02-25-2006, 01:08 PM | #1 |
The Thread™ will die.
|
Protests Over Animal Rights
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/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). |
02-25-2006, 01:31 PM | #2 |
Roar?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 665
|
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.
|
02-25-2006, 01:39 PM | #3 |
Banned User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Paltz...for now...
Posts: 6,177
|
Animals don't exist for us to abuse them. I would have been right out there with ya Lacey.
|
02-25-2006, 01:47 PM | #4 | |
The Thread™ will die.
|
Quote:
|
|
02-25-2006, 01:53 PM | #5 | |
Life and times of...
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Up there in the mist
Posts: 6,025
|
Quote:
(Edit): After reading the article, is. And now it lost its charm... |
|
02-25-2006, 01:54 PM | #6 |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,907
|
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.
|
02-25-2006, 02:22 PM | #7 | |
Banned User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Paltz...for now...
Posts: 6,177
|
Quote:
|
|
02-25-2006, 02:23 PM | #8 | |
The Thread™ will die.
|
Quote:
|
|
02-25-2006, 05:12 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,771
|
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. Last edited by jjacob; 02-25-2006 at 09:15 PM. |
02-25-2006, 05:16 PM | #10 |
Citizen of Bizarro World
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Htrae
Posts: 4,219
|
I'm all for animal testing. It's the humane thing to do.
__________________
By no rocket’s blue shade am no shells dead down there, Gave no proof all day long that the flag was unwhere! No say does am spar-strangled shroud hang limply! Under land of no free! Am us home coward-leeee! ~Excerpt from the Bizarro Anthem |
02-25-2006, 05:37 PM | #12 |
Citizen of Bizarro World
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Htrae
Posts: 4,219
|
Sure test toxic soap on people instead.
__________________
By no rocket’s blue shade am no shells dead down there, Gave no proof all day long that the flag was unwhere! No say does am spar-strangled shroud hang limply! Under land of no free! Am us home coward-leeee! ~Excerpt from the Bizarro Anthem |
02-25-2006, 05:57 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,771
|
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 ). If you're interested in viewing a rough version of the English TNO report click here.
|
02-25-2006, 06:02 PM | #14 | |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8,907
|
This is Lush's policy:
Quote:
|
|
02-25-2006, 06:25 PM | #15 |
is not wierd
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,148
|
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. |
02-25-2006, 06:28 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,771
|
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 ). 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.
|
02-25-2006, 06:31 PM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,771
|
Quote:
|
|
02-25-2006, 07:03 PM | #18 | |
is not wierd
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,148
|
Quote:
|
|
02-25-2006, 07:57 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,771
|
Quote:
|
|
02-25-2006, 09:11 PM | #20 | |
Roar?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 665
|
Quote:
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. |
|