Medical Animal Testing

[hairsprayqueen]

Views? Opinions? What do you think are the pros and cons?

(I already searched if there was a topic about this, couldn't find one. so i apologize if there has already been a thread like this)

[Anne.Frank]

Against it, overall. Yet, small animals such as rats could be victims of science if it's for a good cause. I know this sounds horrible, but testing is required.

[tambam]

If it has the potential to save people's lives, I'm totally for it.

[youcomebeforeyo]

Medical testing definately. As long as animals are put down humanely if they suffer nasty side effects. Cosmetic testing, narh.

[Anne.Frank]

If you think about animal testing further, it should be considered illegal, since it's against the law to sexually molest, kill or hurt an animal.

[lew_1987]

i'm still out on this. the vegetarian in me wants to scream no, but the utilitarian in me wants to scream yes.

[El_Jeffe]

this is a tricky one. in a "perfect world" i'd be pretty against it. however it always seems to be the people without the disease being tested for that are opposed to animal testing & very rarely the actual victims of the disease. i do like that groups protest though because it puts pressure on those in these medical fields to reduce the number of animals used & puts pressure on them to increase technology so less animals are required. at the end of the day, as long as the animals are treated in the most humanely way possible (well, given the circumstances) animal testing is pretty much a necessity in medical science

[Ambulance X]

YES YES YES for medical usage

[x togepi x]

against it. we have better alternatives and in many cases, testing on animals is pointless.

[EasySkankin]

in many cases, testing on animals is pointless.

sources plz

Humans > other animals. Our survival is the highest priority. I don't understand why people sympathize with lower animals. Their entire existence is purely mechanic.

[x togepi x]

sources plz

Humans > other animals. Our survival is the highest priority. I don't understand why people sympathize with lower animals. Their entire existence is purely mechanic.

I don't have a source because it's something we talked about in an environmental ethics lecture. We talked about how computer modeling has become infinitely better than it used to be. The main argument against computer modeling is that computers cannot adequately tell us about the complex systems found in living tissue, yet this argument is often extended to animal testing as a whole, which requires human testing anyway.


In medication, (which is what's necessary for survival), we still have to test on humans anyway. If computer modeling didn't work, we could cut out the middle man of animal testing and start with microdosing, which involves giving a person a very small amount of a drug, and watch the results. Microdoses are given at such a low amount that its still safe. In fact, the FDA already says it's a legitimate testing technique.

More importantly, your "Humans > other animals" logic is probably what's going to lead to the downfall of our species.

[EasySkankin]

More importantly, your "Humans > other animals" logic is probably what's going to lead to the downfall of our species.

Another well supported, and elaborated concept by our intellectual extraodinare!

A computer cannot factor in every medical aspect within an organism as complex as a human, or even a rat. Most of what we know concerning the organism, esp. humans, are effects, and not necessarily the causes of all the activity in the body. So while modeling may be incredibly reliable, it's not infallible, and new discoveries are being made all the time.

And i'd suspect that if the medication being tested is to be used on humans eventually, they must be used on animals to confirm that it is safe, in any dose, and what proportion is necessary.

[thetrueblood]

i don't care about animals.

[x togepi x]

Another well supported, and elaborated concept by our intellectual extraodinare!

exactly like everything you're saying! What's funny is that I've already admitted that I'm not going to source any of my statements because I'm lazy, but it's okay for you to do the same thing that you're complaining about.

But to elaborate, you're using hierarchical thinking in a world that is anything but. This type of thinking causes us to do many stupid things for humanity, which are bad for the earth as a holistic system. This view leads to environmental degradation which may very well cause huge problems for our species down the line, if not wipe us out entirely.

this type of thinking can also be bad for other reasons, but it doesn't really connect to humans vs. animals so i'll stop here.

A computer cannot factor in every medical aspect within an organism as complex as a human, or even a rat.

I already said this, but, testing drugs on a rat cannot factor every medical aspect within an organism as complex as a human. If computer testing isn't good enough, this logic would also apply to animal testing, which was my position all along.

We have already been able to create computer models capable of recreating certain diseases in a fairly accurate way, and tests ran through them have been corroborated with animal testing in the past to produce the same results.

Most of what we know concerning the organism, esp. humans, are effects, and not necessarily the causes of all the activity in the body. So while modeling may be incredibly reliable, it's not infallible, and new discoveries are being made all the time.

this is why I started to speak about microdosing, which seems like the best alternative to animal testing. something you completely ignored.

And i'd suspect that if the medication being tested is to be used on humans eventually, they must be used on animals to confirm that it is safe, in any dose, and what proportion is necessary.

Microdosing takes this rationale for animal testing.

[EasySkankin]

But to elaborate, you're using hierarchical thinking in a world that is anything but. This type of thinking causes us to do many stupid things for humanity, which are bad for the earth as a holistic system. This view leads to environmental degradation which may very well cause huge problems for our species down the line, if not wipe us out entirely.
Accepting the fact that humans are far superior to other animals doesn't automatically justify any and all acts of natural destruction. Any such acts must be weighed out against the benefits of human society. This is strawman. I did not suggest "Humans are better than animals, so let's just kill them all", I suggested "Humans are better than animals, so their sacrifice for our benefit is justified".

At this point, I'll concede that computer modeling is an excellent procedure in testing, but testing in real life would be equally as excellent, and shouldn't be discarded.

However, you're forgetting a key thing when it comes to medicinal treatment, and that is that "How much" is not as important as "in what proportion". You can't just guess that a small (note that this word is relative, yet you haven't proposed what it is compared against) amount of a drug will have little to no effect. The body doesn't work that way. Doses are relative to size, age, and various other medical conditions, all which lay upon circumstance, so simply giving a "small" amount is hazardous.


exactly like everything you're saying! What's funny is that I've already admitted that I'm not going to source any of my statements because I'm lazy, but it's okay for you to do the same thing that you're complaining about.
Firstly, I advise you look over the differences in our posts. You simply made a statement. I made a statement, and elaborated on why it is a more correct statement than yours.

Also, I can't cite sources on logic besides proving I'm a human being, hence simply me being able to post these ideas is sufficient citation. I did not refer to any specific event, or physical evidence, whereas you did.

[x togepi x]

Accepting the fact that humans are far superior to other animals doesn't automatically justify any and all acts of natural destruction. Any such acts must be weighed out against the benefits of human society.

environmental degradation is done because something "benefits" human society.


This is strawman. I did not suggest "Humans are better than animals, so let's just kill them all", I suggested "Humans are better than animals, so their sacrifice for our benefit is justified".

Actually, your response to me is the straw man. I never implied that you said we should kill all animals. I said that your hierarchical thinking is the cause of problems. Obviously this line of thinking doesn't have to say "kill all animals", but things such as destroying animal habitats to build cities are justified by this line of thinking.

At this point, I'll concede that computer modeling is an excellent procedure in testing, but testing in real life would be equally as excellent, and shouldn't be discarded thus.

it should be discarded because animal testing is cruel. there's no reason to test with animals if computer testing is just as good.

However, you're forgetting a key thing when it comes to medicinal treatment, and that is that "How much" is not as important as "in what proportion". You can't just guess that a small (note that this word is relative, yet you haven't proposed what it is compared against) amount of a drug will have little to no effect. The body doesn't work that way. Doses are relative to size, age, and various other medical conditions, all which lay upon circumstance, so simply giving a "small" amount is hazardous.

Using computer models, we can come up with a relatively accurate idea of what a microdose would be. It's also important to note that every single one of your arguments against the alternatives to animal testing apply to animal testing itself. We can't really extrapolate data that says "x" is a safe dose for a rat, to a human, etc. I think I'd still have to side with the FDA in this case and say that microdosing is a very valid testing method.

[sdbrown]

Accepting the fact that humans are far superior to other animals doesn't automatically justify any and all acts of natural destruction.

Can you give me a source for this 'fact'?

