Animal Testing

[Ifreann]

Lab animals aren't just snatched up from the wild and pumped full of drugs. They're bred for purpose and their entire lives are controlled and documented, sperm to worm, womb to tomb. So if you want to test what your new wonder drug, Zataproximetacine, will do, you can test it on lab animals and know for sure that whatever happens to them is because of Zataproximetacine, not an unfortunate coincidence, and labs around the world can reproduce your tests and there won't be problems with their animals being too different from yours.

However, if you test Zataproximetacine on death row inmates, there are any number of things that could cause a reaction in them that have nothing to do with your drug. Your subjects are having trouble sleeping and are experiencing regular problems with stress and feelings of fear and dread. Is it because of Zataproximetacine or because they're facing execution? Suppose you get different results in one prison than another. Is it because of the subjects? The prison?

This is actually a problem that's very much present with animals, in fact.

'This' being which bit?

For one very long list.

peta.org? No thanks.

In addition, there are ways to do testing on individual cell cultures, without really touching a sentient creature. So...

I imagine so, and I have every confidence that scientists use cell cultures where ever it's a viable option.

---

Go on.

I'd be more comfortable with a permit that can be granted on a case by case basis to avoid this question, with the presumption that medical gets the go-ahead, and any other thing they have a good enough reason for.

Now, I'm going on half remembered, second hand information from Dempublicents* here, but I believe there are systems of ethical regulations around animal testing now. If you're going to be working with animals in any way that'll cause them any kind suffering, you need to justify that to some kind of bio-ethics board. You can't just go tossing mice into a blender for the lulz, at least not in the context of doing reputable science.

*One of the resident stuff-wots-alive-ologists, for those who don't remember her. Haven't seen her round recently.

[Ecans]

I am uncomfortable wih the use of any animal for testing. Having said that I recognize the need for medical testing.

I would like to see a "retirement" for animals that have been used if at all possible. By that I mean they should be allowed to be with othes of their species in a safe and comfortable environment for the rest of their lives.

I am completely against the use of dogs in any testing or research facility. Dogs are a special case. They have been bred by us to be our companions, in most cases. Their brains are hard-wired to trust, love, respect and work with us. Science must not break that trust.

[Slembana]

It should be banned completely.

[Ifreann]

I am uncomfortable wih the use of any animal for testing. Having said that I recognize the need for medical testing.

I would like to see a "retirement" for animals that have been used if at all possible. By that I mean they should be allowed to be with othes of their species in a safe and comfortable environment for the rest of their lives.

I am completely against the use of dogs in any testing or research facility. Dogs are a special case. They have been bred by us to be our companions, in most cases. Their brains are hard-wired to trust, love, respect and work with us. Science must not break that trust.

No, dogs are a special case because you quite like dogs. You'd feel squicky if we were experimenting on and killing dogs for science. You probably feel squicky that we raise and kill dogs for food in some places. There is no trust between our species to break.

---

It should be banned completely.

No it shouldn't. The suffering that would cause would be truly immense.

[Slembana]

I am uncomfortable wih the use of any animal for testing. Having said that I recognize the need for medical testing.

I would like to see a "retirement" for animals that have been used if at all possible. By that I mean they should be allowed to be with othes of their species in a safe and comfortable environment for the rest of their lives.

I am completely against the use of dogs in any testing or research facility. Dogs are a special case. They have been bred by us to be our companions, in most cases. Their brains are hard-wired to trust, love, respect and work with us. Science must not break that trust.

No, dogs are a special case because you quite like dogs. You'd feel squicky if we were experimenting on and killing dogs for science. You probably feel squicky that we raise and kill dogs for food in some places. There is no trust between our species to break.

---

It should be banned completely.

No it shouldn't. The suffering that would cause would be truly immense.

Why should we harm the animals if they've done nothing wrong? Prison inmates have done something wrong, so testing on them would make sense.

[Screensaver]

No, dogs are a special case because you quite like dogs. You'd feel squicky if we were experimenting on and killing dogs for science. You probably feel squicky that we raise and kill dogs for food in some places. There is no trust between our species to break.

---

No it shouldn't. The suffering that would cause would be truly immense.

Why should we harm the animals if they've done nothing wrong? Prison inmates have done something wrong, so testing on them would make sense.

What if the prisoner turned out to be innocent? What if it was a political prisoner in a third world tyranny?

