Earn cash as you plan. Get a $20 gift card for every 200 points with The Knot Rewards
Wedding Etiquette Forum
Debate: Animal Testing
So I just did a presentation for my 3rd year law school class on the lack of legislation and sloppy legislation surrounding animal testing. Essentially, USA and Canada have the worst laws in terms of animal rights for animals in research facilities.
I argued that there are so many alternatives to animal testing, and Europe and other parts of the world are taking advantage of these alternatives, but USA and Canada aren't because a) the legislation doesn't make them and b) these alternatives are costly.
One of my friends (a biology major) sat in on my presentation to purposely ask questions at the end to attack my thesis. She called me a hypocrite because I eat meat, and said there are no true alternatives to animal testing. (Most of my class seemed to disagree with her.)
What do you think? If someone is against animal testing but isn't a vegetarian, are they nothing more than a hypocrite?
This discussion has been closed.
Re: Debate: Animal Testing
I think most of the inhumane treatment related to animal testing happens in research for cosmetics and yes I do think there are great alternatives to animal testing in those industries.
But genetic, and pharmaceutical research is absolutely necessary and for the most part the animals are treated very well. Yes we can do a lot of test tube research, but unfortunately test tube findings don't correlate very well to in vivo research.
I am stopping my self from going further on this subject as I am very strongly opinionated about it. I do believe that if you adamantly oppose the use of animals for medical research than you should not be using any pharaceuticals that were researched on animals.
Fred Rogers
I completely get her point about not eating meat, a big reason people don't eat meat is because they do not find it humane for the animals. However I think it is reasonable to find animal testing inhumane and not the treatment of animals used for food.
Fred Rogers
However I DO think if you opt to take modern drugs and then come out and say that you're anti animal testing then you're a hypocrite.
When I was in college, there was a poster in the rat lab of the psychology building that featured someone screaming about animal testing. The caption said, "Thanks to animal testing, he can scream for 20 years longer."
I'm not a fan of spraying perfume in the face of a bunny but I'm absolutely in favor of testing Parkinson's drugs on rats.
Fred Rogers
[QUOTE]I don't think it's about whether or not you eat meat that can make you a hypocrite. <strong>However I DO think if you opt to take modern drugs and then come out and say that you're anti animal testing then you're a hypocrite.</strong> When I was in college, there was a poster in the rat lab of the psychology building that featured someone screaming about animal testing. The caption said, "Thanks to animal testing, he can scream for 20 years longer." I'm not a fan of spraying perfume in the face of a bunny but I'm absolutely in favor of testing Parkinson's drugs on rats.
Posted by banana468[/QUOTE]
I personally think there is a huge difference between pharmaceutical testing and, say, cosmetic testing. I know you said the same thing in your post, and in my opinion, they really don't belong in the same category.
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Debate: Animal Testing : I personally think there is a huge difference between pharmaceutical testing and, say, cosmetic testing. I know you said the same thing in your post, and in my opinion, they really don't belong in the same category.
Posted by kellyjellybelly[/QUOTE]
<div>I agree with you. However, what most people don't know is that in terms of the law, testing and research are two very different issues. </div><div>
</div><div>Eg of testing = pouring boiling water on mice to see how they react to pain</div><div>Eg of research = giving a dog 2 pills of ativan a day to see how their neurological system responds to an anti-anxiety medication.</div><div>
</div><div>The main difference in these two topics is necessity and invasiveness of the procedure.</div><div>
</div><div>I am completely against all animal testing, but I believe research is necessary, and should be done appropriately. </div>
[QUOTE]I don't think it's about whether or not you eat meat that can make you a hypocrite. However I DO think if you opt to take modern drugs and then come out and say that you're anti animal testing then you're a hypocrite. When I was in college, there was a poster in the rat lab of the psychology building that featured someone screaming about animal testing. The caption said, "Thanks to animal testing, he can scream for 20 years longer." <strong>I'm not a fan of spraying perfume in the face of a bunny but I'm absolutely in favor of testing Parkinson's drugs on rats.</strong>
Posted by banana468[/QUOTE]
Yup, this exactly. Medical stuff is one thing, but cosmetics are another. As for whether eating meat is hypocritical, I don't think you can make a blanket statement. Some animals are raised under very humane conditions and killed humanely as well. Not all, but some. Animals undergoing testing are certainly not enjoying the quality of life that free-range cattle are.
Dresses may be easier to take in than let out, but guest lists are not. -- kate51485
Dresses may be easier to take in than let out, but guest lists are not. -- kate51485
[QUOTE]Oh. And, your friend sounds like a real peach. Did you know she was coming? Because, really, from the way you wrote it up, it sounds like she tried to sabotage you and your thesis. I'm not sure I could continue to be friends with somebody like that.