[hairsprayqueen]

i'm still on the fence. some websites and stuff make it seem like they're *torturing* those animals, but i think that information is portrayed in a way that makes people think *all* animals are being tortured, which i dont think is true...

[EasySkankin]

No animals are superior or inferior to other. Evolution is blind, there is no right or no wrong.

Is the abandonment of all things necessary for an actual discussion required for membership or something? I'll admit, i'm not a mod, so arguably I have no say, but honestly, if you're going to say something in a productive manner, you should at least give an elaboration.


Can you give me a source for this 'fact'?

All of recorded natural history


environmental degradation is done because something "benefits" human society.

But prejudice is made. You don't cut down an entire forest for the fuck of it. You do it for the timber, which is sufficient justification. If a habitat was paramount for human survivable, we wouldn't destroy it. Plus, we create natural habitats all the time.


it should be discarded because animal testing is cruel. there's no reason to test with animals if computer testing is just as good.

Wouldn't animal testing further confirm observations made in computer modeling?

but things such as destroying animal habitats to build cities are justified by this line of thinking.

Thus killing countless animals. And this somehow is what is going to be:

the downfall of our species.

Humans are capable of so many more things than any animal or plant. No other organism can force their environment to adapt to the organism even remote to the extent humans can. We've established lavish civilizations, built buildings taller than mountains, nullified diseases, express individuality, and ponder existence itself. If you honestly think that

No animals are superior or inferior to other.

You need a thorough reality check.

[Nevuk]

A computer cannot factor in every medical aspect within an organism as complex as a human, or even a rat. Most of what we know concerning the organism, esp. humans, are effects, and not necessarily the causes of all the activity in the body. So while modeling may be incredibly reliable, it's not infallible, and new discoveries are being made all the time.


Actually, the entire human dna genome has been encoded by computers. You did hear about this didn't you?

[Smash Adams]

If it has the potential to save people's lives, I'm totally for it.

if it weren't for animal testing there'd be no insulin which you as a diabetic surely need

am I saying that's it's morally right no but I think the good it does outweighs the bad

[EasySkankin]

Actually, the entire human dna genome has been encoded by computers. You did hear about this didn't you?

The project is essentially drawing the map, of territory that is still yet to be explored. Sequencing goes only to identify the genes. It doesn't necessarily tell us what each specific gene does in various circumstances.

Is this relevant?

[tambam]

if it weren't for animal testing there'd be no insulin which you as a diabetic surely need

am I saying that's it's morally right no but I think the good it does outweighs the bad

Good point, my friend.

[x togepi x]

Is the abandonment of all things necessary for an actual discussion required for membership or something? I'll admit, i'm not a mod, so arguably I have no say, but honestly, if you're going to say something in a productive manner, you should at least give an elaboration.

what he's saying is basic evolutionary theory. he doesn't think it requires elaboration.


All of recorded natural history

this is nonsensical. I could make a case against humanity using the same sentence using things like genocide.

But prejudice is made. You don't cut down an entire forest for the fuck of it. You do it for the timber, which is sufficient justification.

Interesting that you bring that up because I was going to point out that the reason we've been cutting down the rainforest, for example, has been because of the "sufficient justification" of timber and allowing cattle to graze, yet it's completely possible that medical cures could be found in undiscovered plants, as well as rainforest loss causing us to lose one of the earth's natural buffers against C02 emmissions.

The problem with "prejudice" is it has a short term bias. We tend to think of the short term goals, which are usually more economic, while ignoring the consequences for our actions (or pushing them off by saying we can develop out of our problems.) Abandoning hierarchical thinking for a more holistic method of viewing nature would a step in the right direction.

If a habitat was paramount for human survivable, we wouldn't destroy it.

most of the time we destroy something that we need, we don't know that we need it.

Plus, we create natural habitats all the time.

i would say we destroy/contaminate much more than we create.



Wouldn't animal testing further confirm observations made in computer modeling?

it would, but it would also be redundant, so we could eliminate animal testing and use microdosing as the alternative.


Thus killing countless animals. And this somehow is what is going to be:

killing countless animals can lead to ecosystem failure. ecosystems benefit us greatly by making the planet livable, just think about my rainforest example here.



Humans are capable of so many more things than any animal or plant. No other organism can force their environment to adapt to the organism even remote to the extent humans can. We've established lavish civilizations, built buildings taller than mountains, nullified diseases, express individuality, and ponder existence itself. If you honestly think that



You need a thorough reality check.

It's interesting that you keep equating advancement with betterness. You need to prove what, objectively, would make us better. Yes, we can do all these really great things, but that can also be cancelled out by all these horrible things that we do. Racism, sexism, homophobia, genocide, slavery, etc are all uniquely human problems, stemming from the fact that we are more advanced, but you can't just leap from advancement to better without providing some sort of link (which you haven't).

To take your logic in a different way. Let's place you up against a severely mentally handicapped person. You can do way more than they can: express yourself, create things etc. This mentally handicapped person can barely function biologically, but definitely nowhere near your level. Are you seriously going to claim that we should place more moral value on you?

You haven't provided any reason why humans are better than animals other than the fact that we're more advanced. One could make the claim that we're able to animal test because we're more advanced, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not we should. Considering I think we have viable alternatives, I think we should stop.

[lew_1987]

Interesting that you bring that up because I was going to point out that the reason we've been cutting down the rainforest, for example, has been because of the "sufficient justification" of timber and allowing cattle to graze, yet it's completely possible that medical cures could be found in undiscovered plants, as well as rainforest loss causing us to lose one of the earth's natural buffers against C02 emmissions.

The problem with "prejudice" is it has a short term bias. We tend to think of the short term goals, which are usually more economic, while ignoring the consequences for our actions (or pushing them off by saying we can develop out of our problems.) Abandoning hierarchical thinking for a more holistic method of viewing nature would a step in the right direction.

well said. :clap:

[EasySkankin]

what he's saying is basic evolutionary theory. he doesn't think it requires elaboration.

To claim evolution is blind is hardly on par with modern evolutionary theory.

this is nonsensical. I could make a case against humanity using the same sentence using things like genocide.

Except you're picking only certain events within history. I'm collecting them all.

Interesting that you bring that up because I was going to point out that the reason we've been cutting down the rainforest, for example, has been because of the "sufficient justification" of timber and allowing cattle to graze, yet it's completely possible that medical cures could be found in undiscovered plants, as well as rainforest loss causing us to lose one of the earth's natural buffers against C02 emmissions.

Plants give off massive amounts of CO2, btw, although I really don't want to link global warming with this topic.

Lots of things are completely possible. Serendipity isn't predictable. Because there can be medical benefits found in a rainforest, doesn't necessarily mean there is, either. Timber industry is essential for everyday living, too.

i would say we destroy/contaminate much more than we create.

the ratio of how much is destroyed vs. how much created is irrelevant. If certain natural cycles are necessary for human survival, we sustain them in controlled environments.

it would, but it would also be redundant, so we could eliminate animal testing and use microdosing as the alternative.

I can't say more, because I'm too ignorant on the current use of computer modeling in this field. I've said all I really can concerning this.

It's interesting that you keep equating advancement with betterness. You need to prove what, objectively, would make us better.

? I gave a few examples, if that's what you're asking. Advancing is nearly synonymous with bettering. I would rather we not play semantics.

Yes, we can do all these really great things, but that can also be cancelled out by all these horrible things that we do. Racism, sexism, homophobia, genocide, slavery, etc are all uniquely human problems, stemming from the fact that we are more advanced, but you can't just leap from advancement to better without providing some sort of link (which you haven't).

Just the fact that we fight about those things makes us so much better. Conflict always leads to resolve. Wars always eventually end. Disagreements are settled. More is learned. It's not coincidence that moral enlightenment, and progress in general, is historically linear.

To take your logic in a different way. Let's place you up against a severely mentally handicapped person. You can do way more than they can: express yourself, create things etc. This mentally handicapped person can barely function biologically, but definitely nowhere near your level. Are you seriously going to claim that we should place more moral value on you?