[Ashlak]

I support animal testing for medical purposes, seeing as it's necessary at this point and time.

[Slembana]

Why should we harm the animals if they've done nothing wrong? Prison inmates have done something wrong, so testing on them would make sense.

What if the prisoner turned out to be innocent? What if it was a political prisoner in a third world tyranny?

Oh.

We would then have to use lie detectors to find out their innocence.

[Ifreann]

No, dogs are a special case because you quite like dogs. You'd feel squicky if we were experimenting on and killing dogs for science. You probably feel squicky that we raise and kill dogs for food in some places. There is no trust between our species to break.

---

No it shouldn't. The suffering that would cause would be truly immense.

Why should we harm the animals if they've done nothing wrong?

Because we can learn a great deal from experimenting on them, and use what we learn to lessen and prevent human(and, in some cases, animal) suffering on a worldwide scale for the entire future of civilisation.

Prison inmates have done something wrong, so testing on them would make sense.

Testing on them would teach us approximately nothing, and would essentially serve as nothing but sadistic torture, harming them just to harm them. When we harm animals in the course of research it's because that harm can prevent far greater harm in the future.

Besides which, not all prisoners have done something wrong, and for all you know, a great number of lab animals may have.

[Ifreann]

What if the prisoner turned out to be innocent? What if it was a political prisoner in a third world tyranny?

Oh.

We would then have to use lie detectors to find out their innocence.

Fucking hell. Don't you think if we could use lie detectors to find out if people are innocent we would already being doing that all the fucking time? If lie detectors could do that, every innocent person convicted would demand to be tested right away!

[Mavorpen]

Against it.

[Screensaver]

Against it.

Do you care to explain why? Do you have a viable alternative?

[Nailed to the Perch]

Now, I'm going on half remembered, second hand information from Dempublicents* here, but I believe there are systems of ethical regulations around animal testing now. If you're going to be working with animals in any way that'll cause them any kind suffering, you need to justify that to some kind of bio-ethics board. You can't just go tossing mice into a blender for the lulz, at least not in the context of doing reputable science.

*One of the resident stuff-wots-alive-ologists, for those who don't remember her. Haven't seen her round recently.

Yup. I'm oversimplifying the rules, but the basics are that to do any kind of animal testing, you are required to (a) have a specific, good reason that you need to do animal testing, and (b) do everything reasonably possible to minimize suffering. Also, very few scientists want the animals they're testing on to suffer. People seem to have this vision of scientists doing animal tests as evil monsters who yell "MWA HA HA" before gouging out mouse eyeballs with a toothpick, but the reality is more likely to involve scientists getting a bit teary and apologizing to the mice before gently putting them to sleep.

Also, I miss Dem.

[Mavorpen]

Against it.

Do you care to explain why? Do you have a viable alternative?

Because of my personal morals. Keep in mind, I don't suppost making it legal or illegal simply bevause it's medical or not or something like that. Animal testing is a case by case problem.

[Ifreann]

Now, I'm going on half remembered, second hand information from Dempublicents* here, but I believe there are systems of ethical regulations around animal testing now. If you're going to be working with animals in any way that'll cause them any kind suffering, you need to justify that to some kind of bio-ethics board. You can't just go tossing mice into a blender for the lulz, at least not in the context of doing reputable science.

*One of the resident stuff-wots-alive-ologists, for those who don't remember her. Haven't seen her round recently.

Yup. I'm oversimplifying the rules, but the basics are that to do any kind of animal testing, you are required to (a) have a specific, good reason that you need to do animal testing, and (b) do everything reasonably possible to minimize suffering. Also, very few scientists want the animals they're testing on to suffer. People seem to have this vision of scientists doing animal tests as evil monsters who yell "MWA HA HA" before gouging out mouse eyeballs with a toothpick, but the reality is more likely to involve scientists getting a bit teary and apologizing to the mice before gently putting them to sleep.

Turns out that under the lab coats and safety glasses, scientists are actually people. People whose job happens to be "doing science". Shocking, but true.

Also, I miss Dem.

She's popped back into NSG a couple of times, much like yourself. Although, she's always used the same nation, that I've noticed, whereas to realise that you're back I have to first notice who you're flirting with and then check your name for references.

