The ethics of animal testing.

[hadespussercats]

Why the hell NOT test on humans? At least humans can consent (Marie FUCKING Curie bitches!) to testing.

What kind of world would this be if we only exploited non-human animals?

True.

But yeah, I'm speciesist-- I'd save the human child over the dog (unless I knew something about the human child to make me inclined not to save her-- but that's not part of the thought experiment as it stands.)

And I say this as someone who doesn't eat meat-- so Pappa and I cross paths in a funny way. But then, as my old boss used to say, I'm not one of those "Oh the fluffy bunny" vegetarians (though I can be cute-ist, too, and smart-ist, and all sorts of unfairnesses.)

But I will say with little compunction that I think testing on animals should be done rarely, and never just to produce cosmetic products (unless by "cosmetic" you're talking about burn victims, and not mascara.)

blah blah blaaahhh....

[Warren Dew]

I'd still take it if it hadn't been tested on animals.

That's irrelevant, though, because those particular drugs wouldn't be the ones available were it not for animal testing.

The question is, would you take the drugs that were eliminated only because of animal testing - you know, those that cause side effects leading to illness or death.

[Pappa]

I'd still take it if it hadn't been tested on animals.

That's irrelevant, though, because those particular drugs wouldn't be the ones available were it not for animal testing.

The question is, would you take the drugs that were eliminated only because of animal testing - you know, those that cause side effects leading to illness or death.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I would accept the consequences of no animal testing. This wouldn't mean using untested drugs, but a far more protracted testing process, resulting in new drugs being made available more slowly and the possibility of a few more drugs with harmful side effects slipping through the net than is currently the case.

[Warren Dew]

And I don't know what to say, other than the woodgie answer that it makes me uncomfortable, but less uncomfortable than testing on humans, or just resigning ourselves to not developing new treatments, because they're dangerous when they aren't thoroughly tested...

I'd actually prefer to see more testing done on humans. I'm not saying we should go so far as to test on humans that are coerced into being subjects, like U.S. conscientious objectors were in WWII, but rather on fully consenting humans where that's currently not allowed.

For example, there was a cancer treatment that showed some success against a particlar type of cancer a few months ago - I don't now remember the details of the treatment or the cancer type. I do remember, though, that they had very few subjects - only about half a dozen, as I recall. This was because the only subjects they could use were people who had exhausted all other cancer treatments, and were already very near dying, partly from the cancer and partly from side effects of the standard treatments.

Allowing people to choose to test new remedies like this in place of standard treatments - rather than only after the standard treatments had already failed - would allow more new treatments to be tested, in tests that were more conclusive, and ultimately make better treatments available more quickly.

[hadespussercats]

And I don't know what to say, other than the woodgie answer that it makes me uncomfortable, but less uncomfortable than testing on humans, or just resigning ourselves to not developing new treatments, because they're dangerous when they aren't thoroughly tested...

I'd actually prefer to see more testing done on humans. I'm not saying we should go so far as to test on humans that are coerced into being subjects, like U.S. conscientious objectors were in WWII, but rather on fully consenting humans where that's currently not allowed.

For example, there was a cancer treatment that showed some success against a particlar type of cancer a few months ago - I don't now remember the details of the treatment or the cancer type. I do remember, though, that they had very few subjects - only about half a dozen, as I recall. This was because the only subjects they could use were people who had exhausted all other cancer treatments, and were already very near dying, partly from the cancer and partly from side effects of the standard treatments.

Allowing people to choose to test new remedies like this in place of standard treatments - rather than only after the standard treatments had already failed - would allow more new treatments to be tested, in tests that were more conclusive, and ultimately make better treatments available more quickly.

My sense is that the reason this approach isn't more popular is that people with cancer or other possibly terminal illnesses might be so desperate for hope that they'll take on risky procedures out of that desperation-- so offering drug trials and such to them is seen as doctors benefiting from emotional blackmail.

I have issues with this, because even sick people should have the autonomy to choose risky treatments if they want. But I can see the potential for abuse...

[Warren Dew]

My sense is that the reason this approach isn't more popular is that people with cancer or other possibly terminal illnesses might be so desperate for hope that they'll take on risky procedures out of that desperation-- so offering drug trials and such to them is seen as doctors benefiting from emotional blackmail.

I agree with you that's how it's seen. I also agree with you that it's inconsistent with full respect for patient autonomy. I mean, we let them refuse all treatment; why shouldn't we allow them to accept unproven treatment?

There is potential for abuse, but it strikes me that can be solved by disclosure rules - require them to be informed what the standard treatment is and that it's an option, and make sure they know the test treatment might not work or might make them worse.

[Mr.Samsa]

When is it acceptable to test on animals?