Of course. Unproductive members of society are only valuable sentimentally. Are you just going to ignore the fact he is mentally handicapped? I think people try to sprinkle reality with frosting way too much. All humans are not created equal. It's simply a fact.

You haven't provided any reason why humans are better than animals other than the fact that we're more advanced. One could make the claim that we're able to animal test because we're more advanced, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not we should. Considering I think we have viable alternatives, I think we should stop.

Here, i'll entertainment your semantic game. Our abilities are far superior to animals. We can do more things.

If I compared two people who work, amount of work in the same time in ratio would be 1:2, who is better?

Is this such a hard concept to comprehend?

[x togepi x]

To claim evolution is blind is hardly on par with modern evolutionary theory.

this statement is completely false. Evolution is based on what species is more adapted. It's blind as to whether a species is "more advanced", because it's based on what species is able to procreate; not based on adpatation as we once though While in any cases, adaptation and the ability to procreate go hand and hand, this isn't always the case. Also, a more advanced species, like humans, might not have the adaptation and would be selected against. An example of this is the classic cockroaches can survive nuclear radiation example. in the event of a nuclear catastrophe, it's feasible that cockroaches would be selected for while humans would be unable to produce offspring.

Except you're picking only certain events within history. I'm collecting them all.

I could say this about you. I would say either optimism or pessimism is picking and choosing. Since my position is merely that we're no better than other species, my position still stands.



Plants give off massive amounts of CO2, btw, although I really don't want to link global warming with this topic.

Lots of things are completely possible. Serendipity isn't predictable. Because there can be medical benefits found in a rainforest, doesn't necessarily mean there is, either.

it's just an example of how short term and long term goals can contradict. if you want, we could use an example like the short term goal of wanting to get oil out of ANWR and the long term effect of how drilling would cripple that ecosystem. there's more examples than that, my real point still stands.

Timber industry is essential for everyday living, too.

maybe, but the way in which we are currently operating the timber industry is based on short term goals, which can lead to unsustainable processes. Cutting down old growth forests for lumber is often not sustainable, which is why the timber industry pushes to open more areas up for cutting down trees.

thinking about things in a hierarchical way is going to keep us following down this path, while if we think of things holistically, we would be more apt to think of alternatives to this lumber.


the ratio of how much is destroyed vs. how much created is irrelevant. If certain natural cycles are necessary for human survival, we sustain them in controlled environments.

We don't live in "controlled environments." I would say things like Hurricane Katrina (trying to build a big city in an area that should be flooding) prove this point. We might be able to control things on a microscopic scale (which is what agriculture is) but there are long ranging effects that are currently out of our control. For example, with farming, we now have problems with erosion, pests, and environmental problems like groundwater contamination by pesticides. In trying to control the environment, such as eliminating pests, we end up creating worse pests than before.

I can't say more, because I'm too ignorant on the current use of computer modeling in this field. I've said all I really can concerning this.

My argument has been all along if we have alternatives to animal testing that work, we should use them. I think we do.



? I gave a few examples, if that's what you're asking. Advancing is nearly synonymous with bettering. I would rather we not play semantics.

This isn't "playing semantics" since the premise of your idea that humans are better than animals is that we're more advanced. I'm showing that there is no objective, logical link between advancement and better. It's crucial to this discussion to point that out.

To further my position, take the first world vs. the third world. Many people believe that we, in the united states, are an advanced civilization compared to people in africa. Your logic would tell us that we're better than those people. I'm using this example to show that advancement does not equal better. You need to provide some sort of link because there isn't one.

Just look at your argument:
Premise: We're more advanced than animals. (fact)
Premise: That which is more advanced is better. (not a fact.I think my third world example kills this premise.)
Conclusion: We are better than animals. (conclusion not proved)


Just the fact that we fight about those things makes us so much better.

unsourced (meaning, you need to elaborate why) nonsensical statement.

Conflict always leads to resolve. Wars always eventually end.

This is not true. We don't know if conflicts always lead to resolve and wars always end. We know that they have ended (maybe, depending on what you define war or conflict), but you can't use information from the past and say it's a model for the future.

More is learned. It's not coincidence that moral enlightenment, and progress in general, is historically linear.

not true at all. the middle ages have shown that progress is not historically linear. there was a backslide in "progress."

Of course. Unproductive members of society are only valuable sentimentally. Are you just going to ignore the fact he is mentally handicapped? I think people try to sprinkle reality with frosting way too much. All humans are not created equal. It's simply a fact.

this statement is horrible and can be used to justify all sorts of horrible things.



Here, i'll entertainment your semantic game. Our abilities are far superior to animals. We can do more things.

If I compared two people who work, amount of work in the same time in ratio would be 1:2, who is better?

Is this such a hard concept to comprehend?

False analogy. We're not talking about better at skills, we're talking about whether or not one should have moral standing. I'm not aware of many systems of ethics that are based on one's ability to do skills.

Let's apply my third world example here. Being in the US, I have the ability to perform many, many tasks that starving people cannot because starving people have to spend more time trying to get food to live. Your logic here states that we're far superior than they, which is pretty racist.

[halfamile]

As someone who is getting his PhD in Pathology, I suppose I should put my two cents in. First off, it would be an understatement to say that animal research is absolutely required for biological research...period! there is no getting around it. In order to convince the scientific community of a claim, it must be done in a living system, and in multiple ways

Someone mentioned something about computer models for medical research. No such thing exists. Sure, you can crystalize a protein to give you a pretty picture on a computer screen and get insights into its structure for possible drug inhibitory sites, and you can also use computers to construct theoretical protein folds, or even theoretical mathematical connections between different genes (nucleic acid sequences) and proteins (amino acid sequences). But as for developing a computer model to test the inner workings of the body, or how drugs will work....sorry. Science is a proof of concept concept.

I must admit, I didn't read much of the replies in the thread....most are too long for my patience

[halfamile]

ok, so I took the time to read a few of the comments above. Although you are all very crafty thinkers, and bring up excellent points...I don't think any of you really know HOW medical/basic research works, and how the process of getting a drug approved works. I'll give you my current take on what I know

I read a few people who mentioned "microdosing." This is called a Phase 1 clinical trial, and it is required by the FDA to get approval. After you have been approved to move on to Phase 1 (once you have done "pre-clinical trials"...which is done with animals) the drug is given to healthy individuals in increasing doses. This is done to look for side effects, drug action specificity, and toxicity. Since drugs (for the most part) are either small organic compounds or larger biological macromolecules, you won't have such things occuring where you will get killed by tiny doses, such as when you intake heavy metals...drugs are made to be specific, and in that specificity, the molecules won't just start destroying everything everywhere at the first sign of toxicity...the person will throw up or get a headache...etc. These things are documented and studied extensively and compiled with data involving the specific effect of the drug.

Phases 2 and 3 are typically reserved for people with disease, sometimes (like in the case of cancer) multiple diseases. These are hard to get by, because despite successful pre-clinical trials and toxicity studying...the drug probably won't work. That's just how it goes, despite the dedication of millions of dollars, and years of research.

As far as the animal end of things is concerned, as I mentioned in the first post, it is a necessity. Experiments done with cells in a plate are powerful tools, but you CAN NOT finish the story of your scientific questions when only one, maybe two or three cell types are present.

As for the "we are better than animals" debate...think what you want, but animal research will not stop. It is not under debate in the scientific community, and there WILL NEVER be a substitute for living systems....despite what PETA will tell you. PETA is either very miss informed, or lying to you when it comes to animal research...that's all I will say about that!

[EasySkankin]

this statement is completely false. Evolution is based on what species is more adapted. ...not based on adpatation as we once thoughI'll give you a chance to fix this contradiction.

I could say this about you. I would say either optimism or pessimism is picking and choosing. Since my position is merely that we're no better than other species, my position still stands.

