Protests Over Animal Rights
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/o...re/4750516.stm

Without wanting to start a flame-war, I'm wondering what people think about this.

I was tempted for a minute or two to join these people (the Pro-Test group, not SPEAK).

I think testing on animals is necessary sometimes, but in Canada I know that we need our regulatory bodies beefed up a bit to ensure that all rules are closely being followed when animals are used for experiments. I think that Canada needs more regulations when it comes to lower animals like fish and invertebrates. I also think more should be done to ensure that companies whose products were import are following satisfactory animal testing guidelines.

Animals don't exist for us to abuse them. I would have been right out there with ya Lacey.

Ah, but the Pro-Test group is in favour of building the lab.

What a pun that looks like, or could be...

(Edit): After reading the article, is. And now it lost its charm...

It would be very difficult to completely eliminate using animals for experimentation. Many things can be modeled but not everything. They have been going towards trying to eliminate experimental compounds early in the safety testing phase using metabonomics. A small number of animals is used (<10) to see if there are any toxic effects. If so, the compound is typically removed from testing before wasting time on a large safety study. With some of the eye irritant testing, they have gone to using cell cultures. I don't agree with the methodology of animal rightists but it's important to think about your use of animals. They have certainly changed the way things are done (and sometimes for the better). I just wish some of those groups didn't use violent and harrassing methods to get their message across. It's hypocritical.

Oh, I thought you were talking about a counter protest.

Well, Pro-Test's protest is a response to the increasingly threatening nature of many of the animal rights protestors...

I know animal testing is a necessary evil for many new (sometimes important) drugs and treatments, but at the same time I think companies and colleges can go way too far with it. There are reports monthly about unnecessary animal cruelty in labs (as in, neglecting the animals after they've outlived their use, or setting them free to die a slow and miserable death). Plus I think there ought to be strict laws about this sort of thing, preventing cosmetics companies to make use of animals for testing their products (coincedentally, that's also where the majority of the unnecessary cruelty is reported to take place), as there are perfect alternatives to animals for testing something unessential as cosmetics.

But at the same time I can understand your point of view Lacey - animal rights activists can go way too far as well (Pim Fortuyn, one of the first political murders in decades in the Netherlands, got killed by an activist because he intended to transform the bio-industry by building skyscrapers for keeping and slaughtering pigs, making it more 'efficient'). Breaking into labs and setting the animals free can do more harm than good, as the animals will die anyway (perhaps less humanely) and the company/lab will just get more guinea-pigs to finish the job. Too bad though, that for every piece of preventative legislation, a company moves their labs to a country that doesn't have clear legislation yet. I think it'll be quite some time before unnecessary (or cruel) animal testing will be a thing of the past, sadly.

I'm all for animal testing. It's the humane thing to do. :P

You can always shop at Lush. :)

No animal testing and any ingredients they buy they don't buy from people who test on animals.

Sure test toxic soap on people instead. :shifty:

Actually Greenpeace released a really handy flyer containing the names of products that were not tested on animals or contained toxic residue, surprisingly many mainstream (and many French) brands were labeled as containing toxins and having been tested on animals (I guess the animal testing taught them the toxins were harmless :shifty: ). If you're interested in viewing a rough version of the English TNO report click here.

This is Lush's policy:

Yes they do test on people but people can willingly make the choice to do it in this instance. When you sign up for a Phase I clinical trial (after a compound has made it through initial safety studies) - it is a test to check for initial human safety of the compound on healthy people. These people also willingly do this. It's better now I think than what it was primarily because the consent forms have gotten more thorough (I think a long time ago they weren't as thorough) and people have a much, much better idea of what they are getting into.

I agree with most of you. I hate the thought of animals being used for testing--it just seems so unnatural to keep them in those conditions when it's not a part of theyre usual life cycle. The fact that they can be killed in such testing only makes it worse. But I think some animal rights groups are just too extreme to the point where they are no longer taken seriously (I'm thinking of the labs set afire and data destroyed that I heard about a few months ago). I mean, I'm sure there must be more diplomatic methods to stopping animal testing such as finding new ways to test without animals or simply strengthening laws/inspections.

I saw this one movie called Plague Dogs (highly recommended, along with brother Watership Down) that, however extreme and fictitious, really made me hate animal testing labs (the author of the book it was based off said that the conditions he described were not that far off from reality, I heard though). Do a little bit of reading about it and you'll see what I mean. Anyways, that was a creative, nonviolent protest that definitely had more influence on my opinion than any extreme protests.

Exactly, at least humans have the choice to participate in these tests, animals don't. And if that pays someone a couple thousand dollars, fine, easy money, and it's not like they'll die from the tests (perhaps get a rash :P). In the end it's up to the consumer to boycott companies that carry out animal tests - there's not going to be much change without the consumer becoming more aware of this, unfortunately protests have very little influence.

Is that the movie where they walk into the sea at the end? Oh man, I saw that when I was like ten or something, and I cried like a little baby for hours (well, atleast an hour) :\ Did the same for me.

That's the one. I don't think I cried but it did sadden me for a while. Makes you realize how much we affect the natural world. For the negative, I mean. Apparently the book had a happy ending though.

Then you're braver than me :P That last scene stayed with me forever, even now I can recall it very graphically. In retrospect, it really isn't a kids' movie, though it's good to watch especially at an impressionable age. Oddly enough though, that was about the age (10) when I started eating meat (been a veggie up until then), but I guess I didn't make the connection, 'cause really, if you think about how the average piece of meat is 'made', it's pretty much the same principle (animal cruelty). But that's another discussion entirely.

There are supposed to be regulatory bodies that watch over that sort of thing, but they're often lax. It's the same with testing on human subjects. If you want your blood to run cold read up on ethics and human testing and research ethics boards.

I think pet stores need to be regulated, too. That's where a lot of animal cruelty (usually though neglect) takes place and people either don't notice or don't care. Hundreds of fish crammed into a tiny aquarium, puppies sitting in their own waste, kittens with their jaws caught in their collars, birds so cold they're unresponsive...it infuriates me. I think people should need to apply for a license before they can own or sell a pet. Hmph. I don't care if it's a goldfish, you treat animals with respect.