Should all new products that come in contact with humans be tested on animals to screen for carcinogens, allergens, etc.?

In my opinion, no. Only products with significant effects on the well-being of humans and animals should be tested on animals. In other words, things like cosmetic items should only be tested on consenting humans, regardless of the possibilities of carcinogens or allergens, etc.

The survival and health of living organisms makes animal testing a necessary evil, but testing on animals for luxury items seems fucked up to me.

Should animal testing only be used to test new drugs?

As far as I know, they are, aren't they?

Should there be restrictions on the types of animals used in testing, even if this limits the usefulness of results?

I see no reason why. The only restrictions should be those that rule out poor analogues. There is no real difference between testing on rats or chimpanzees, and most of the arguments in favour of testing on non-apes is purely emotional anthropomorphism.

If the criteria for choosing animals suitable for testing is based around sentience and the ability to feel pain or suffering, could animals be replaced with people in a permanent vegetative state, people who are brain dead but kept "alive" to be test subjects, or cloned humans genetically modified to never be conscious?

The permanent vegetative state subjects are possibilities, but I imagine they'd be far too rare to cover a significant portion of experimental needs. And I don't think it's logically possible to create a non-conscious human that can respond to stimuli.

If animal testing is acceptable in some or all circumstances, what is the rationale for ranking a human's life/health/beauty above that of an animal?

Apart from the obvious (that we're part of a human society), the main one is simply pragmatism. Humans are notoriously terrible subjects and I'm not sure it would even be possible to run the large scale first phase trials that are necessary using only humans. I imagine the results from such an experimental paradigm would result in a large number of mistakes getting through the testing process, and many people suffering or dying from unknown negative side effects.

Just if anyone is interested, I've worked in animal labs so (in science at least) I know that it is already difficult to get consent to run even the most non-invasive of experiments using animals, so the vast majority of experiments in this area considered to be hugely important and it's near-impossible for any frivolous research to get through. Anything that could conceivably be done using consenting humans is enforced, with animal testing being denied in these cases.

Also, in all respectable testing labs (i.e. those that follow national and international laws), the animals are extremely well looked after - even accounting for the negative effects of some experiments. This means that animals used in testing are usually well-fed and given the best medical care available, which means that these animals are healthier (and generally happier) than any wild animal, and probably most pets as well. Most researchers in these labs also care a lot about their subjects, with the vets getting called in for any minor issue like skin discolouration, lumps, bruises, scratches, etc. And even if they are evil "Cruella Deville"-like researchers, keeping their animals healthy and happy is simply best practice scientifically, in that such an approach limits confounding variables and strengthens their research.

[Cunt]

It should be noted that animal testing is decreasing anyway due to modern methods. It sometimes looks like some of these animal rights people, especially the lunatic fringes, think that scientists test on animals for fun but the reality is it's scientists who are doing the most to lessen animal suffering by developing humane approaches while activists go out and protest which is akin to doing nothing (or praying) and go home feeling smug and happy believing they have furthered their 'cause'.
And I wouldn't worry about hypocrisy. PETA is rife with it. Even the silly cow who runs it uses insulin tested on animals. Her excuse - "I need my life to fight for the rights of animals. " LOL!

Along a similar line, Temple Grandin has done more to reduce the suffering of animals than just about anything your average animal rights activist could do.

[Cunt]

In my opinion, no. Only products with significant effects on the well-being of humans and animals should be tested on animals. In other words, things like cosmetic items should only be tested on consenting humans, regardless of the possibilities of carcinogens or allergens, etc.

I will ask you what I asked my daughter - what about dog shampoo?

[Mr.Samsa]

In my opinion, no. Only products with significant effects on the well-being of humans and animals should be tested on animals. In other words, things like cosmetic items should only be tested on consenting humans, regardless of the possibilities of carcinogens or allergens, etc.

I will ask you what I asked my daughter - what about dog shampoo?

Just regular shampoo, or like flea shampoo etc?

If the former, I'm not sure what benefits there are for dogs - probably reduces problems with itchy skin and perhaps rashes? I'd count that as a significant effect on the well-being of animals. If it was simply so that the dog would smell nice and look prettier, then I wouldn't count that as a significant benefit.

[Cunt]

Mr.Samsa, I meant a dog shampoo to make the dog more appealing to it's carers. (remember that ADHD medications can have a placebo effect on the caregivers of ADHD-diagnosed children lol). Basically, I think either could have a 'significant benefit to a pet dog.

But I was talking about any kind. If it is to be marketed to pet owners to use on their dogs, then in my opinion, it should be tested on dogs first. Go ahead and test on humans before that if you wish.

