How Do You Guys Feel About Animal Experimentation

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
It makes me unhappy, but I feel is a necessity. We have come a long way since that video. My own work does not use animal models, but we had to discuss it as part of our project design practicum when I was in graduate school.

The original video that Sumo is referring to most likely was taken during the 60's, based on the color palette, hair/clothes styles of the scientists, the grainy quality of the film, etc. It's due to the widespread outcry against vivisection that we have the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 -- federal law already seeks to minimize the degree of suffering endured by animals for the purposes of research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers (you'll notice the obvious lack of reference to the food industry there). ANY lab with public oversight (university, state, federal; I cannot speak to what occurs behind the corporate veil that protects private companies outside of inspectors' visits) must specify the species and number of animals used for research on a per project/experiment level, and demonstrate that they have designed it in such a way that are using the minimal number of animals. What experiment will be done is already defined for each animal purchased and housed in research facilities; scientists spend a lot of time with statisticians calculating the absolute minimum number of animals needed to answer their specific question -- not only is the suffering taken into account, but the cost as well -- $250 /per/ mouse, just for a start!!! The quality of life for the animals ALSO affects the outcome of the experiment. Not only is it law that there must be certain space, bedding, food, water, and yes, even enrichment (play) for the animals, but the law has been in place long enough that the labs have noticed they get more reliable results from animals that aren't stressed out! Additionally, the TYPE of animal chosen for the experiment must be appropriate. There are a much wider variety of line-bred model organisms that are currently available -- ie, roundworms, zebrafish -- that can be used to answer basic scientific questions, which removes the need to experiment on what we consider more highly developed (expensive and more ethically objectionable) vertebrates such as primates, dogs, horses, etc. What I am getting at is that from the perspective of (most) scientific agencies and co-workers, the law is a MINIMALLY acceptable baseline to treat their animals. Scientists have a vested interest in the quality of their results, and saving money, by adhering to this law and even going above what it requires.

The throat-slitting comment is a little strange to me. Once an animal is clearly not feeling well, it is separated from the others and monitored closely. Then, once it is clear that is will die, most (rodents) will be euthanized either by gassing or injection. Here is an example of a public policy from a university: http://www.bu.edu/orccommittees/iacuc/policies-and-guidelines/tumor-policy-for-mice-and-rats/ And a list of how certain types of animals are euthanized. You will notice that unless it is done as specified, the scientists MUST provide a justification for their work to be accepted for publication or continued funding: http://dar.research.illinois.edu/content/AcceptableMethodsOfEuthanasia.aspx

As for the suggestion to use prisoners, please let me put that one to rest right now -- and I am not even talking from an ethical perspective. From a scientific perspective, you want as little variability as possible in your populations, which is why using humans, particularly ones who have a documented disregard for rules, is a /terrible/ idea -- it muddies up your results. It's also why fancy line-bred mice are so popular, it reduces the genetic variability as well. But, back to that extra variable of human behavior -- anyone enrolled in a clinical trial has to answer this tremendously detailed questionnaire about their health, habits, etc. and then pinky swear up and down on their life that they will NOT do certain behaviors, and NOT lie, and follow instructions, etc. etc. to ensure that the results are as trustworthy as possible. Beatings, rape, IV drug use, etc. introduce additional stresses that may interfere with the timing of drug doses, and alter the outcome of whatever experiment you have proposed. It's really just not a good idea, your data will stink.

We have been given dominion over animals; it is our duty to be good stewards.
 
Hello; People can and do volunteer for medical drug testing and such. A line is crossed when such testing is forced on a person without their consent, even prisoners. But this conversation strays from the initial question of the OP.

We human “animals” have by our advantage of cleverness subjected other animals to a variety of harmful practices. The use of subject animals for food production and medical testing being perhaps the easiest to justify.

At one time I had some reservations about the use of animal testing for the cosmetic industry. I can see how it is preferable to blind a rabbit with a new cosmetic compound rather than a human. It is still harder, in my mind, to justify such a harmful practice for the mere sake of looking good.

Medical research for serious diseases is a different thing to me. It is just as potentially harmful to the animal and without a doubt cruel in many cases. The potential for life saving results swings the balance for me. I will not protest such research.

Here is a possible test each of us might use to gauge our true feeling on “animal“ testing. If the testing is worth doing then should it be done on animals we like such as dogs and cats?? I recall from anatomy classes that included among the animals we dissected were cats. Just a thought.
.
 
if you don't mind me asking, you separate us from what you consider animals because of our superior intellectual? correct me if i'm wrong

Of course. Yes we are labelled as animals but I don't think we should be. Let's compare us to some animals. Can a Dog build a house made of wood and plaster? Can a cat make clothes to wear and keep warm? Can a Lion make computers and smart phones? Can a Monkey make a nuclear bomb? Can an Elephant see an upcoming meteor about to hit the Earth?

