Stand up to cancer and animal testing

[OoerBlah]

First of all, I'm genuinely sorry for anyone who has lost someone they love to cancer. But I've been watching this thing and feeling increasingly uncomfortable. Initially it was just that cancer is so incredibly difficult to treat even after all these many years of research that it just seemed so mawkish and pointless.

But then I realised where all these millions of pounds will ultimately be going - to fund research which will no doubt be on millions of defenceless innocent animals and for what? Haven't we been doing that for years already and where are we.

People die. All species die of any number of illnesses. Why do humans feel entitled to use other species so mercilessly in the vain hope of prolonging our own lives?

Anyway. Sorry, but I'm not contributing to the further mass genocide of creatures who in no way deserve to live and die solely for human benefit.

I also think that we don't just avoid committing certain acts on humans because they are not monsters. We don't do it because performing those acts turns us into monsters. Regardless of what they've done, the psychological impact on the prison staff, the executioner and on the society who lays down those penalties is a price it's never worth paying.

Its just a wrong thread. Wait for another about paedophiles/rape/murder many would step in to 'help'

I also think that we don't just avoid committing certain acts on humans because they are not monsters. We don't do it because performing those acts turns us into monsters. Regardless of what they've done, the psychological impact on the prison staff, the executioner and on the society who lays down those penalties is a price it's never worth paying.

This is a good quote but is does beg the question why experimenting on animals is not considered to similarly impact us psychologically and turn us into monsters?

It goes without saying any parent would be prepared to commit base acts to save the life of their child - but does that make the act less base? Can we recognise something is morally wrong and lessens us as a person, but condone it anyway for a 'greater good'?

It is a difficult subject, but one I do not think we should refuse to discuss. Cancer has touched nearly everyone, but personal suffering should not mean ethical reflection is not permitted.

This is a good quote but is does beg the question why experimenting on animals is not considered to similarly impact us psychologically and turn us into monsters?

It certainly does. Those who have committed horrendous crimes against humans, often have a history of animal cruelty.

As for research, i recommend this book if you have a strong stomach.
www.amazon.co.uk/Eco-wars-Laymans-Guide-Ecology-Movement/dp/0245547231/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1477205790&sr=8-1&keywords=David+day+eco+wars

Its also a well known fact that paedophiles often choose professions which give them 'free pass' to access children. Its very highly possible that those who get a kick from abusing animals choose to be 'scientists'

Nataleejah I do not have a strong stomach so will give your link a pass. But you do raise an interesting ethical point. If someone enjoys torture of defenceless animals, can that be turned to a positive by using it as part of medical research or is it always morally wrong. In other words, is it OK scientists torturing animals if they don't enjoy doing it, but if they get a secret frisson, then does it become a bad thing to do - even if the end result is the same (possible advancement of medical science)?

Actually i meant it the other way around. That intentional torture of animals can be dressed as research. The book i gave a link to describes certain studies which were totally pointless for 'the greater good', e.g. 'studying' how animals respond to pain and stress. Developing life-saving medicines is a rather small segment of animal experimentation.

I'll wade in on a more practical note.....the testing of drugs on prisoners would never be a goer for the pharmaceutical countries because if the drug went wrong and caused death and injury then they would still be liable for huge compensation claims regardless of whether the person was a inmate. Responsibility for death and injury would lie with the pharmaceutical company and as they have had some spectacular payouts on other medications that got through all the stages of drug trials then to do so by testing on inmates in the early rounds of drug development could be financial suicide.

I don't think we should go down the route of removing all prisoners basic human rights as we could end up like Chile, China, Saudi Arabia and all those other countries with abysmal human rights. We must punish the crime but not erode society in the process

YABU, OP, but in an understandable way. As a vegetarian, it's an ethical position I struggle with, but I know that if I or a family member needed cancer treatment, animal testing wouldn't factor into the decision. That might make me a hypocrite, but there are no alternative treatments that work, and my survival and that of the people I care about is more important.

It's interesting, though - there was a thread recently where the OP got quite viciously slated for wanting to rehome a kitten, and yet apparently having views as strong as the OPs on drug tests that cause real suffering to kittens is somehow wrong or immature. I'm aware that there may be no overlap at all between posters to the two threads! But the difference in how people think, generically, about 'pet animals' and 'lab animals' is quite odd.

Mrsglitterpants' s post is, IMHO, a perfect exposition on how humans are nothing special. I would only add that we won't need to wait for aliens to correct matters - I suspect that sentient robots will do this in the not-too-distant future.

bowiefan: I apologise if my post sounded like a personal attack - this wasn't my intention, nor were my posts meant to be judgemental; naturally, most of us would do anything to protect our family and to prolong our own lives.

However, I come back to the point that medical advances and drug development are not, nowadays, contingent on animal testing. There are many, better, alternatives already available. You ask: then why are they not being used? The answer is a lot to do with the regulatory industry, who appear extremely reluctant to adopt these developments. As an example - although I can't remember the exact details - it was reported in New Scientist last year (I think) that a UK company who had developed a replacement for some animal testing procedures was prevented in using it by EU regulations alone. This is one of the reasons why many people protest or are otherwise enraged at the pointless suffering of many laboratory animals.

The thought of animal testing is horrific from mice to primates the pain these animals go must go through has an impact physically and phsycologically and it really upsets me, but what is the alternative if you need a medication there is none is there ?

Well for one thing there is probably more distress in some psychological experiments than medical ones.

Many many animal experiments consist of an animal being euthenised, either before the experiment eg rabbits hearts can be kept beating in labs, the rabbit is put down just as it would be at the vet's then the heart is removed.

In others experiments happen under anesthetic and the animal is again put down afterwards without regaining consciousness.

BTW ladies, all cosmetics sold in China have, by Chinese law, to be tested on animals.

You may have been wearing the same brand of beauty free make up for 20 years, but if it sold in China it has been tested on animals. It doesn't matter if it has been used without problems for years.

Its very highly possible that those who get a kick from abusing animals choose to be 'scientists'

What the absolute utter fuck is this?!

I have worked in numerous animal testing facilities both in the uk and the us. U.K. Regulations are very strict. Before any work starts you have to apply to the home office to get a project licence. Once you have that the personal have to have their own personal licence. The facility has to have a vet on call, and trained staff check the animals every day, with cages changed at least weekly. Every single facility I have been in is full of people who care about the animals, treat them with respect, and minimise any suffering. There is very, very little work in cancer done on any species other than rodents.
Ethically, everyone is entitled to their own opinion on whether it's right, but the agreement than animals are kept in prolonged pain and suffering is simply not true.

Where I worked, while at least half of us were licenced to kill mice or rats by approved methods deemed humane, at least half the staff were vegetarian. Over 3/4 of the 'procedures' under my name were breeding genetically modified mice. Which is simply putting male mouse in cage with female mouse, letting them shag, and removing the male when the female was pregnant. Both completely healthy - the gene only affected 1/4 embryos who got two copies. I can assure anyone I have never harmed any animal except for quick deaths for research or for eating.

Friend of mine did do research on prisoners - if you want to assess effects over 10 years or more, lifers are useful as you know where they'll be. However lots of problems - most have smoked for years, but if you want to study lung function it can be the easiest way to study a group. Obviously you get their consent, but this is hard to ensure as they will also say anything to get on a trial just for the entertainment, so you have to corroborate anything they tell you (desperation for novelty is why prisoners are deemed 'vulnerable populations'.

There's obvious risks to the scientists involved, especially with prisoners serving long sentences. And there's just not that many of them.