Animal Research

[sambone]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

**Moderator note: These posts were moved from the "Military Vets" thread** -Deanna

I know a vet who works for the army, and basically all the work she does is on animals used in biomedical research. (You don't think about it, but the army does tons of research. I'm paid out of a grant from the Dept. of Defense, and we do cancer research.) She treats everything from monkeys to beagles to rodents, and spends a lot of time training others how to do procedures related to whatever research they're doing. If you work for the army, you should probably be prepared for this kind of work. It's pretty tough if you're an animal lover because a lot of it seems really cruel, but you get used to it after a while.

 

[chancer]

That's a good point to post that. Maybe you would have to do research and not have a say about it.

I think technology has made it possible not to test on animals. I couldn't do it. I'd go to jail before I would submit animals to cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[UKYWildcat]

That's a good point to post that. Maybe you would have to do research and not have a say about it.

I think technology has made it possible not to test on animals. I couldn't do it. I'd go to jail before I would submit animals to cruel and unusual punishment.

Technology cannot duplicate the animal model, therefore they are essential for biomedical research.

Perhaps you should look into the subject more before making a blanket statement that research is "cruel and unusual punshiment"

 

[chancer]

It's debatable. VERY debatable.

The physiology and genetic make up between animals and humans is vastly different.
The breakthroughs in science has allowed to no longer use animals for every little thing. There have been however cases where research on animals has actually been detrimental to advancement in medicine.


At any rate, I will choose to live my life without extorting other living creatures. You on the other hand can rationalize it any way you want. It's not 1890 anymore however.
Perhaps YOU should do a little more research on both sides of the arguement before making a smart ass remark.

Why are you becoming a vet? To work for the USDA?
I'm too tired to post stats now. But if I find some of my old reseach papers, I will provide data that will blow your arguement out of the water.

Promise.

 

[chancer]

Technology cannot duplicate the animal model, therefore they are essential for biomedical research.

Perhaps you should look into the subject more before making a blanket statement that research is "cruel and unusual punshiment"

I see you're from KY. Nevermind....that's losing battle.

 

[UKYWildcat]

It's debatable. VERY debatable.

The physiology and genetic make up between animals and humans is vastly different.
The breakthroughs in science has allowed to no longer use animals for every little thing. There have been however cases where research on animals has actually been detrimental to advancement in medicine.


At any rate, I will choose to live my life without extorting other living creatures. You on the other hand can rationalize it any way you want. It's not 1890 anymore however.
Perhaps YOU should do a little more research on both sides of the arguement before making a smart ass remark.

Why are you becoming a vet? To work for the USDA?
I'm too tired to post stats now. But if I find some of my old reseach papers, I will provide data that will blow your arguement out of the water.

Promise.

oooh yay! I'll be sure to hold my breath waiting. 🙄

oh, and I'm not from Kentucky.

 

[julieDVM]

oooh yay! I'll be sure to hold my breath waiting. 🙄

oh, and I'm not from Kentucky.

we're all holding our breath for this one..............

 

[chris03333]

👍

we're all holding our breath for this one..............

 

[sambone]

Not to fuel the fire, but I think people who are really opposed to research on animals need to stop and think about all the drugs and treatments they and their families have recieved, some of them life saving/prolonging. It's really sad to think about, but at some point in the development of almost any major drug, from aspirin to taxol, it was tested on animal. Tons of the work in hip replacements was first done on dogs. It's unfortunate, but really important. At least if you're a vet working in research, you can personally make sure the animals are cared for to the best of your ability without compromising the research. Without all the vets working in research, the animals would be a lot worse off.

 

[MissBehavior]

At least if you're a vet working in research, you can personally make sure the animals are cared for to the best of your ability without compromising the research. Without all the vets working in research, the animals would be a lot worse off.

This is an excellent point. In my experience, lab animal vets do truly care about the animals they are responsible for. But the husbandry people who take care of these animals on a daily basis also REALLY care about their well-being. They do this work because they love animals, and they do all that they can to ensure that research animals have the best quality of life possible.

I don't think that one is in a position to call animal research "cruel" unless it has been witnessed firsthand. From what I have seen, dogs that undergo surgeries for research purposes are treated the same as your dog would be when taken to a local animal hospital for surgery. The way that they are housed is similar to the way dogs are housed at animal shelters, except that they get more exercise, and more human contact. Would I want my dog to live this way? No. But in my opinion it is a better quality of life than the way that some people keep their pets (dogs locked in a small backyard alone, 24/7, with no stimulation or socialization whatsoever).

Anyway, this is just an example. But a lot of people out there don't realize that animal research is not evil scientists putting chemicals in rabbits' eyes all day long. There are tons of rules, regulations, laws, etc protecting these animals, as there should be. There are also extremely knowledgeable, animal-loving people caring for them on a daily basis.

