a scientific background, and going into a career where testing will take place.
If one of my family members had a terminal illness, and needed a treatment that was tested on an animals, call me selfish, but my family would take priority over the animal. People may or may not agree with me, but its how I feel.
Sorry if my previous post came across offensive....
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Gnarf!
nice topic!
Animal testing generally not acceptable for ethical reasons, but unfortunately necessary to some extent. Personally I stay away from any form of medication due to these reasons - unless the horse kicked my a** and I'm halfway dead. From that point on my instinct for survival kicks in.
As for cosmetics: to me that is just 100% WRONG! Next time you reach for an eyeliner, consider (ayurvedic) alternatives first - eyeliners have been around LONG before - there are ways to make an eyeliner from all natural ingredients yourself, if needed and requested I will happily provide a recipe when I'm back home in 2-3 weeks.
Also there are other cosmetics who do not rely on animal testing. Inform yourself and try not to become a hippocrate by cuddling this cat, while it's cousin happens to get tortured in that L'Oreal-lab because of your anti-ageing night creme...
Basically: Stop reading fashion magazines!
Gnarf!
nice topic!Animal testing generally not acceptable for ethical reasons, but unfortunately necessary to some extent. Personally I stay away from any form of medication due to these reasons - unless the horse kicked my a** and I'm halfway dead. From that point on my instinct for survival kicks in.
As for cosmetics: to me that is just 100% WRONG! Next time you reach for an eyeliner, consider (ayurvedic) alternatives first - eyeliners have been around LONG before - there are ways to make an eyeliner from all natural ingredients yourself, if needed and requested I will happily provide a recipe when I'm back home in 2-3 weeks.
Also there are other cosmetics who do not rely on animal testing. Inform yourself and try not to become a hippocrate by cuddling this cat, while it's cousin happens to get tortured in that L'Oreal-lab because of your anti-ageing night creme...
Basically: Stop reading fashion magazines!
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
SILVER Member
old hand
722 posts
Location: United Kingdom
old hand
722 posts
Location: United Kingdom
Posted:
Ok, if you didn't have animal testing, all diabetics would be dead, most kids would die of dieases we now have cures for and there would be new and more deadly diseases than wee have now.
EDITED_BY: Sunbird (1143038276)
Ok, if you didn't have animal testing, all diabetics would be dead, most kids would die of dieases we now have cures for and there would be new and more deadly diseases than wee have now.
EDITED_BY: Sunbird (1143038276)
To you who has been accessing my online accounts, changing my login details, locations and posting 
about me, realise, you are not worth revenge, you are not worth my attention, you are nothing, and that is all you ever will be.
SILVER Member
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Posted:
a little off topic, but I just found this, and it upset me a little, especially as it's so close to home. What do you guys think?
In February 2005, while applying for a judicial review of laboratory practices in the United Kingdom, BUAV told the High Court in London that internal documents from the University of Cambridge's primate-testing labs showed that monkeys had had the tops of their heads sawn off to induce a stroke, and were then left alone after the procedure for 15 hours overnight, with their brains exposed and no veterinary care, because staff only worked from nine to five.
The BUAV judicial challenge followed a 10-month undercover investigation by BUAV into three research programmes at Cambridge in 1998. BUAV's lawyer, David Thomas, told the court: "Cambridge staff work 9-5pm, so animals who had just been brain damaged were left overnight without veterinary attention. Some were found to be dead in the morning, some were found to be in a worse condition. Yet there is an obligation of licence holders to keep suffering to a minimum. The whole system is very secretive and the public does not get to see what is really going on."
The Cambridge experiments involved the use of hundreds of macaque monkeys, who were deliberately brain damaged for pure- and applied-research purposes, in the interests of research into strokes and Parkinson's disease. The macaques were first of all trained to perform behavioral and cognitive tasks. Researchers then caused brain damage either by removing parts of the macaque's brains, or by injecting toxins. After this, the monkeys were re-tested to determine whether the damage had affected their skills. The macaques were deprived of food and water to encourage them to perform the tasks, both before and after the surgery, with water being withheld for 22 out of every 24 hours for the duration of the experiment, with intermittent respite.
The Home Office investigated the BUAV report and the judge hearing BUAV's application for a judical review rejected the allegation that the Home Secretary had been negligent in granting the university a licence.
a little off topic, but I just found this, and it upset me a little, especially as it's so close to home. What do you guys think?
In February 2005, while applying for a judicial review of laboratory practices in the United Kingdom, BUAV told the High Court in London that internal documents from the University of Cambridge's primate-testing labs showed that monkeys had had the tops of their heads sawn off to induce a stroke, and were then left alone after the procedure for 15 hours overnight, with their brains exposed and no veterinary care, because staff only worked from nine to five.
The BUAV judicial challenge followed a 10-month undercover investigation by BUAV into three research programmes at Cambridge in 1998. BUAV's lawyer, David Thomas, told the court: "Cambridge staff work 9-5pm, so animals who had just been brain damaged were left overnight without veterinary attention. Some were found to be dead in the morning, some were found to be in a worse condition. Yet there is an obligation of licence holders to keep suffering to a minimum. The whole system is very secretive and the public does not get to see what is really going on."