[Nailed to the Perch]

Yup. I'm oversimplifying the rules, but the basics are that to do any kind of animal testing, you are required to (a) have a specific, good reason that you need to do animal testing, and (b) do everything reasonably possible to minimize suffering. Also, very few scientists want the animals they're testing on to suffer. People seem to have this vision of scientists doing animal tests as evil monsters who yell "MWA HA HA" before gouging out mouse eyeballs with a toothpick, but the reality is more likely to involve scientists getting a bit teary and apologizing to the mice before gently putting them to sleep.

Turns out that under the lab coats and safety glasses, scientists are actually people. People whose job happens to be "doing science". Shocking, but true.

Crazy, right?

Also, I miss Dem.

She's popped back into NSG a couple of times, much like yourself. Although, she's always used the same nation, that I've noticed, whereas to realise that you're back I have to first notice who you're flirting with and then check your name for references.

Hehe. I like giving myself a grace period of not being recognized in which to decide if being back on NSG is worth the bother, and then after that I'm too lazy to bother either switching back to my "real" nation or making any effort to hide my identity.

(Also, it's kind of a fun little experiment observing how people treat you as "anonymous new person" vs. "established longtime poster with known biographical information.")

[Ifreann]

Turns out that under the lab coats and safety glasses, scientists are actually people. People whose job happens to be "doing science". Shocking, but true.

Crazy, right?

Seriously. I always thought that the lab coats were containing some sort of glowy energy being, but it's just people under there. You can even buy your own lab coat and look sciencey yourself!

She's popped back into NSG a couple of times, much like yourself. Although, she's always used the same nation, that I've noticed, whereas to realise that you're back I have to first notice who you're flirting with and then check your name for references.

Hehe. I like giving myself a grace period of not being recognized in which to decide if being back on NSG is worth the bother, and then after that I'm too lazy to bother either switching back to my "real" nation or making any effort to hide my identity.

(Also, it's kind of a fun little experiment observing how people treat you as "anonymous new person" vs. "established longtime poster with known biographical information.")

Plus, I get to feel all clever when I do eventually see through your cunning disguises. Everyone wins!

[Neutraligon]

Maybe people on death row should be used for testing instead of wasting them.

HELL NO

[Ashihara no Nakatsukuni]

I am completely against it, however I also recognize that we have made a lot of advancements from the testing. I don't much care for a living being to subject to various tests, bred to die for our gain.

[Alimprad]

i am against animal testing,many of you have said for medical purposes they would allow it, some say people who are to be excecuted should get tested on, well has it not occured to any of you that the population is already to high, though i would rather live longer, so test it on normal people in places like africa where they wont be missed and nobody will listen to those that care, all theyd be doing otherwise is dieing.

[Nailed to the Perch]

i am against animal testing,many of you have said for medical purposes they would allow it, some say people who are to be excecuted should get tested on, well has it not occured to any of you that the population is already to high, though i would rather live longer, so test it on normal people in places like africa where they wont be missed and nobody will listen to those that care, all theyd be doing otherwise is dieing.

...yeah, no.

[Neutraligon]

i am against animal testing,many of you have said for medical purposes they would allow it, some say people who are to be excecuted should get tested on, well has it not occured to any of you that the population is already to high, though i would rather live longer, so test it on normal people in places like africa where they wont be missed and nobody will listen to those that care, all theyd be doing otherwise is dieing.

This is terrifying.

[Screensaver]

i am against animal testing,many of you have said for medical purposes they would allow it, some say people who are to be excecuted should get tested on, well has it not occured to any of you that the population is already to high, though i would rather live longer, so test it on normal people in places like africa where they wont be missed and nobody will listen to those that care, all theyd be doing otherwise is dieing.

I sure hope you are not serious.

[Ifreann]

i am against animal testing,many of you have said for medical purposes they would allow it, some say people who are to be excecuted should get tested on, well has it not occured to any of you that the population is already to high, though i would rather live longer, so test it on normal people in places like africa where they wont be missed and nobody will listen to those that care, all theyd be doing otherwise is dieing.

I would agree, only I have this thing where I'm not evil or racist, so I kinda can't.

[Blazedtown]

What if the human accidentally explodes because of a new kind of painkiller? Would you rather kill a human than a dog?

I'd rather kill a Cell Culture, personally.

Cells have feelings too!

But seriously you can't compare the testing a new treatment a mouse, something that has a complete system of organs to a cell culture. The benefit to mankind is far worth the cost in animals that are specially bred for this.