 

[Azawakh]

If you are serious about addressing this subject you should consults these two important articles.

Pandora Pound, Shah Ebrahim, Peter Sandercock, Michael B Bracken and
Ian Roberts Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ 2004;328;514-517

Wiebers, David O. ; Leaning, Jennifer ; White, Roger D. Animal protection and medical science The Lancet April 9, 1994, Vol. 343; No. 8902; Pg. 902

While there has been some pivotal and revolutionary research conducted on animals that have made significant contributions to medicine, one can not ignore the large number of poorly designed, cosmetic, and useless (due to interspecific variation) research projects that are also being conducted on animals. Furthermore just because a grant "says" it will be using adequate anesthesia does not mean that is always practiced. Yes, research is important but we can not be blind or ignorant of the bad research that is out there or the animal sacrifices that are made. Is one breakthrough worth all the millions of lives animal or otherwise that are spent in it's pursuit? We all have to decide for ourselves however it's not a black and white issue.

 

[JIKJen124]

Amen for eloquence.

 

[cyrille104]

If you are serious about addressing this subject you should consults these two important articles.

Pandora Pound, Shah Ebrahim, Peter Sandercock, Michael B Bracken and
Ian Roberts Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans? BMJ 2004;328;514-517

Wiebers, David O. ; Leaning, Jennifer ; White, Roger D. Animal protection and medical science The Lancet April 9, 1994, Vol. 343; No. 8902; Pg. 902

While there has been some pivotal and revolutionary research conducted on animals that have made significant contributions to medicine, one can not ignore the large number of poorly designed, cosmetic, and useless (due to interspecific variation) research projects that are also being conducted on animals. Furthermore just because a grant "says" it will be using adequate anesthesia does not mean that is always practiced. Yes, research is important but we can not be blind or ignorant of the bad research that is out there or the animal sacrifices that are made. Is one breakthrough worth all the millions of lives animal or otherwise that are spent in it's pursuit? We all have to decide for ourselves however it's not a black and white issue.

These are very good points. The decision whether or not to use animals is not a black and white issue, but I would think that if you choose not to use animals in research, someone else will do so in your place. For good or for bad, it's much easier to get a grant when using an animal model. It's difficult to follow through with a personal decision about what is right or wrong, because you'll likely be pushed out of the process (aka lack of money) if you're pursuing biomedical research without an animal model. And I would guess that you don't have that much say on whether or not military research uses animals anyway. While it's theoretically possible to prove that in some cases animals are not needed, it doesn't look like there will be any sort of paradigm shift on this pattern of thinking in the near future.

Feel free to contradict me, though...

 

[HopefulUGACVM]

I would also like to make the point that not all biomedical research is geared towrds humans. Animals used in research projects can be used for projects geared towards the same species. There is a whole realm of veterinary research going on that is only for animals. It is a little short-sighted to only think of human bio-medical research in this thread.

Also, I don't think it is unfortunate that hip-replacements were first tested on dogs. Why? Because somewhere, sometime other dogs will benefit from that.

A lot of research that has occured in the veterinary realm has carried over to the human side. So no, animals are not *completely* useless in *all* human research anymore. For example, glucosamine has been used in animals for years and the human side has only picked up on it recently (not a great example, I know), a lot of research is being done using FIV with hopes to find more out about HIV. There is so much we are still learning from animals and yes they are so different, but have many fundamental similarities where we can get some starting ground. I myself have a publication that started out in a veterinary lab but as published by the American Thoracic Society (human...) regarding wood smoke particulate matter and inflammatory function. I have also worked on a vaccine adjuvant project for cattle which is now in HUMAN flu vaccines.

Lastly, I would just like to point out that MOST "animal cruelty" cases in research in the media have been dated prior to changes made in the IUCAC laws. Do me a favor and whenever you read a paper pointing fingers about how awful things happened, read the bibliography first.

 

[chancer]

Not to fuel the fire, but I think people who are really opposed to research on animals need to stop and think about all the drugs and treatments they and their families have recieved, some of them life saving/prolonging. It's really sad to think about, but at some point in the development of almost any major drug, from aspirin to taxol, it was tested on animal. Tons of the work in hip replacements was first done on dogs. It's unfortunate, but really important. At least if you're a vet working in research, you can personally make sure the animals are cared for to the best of your ability without compromising the research. Without all the vets working in research, the animals would be a lot worse off.

Whoa, wait a minute.....wait a minute....

OK....there have been exponentially more drugs that have been pulled off the market than those that are still on. Yes, a lot of treatments have come from animals. You bring up dogs, great. Insulin was first extracted and from the pancreas of a dog and used in humans. Do we do it anymore? No. It's synthetic. We live in a world were we want instant gratification w/out thinking of the ramifications of it.