I'm sorry but we should be in our own class.
 
One last question - why is killing animals acceptable and totally ok and why is killing human criminal act?

When you see gorilla without hands and feet for trophies, sharks without fins for luxury soup , dolphin slaughter just to become "man", rhinos without horns, vivisection on animals for cosmetics, skining alive animal for finest fur.. it makes me support all terorrists who want to destroy human kind..we all (including me) are cancer and ready to meteor impact that will wipe us out..

Fact is that monkey shouldnt evolve to this point as it did..
Put city human back in nature - they wont last a month..put a domestic cat in forest - different story..
Or even better - to see what animal human is, shut down electricity for a week..you are right - you cant compare us to animals - we are far worse


Sorry for offtopic but it is still connected some way to the question asked..





Sent from my GT-I9100 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
 
Acceptable is /not/ the same as totally OK, which is why legislation aimed to reduce the frequency and degree of animal suffering like the Animal Welfare Act exists! We CAN do better, and have for medical research, so I appreciate that you reserved most of your anger for non-essential animal exploitation. The highly romanticized all or nothing stance to destroy all humans though, instead of expecting (and more importantly, striving for) incremental changes for the better does not accomplish much. Are there locally-represented, respectable, animal advocacy organizations you can join to help?
 
Heatherbeast unfortunately there isnt.. sorry I was little bit carried away :) i just wanted to say that human is playing god, but take away basic thing from them and they will soon extinct (well people who are living with nature will survive) while other animals will happily live on :) we are smart but very dumb at the same time :)

Sent from my GT-I9100 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
 
Heatherbeast unfortunately there isnt.. sorry I was little bit carried away :) i just wanted to say that human is playing god, but take away basic thing from them and they will soon extinct (well people who are living with nature will survive) while other animals will happily live on :) we are smart but very dumb at the same time :)

Sent from my GT-I9100 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App

Hello; Just to further drift this conversation away from the initial topic. I disagree that all humans will die off if we somehow lose all our modern crutches. My take is there are of groups of people living a basically primitive lifestyle with little in the way of modern conviences. I suspect that many of such people would not much notice the absence of electricity, plumbed water and all. There will not be too many of them that are tough enough, but some will likely survive.

My take is that a monkey, dog, cat, pig or mouse living free does not give a single thought to the plight of their cousins being experimented on in a lab. I doubt they are in any way aware at any rate. Do our pampered pets actually care or get upset if when riding around with us in a car, they see a dog chained to a tree? Reduced to a gene survival level, it may well be that our "in-humane" treatment of non human species for food and in experimental labs is a positive Darwinian practice.

I do agree with the contentions that we humans are at the same time very clever in the gadgets we can make and very dumb in the way we mess with the environment necessary to sustain us. Guys like myself with few basic survival skills will not endure long if a sudden disruption of my community support system happens. I fear, however, that our environmental demise will be take a very long time and be a very unplesant grinding away of our quality of life. Back some 40 years ago I determined that my best choice was to avoid bringing any extra humans into the mess as it existed then. Things are turning out to be a bad as I feared back then. If this thread were about the threat we humans pose to our environment, I would ramble on. I will close with the thought that what we do to lab animals is small potatoes to our impact to those in the "wild."
 
I just read though this whole thread and a lot of great points are made... I am going to answer the question in the parameters of the content first. I have no issue with animal experimentation as long as it is regulated and done as humanely as possible... the advances that come from it are to important to not have happened.

That being said I find it hilarious that this topic came up on an aquarium forum and there are people strongly against it... as we all as aquarists are experimenting on animals every day... from simple stuff like what can be kept together or what food is best for the fish... to more advanced like hybridization etc...

Now before the counter argument comes up that you try to give you fish the most realistic biotope possible and do all the research first.. None of this would have been possible without the people before us experimenting on freshly imported animals and how best to keep them.
 
Of course. Yes we are labelled as animals but I don't think we should be. Let's compare us to some animals. Can a Dog build a house made of wood and plaster? Can a cat make clothes to wear and keep warm? Can a Lion make computers and smart phones? Can a Monkey make a nuclear bomb? Can an Elephant see an upcoming meteor about to hit the Earth?

I'm sorry but we should be in our own class.

we are in our own class. we are in the same kingdom but all that means is that we have complex systems and have a backbone. we are separated in the subdivisions after that in the classification chart with only the exception of monkeys and apes. and we separate from apes at genus and species subdivisions if i'm not mistaken.

my point is, it's okay for human beings to be called "animals" in a scientific manner.
 
MonsterFishKeepers.com