You chose to include only genocide, and the "bad" things we have done. This is an obviously biased approach.

it's just an example of how short term and long term goals can contradict. if you want, we could use an example like the short term goal of wanting to get oil out of ANWR and the long term effect of how drilling would cripple that ecosystem. there's more examples than that, my real point still stands.

We don't need certain ecosystems.

thinking about things in a hierarchical way is going to keep us following down this path, while if we think of things holistically, we would be more apt to think of alternatives to this lumber.

I like how you try to generalize my entire thought as "Hierarchal". Maybe if your thought is that simple, we aren't much better than animals.

We don't live in "controlled environments."

Agreed. I never suggested otherwise.

For example, with farming, we now have problems with erosion, pests, and environmental problems like groundwater contamination by pesticides. In trying to control the environment, such as eliminating pests, we end up creating worse pests than before.

That's evolution. There's no sidestepping that. For example, bacteria is always going to be a health problem for us. If we don't create measures to control it, and destroy a lot of it, we're going to be at risk. Thus, tuberculosis mutated, and now we have to find countermeasures for that. Over time, simply due to our need to be hygienic, tuberculosis or something similar would've been formed anyway. It's an inescapable fact of life.

This isn't "playing semantics"

of superior quality or excellence

to improve

Obviously, if you are to improve something, you make it better.

since the premise of your idea that humans are better than animals is that we're more advanced. I'm showing that there is no objective, logical link between advancement and better. It's crucial to this discussion to point that out.

Advancing brings upon more abilities to species, and being as we have the most abilities, and pretty much rule the world, as a result of our being "advanced", is the same.

To further my position, take the first world vs. the third world. Many people believe that we, in the united states, are an advanced civilization compared to people in africa. Your logic would tell us that we're better than those people. I'm using this example to show that advancement does not equal better.

The individual people aren't better. We're the same species, with the same abilities. But the United States is better than african countries (and arguably any country) because it is both a diplomatic and material superpower, with economic roots and authority almost anywhere.

unsourced (meaning, you need to elaborate why) nonsensical statement.

There was an entire paragraph afterwards explaining. Way to be a fair debater.

This is not true. We don't know if conflicts always lead to resolve and wars always end. We know that they have ended (maybe, depending on what you define war or conflict), but you can't use information from the past and say it's a model for the future.

Every cited war in history has ended. I'll prevent you from again playing semantics, by defining war as the official, open military conflict between two or more nation-states.

not true at all. the middle ages have shown that progress is not historically linear. there was a backslide in "progress."

I was on the edge of my seat waiting for you to come up with the goods, but they never came.

You're making the same mistake you made in your first post. All you make is a statement.

this statement is horrible and can be used to justify all sorts of horrible things.

Horrible? I'm sorry, but life isn't a bouquet of roses. People suffer, people murder, people die, people starve, and people laugh and make money doing it to other people. People are born differently, and some with medical conditions that make them worse than a normal, relatively unscathed human being.

False analogy. We're not talking about better at skills, we're talking about whether or not one should have moral standing. I'm not aware of many systems of ethics that are based on one's ability to do skills.

If you haven't noticed, I've been using the quantity and magnitude if inherent abilities as the basis for better, for better can be used to measure many things.

Let's apply my third world example here. Being in the US, I have the ability to perform many, many tasks that starving people cannot because starving people have to spend more time trying to get food to live. Your logic here states that we're far superior than they, which is pretty racist.

Racist? I didn't base anything on race, and as i've already explained, In that example, the people themselves would be equal, by my own logic.

jesus christ it's just strawman after strawman.

btw halfamile thanks for your input. It was informative.

Togepi, your arguments are borderline nihilist, because you dispute basic definitions and reject realities which you do not approve of

[halfamile]

interesting debate you have going on here. I just wanted to add a thought to the question of "are we better than animals" or perhaps that we are "higher" than animals in some order. We tend to think of ourselves as being higher...because we have the ability to think, and do it really well. This is a tremendous advantage because we have the ability to do all sorts of things, from fixing the breaks on my car to killing everyone in a city with a large expensive bomb. But what really is the goal here? As far as evolution is concerned, the only real goal is to survive to reproductive age. The parents of all living organisms (ok, so bacteria don't reproduce like this, but stay with me) have done just that. Therefore, we are ALL winners evolutionarily. Perhaps our busy worried minds will lead us to kill each other...leaving the bacteria in hot springs and cockroaches as the winners for the time to be. But for the sake of the complexity and sophistication of the biology of things...we humans truely are at the top, and we get the edge over our mammal counterparts by having complex psychological and social systems...watch one episode of 24...then watch Animal Planet...you get my point.

But ultimately, my point is it's an interesting philosophical issue, and it really depends on how you look at it. As for my personal opinion, I wound see humans as having the "right" to kill animals for research...because we can, and we have damn good reasons for doing so (except for a few sad exceptions that get blown up by the media). When you weigh the ups and downs of the situation, keeping in mind the inner workings of our altruistic minds, we arrive at the notion that we are improving lives and saving lives with animal research...and how could we not let that opportunity pass?

Believe me...every research institution has to have government approval to work with animals, and the internal governing bodies created to regulate animals usage is, well, a pain in the ass. They define the term nit-picky, and really go over the top to assure that the institution stays "humane." Hell, the other day they temporarily cut off my access to the animal room only because I switched the protocol I was working on...unnecessary. You should see the lengthy paper work you have to fill out every two years to get approval to do something as simple as killing a mouse with anesthetic and removing the organs. Unless you have a special place in your heart for mice, one can't help but seeing the system as being obnoxiously over the top.

[x togepi x]

I'll give you a chance to fix this contradiction.

i meant to type advanced instead of adaptation during the first time i typed adaptation. whatever the case is, evolution is blind.

You chose to include only genocide, and the "bad" things we have done. This is an obviously biased approach.

No, had i said "the human race is bad", i'd be choosing only to include things like genocide. I've never made a value judgment. I'm just saying your logic about "well, humans are better because we do good things" can be negated.


We don't need certain ecosystems.

You're going to need to source this, or at least elaborate with some sort of example.


I like how you try to generalize my entire thought as "Hierarchal".

when you say one group is better/higher/greater than another, that is hierarchical thinking.


Agreed. I never suggested otherwise.

You said: "If certain natural cycles are necessary for human survival, we sustain them in controlled environments." I'm pointing out that we cannot create controlled environments outside of a lab.

If certain natural cycles are necessary for human survival, we sustain them in controlled environments. That's evolution. There's no sidestepping that. For example, bacteria is always going to be a health problem for us. If we don't create measures to control it, and destroy a lot of it, we're going to be at risk. Thus, tuberculosis mutated, and now we have to find countermeasures for that.

This fuels my argument that we can't control environments.

simply due to our need to be hygienic, tuberculosis or something similar would've been formed anyway. It's an inescapable fact of life.

there's a lot of research out there that says our "need" to be hygienic is causing humans to have weaker immune systems. this is another example of where i've said short term goals hurt us in the long term.

Obviously, if you are to improve something, you make it better.

this statement is not one that should start with "obviously" since words like "improve" are dependent on your definition. for example, you and i are probably much physically weaker than we would be if we had been born during the ice age, one could make the argument that we're not improved.

and while it's cute that you can post some definitions, you ought to realize that it has nothing to do with the quoted part of my post, which you have taken out of context. In context, I say that you haven't provided a logical link between 'advanced" and better in the moral sense. You just say we're improved, but we're not, since evolution isn't improvement, it's merely adaptation. what's an improvement some times can later on end up being a negative trait.


Advancing brings upon more abilities to species, and being as we have the most abilities, and pretty much rule the world, as a result of our being "advanced", is the same.

so, if i can do more things than you can, i have the right to torture you?

all you've done here is explain what you mean by advanced. i never argued that. I said that you haven't provided a link between advanced and better in a moral sense, which you still haven't.