Testing on animals is a fallacy. However, as mentioned earlier do you think these scientists are given grants by the federal government to conduct research? Do you really think the meat and dairy industry is not in the back pocket of politicians? Of course they are. We have had engines that can run off salt water for 20 years. Do you think the patents are not bought out and oil is not imbedded deep into our economy like the meat and dairy industry is? Look at what we do to other people to continue our way of life. Look at what we do to ourselves.

Let me give some examples that are off the top of my head where animal bi-products and medical research has proven deadly. Keep in mind these are just within the last couple of years.

There is a research company that is now trying to approve the market of cow blood to be used in humans as a treatment for anemia and cardiopulmonary failure. It is to be used as a substitute for human blood. The company already has an approval for use in animals as a treatment for anemia. Studies have found after it was on the market in South Africa, (b/c of course we won't test on ourselves we'll use animals or people w/ in third world nations) that patients suffered renal failure. This is also not considering all of the hormones and antibiotics that are pumped into cows that have been linked to cancer. Also, I vaguely recall a minor disease that infects nearly 25% of Africa and is spreading rapidly worldwide that we have yet to find a cure for.

Now, let's get into drugs. I won't talk about testing cosmetics on animals….I won't even go there.

(Last five years only!!)

Fen Phen was proven safe in rats but induced cardiac arrest in humans. Off the top of my head... let's see....there was Rezulin that once again proved safe but was attributed to liver failure in humans, Vioxx, Bextra, Baycol, Lotrenex, I could name a hundred more that has proven safe on animals, but once again killed humans.

At one time, yes...we did need to test on animals. But I honestly believe there are other methods now available.

The problem is drug companies seek a profit. So, alternative methods are extremely under funded.


ps. for the gal that was holding her breath...you can breathe now. Congratulations.
And for the guy who posted a thumb's up w/ a smile, you can take your thumb out of your @ss now and stop laughing.

All I ask is for people to think for themselves, instead of relaying on what someone else has told them or what people have done prior to them. Be innovative, some old techniques are just that...old.

 

[Bill59]

“Fen-phen” is two drugs, fenfluramine and phentermine. The FDA never approved the use of these drugs in combination nor either drug alone for long-term administration. Physicians prescribing this drug combination were using the drugs in an off-label fashion. The heart-valve disease (not cardiac arrest) that occurred in some patients was not a “failure” of animal testing, since this drug combination was never thoroughly tested in animals. In fact, one could use this example as an argument for animal testing of drugs as it’s possible this adverse effect would have been detected in animal testing.

More to the point though, no matter how a drug is tested during the approval process, whether in animals, people, or other mechanisms, there is always a risk that uncommon adverse effects will only be detected after the drug is on the market and used in large numbers of patients with a variety of coexisting conditions. Any treatment entails risk, regardless of how the safety of that treatment is evaluated.

If 100% safety of a treatment is your requirement for approval, there will be no approved treatments. The only totally safe drug is no drug.

 

[chancer]

“Fen-phen” is two drugs, fenfluramine and phentermine. The FDA never approved the use of these drugs in combination nor either drug alone for long-term administration. Physicians prescribing this drug combination were using the drugs in an off-label fashion. The heart-valve disease (not cardiac arrest) that occurred in some patients was not a “failure” of animal testing, since this drug combination was never thoroughly tested in animals. In fact, one could use this example as an argument for animal testing of drugs as it’s possible this adverse effect would have been detected in animal testing.

More to the point though, no matter how a drug is tested during the approval process, whether in animals, people, or other mechanisms, there is always a risk that uncommon adverse effects will only be detected after the drug is on the market and used in large numbers of patients with a variety of coexisting conditions. Any treatment entails risk, regardless of how the safety of that treatment is evaluated.

If 100% safety of a treatment is your requirement for approval, there will be no approved treatments. The only totally safe drug is no drug.

I am sorry but your statement is very misleading and incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fen_Phen

Thousands upon thousands of physicians prescribed Fen- Phen, and YES it was tested on lab animals.

At any rate, that is only one drug I mentioned due to the recent 3.75 BILLION dollar settlement that the drug maker agreed to pay.

I named several drugs since 2000 that were thought to be safe, but found deadly in pt's. I could name 10 more just since 2000. I haven't even brought up vaccines yet either.

Oh...Fen-Phen DID cause cardiac arrest in some patients in addition to hypertension and the before mentioned valve problems.

The bottom line is this...

When you start manipulating animal biochemistry and think that it translates 100% to humans, you are giving yourself a false sense of security.

Many of the health problems that develop also manifest themselves over time. So, the health risks involved do not always present themselves immediately.

I would also like to point out that on average it takes 10 years for a drug to be approved by the FDA. This will supplement my above stated fact.