The Cambridge experiments involved the use of hundreds of macaque monkeys, who were deliberately brain damaged for pure- and applied-research purposes, in the interests of research into strokes and Parkinson's disease. The macaques were first of all trained to perform behavioral and cognitive tasks. Researchers then caused brain damage either by removing parts of the macaque's brains, or by injecting toxins. After this, the monkeys were re-tested to determine whether the damage had affected their skills. The macaques were deprived of food and water to encourage them to perform the tasks, both before and after the surgery, with water being withheld for 22 out of every 24 hours for the duration of the experiment, with intermittent respite.
The Home Office investigated the BUAV report and the judge hearing BUAV's application for a judical review rejected the allegation that the Home Secretary had been negligent in granting the university a licence.
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
Yes, I read about that on wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing#Allegations_of_abuse
Yes, I read about that on wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing#Allegations_of_abuse
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
veteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
However the Government investigation cleared them and the BUAV declined to give evidence at the hearing - why was that?
And there is a judicial review, a decision is expected this year - the judge only rejected the original grounds the BUAV sought to have it on, but allowed a review on two wider grounds.
However the Government investigation cleared them and the BUAV declined to give evidence at the hearing - why was that?
And there is a judicial review, a decision is expected this year - the judge only rejected the original grounds the BUAV sought to have it on, but allowed a review on two wider grounds.
"Moo," said the happy cow.
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Besides
L'Oreal bought BodyShop recently...
Besides
L'Oreal bought BodyShop recently...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
GOLD Member
addict
434 posts
Location: UK
addict
434 posts
Location: UK
Posted:
I find that very hard to believe for a number of reasons. Not least the fact that the Home Office regulations would not allow the animals to be treated that way. A world class research organisation such as Cambridge uni wouldnt risk its animal licence, it would be far too costly to loose it.
Theres a good FAQ about animal testing on the home office website, Have a read. Some bits are intersting, others might shock you a bit and some might set your mind at ease somewhat. Its pretty frank about the regulations and what is allowed and what not.Also look at the bit about the 3 Rs, this is the long term strategy working to replace animal tests. Google isnt working atm otherwise i'd find it for you (search for Home office animal procedures act 1986 or something similar, you should find it no problem).
Motley
Written by: jo_rhymes
a little off topic, but I just found this, and it upset me a little, especially as it's so close to home. What do you guys think?
In February 2005, while applying for a judicial review of laboratory practices in the United Kingdom, BUAV told the High Court in London that internal documents from the University of Cambridge's primate-testing labs showed that monkeys had had the tops of their heads sawn off to induce a stroke, and were then left alone after the procedure for 15 hours overnight, with their brains exposed and no veterinary care, because staff only worked from nine to five.
The BUAV judicial challenge followed a 10-month undercover investigation by BUAV into three research programmes at Cambridge in 1998. BUAV's lawyer, David Thomas, told the court: "Cambridge staff work 9-5pm, so animals who had just been brain damaged were left overnight without veterinary attention. Some were found to be dead in the morning, some were found to be in a worse condition. Yet there is an obligation of licence holders to keep suffering to a minimum. The whole system is very secretive and the public does not get to see what is really going on."
The Cambridge experiments involved the use of hundreds of macaque monkeys, who were deliberately brain damaged for pure- and applied-research purposes, in the interests of research into strokes and Parkinson's disease. The macaques were first of all trained to perform behavioral and cognitive tasks. Researchers then caused brain damage either by removing parts of the macaque's brains, or by injecting toxins. After this, the monkeys were re-tested to determine whether the damage had affected their skills. The macaques were deprived of food and water to encourage them to perform the tasks, both before and after the surgery, with water being withheld for 22 out of every 24 hours for the duration of the experiment, with intermittent respite.
The Home Office investigated the BUAV report and the judge hearing BUAV's application for a judical review rejected the allegation that the Home Secretary had been negligent in granting the university a licence.
I find that very hard to believe for a number of reasons. Not least the fact that the Home Office regulations would not allow the animals to be treated that way. A world class research organisation such as Cambridge uni wouldnt risk its animal licence, it would be far too costly to loose it.
Theres a good FAQ about animal testing on the home office website, Have a read. Some bits are intersting, others might shock you a bit and some might set your mind at ease somewhat. Its pretty frank about the regulations and what is allowed and what not.Also look at the bit about the 3 Rs, this is the long term strategy working to replace animal tests. Google isnt working atm otherwise i'd find it for you (search for Home office animal procedures act 1986 or something similar, you should find it no problem).
Motley
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
another good one:
https://www.armyths.org/
(a bit biased towards the research, but it's a good read on penicillin, thalidomide etc)
another good one:
https://www.armyths.org/
(a bit biased towards the research, but it's a good read on penicillin, thalidomide etc)
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
Pooh-Bah
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
1,662 posts
Location: Bristol
Posted:
wha???? but l'oreal are part owned by nestle which means ANOTHER shop i can't go to!!! danm them they get everywhere.
Written by: FireTom
Besides
L'Oreal bought BodyShop recently...
wha???? but l'oreal are part owned by nestle which means ANOTHER shop i can't go to!!! danm them they get everywhere.
I had a dream that my friend had a
strong-bad pop up book,
it was the book of my dreams.
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [testing animal * acceptible] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > Is Testing on Animals Acceptible? [305 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com