I think animal testing should be allowed for anything, but the actions of the testers should be open to the scrutiny of their community. (though I admit which community is a tough question)

I have never met any scientist who abused their test subjects. General cases are pretty useless. When considering each individual case, I could give a much more clear answer about my thoughts.

When I was younger, a friend got involved with ALF. They targeted her as a teen, then asked her to participate in a crime. They did not tell her just what was happening, nor did they prep her for being 'interviewed' by the police. The cops got her to talk, and now the group has a hate-page on the internet with her name on it. Fucking cowards recruit high-school girls, then get surprised when they don't automatically act like hardened criminals.

They destroyed a lab and 'rescued' a bunch of animals. I think they vandalized, robbed and terrorized an innocent group.

The same group burned down some fish-delivery trucks. I think they should have gone to the wharf and chatted to the fishermen instead. Might have had a better effect.

[Gallstones]

There's a thought experiment that goes something like this: If you had a choice to save a random human child or a dog, say from falling off a cliff, which would you choose?
Most people say human child.
What about ten dogs vs one human? Twenty ...etc? How many dogs does it take to be worth one human child?

Depending on how you answer this should give you a general idea of your view on animal testing.

My answer would be no amount of dogs is worth a child. If it came against every dog on the planet vs one child I would happily let the canines plummet into a ravine effectively wiping out the species and not even care about all the angry letters and death threats I recieve from dog lovers and terrorists like ALF. I would've saved a child.
Animal testing is fair game.

I love dogs.
I'd have to let them both drop.
Maybe follow after.

[Gallstones]

Ultimately, all drugs intended for humans are tested on humans.
Unlike rats and dogs and chimpanzees who have everything controlled during the testing--food, environment, etc--humans in trials are released back into their environment to engage in whatever they do, ingest whatever they do and contact whatever they do. That introduces variables that could never be accounted for should unexpected results result.

So, if we are to test on humans--and we should and do--they should be sequestered for the duration of the testing period and fed lab block just like the rats.

[Mr.Samsa]

Mr.Samsa, I meant a dog shampoo to make the dog more appealing to it's carers. (remember that ADHD medications can have a placebo effect on the caregivers of ADHD-diagnosed children lol). Basically, I think either could have a 'significant benefit to a pet dog.

I'm not sure if a possible placebo effect on owners would be considered a significant benefit. That's just my opinion though, I just don't think animals should be tested on for cosmetic purposes. If dog owners want to make their pooches pretty, then test the shampoo on humans and have a warning on the bottle saying that it has not been tested on dogs so owners should use at their own risk.

But I was talking about any kind. If it is to be marketed to pet owners to use on their dogs, then in my opinion, it should be tested on dogs first. Go ahead and test on humans before that if you wish.

Shampoo for health concerns should be tested on dogs at some point, I agree with that.

I think animal testing should be allowed for anything, but the actions of the testers should be open to the scrutiny of their community. (though I admit which community is a tough question)

Indeed - and they are, aren't they? The amount of rings that animal researchers have to jump through, and the number of routine and random checks which are done by internal and external animal health experts would surely count as having the testers open to the scrutiny of their community. In the labs I've worked in, we had to make a physical record of who interact with the subjects each day, and exactly what you did (and any concerns about the experiment or health of the animals). If a random check is done and someone has forgotten to write down what they did on one single day, then the entire lab can be shut down and those involved are prevented from performing any animal research for up to a couple of years.

I have never met any scientist who abused their test subjects. General cases are pretty useless. When considering each individual case, I could give a much more clear answer about my thoughts.

Yeah I've heard some horror stories from maltreatment of researchers overseas, but these are mostly the result of no legal support for animals in those countries.

When I was younger, a friend got involved with ALF. They targeted her as a teen, then asked her to participate in a crime. They did not tell her just what was happening, nor did they prep her for being 'interviewed' by the police. The cops got her to talk, and now the group has a hate-page on the internet with her name on it. Fucking cowards recruit high-school girls, then get surprised when they don't automatically act like hardened criminals.

They destroyed a lab and 'rescued' a bunch of animals. I think they vandalized, robbed and terrorized an innocent group.

The same group burned down some fish-delivery trucks. I think they should have gone to the wharf and chatted to the fishermen instead. Might have had a better effect.

Yeah, groups like ALF and PETA do more to damage the humane treatment of animals than they do to help.

[Warren Dew]

If the criteria for choosing animals suitable for testing is based around sentience and the ability to feel pain or suffering, could animals be replaced with people in a permanent vegetative state, people who are brain dead but kept "alive" to be test subjects, or cloned humans genetically modified to never be conscious?

The permanent vegetative state subjects are possibilities, but I imagine they'd be far too rare to cover a significant portion of experimental needs.

Turns out people in a vegetative state can actually sense stimuli; they just can't respond to it:

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/11/1 ... ive-state/