 

[julieDVM]

Do you really think the meat and dairy industry is not in the back pocket of politicians? Of course they are. We have had engines that can run off salt water for 20 years. Do you think the patents are not bought out and oil is not imbedded deep into our economy like the meat and dairy industry is? Look at what we do to other people to continue our way of life. Look at what we do to ourselves.

We can stop holing our breath? You're laughable! You haven't provided us with one iota of evidence to support your wild claims. You've filled a whole page full of rhetoric without one source or factually based piece of scientific evidence. (although the salt water engine argument is very convincing...................)

Maybe in the magical land of Narnia you can make wild accusations without any proof what so ever... but if you're going to post something like this you'd better attach some evidence to support your ranting and ravings.

 

[chancer]

"If 100% safety of a treatment is your requirement for approval, there will be no approved treatments. The only totally safe drug is no drug."

The issue isn't 100% safety. That isn't my point at all. Nothing is 100% safe for 100% of people.
My point relates to the false belief that if it works in animals it will work in humans.

I am only stating facts and not bring scare tactics like this...

http://www.healthgoods.com/images/animal_testing_2.gif
or this
http://www.stopanimaltests.com/photos/M2-Britches2.jpg
or this...
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Animal Testing/Vivisection/LIBERA2cat.jpg

After all, they don't feel anything anyway. Who cares?

Were saving ourselves?

Big negative buddy. This is 2006. Science can be beyond unnecessary cruelty.
Unfortunately, humans can't.

It amazes me how many docs are against animal testing. But they don't have the 3.75 billion to market their campaign, or the 3.75 billion to shell out when they're wrong.

Do you want to know what else is funny? I am the one who’s labeled a freak.
Crazy world we live in.

 

[kate_g]

At one time, yes...we did need to test on animals. But I honestly believe there are other methods now available.

Anti-research people always say this. But I never see any elaboration. I'm genuinely curious, what are the other methods?

Cell culture? Sure, you can culture human cells, but most cell lines are made "immortal" by using cancer cells which are by their nature deranged. And even if you use short-lived cultures from normal tissues, you're testing a dissociated soup of human cells and trying to extrapolate to a real, whole human. That has to be as error-prone as testing in animals and extrapolating to humans.

Computational models? Everyone trots this out. Puh-lease. I *do* computational modelling for a living, and believe me we are *nowhere* near realistic functional computational models for even the simplest abstractions of living systems at the level of things like drug mechanism. The government puts a lot of military money into this - let the conspiracy theories run wild - and still we've got nuthin'. There's too much complexity and chaos in the way your zillions of molecules interact.

I wish you were right. Most people I know who do animal research genuinely wish you were right. Animal research is really expensive, and if there truly were all of these cheap, easy alternatives that anti-research people claim exist, we'd be using them (if for no other reason than, like you said, drug companies seek profit and would obviously use the cheaper development method). This is another one of those instances where the anti-research party line is that scientists are sadistic evil people who enjoy killing animals, and are actively avoiding use and development of alternatives because it wouldn't be as much fun. The fact that you wrapped up continuation of animal research with the government conspiracy to keep us dependent on oil is telling of where you get your rhetoric. If you can find me a computational modeller who's willing to take a drug that's been developed and tested entirely on the basis of his computational models... 🙂

 

[chancer]

“Fen-phen” is two drugs, fenfluramine and phentermine. The FDA never approved the use of these drugs in combination nor either drug alone for long-term administration. Physicians prescribing this drug combination were using the drugs in an off-label fashion. The heart-valve disease (not cardiac arrest) that occurred in some patients was not a “failure” of animal testing, since this drug combination was never thoroughly tested in animals. In fact, one could use this example as an argument for animal testing of drugs as it’s possible this adverse effect would have been detected in animal testing.

More to the point though, no matter how a drug is tested during the approval process, whether in animals, people, or other mechanisms, there is always a risk that uncommon adverse effects will only be detected after the drug is on the market and used in large numbers of patients with a variety of coexisting conditions. Any treatment entails risk, regardless of how the safety of that treatment is evaluated.

If 100% safety of a treatment is your requirement for approval, there will be no approved treatments. The only totally safe drug is no drug.

We can stop holing our breath? You're laughable! You haven't provided us with one iota of evidence to support your wild claims. You've filled a whole page full of rhetoric without one source or factually based piece of scientific evidence. (although the salt water engine argument is very convincing...................)

Maybe in the magical land of Narnia you can make wild accusations without any proof what so ever... but if you're going to post something like this you'd better attach some evidence to support your ranting and ravings.

OK..first of all lady...double check what you write. Your sp's are pretty bad.

Also, you are taking one tidbit of information and using that as your rebuttal.
MY POINT WAS.....THE MEAT AND DAIRY INDUSTRY IS IN THE POCKETS OF POLITCIANS!!!!! I WAS COMPARING THIS TO NEW TECHNOLOGIES THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR YEARS, ONLY TO GET SWEPT UNDER THE RUG!!!!