The individual people aren't better. We're the same species, with the same abilities.

earlier you said that we're not all created equal. this contradicts you saying "we're all the same species with the same abilities". which one is it? You can't have both.

But the United States is better than african countries (and arguably any country) because it is both a diplomatic and material superpower, with economic roots and authority almost anywhere.

I'm a broken record but: we're talking about better in a moral sense, not in power or abilities.


There was an entire paragraph afterwards explaining. Way to be a fair debater.

I would say the fact that I answered your position shows that it's still nonsensical.

Every cited war in history has ended. I'll prevent you from again playing semantics, by defining war as the official, open military conflict between two or more nation-states.

Ironic that you accuse me of playing semantics, but then you define "war" in way that aligns with your position. War doesn't have to be between two nation states. proof? Civil wars. We still have a few of them going on in the world right now.

even then, it's fallacious reasoning to say that because something has happened in the past, it will happen in the future.

I was on the edge of my seat waiting for you to come up with the goods, but they never came.

You're making the same mistake you made in your first post. All you make is a statement.

I wasn't aware that you needed a history lesson about the middle ages. oh well, here we go. we went from more advanced roman societies to less advanced feudal towns. the sciences, in the west, began to decline.

Another example of history not being a constant progression was the period of time after the Mycenean Greek Civilzation fell. This civilization fell around 1100 BC. According to our records, they had a written language known as linear B. Greek civilizations after 1100BC forgot how to write entirely. They had to create an entirely knew written language from scratch.

Horrible? I'm sorry, but life isn't a bouquet of roses. People suffer, people murder, people die, people starve, and people laugh and make money doing it to other people. People are born differently, and some with medical conditions that make them worse than a normal, relatively unscathed human being.

so it's okay to test on the handicapped then?


If you haven't noticed, I've been using the quantity and magnitude if inherent abilities as the basis for better, for better can be used to measure many things.

this doesn't answer my statement. we're not talking about better in ability, we're talking about moral standing,

Racist? I didn't base anything on race, and as i've already explained, In that example, the people themselves would be equal, by my own logic.

No, your logic says "advanced beings are better than not advanced ones." The first world is more advanced than the third world.

jesus christ it's just strawman after strawman.

applying your logic further is not a straw man since I'm not saying that your argument doesn't work. I'm saying that basing moral standing on hierarchical thinking is bad, and racism is just one example of why.

Togepi, your arguments are borderline nihilist, because you dispute basic definitions and reject realities which you do not approve of

the reason i'm "borderline nihilist" is that i'm being critical of "common sense". Since nihilism is the belief in no morality, i'm not entirely sure how one who's arguing for more beings to be included in what has moral standing can be considered nihilist. Just because i'm deconstructing your way of thinking doesn't at all make me a nihilist.

but you've given me no answer to my original statement: if alternatives exist (this in itself is a debatable thing) why should we keep testing on animals?

[x togepi x]

As someone who is getting his PhD in Pathology, I suppose I should put my two cents in. First off, it would be an understatement to say that animal research is absolutely required for biological research...period! there is no getting around it. In order to convince the scientific community of a claim, it must be done in a living system, and in multiple ways.

Someone mentioned something about computer models for medical research. No such thing exists. Sure, you can crystalize a protein to give you a pretty picture on a computer screen and get insights into its structure for possible drug inhibitory sites, and you can also use computers to construct theoretical protein folds, or even theoretical mathematical connections between different genes (nucleic acid sequences) and proteins (amino acid sequences). But as for developing a computer model to test the inner workings of the body, or how drugs will work....sorry. Science is a proof of concept concept.

I must admit, I didn't read much of the replies in the thread....most are too long for my patience

I'd buy what you were saying if we didn't have pregnancy tests that one could buy in a store. I know, this makes little to no sense but in the old days, to determine if a woman was pregnant, we had to do a lab test on her. this lab test required killing a small rodent like a rabbit. Now, we have created a synthetic tool to determine pregnancy.

I'm not entirely sure why this can't be applied to other forms of medicine. It's a case where animal testing has been phased out. In another arena, researchers have created a synthetic skin, known as Corrositex, that allows us to test the reaction of chemicals on human skin without needing a living being. There have also been advances in cell culture technology, which could allow for us to test on grown cultures instead of animals.

I don't disagree with what you're saying about us requiring a living thing, but with the advances in biotechnology, I don't see why this living thing has to be an animal. I realize that you say "well this is a philosophical issue" and that "we're making lives better". This is true, but I don't think the sacrifice is needed anymore. I don't think scientists are just torturing animals for the hell of it.

But if i'm wrong, I do think that we're coming close to breakthroughs in biotech, which will allow us to stop animal testing.

[halfamile]

I'd buy what you were saying if we didn't have pregnancy tests that one could buy in a store. I know, this makes little to no sense but in the old days, to determine if a woman was pregnant, we had to do a lab test on her. this lab test required killing a small rodent like a rabbit. Now, we have created a synthetic tool to determine pregnancy.

I'm not entirely sure why this can't be applied to other forms of medicine. It's a case where animal testing has been phased out. In another arena, researchers have created a synthetic skin, known as Corrositex, that allows us to test the reaction of chemicals on human skin without needing a living being. There have also been advances in cell culture technology, which could allow for us to test on grown cultures instead of animals.

I don't disagree with what you're saying about us requiring a living thing, but with the advances in biotechnology, I don't see why this living thing has to be an animal. I realize that you say "well this is a philosophical issue" and that "we're making lives better". This is true, but I don't think the sacrifice is needed anymore. I don't think scientists are just torturing animals for the hell of it.

But if i'm wrong, I do think that we're coming close to breakthroughs in biotech, which will allow us to stop animal testing.

don't mean to be rude or anything, but you really have no idea what you are talking about. To understand how the scientific process works in biology, you must understand that there is no substitute for a living organism. The synthetic skin you mentioned is a great tool (one of my projects involved wound healing...you're not gonna win this argument;-) haha) but it still isn't skin. The fact of the matter is you need a liver, lungs, stomach, etc, because these things are essential for supplying the factors needed in other organs (namely, the skin) and what you need is carried through the blood and arrive at where they are needed. And you can't just throw everything you need in there...it just doesn't work like that, mostly because there will always be many many things required for biological processes that we have not and may not ever discover. The cells used to push blood vessels into growing properly derive in the bone marrow, for example. The proteins in the blood used for blood clotting derive in multiple organs...and you can't just put the stuff in the dish with your in vitro system...trust me...it won't work. All of these factors are crucial, and in the scientific community, if you don't have a living system, it is not a complete story. There are endless factors that go into this that involve a living system. PETA tells people that "we shouldn't do wound healing experiments on animals because we have already 'cloned skin'"....this is so far from having a proper understanding of how biological systems work, it makes me sick...but only because this is what I do for a living. (the word cloned is tremendously miss used in the public...but it's ok cause they don't know better)

About the pregnancy thing, you're really not on key here. Using a pregnancy test to determine if you are pregnant is WAY different than developing novel drugs to see how they work, or as I do in my lab, understanding how these biological systems work. Do you see the difference here? The pregnancy test has been developed accordingly (probably using animal models) and distributed to the public...just like any other diagnostic test that is used in medicine. Animals are used for just what the title of this thread implies...testing (even though I hate using that term for animal research)

We are not coming close to breakthroughs in biotech to SUBSTITUTE living systems...because they are not being developed. Sure, nowadays it's easy to re-produce living systems in vitro with live cells, or maybe even tissues (as you mentioned with the skin) and these in vitro models are what the majority of biomedical research consists of...but if you or someone else doesn't eventually prove your concept in an animal model (in vivo, as we call it) then it's not a complete story. People aren't going to dump millions of dollars to move into clinical trials for something that has only been proven in vitro, let alone the FDA approving your drug. This stuff is expensive...I'm working under an account of about $1 million+ per year. If you can't prove it in vivo, you aren't worth squat...publish or perish, as they say, and if you're concept isn't shown in an animal model (not necessarily by your own lab) then it's not worth squat in terms of developing the bigger picture of understanding biological systems...believe me...it's a pain in the ass for researchers, especially those who don't like critters. As for the notion of "I don't think this has to be an animal"...well, like I said...those in vitro models are not living organisms (although we do refer to them as living cells, simply because the cells are functioning mostly as they would in the body).

