Do you support vivisection?

[Nigel Irritable]

I'm not saying it was a sensible thing to do - I'm saying the fur farmers themselves have also done it.

I wouldn't be at all surprised. I just don't see what it has to with anything.

 

[Antrophe]

I once came across this photocopied zine called "Rebellion" or some such thing, no recollection of the tite to be honest. I do however recall the introductio

 

[Antrophe]

I once came across this photocopied zine called "Rebellion" or some such thing, no recollection of the tite to be honest. I do however recall the mission statement of the free sheet, "covering the rebellion within Empire's borders." The first news report then went on to celebrate the "liberation" of seven chcikens from a meat factory somewhere in the UK. The only thing that came to mind was images of seven rather lost looking, shaved chickens with clipped wings squaking around a motorway after being hugged by masked types, whose mates kept flashing cameras at them. Empire must be shitting a brick...

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Just so that we don't need to go over this too often -- here's a poll to see where we all stand.

Why would it be better if it were done in a socialist society?

 

[pk]

For cosmetics or fur, bollocks, it's sick, and anyone who causes animals pain for this purpose deserves all they get from the militant types.
Apart from digging up deseased relatives, that is.

To assist the medical world understand human disease and treatment thereof - absolutely.

Cut 100,000 guinea pigs up - if it saves the life of one child it's worth it.

 

[_pH_]

I read somewhere that they rescued 300 guiea pigs a few years, though it doesn't say what they did with them Any one got any ideas?

We gave a home to 5 albino guinea pigs in 1999 that may have come from Newchurch - I am not 100% certain because no questions were asked. All had a long and (I hope) comfortable life; the eldest died 3 weeks ago.

 

[_pH_]

I'm not saying it was a sensible thing to do - I'm saying the fur farmers themselves have also done it.

From the League Against Cruel Sports website:

American Mink (as their name suggests) are not native to Britain but were brought here from North America in 1929 to be farmed commercially for their fur. There have probably been escapee mink in the wild since that time, but the problem was increased following WWII when the industry went into decline and farmers released their animals into the surrounding countryside. Mink were first reported to be breeding wild in Britain in 1956 on the River Teign in Devon - exactly the time that otters were being hit by the multiple effects of pollution from organochlorines, hunting, and loss of river habitat.

Interestingly, mink numbers have seriously declined now that otters are making a comeback.

 

[parallelepipete]

As a scientists parallelepipete, and (looks at profile) as a molecular biologist what is your stance on how far away we are from finding any alternatives? The ones that are being investigated now are, in my opinion, very far away from representing anything like a realistic animal/human model. Even if a terrific amount of money was to be invested I still think the chances of having a realistic alternative is well into the distant future.

That is the trouble with biology, it is so damn good at what it inherently does and many things artificial do not come even close.

Sorry Techno, didn't check this thread for a couple of days. It's a very good question, as the politician said to the Paxman...

Being slightly flippant, I was voting specifically on the question asked (do you support vivisection? - which I don't), and as tobyjug pointed out, vivisection is only a part of animal experimentation.

As for animal experimentation generally, I realise that at the moment many of the alternatives are not sufficiently well validated to match current criteria for awarding a product licence for a new drug. And of course, modern in vivo toxicology obtains far more useful data from far fewer animals than did old-fashioned tests such as the LD50.

However, IMO it's also because there's not enough of a push to move to in vitro tests (e.g. using cultured hepatocytes to simulate hepatic metabolism and toxicity) and computational methods (such as quantitative structure-activity relationship analysis).

 

[Gavin Bl]

For cosmetics or fur, bollocks, it's sick, and anyone who causes animals pain for this purpose deserves all they get from the militant types.

But if alot of people want new cosmetics, and they need to be proven to be safe - then whats the alternative?

 

[soulrebel]

If people really, really want new cosmetics (i don't use cosmetics at all, and am unlikely to fancy anyone that does) then they can test them on themselves.

As for medical stuff, while i'm no believer in "animal rights" (stated as the rights of individual animals... of species/ecosystems, maybe), i'm against animal testing simply because animals are not humans. Thalidomide was entirely safe on guinea pigs, producing no deaths, disabilities or genetic alterations at all. Then it was pronounced safe for humans and an epidemic of miscarriages and children born without limbs happened. The only species *anything* should be tested on is the species it's intended for use on...

 

[Techno303]

Thalidomide was entirely safe on guinea pigs, producing no deaths, disabilities or genetic alterations at all. Then it was pronounced safe for humans and an epidemic of miscarriages and children born without limbs happened. The only species *anything* should be tested on is the species it's intended for use on...