What more do want for facts? I have shown drugs therapies that were proven safe on animals but deadly on humans.

What fact do you want me to give you?? Do you want me to present the genome of a cat and show how it is different than a human?

I did look for my research papers I wrote several years ago. I strongly encourage you however to do a little research on your own.

Perhaps not by drug companies that end up paying 3.75 billion in damages.

 

[AuburnPreVet]

These threads (research & veg) are going no where, and won't go anywhere. Chancer you may have some good points but the approach is terrible, in my opinion.

 

[kate_g]

THE MEAT AND DAIRY INDUSTRY IS IN THE POCKETS OF POLITCIANS!!!!! I WAS COMPARING THIS TO NEW TECHNOLOGIES THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR YEARS, ONLY TO GET SWEPT UNDER THE RUG!!!!

If only you could tell us what those were...

 

[chancer]

Anti-research people always say this. But I never see any elaboration. I'm genuinely curious, what are the other methods?

Cell culture? Sure, you can culture human cells, but most cell lines are made "immortal" by using cancer cells which are by their nature deranged. And even if you use short-lived cultures from normal tissues, you're testing a dissociated soup of human cells and trying to extrapolate to a real, whole human. That has to be as error-prone as testing in animals and extrapolating to humans.

Computational models? Everyone trots this out. Puh-lease. I *do* computational modelling for a living, and believe me we are *nowhere* near realistic functional computational models for even the simplest abstractions of living systems at the level of things like drug mechanism. The government puts a lot of military money into this - let the conspiracy theories run wild - and still we've got nuthin'. There's too much complexity and chaos in the way your zillions of molecules interact.

I wish you were right. Most people I know who do animal research genuinely wish you were right. Animal research is really expensive, and if there truly were all of these cheap, easy alternatives that anti-research people claim exist, we'd be using them (if for no other reason than, like you said, drug companies seek profit and would obviously use the cheaper development method). This is another one of those instances where the anti-research party line is that scientists are sadistic evil people who enjoy killing animals, and are actively avoiding use and development of alternatives because it wouldn't be as much fun. The fact that you wrapped up continuation of animal research with the government conspiracy to keep us dependent on oil is telling of where you get your rhetoric. If you can find me a computational modeller who's willing to take a drug that's been developed and tested entirely on the basis of his computational models... 🙂

Ok, little lady...you obviously did not read my posts all the way through regarding government funding...

Furthermore, stem cell research WHICH IS NOT GOVERNMENT FUNDED, could prove to be extremely more efficient than testing on frodo or kibbles..

After, all a man who pronounces "Nuk-ler" and doesn't know a lick about science agrees with ya.

 

[chancer]

If only you could tell us what those were...

Katie G...you just opened up a can of worms...

give me a day or so...i gotta get back to work...🙂

 

[julieDVM]

OK..first of all lady...double check what you write. Your sp's are pretty bad.

Also, you are taking one tidbit of information and using that as your rebuttal.
MY POINT WAS.....THE MEAT AND DAIRY INDUSTRY IS IN THE POCKETS OF POLITCIANS!!!!! I WAS COMPARING THIS TO NEW TECHNOLOGIES THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR YEARS, ONLY TO GET SWEPT UNDER THE RUG!!!!

What more do want for facts? I have shown drugs therapies that were proven safe on animals but deadly on humans.

What fact do you want me to give you?? Do you want me to present the genome of a cat and show how it is different than a human?

I did look for my research papers I wrote several years ago. I strongly encourage you however to do a little research on your own.

Perhaps not by drug companies that end up paying 3.75 billion in damages.

you have failed to provide any factually based evidence for any of your arguments. You claim that the dairy industry is somehow providing back-door funding to politicians - however you fail to show one source, or one piece of evidence that shows this to be true. I'm sure the diary industry is paying money to the government - its called TAXES - so by virtue of that argument, you also are in the back pockets of politicians.

"What more do want for facts? I have shown drugs therapies that were proven safe on animals but deadly on humans." You failed to show anything - everything you say is pure hearsay - nothing more.

If you've got proof (papers, credible non-PETA websites, news articles - ANYTHING - and contrary to your belief, your word isn't sufficient evidence of anything) to substantiate your arguments then lets see it - otherwise i think its time you shut your mouth and crawled back under your bridge.

 

[chancer]

^ Are you serious???

You really do not know how the cattle industry influence politics?

How it influences the economy?

lady...take off the lab coat for one second and look at the world we live in.

You can't drive a frikkn' block w/out seeing a Micky D's or Burger King or anything else.

OMG...pls. tell me you all are not this nieve???

