Is it immoral?
If so, is the immorality justified?
What is YOUR thinking, about this issue??
As long as those same people are preaching that homosapian is “just another animal”, it will remain immoral.
Can you state your position or thesis? Bare questions belong in the Hall of Questions.
I think it’s defensible as long as it’s really useful. In the current medical climate, that’s certainly not the case, but there are conscientious and less-conscientious experimenters.
We ARE just another animal.
Okay.
I, Pretty much, agree with you.
There are very few people, in the western world, that have never used medical drugs to treat some ailment…
Who, if they were dying of…whatever, would refuse helpful drugs on ‘moral grounds’?
Its a complex issue, and its undoubtedly cruel to the animals, after all, you can’t test acure for cancer, unless your test subject is made to have cancer…
Even the control animals must ultimately be ‘euthanised’ (sp?)
I believe it is a ‘necessary evil’…
I would have to agree with you there, volchok.
Man is a species of ‘great ape’. Although we may be more than “just” another animal, we are undoubtedly animals.
The beast machines are only acting mechanically, its okay to do live dissections on those you dont value.
Count your limbs people. If you’ve got 4, and they aren’t flippers… Then get on your knees and thank terratology.
I don’t understand this.
Could you explain, please??
One of my first jobs was as an animal scientist, or animal technician, in charge of caring for all manner of test animals, ranging from mice to monkeys, in a laboratory environment.
I love animals, and don’t like to see any form of life suffer, unnecessarily…
Do you think someone like… Peter Singer, has ever used antibiotics, cold and flu remedy, etcetra??
Or, for that matter, even soap, deoderant, etcetra (animal testing for cosmetics is sick, but it happens)?
All of these things (anything that goes in, or on your body) are tested on animals before being available to people…
We shouldnt test on Animals when we have all these useless nihilistic canadians laying about doing nothing useful to humanity. Lets test on them.
20 year plan to end animal testing… take the five most valuable test species, and randomly jab and test them, and build predictive computer models first five years. Next five years test the model independent of such tests to test chemical compositions in advance. Last ten years push back and forth rapidly isolating oddities that buck prediction. Reserve animal testing from that point on only on stuff assumed safe, or surgical practice. If model says 99 percent safe, and its wrong… oh well, nothing bad happens to the goat otherthan some lipstick in the eye. However, if its wrong… shit. Gotta fix the program. Of course, by this point, there would be no more testing stuff likely to go bad.
Especially if this is coupled with the assumption that testing on animals makes sense since they are similar to us. And it would be very odd to not have that as an assumption.
My first main reaction to this is that we should first go for a consensus opinion. Much animal testing is unnecessary.
we can start with the hardest situations: say like the example Volchok gave, where we have to give animals cancer first, then test the potentially cancer killing drugs on them.
Or we can actually look at the range of animal testing, which has included things like make-up, and see if we can agree to lop off the more frivolous, but still torturelike, uses of animal testing.
Also there are other methods. Whether these can replace all animal testing or how much or how much effectivity is lost is another issue, but it needs to be pointed out that it is nto always test on animals or simply go without any screening before human testing.
I would love to see if the most unnecessary kinds of testing on animals - even though some poor corporation might not get to market a product - be cleared away first. The we can tackle the more tough situations - at least, ones that some people will find tough. There are many people who think this is an easy issue - either not an issue at all or there should be no testing and that is clear. But I am referring to those situations where at least many people would think there is some tension around the choice, even if their choice is clear.
This is not suggestion for how the discussion in this thread should go, but rather my reaction to a problem in the way the issue is debated. The way the issue is generally debated leads to no change, when at least some ethical change seems available to me.
My plan does lead to a viable change within our lifetimes.
yes, sorry, I only read as far as the Canadian part, which I enjoyed, and thought the rest was a fleshing out, ha ha, of this theme.