[EasySkankin]

No, had i said "the human race is bad", i'd be choosing only to include things like genocide. I've never made a value judgment. I'm just saying your logic about "well, humans are better because we do good things" can be negated.

Straw man.

"Better" Is not a result of being able to do good things alone, but being able to do them well, over and over again, on a massive scale.

You're going to need to source this, or at least elaborate with some sort of example.

If I killed every living plant in my garden, would yo8 die? If I used the death star to obliterate mars, would you die? If I shut down and destroyed yellowstone national park, would you die? If I cut down a rainforest halfway around the world, would you die?

Your exaggerating.

You said: "If certain natural cycles are necessary for human survival, we sustain them in controlled environments." I'm pointing out that we cannot create controlled environments outside of a lab.

Straw man. I never implied we could create them outside of labs, and by controlled environment, every scientist will agree it is not completely "controlled". An example of a simple controlled experiment testing whether or not a certain hair dye has consistent effects on different peoples would include monitoring chemicals they put in their hair, and using different people to contrast.

That, in relation to the purpose, is a controlled environment.

But we cannot control the amount of carbon in venus' atmosphere, and factor in it's effects, nor can we control the proportion of cations and anions in the mississippi river, and timberwolf still cannot find the income tax law.

But does that relate at all to the purpose of the experiment, or the environment?

So when I say controlled environments, I mean environments in which we can take considerable measures to optimize natural habitats for whatever uses of them are necessary in their existence.

there's a lot of research out there that says our "need" to be hygienic is causing humans to have weaker immune systems. this is another example of where i've said short term goals hurt us in the long term.

lol weaker immune systems? You know, you like to talk about evolution, but we as humans are so well suited to our environments and face virtually no threat of our extinction that the only evolutionary jumps we will make are that of the immune system.

this statement is not one that should start with "obviously" since words like "improve" are dependent on your definition. for example, you and i are probably much physically weaker than we would be if we had been born during the ice age, one could make the argument that we're not improved.

That's because we aren't. In physical strength, primitive human forms are superior and better than our current form.

and while it's cute that you can post some definitions, you ought to realize that it has nothing to do with the quoted part of my post, which you have taken out of context. In context, I say that you haven't provided a logical link between 'advanced" and better in the moral sense. You just say we're improved, but we're not, since evolution isn't improvement, it's merely adaptation. what's an improvement some times can later on end up being a negative trait.


Moral sense? Since when did I say anything about that?

so, if i can do more things than you can, i have the right to torture you?

Straw man.

We are both normal born humans (i'm assuming you were born without any extreme deficiencies), thus our abilities differ little. Plus, I never advocated the blind torture of animals, but whatever use of them may be necessary to benefit us. So, even If I were a fellow human, if torturing me meant world peace, i'd say it's well justified you torture me.

all you've done here is explain what you mean by advanced. i never argued that. I said that you haven't provided a link between advanced and better in a moral sense, which you still haven't.

Ooh, lookie here, another straw man. I told you that in this argument, "better" is a measure of ability and usefulness. Moral authority is not something directly argued for, you must base it upon many things, and this is what I'm basing it upon.

earlier you said that we're not all created equal. this contradicts you saying "we're all the same species with the same abilities". which one is it? You can't have both.

We were generalizing the entire populace of a fucking continent. I'm safe to assume the majority of africans were born normal, without extreme crippling deficiencies.

I'm a broken record but: we're talking about better in a moral sense, not in power or abilities.

No, you're speaking in a moral sense. You are directly arguing for it. I, realize that such an argument must be based upon something, so I do. No one can simply jump and say "everyone has equal moral standing just because", which is why it must be studied what is valuable within an individual, which I have rendered to be ability and effectiveness in use of it.

Ironic that you accuse me of playing semantics, but then you define "war" in way that aligns with your position. War doesn't have to be between two nation states. proof? Civil wars. We still have a few of them going on in the world right now.

War is a word.

even then, it's fallacious reasoning to say that because something has happened in the past, it will happen in the future.

Sure, I'll give you that. But it's entirely scientific to assume if conditions X were present when event Y transpired, when again conditions X are met, you may assume Y will transpire again.

I wasn't aware that you needed a history lesson about the middle ages. oh well, here we go. we went from more advanced roman societies to less advanced feudal towns. the sciences, in the west, began to decline. Another example of history not being a constant progression was the period of time after the Mycenean Greek Civilzation fell. This civilization fell around 1100 BC. According to our records, they had a written language known as linear B. Greek civilizations after 1100BC forgot how to write entirely. They had to create an entirely knew written language from scratch.

Advanced societies? Historically speaking, how "advanced" a nation-state is depends on the economic standard of living of the individuals within it. Also, you should have assumed that when I said "progress is historically linear", i didn't mean that every single second past is a step towards progress, but a very general sense of social conscience eventually progress.

so it's okay to test on the handicapped then?

lol straw man. Generally speaking, any born person has sentimental value to it's family. This is another sense of "better" that is alongside the "better" of ability, Which is why I also would say that you shouldn't harm any pet that someone is personally attached to.

this doesn't answer my statement. we're not talking about better in ability, we're talking about moral standing

Straw man, and i've already answered this earlier.

No, your logic says "advanced beings are better than not advanced ones." The first world is more advanced than the third world.

Is a world a living being? no. And it doesn't accurately reflect the living beings residing in it, so simply because one nation is better than another, does not mean the people within it are better.

applying your logic further is not a straw man since I'm not saying that your argument doesn't work. I'm saying that basing moral standing on hierarchical thinking is bad, and racism is just one example of why.

The simple act of assuming something as "right" as opposed to "wrong" is hierarchal, is it not? Are you suggesting that every and all things should be accepted because "hierarchical thinking is bad"? Isn't that assuming that it should be accepted, as opposed to unaccepted?

Without hierarchical thinking, there is no thought.

the reason i'm "borderline nihilist" is that i'm being critical of "common sense". Since nihilism is the belief in no morality, i'm not entirely sure how one who's arguing for more beings to be included in what has moral standing can be considered nihilist. Just because i'm deconstructing your way of thinking doesn't at all make me a nihilist.

I really don't know what dictionary you're using, but now you're even oversimplifying and misrepresenting nihilism. Nihilism, more accurately, is the absence of hierarchical thought.

but you've given me no answer to my original statement: if alternatives exist (this in itself is a debatable thing) why should we keep testing on animals?

I've already told you I cannot say more because I'm too ignorant, but someone else already successfully demonstrated against the abandonment of the treatment.