 

[julieDVM]

If only you could tell us what those were...

secretly, in the depths of Area 51, the government has genetically engineered giant cockroaches with super mammary glands that are able to produce enough milk to feed the world, and run our cars, and cure HIV - but because of the dreaded Dairy Industry and their infamous underhanded political agenda, we will never see the end of world hunger, fossil fuel pollution, and AIDS related deaths..................................................................

its just criminal.

 

[julieDVM]

^ Are you serious???

You really do not know how the cattle industry influence politics?

How it influences the economy?

lady...take off the lab coat for one second and look at the world we live in.

You can't drive a frikkn' block w/out seeing a Micky D's or Burger King or anything else.

OMG...pls. tell me you all are not this nieve???

I never claimed that Agricultural industries do not influence the economy. They are billion dollar industries, that dramatically effect the economy. I contested the idea that they are somehow participating in bribery or underhanded tactics to influence government policy or decision making - which is quite different from affecting the economy. Again - you argue with no PROOF. you could solve everything by just telling us where you're getting your information.

The problem is you cant. So cut the bull$hit

 

[chancer]

you have failed to provide any factually based evidence for any of your arguments. You claim that the dairy industry is somehow providing back-door funding to politicians - however you fail to show one source, or one piece of evidence that shows this to be true. I'm sure the diary industry is paying money to the government - its called TAXES - so by virtue of that argument, you also are in the back pockets of politicians.

"What more do want for facts? I have shown drugs therapies that were proven safe on animals but deadly on humans." You failed to show anything - everything you say is pure hearsay - nothing more.

If you've got proof (papers, credible non-PETA websites, news articles - ANYTHING - and contrary to your belief, your word isn't sufficient evidence of anything) to substantiate your arguments then lets see it - otherwise i think its time you shut your mouth and crawled back under your bridge.

Listen sex-machine...give me a day or so and I will provide facts. I really will.

It will take some time however.

In the meantime I recommend these books...

Stem Cell Research: New Frontiers in Science and Ethics

Non-Animal Techniques in Biomedical and Behavioral Research and Testing

Fast food nation

Animal Testing(Open for Debate)

Lethal Laws, Animal Health and the Environment

I also recommend an anger management book for telling me to "shut my mouth" and "Crawl under a bridge".

What are you the witch from 101 Dalmatians??

No...You probably work for Revlon or something.

Op...Just posted another one.

Hmm..you are recanting what you said!!

Look at the politicians we have in place. What did most do before they got into politics? Who has the money to spend millions on campaigns?? Let's see....

HOW ABOUT BUSINESSMEN!!!

In addition, who the hell do you think contributes to the campaigns?

GET A CLUE

 

[Bill59]

If I may make a suggestion .... The use of animals in research is a serious topic of concern to all veterinarians because we're concerned for animal welfare and we use the results gained from medial research every day to help our patients.

A thoughtful, well-informed discussion would be very appropriate here I think.

On the other hand, a confrontational, poorly-informed argument complete with hyped moralism, conspiracy undertones, fallacious logic and ad hominem attacks is going to be counterproductive and frankly, a waste of time.

 

[rdc]

If I may make a suggestion .... The use of animals in research is a serious topic of concern to all veterinarians because we're concerned for animal welfare and we use the results gained from medial research every day to help our patients.

A thoughtful, well-informed discussion would be very appropriate here I think.

On the other hand, a confrontational, poorly-informed argument complete with hyped moralism, conspiracy undertones, fallacious logic and ad hominem attacks is going to be counterproductive and frankly, a waste of time.

unfortunately this debate is an excercise in futility. we might as well be debating capital punishment or gun regulation...........

 

[kate_g]

OK..first of all lady...

Ok, little lady...

Listen sex-machine...

Ah... Took me a while to realize it, but I see the pattern now. You just have a small penis, don't you?


(Mods... Maybe a move to Topics in Healthcare is in order? By which I mean no disrespect to the OP. He seems to have a beef about industrial farming, and to a lesser extent about biomedical research, both of which have only tangentially to do with veterinary medicine. That forum has a wider audience and, perhaps more importantly, people who will take the OP's side but maybe argue in a less inflammatory manner.)

 

[julieDVM]

better yet - shut this thing down right now.

 

[PAThbrd]

Please get back on topic and stop the flaming/personal insults, etc., these are against SDN's terms of service. In other words, play nice!

Deanna
SDN Veterinary Forums Moderator

 

[HorseyVet]

This is an excellent point. In my experience, lab animal vets do truly care about the animals they are responsible for. But the husbandry people who take care of these animals on a daily basis also REALLY care about their well-being. They do this work because they love animals, and they do all that they can to ensure that research animals have the best quality of life possible.

This thread really has run away.