With all due respect this is completely wrong. Thalidomide got through the safety net because HOW the tests were performed was incorrect. I would post more details on this but frankly I’m bored of doing this every time this incorrect blanket statement on the thalidomide tragedy comes up.

 

[Gavin Bl]

If people really, really want new cosmetics (i don't use cosmetics at all, and am unlikely to fancy anyone that does) then they can test them on themselves

Its a satisfying bit of rhetoric, no doubt - but doesn't really help much does it? What about any new material for more or less any purpose? We test it on ourselves? How does it wider use become acceptable - or does every single person have to test it on themselves?

Sounds pretty mad to me, particularly given that we buy rather than make 99% of the stuff we use. We rely on someone else to make it first. How can they tell its safe to use?

 

[Pilgrim]

With all due respect this is completely wrong. Thalidomide got through the safety net because HOW the tests were performed was incorrect. I would post more details on this but frankly I’m bored of doing this every time this incorrect blanket statement on the thalidomide tragedy comes up.

The point about drugs intended for humans having an entirely different effect on other species does stand though.

For instance, any vet will tell you that you must never, under any circumstances, give opiates (opium, morphine, heroin etc) to cats, be they domestic or wild. While opiates produce painkilling and narcosis in humans, they have a nasty tendency to drive cats insane.

Similarly, human use of ketamine or phencyclidine (animal tranquilisers commonly used by vets) produces a totally different effect on humans.

As far as the use of animal experimentation goes, I am against it unless there is absolutely no other way to get the job done. If it has to be done for medical research, then its a necessary evil. For cosmetics it is utterly indefensible.

 

[baldrick]

Thalidomide was entirely safe on guinea pigs, producing no deaths, disabilities or genetic alterations at all. Then it was pronounced safe for humans and an epidemic of miscarriages and children born without limbs happened.

techno303 doesn't want to explain, so i'll try - there's two isomers of thalidomide (two molecules, mirror images of each other), one causes birth defects, the other doesn't. this was missed in the original testing process (possibly only one was tested? can't remember). Thalidomide is now used safely as an anti-morning sickness drug in many countries.

pilgrim - medical testing doesn't use cats , it uses guinea pigs for reasons of physiology. ketamine is also used legitimately on humans - as an anaethestic for children and in cases of severe trauma. i get your point, but...

fwiw, i agree with vivisection, though alternatives should be used wherever possible. animal testing of cosmetics/household products etc isn't vivisection and i cannot believe that anyone these days would think it's ok. would they?

 

[Techno303]

The point about drugs intended for humans having an entirely different effect on other species does stand though.

For instance, any vet will tell you that you must never, under any circumstances, give opiates (opium, morphine, heroin etc) to cats, be they domestic or wild. While opiates produce painkilling and narcosis in humans, they have a nasty tendency to drive cats insane.

Similarly, human use of ketamine or phencyclidine (animal tranquilisers commonly used by vets) produces a totally different effect on humans.

As far as the use of animal experimentation goes, I am against it unless there is absolutely no other way to get the job done. If it has to be done for medical research, then its a necessary evil. For cosmetics it is utterly indefensible.

Yes, some drugs don’t have the same mode of action or have subtly different pharmacological properties between species to species. However, if you are meaning all drugs then you are quite wrong.

pilgrim - medical testing doesn't use cats , it uses guinea pigs for reasons of physiology. ketamine is also used legitimately on humans - as an anaethestic for children and in cases of severe trauma. i get your point, but...

fwiw, i agree with vivisection, though alternatives should be used wherever possible. animal testing of cosmetics/household products etc isn't vivisection and i cannot believe that anyone these days would think it's ok. would they?

Baldrick, cats are used in medical research, maybe not in toxicity testing of drugs, but they are used. For example in your brain you have (I’m gonna simplify slightly) two types of cells, your neurons and glia cells. The glia act as support cells to the main neurons to provide energy and mediate other signalling pathways. The ratio of glia to neurons is at its highest in humans, followed by primates and then down through the mammalian chain. So if you need to study neuronal/glia interactions then you are better off doing so in a cat then a guinea pig.

 

[Pilgrim]

Yes, some drugs don’t have the same mode of action or have subtly different pharmacological properties between species to species. However, if you are meaning all drugs then you are quite wrong.

I certainly wouldn't say it is true of all drugs, after all, I am not a vet or chemist. But the point of drugs affecting different species in different ways does stand. If the cats/opiates problem is replicated in other areas, then surely some of the drugs so tested must be looked at again, and as far as I know, the opiates/cats problem is by no means the only example. I'll try and dig up some others if I can find the time.