[x togepi x]

don't mean to be rude or anything, but you really have no idea what you are talking about. To understand how the scientific process works in biology, you must understand that there is no substitute for a living organism. The synthetic skin you mentioned is a great tool (one of my projects involved wound healing...you're not gonna win this argument;-) haha) but it still isn't skin. The fact of the matter is you need a liver, lungs, stomach, etc, because these things are essential for supplying the factors needed in other organs (namely, the skin) and what you need is carried through the blood and arrive at where they are needed. And you can't just throw everything you need in there...it just doesn't work like that, mostly because there will always be many many things required for biological processes that we have not and may not ever discover. The cells used to push blood vessels into growing properly derive in the bone marrow, for example. The proteins in the blood used for blood clotting derive in multiple organs...and you can't just put the stuff in the dish with your in vitro system...trust me...it won't work. All of these factors are crucial, and in the scientific community, if you don't have a living system, it is not a complete story. There are endless factors that go into this that involve a living system. PETA tells people that "we shouldn't do wound healing experiments on animals because we have already 'cloned skin'"....this is so far from having a proper understanding of how biological systems work, it makes me sick...but only because this is what I do for a living. (the word cloned is tremendously miss used in the public...but it's ok cause they don't know better)

About the pregnancy thing, you're really not on key here. Using a pregnancy test to determine if you are pregnant is WAY different than developing novel drugs to see how they work, or as I do in my lab, understanding how these biological systems work. Do you see the difference here? The pregnancy test has been developed accordingly (probably using animal models) and distributed to the public...just like any other diagnostic test that is used in medicine. Animals are used for just what the title of this thread implies...testing (even though I hate using that term for animal research)

We are not coming close to breakthroughs in biotech to SUBSTITUTE living systems...because they are not being developed. Sure, nowadays it's easy to re-produce living systems in vitro with live cells, or maybe even tissues (as you mentioned with the skin) and these in vitro models are what the majority of biomedical research consists of...but if you or someone else doesn't eventually prove your concept in an animal model (in vivo, as we call it) then it's not a complete story. People aren't going to dump millions of dollars to move into clinical trials for something that has only been proven in vitro, let alone the FDA approving your drug. This stuff is expensive...I'm working under an account of about $1 million+ per year. If you can't prove it in vivo, you aren't worth squat...publish or perish, as they say, and if you're concept isn't shown in an animal model (not necessarily by your own lab) then it's not worth squat in terms of developing the bigger picture of understanding biological systems...believe me...it's a pain in the ass for researchers, especially those who don't like critters. As for the notion of "I don't think this has to be an animal"...well, like I said...those in vitro models are not living organisms (although we do refer to them as living cells, simply because the cells are functioning mostly as they would in the body).



Covance has worked hard to convince Chandler residents that animal experiments are a necessary part of medical progress. But the truth is that animal experiments are not predictive of how drugs or other treatments will work in humans.
Fortunately, we don't have to choose between protecting animals and advancing medical research. By moving away from animal experiments and creating humane and effective research tools, we can advance medical science and ethical standards for humans and animals.



source= Christian Science Monitor 8/7/2007



I realize that he doesn't really explain anything, but you're not either. I think his PhD kinda outweighs anything I can say. I'm not just quoting PETA talking points.




What humane testing methods exist in place of animal testing? A: It still surprises many people to learn that non-animal testing methods are not only more ethical, they are also more applicable to human health. The differences in biology, chemistry and physiology mean that research conducted on animals doesn't always translate effectively to humans. As more researchers realize this, they are turning to some of the following methods:
Selective formulation Choosing previously tested ingredients to create new products eliminates the need for further testing. Many manufacturers follow this principle in planning their product lines.
Human cultures Epiderm and EpiSkin are human skin cells grown in test tubes that are layered to mimic the structure of human skin. Cosmetics and household products can be tested on these rather than the skin of live rabbits. Corrositex is another test-tube option that gives an easy-to-read color change reaction to a hazardous product. And EpiOcular, a mass of skin cells specially grown to form a thin layer like that of the human cornea, has the potential to completely replace the cruel rabbit eye irritancy test.
Skin cultures taken by permission during surgical procedures (such as breast-reduction surgery) can be used to test whether a chemical can pass through the skin and be a potential poison risk.
Surgical specimens are also the main source of human tissues available from the National Disease Research Interchange (NDRI) in Philadelphia. This non-profit tissue bank makes more than 100 types of human tissues available for medical research. NDRI, along with Asterand, a company with offices in the US, UK and Japan that supplies human biomaterials for research, has made it easier than ever for companies to access human cells for testing.
The physiological chip Just as a microchip holds an intricate system of electronic connections, this 1x1-inch square of cultured cells is made up of cell compartments that are linked by a lifelike circulatory system that mimics the complex functions of the human body. The chips, developed by the Hurel Corporation in Beverly Hills, CA, can be used to test for harmful (and beneficial) effects of experimental drugs, as well as toxicity of the liver and other organs.
Cellular tests Experiments that measure white blood cell response to chemicals and medical substances can be used in place of rabbit injections. These tests check for unexpected fever and inflammation--especially from receiving intravenous medications. The European Union just approved the use of five of these tests.
Bacteria-based tests performed on common microbes such as salmonella can be used to assess whether chemicals can damage DNA, and therefore present a cancer risk.


Q: What will it take for companies to stop animal testing for good?
A: Pharmaceutical manufacturers are particularly reluctant to deviate from standard test procedures because animal tests have been the path to regulatory approval of their products with a minimum of liability. But the Vioxx scandal showed that animal tests are far from a guarantee of safety. (Vioxx was the anti-inflammatory approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that was later found to increase the risk of heart attack and stroke; it was subsequently pulled from the market.)
What's more, the Environmental Protection Agency, the FDA and other agencies remain decidedly loyal to decades-old animal tests. Progress will come as legislators pressure these agencies to modernize the processes and as stockholders of major drug manufacturers bring resolutions that move the companies away from animal testing.



I realize that you're supposed to use animal testing, but you haven't said anything about why these don't work, other than that they "just don't."



I bolded the Vioxx thing to show that animal tests don't guarantee safety.

[x togepi x]

Straw man.

"Better" Is not a result of being able to do good things alone, but being able to do them well, over and over again, on a massive scale.

You don't know what a straw man is. Your definition of better does not change my argument at all. We can do great things really well. We can do horrible things really well too.

If I killed every living plant in my garden, would yo8 die?

your garden does not count as an ecosystem.


If I used the death star to obliterate mars, would you die?

mars doesn't have ecosystems, but even if they did, you know that I was talking about ecosystems within earth, you know, ones that could actually effect us.


If I shut down and destroyed yellowstone national park, would you die?

maybe. I'm ignorant as to what purpose yellowstone serves as an ecosystem. i would think it


If I cut down a rainforest halfway around the world, would you die?

If you cut down an entire rainforest, I think things would get worse for me. i'm not sure how you can cut down one rainforest, since most of them are interconnected.


Your exaggerating.

Of course i'm exaggerating. I'm taking your logic to its conclusion. We could justify destroying entire ecosystems by short term goals which will have long term effects. For example, the California Wildfires have gotten worse because of how urbanization spread.


Straw man. I never implied we could create them outside of labs, and by controlled environment, every scientist will agree it is not completely "controlled". An example of a simple controlled experiment testing whether or not a certain hair dye has consistent effects on different peoples would include monitoring chemicals they put in their hair, and using different people to contrast.

That, in relation to the purpose, is a controlled environment.

But we cannot control the amount of carbon in venus' atmosphere, and factor in it's effects, nor can we control the proportion of cations and anions in the mississippi river, and timberwolf still cannot find the income tax law.

But does that relate at all to the purpose of the experiment, or the environment?

So when I say controlled environments, I mean environments in which we can take considerable measures to optimize natural habitats for whatever uses of them are necessary in their existence.

This isn't a straw man since when i originally was talking about the environment, I meant that we cannot make the world we live into a controlled environment. My example of Katrina still proves this point. Science is not as powerful as you make it.



lol weaker immune systems?

we do, we have to face less disease because of medicine, which is great, but it shows that "advanced" or "improved" are highly subjective concepts, which was my point.


You know, you like to talk about evolution, but we as humans are so well suited to our environments and face virtually no threat of our extinction that the only evolutionary jumps we will make are that of the immune system.

this isn't true. there are lots of threats of extinction, one of which is ourselves. Since evolution only favors those who are able to reproduce, it is completely possible in evolutionary theory for a species to wipe itself out.



That's because we aren't. In physical strength, primitive human forms are superior and better than our current form.

once again showing that advancement or improvement are subjective concepts.



Moral sense? Since when did I say anything about that?

When talking about whether we should do something, we start talking about morality/ethics. I've been talking about this all along.



Straw man.

We are both normal born humans (i'm assuming you were born without any extreme deficiencies), thus our abilities differ little.