I just wanted to agree to this point as some others have. When I worked at a lab animal facility there were several countless times where the vets made the call that the animal or procedure had gone too far downhill hill for the experiment and/or the animal's life to continue. Sometimes the PI's were pretty cranky about it and other times they vastly appreciated it b/c they needed to know exactly when a variety of changes in that animal would begin and so they could do special things in the necropsy. We had a lot of PIs that would come in in the middle of the night to sac a mouse b/c of how valuble he/she was to their project.

There are PI's out there whoose concerns are so focused on the human outcome and/or whoose cultures cause them to be a little less sensitive to animals....that they *DO* need to be reminded that mice/rats/pigs are living creatures to and that they're not expendable. I'm not saying this is a majority but that it does exsist.

Research is a giant house of cards and its important that everyone does their job to make it work. I can't say how many times a cage-cleaner (often without a HS eduation) was the first to notice an animal was having problems and to report it to the vet b/c they are often the first and last to see the animals everyday.

With so many animals to moniter, you really all have to work together. Vets are the ones that interface b/w cage cleaners/techs/PIs/review boards/etc/etc and they need to have a strong relationship (buisness and friend) with all of them to get things done right.....and that's on top of the endless piles of paperwork. I think we'll always need more vets to do this....and almost primary to that, we need more money to have more vets on staff. That really was my major complaint about research and vets...was that they do get to be spread a bit thin.

 

[cyrille104]

There's nothing you can do to convince each other. Just forget it. The fact is that animal research will continue, and according to the majority of scientists, it is still the best model. If you don't like it, don't do it.

 

[medtechv79]

Animal research is kinda controversial and sad....but someone metioned above that PETA is not a reliable source? is that true? I get emails from them time to time and reading some of those lab stories are heartbreaking...
like that things with Covance, or the army research? Or are these just isolated incidents blown out of proportion? I just would like some opinions of ppl on PETA and becoming a vet? thanks!

Also, animals do have slightly similar biochemistry as humans. They all have RBC's and WBC's....and similar chemical hormones and proteins in their serum... their ranges maybe different but they are not vastly different from humans...they're not aliens! Animal models have to be tested on first because of FDA laws before being tested in clinical trials in humans. obviously testing on humans first will be very detrimental to a company....Although I'm not crazy about animal testing....I know sometimes it has to be done (maybe not those cosmetic companies or brain surgeries or crap like that but something more along in terms of medicine or benefiting society I think is okay).

 

[Moonpaw]

Has anyone ever thought about how animal testing may, occasionally, actually be bad for humans? For example, did anyone remember what happened with the clinical trial of this drug in England last spring? I think it did something to the immune system, but basically a drug that was tested on monkey first, with no ill effects, was then tested on humans in a much smaller dose. Within minutes, the human subjects were crashing, with their immune systems attacking their own organs. Shouldn't we take this as a wake-up call to completely overhaul the rules regarding animal research? I'm not saying it should be completely illegal, but there's no way there aren't animals who suffer needlessly, because the drugs being tested on them simply won't produce the same effect as they do in humans. Surely there has to be a way to figure this out before actually testing it on animals?

 

[cyrille104]

Has anyone ever thought about how animal testing may, occasionally, actually be bad for humans? For example, did anyone remember what happened with the clinical trial of this drug in England last spring? I think it did something to the immune system, but basically a drug that was tested on monkey first, with no ill effects, was then tested on humans in a much smaller dose. Within minutes, the human subjects were crashing, with their immune systems attacking their own organs. Shouldn't we take this as a wake-up call to completely overhaul the rules regarding animal research? I'm not saying it should be completely illegal, but there's no way there aren't animals who suffer needlessly, because the drugs being tested on them simply won't produce the same effect as they do in humans. Surely there has to be a way to figure this out before actually testing it on animals?

We already talked about this sort of thing...see above for point and counterpoint (sort of)

 

[kate_g]

Animal research is kinda controversial and sad....but someone metioned above that PETA is not a reliable source? is that true?

PETA is, first and foremost, a lobbying organization. I personally wouldn't call *any* politically active group with a strong agenda a "reliable source", whether it's PETA, the Sierra Club, or the National Rifle Association. They exaggerate claims and omit information and sometimes lie outright to serve their political ends.

My favorite fact about PETA, which I've posted on this forum before, is that some PETA muckety-mucks have been arrested FOR ANIMAL CRUELTY - they were inhumanely killing and dumping shelter animals in order to make it look like their relocation program was successful. If they're willing to harm real live animals to further the political cause of animal rights, well... Clearly their priorities are not in line with mine, anyway.

Just keep in mind that e-mails from PETA are designed to make you give them money - or at least to adopt their point of view. It's advertisement and propaganda - and you'd do well to take it with a large grain of salt.