Posted by squirrly[/QUOTE]
<div>
</div><div>Yes, I knew she was coming to my presentation. I knew she disagreed with my thoughts, but I thought she was coming just to educate herself on the topic.</div><div>
</div><div>I don't find it a coincidence that my presentation was on Tuesday, and on Thursday she told me she couldn't afford to fly to my wedding next summer lol. She is very intense an passionate about her opinions, sometimes to a fault. </div>
However, animal test for things such as make-up I do not agree with at all. This is not well regulated by the government or any other institutions often beyond the company doing the testing. We know enough chemistry now to know what will react with skin and what will not.
The public (those not involved in animal work) often do not know of all the regulations that, for research, are required. And all too often they are misinformed or get information for studies that occured in the 1960s or before.
Anyway, no I do not think that being that makes you a hypocrite.
Bottom line: to make sure things are safe you can work in test tubes all day, but eventually you have to see what it does in humans because there are just too many variables. Testing on animals is a safety measure in between test tubes and human to minimize risk to those first human testers, which is its required as part of FDA regulation. So every regulated medication in the U.S. is a direct result of animal pain and often also death. The question is, what level of risk/harm to animals is acceptable for what level of benefit to humans?
I think most people agree that life-saving medications really need animal research, because of the great benefit in saving lives and because some of the most intense medications could have dire side-effects that need to be fully evaluated.
I think most also agree that applying some makeup that you're fairly sure might burn the face off animals is ridiculous. But then there's some grey areas in between. Like what about "elective" medications, or those that DON'T saves? botox? acne medication? even birth control?
And what about cosmetic products that make semi-medical claims, and could cause serious damage if not thoroughly tested: anti-aging products or weight-loss pills? I don't like weight-loss pills, but maybe if they were regulated (= animal research) there wouldn't be so many teen girls doing real harm to their bodies.
And what about cosmetic testing? Is it ever OK? Why not? If it's because it causes shortened life for animals then I don't see how eating meat would be OK. Wearing leather would be especially objectionable because that is killing animals directly for appearance sake (aside: I never really understood why people are so vocal against fur but not leather, I don't like fur but that's just cause I think it's not very attractive and overpriced).
And if cosmetic testing is objectionable because it causes pain to animals, would it be OK if it became somehow regulated? If testing was only used after petri-dish experiments suggested it wouldn't do more than possibly cause a slight irritation.
Sorry this was so long, looking forward to your input.
40/112
[QUOTE]I don't know, because I am a vegetarian, but.. part of me thinks... would you REALLY want to test on humans rather than rats? Although I love animals, I concede that humans are, well, superior.
Posted by msmerymac[/QUOTE]
<div>Point taken. However the issue isn't testing on animals or humans. It's testing on animals or doing the same tests with the same results on a computer, albeit more expensive than using an animal. </div><div>
</div><div>Exact same result / benfit for the human.</div>
I do agree with you that animal testing (for cosmetics, etc, not research) needs to be regulated. However, the government and many of it's departments are "busy" doing so many things. We have problems for any area with the government finding companies and regulating them that are funded by "private investors". How do you think we as a country or even society can control or regulate these? What about the companies that send their products oversees to be tested there?
[QUOTE]A computer can only do so much. Yes, there are programs to show for learning how a rat will react to certain stimuli but can we really say with a new chemical/ pharmaceutical drug how a rat will react to it over a few days, weeks, or months? Not to my knowledge and there are so many factors that computers cannot always control for. I do agree with you that animal testing (for cosmetics, etc, not research) needs to be regulated. However, the government and many of it's departments are "busy" doing so many things. We have problems for any area with the government finding companies and regulating them that are funded by "private investors". <strong>How do you think we as a country or even society can control or regulate these? What about the companies that send their products oversees to be tested there?</strong>
Posted by MMRoberts11[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div>1. Moral suasion to the companies. If we stop buying because of their polices, they will be forced to change them.</div><div>2. Animals are better off being in a lab in Europe as opposed to NA. They are lightyears ahead of us in terms of animal testing / animal care. Most of the EU countries have outright banned the practice.</div><div>3. Enacting legislation is not difficult. All it takes is a private members bill and the right amount of political backing. 13 states have regulated it properly, the fact that the other states and Canada haven't followed suit is embarrassing.</div><div>
</div>
Simulators of animals are based on previous animal research, but as anyone who has ever done computer modelling can tell you, models can never completely replace real-life testing. There is no way to account for all variables in a computer model because there are more variables than we even know exist, or can mathematically describe, which you need to be able to do before you can input it into a model.
In short, computer modelling is cheaper, but can never replace real-life (either animal or human) research until we 100% understand the way every substance/organ/cell in th body interacts with every other substance (which will never happen).
On a different note: what do you think the regulations should be for animal TESTING?
[QUOTE]Also, I don't think the dangers to humans from animal testing (i.e. thalidomide) should be ignored. These dangers should pose as another argument in the advancement of alternative methods (computer research etc).
Posted by shoegal715[/QUOTE]
The incident with thalidomide may have been avoided if the researchers had access to MORE animals for their study. Had they been given approval for use of more animals in their study they would have had the opportunity to extend the safety testing to pregnant animals and they would have known that thalidomide was teratogenic.