 

[chancer]

There's nothing you can do to convince each other. Just forget it. The fact is that animal research will continue, and according to the majority of scientists, it is still the best model. If you don't like it, don't do it.

Don't tell people how to think.

Let them make their own decisons.


Furthermore, the majority of people still think the best way to get to work is using a car that runs on gas. Because that's all they know. Stem cell research is a hell of a lot more promising than animal research.

Your logic stinks.

But like I said, do not for one second think you have the authority to tell others how to think. You want share your opinion fine. But don't tell others they can't express theirs.


ps. I bet Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Jesus Christ, and many many others thought there was no use in trying because things will never change.

 

[HorseyVet]

ps. I bet Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Jesus Christ, and many many others thought there was no use in trying because things will never change.

Did you take a debate class ever?

Do you you know how weak and poor appeal to authority is?

There is also a common saying that once you start calling people "Hitler" or "Nazis" that you have lost your position.....I think you've done this quite extensively from the other side of the coin.

 

[chancer]

Did you take a debate class ever?

Do you you know how weak and poor appeal to authority is?

There is also a common saying that once you start calling people "Hitler" or "Nazis" that you have lost your position.....I think you've done this quite extensively from the other side of the coin.

The one portion that you chose to take that WASN'T highlighted and use against me.

The only thing I was trying to point out by the part that WASN'T highlighted, was that people who want change rarely sit back and let others make decisons or think for them.

With that being said, I could care less what a hs debate coach says as I will come to my own opinion by my experience, not by what someone else tells me.

Side note-The pacifists I mentioned were all eventually killed for their thoughts by people who disagreed as it threatened their way of life.

 

[UKYWildcat]

I will come to my own opinion by my experience, not by what someone else tells me.
.

Do tell... how much experience do you have with the cattle industry? How much experience do you have with biomedical research? How much experience do you have with any of the things you're so dead set are evil? You certainly haven't shown that you have any true experience working in these fields in the futile argument you insist on making, but you cling to your own liberal view based on what? The things you've been taught by others that share your view? Yeah, that's truly the definition of coming to your own opinion if I ever saw it.

 

[chancer]

Do tell... how much experience do you have with the cattle industry? How much experience do you have with biomedical research? How much experience do you have with any of the things you're so dead set are evil? You certainly haven't shown that you have any true experience working in these fields in the futile argument you insist on making, but you cling to your own liberal view based on what? The things you've been taught by others that share your view? Yeah, that's truly the definition of coming to your own opinion if I ever saw it.

I have my bachelors w/ a double major in history and biology. I am assuming by your name your still in school.

I worked 3 months for a research drug company after I graduated college. This is where I witnessed animals exposed to incredibly inhumne acts for the name of science.

And as I mentioned I have traveled quite a bit. This includes having seen "trial" medicine given to those in third world nations.

I have seen loved ones suffer the pain from a disease that has no cure. Meanwhile, we use animals to test new therapies and believe their biochemistry translates to ours. This all while new advances in medicine are kept from being developed because of political agendas and conservative self-righteousness.

Liberal based?
Tell me...why are most professors and scientist’s liberals?

 

[aphistis]

Please consider this a final warning, to everybody, that discussion here needs to stay civil. Disagreement & debate are fine, but personal attacks violate the SDN terms of service agreement and won't be tolerated.

 

[HorseyVet]

The one portion that you chose to take that WASN'T highlighted and use against me.

The only thing I was trying to point out by the part that WASN'T highlighted, was that people who want change rarely sit back and let others make decisons or think for them.

You have repeatedly in your posts (and yes in bold) the names of various persons of esteem you are appealing to.

With that being said, I could care less what a hs debate coach says as I will come to my own opinion by my experience, not by what someone else tells me.

This sort of basic debate info indeed should come from a good HS advisor....but also from international debate teams and legal mock trial teams. It's just a basic thing that one shouldn't do b/c it never achieves the desired effect. It only ticks people off and makes the debater look childish.

Side note-The pacifists I mentioned were all eventually killed for their thoughts by people who disagreed as it threatened their way of life.

Hrm so was Malcom X, Trotsky, Lincoln....oh yeah but they weren't pacifists. Why pander to your pacifists when you could beseech those of active merit? Too controversial?

And why still is it that you don't respond to my posts indicating that maybe you're not understanding that the body you interogate might very well have knowledge above yours one this matter (aka we didn't just read a bunch of pamplets and propagandist pulp websites to form our opinions and core beliefs)?

 

[chancer]

I am not going to post anymore in this thread, or really I think on the vet forum.

I brought up the issue of stem cell research as an alternative method.

All, I will say is this.....

If you see something that feels wrong in your heart, don't necessarily let your brain override it.

There are always other options.

Thanks.

 

[HorseyVet]

I am not going to post anymore in this thread, or really I think on the vet forum.

lol...."Eat me when I'm fatter"