You also argued that all people aren't born equal. Which is it? Do we base equality on abilities or do we base it on whether or not something is a part of a specific species?

This isn't a straw man if your argument is based on ability. It's extending your logic.


Plus, I never advocated the blind torture of animals, but whatever use of them may be necessary to benefit us. So, even If I were a fellow human, if torturing me meant world peace, i'd say it's well justified you torture me.

so wait...if you think we should torture people if it leads to peace, why not just test on people then? I really don't think you want to be going down this road.

I don't think we should be exploiting things when we have alternatives to this exploitation.


Ooh, lookie here, another straw man. I told you that in this argument, "better" is a measure of ability and usefulness. Moral authority is not something directly argued for, you must base it upon many things, and this is what I'm basing it upon.

This isn't a straw man. I'm attacking the base upon which you're basing your logic for moral authority by extending it to another arena because, if you're going to use this as your base for morality, it must be extended beyond the realm of testing.

This isn't a straw man. If i were using it as a straw man, I would be constructing it an a way that can be easily torn down. Following your bastardization of logical fallacies, I'd never be able to attack the premises of your argument because isolating them would be a straw man.

You're just using a weak understanding of logic to get around answering my arguments.


We were generalizing the entire populace of a fucking continent. I'm safe to assume the majority of africans were born normal, without extreme crippling deficiencies.

We're talking about your standard for morality (in this case). I'm applying it to show you that it isn't a standard of morality that we would truly like to use. The reason I bring this up is that you're basing your standard on advancement, a highly subjective concept. Yes, biologically, we're not advanced over the third world, but not advanced in other ways.

So now, when we're defining this moral decision, are we basing it on biology or other ways? We need more specific terms for this go to further.


No, you're speaking in a moral sense. You are directly arguing for it. I, realize that such an argument must be based upon something, so I do. No one can simply jump and say "everyone has equal moral standing just because", which is why it must be studied what is valuable within an individual, which I have rendered to be ability and effectiveness in use of it.

This is something I would agree with, but I don't think you're doing a good job of providing this base.


War is a word.

and words don't have one simple definition, especially giant concepts like war. ask someone in iraq if they think they're living in a war, and i think they'd say yes.


Sure, I'll give you that. But it's entirely scientific to assume if conditions X were present when event Y transpired, when again conditions X are met, you may assume Y will transpire again.

one of the biggest criticisms of social science is that you can't apply these scientific standards to human behavior.


Advanced societies? Historically speaking, how "advanced" a nation-state is depends on the economic standard of living of the individuals within it. Also, you should have assumed that when I said "progress is historically linear", i didn't mean that every single second past is a step towards progress, but a very general sense of social conscience eventually progress.

I honestly thought you were talking about every single example of progress there, but...when we talk about how we're more advanced than times in the past, we're really only talking about the first world here. I'd also say that my example of two dark ages shows that it is possible for progress to halt for awhile, which means your language about how we're going to be progressing is a little too strong. Yes, we're progressing now, but that doesn't mean we always will.


lol straw man. Generally speaking, any born person has sentimental value to it's family. This is another sense of "better" that is alongside the "better" of ability, Which is why I also would say that you shouldn't harm any pet that someone is personally attached to.

not a straw man. once again, i'm advancing your base of morality into other arenas.

Here you introduce another definition of better which is probably a bad idea since it muddles your base.


Straw man, and i've already answered this earlier.

No, you haven't (since i've answered it again) and no it's not a strawman.


Is a world a living being? no. And it doesn't accurately reflect the living beings residing in it, so simply because one nation is better than another, does not mean the people within it are better.

once again, applying your standard to other arenas.


The simple act of assuming something as "right" as opposed to "wrong" is hierarchal, is it not?

No, it's not. Right and Wrong are a duality. Dualistic thinking can lead to hierarchical thinking but it doesn't always have to.


Are you suggesting that every and all things should be accepted because "hierarchical thinking is bad"?

no, because you can use arguments that aren't based on hierarchical thinking.


Without hierarchical thinking, there is no thought.

I don't understand how you can make such a grand statement without any explanation.


I really don't know what dictionary you're using, but now you're even oversimplifying and misrepresenting nihilism. Nihilism, more accurately, is the absence of hierarchical thought.

I'm not using a dictionary, i'm using years of philosophy classes. I'm not saying "nothing has value." or "there is no morality". Lots of philosophies reject hierarchy, but they aren't necessarily nihilist (though they can be)

[myantiyou]

If it has the potential to save people's lives, I'm totally for it.

if it weren't for animal testing there'd be no insulin which you as a diabetic surely need

am I saying that's it's morally right no but I think the good it does outweighs the bad

Basically what I came to say. Overall, it greatly benefits us, and as selfish as it sounds, it's what it is. Rat's life < Human life. Some people may disagree, but they have to accept it.

Bad argument? Perhaps, but this is reality. People need to realize that sometimes it is necessary for the general welfare of the people.

note that I did not take the time to read this entire thread. If there is an equally effective alternative to medical animal testing, I'd like to see.

[EasySkankin]

wow ok, let me define more terms for you then.

Straw man is ultimately the attack of a misrepresented argument. What you attacked in your posts is not my argument, but what you assume is an "extent of my logic", and I, as the arbitrary holder of my logic, know whether or not it is, which it isn't.

1.any system of persons or things ranked one above another.

Right is better than wrong, right? What is accepted to be truth is placed above what is a facade, correct? Is that not placing a hierarchy among ideas?

Any thinker who makes intellectual claims, yet claims he is not hierarchical, is kidding himself, no matter what his name is.

Right and Wrong are a duality

Are you denying that one is favorable over the other?

because of the relentless quote copypaste /quote -age that is brutalizing this thread, I am going to take a different approach to this argument, and start from the bottom up, and I'm going to begin with your notion that hierarchical thinking is bad and unnecessary, and eventually discuss my argument that Humans are "better" than animals, thus giving them moral authority.

You claim I gave no explanation for my "bold statement", yet I gave it just before, and for your convenience, I'll simplify it.

1.Hierarchy, by definition, is necessary to distinguish right favorable from wrong.
2.By removing Hierarchy, you thus remove this distinction.
3.Productive thought is supposed to be used to bring about actions relevant to the external world, to make changes in order to make one's world "better" and more agreeable.
4.Thus by removing Hierarchy, you remove productive thought.

[x togepi x]

wow ok, let me define more terms for you then.

Straw man is ultimately the attack of a misrepresented argument. What you attacked in your posts is not my argument, but what you assume is an "extent of my logic", and I, as the arbitrary holder of my logic, know whether or not it is, which it isn't.

Taking your logic, which you've said is the basis for a moral decision (whether we should test on animals) and applying it to other moral decisions is not a straw man. I am well aware of what a straw-man is. one of my majors is philosophy...

what i'm doing is showing that if we apply preference to the more advanced/better (whatever definition of the word you're using, since you contradict yourself within your definitions) to other moral decisions, which we should be able to do if it's a basis for morality, we end up being able to justify reprehensible things. This is a common tactic in essays about ethics.

For example, many articles critical of Utilitarianism take their belief of whatever does the most good is what we should do and applies it to situations like "should we kill one person to save two?" It's not a straw man at all, it's trying to take an abstract idea and making it more applicable.

You're just hiding behind a logical fallacy because you want to base one decision on the basis of advancement/betterness but you don't want to base other ones. That's fine, if you'd just admit that, but reading this discussion, i'm not entirely sure you'd buy into a concept of ethics that changes upon situation.


Right is better than wrong, right?

"right and wrong" are social constructions, so i'd say it depends on one's world view.

What is accepted to be truth is placed above what is a facade, correct? Is that not placing a hierarchy among ideas?

if you believe in Truth, yes, but i don't. i believe in truths. honestly, i don't think we want to go down this road because we'll start talking about post-modernism versus modernism and rehash the long and boring "relativism vs. objectivism" arguments that I don't think either of us are going to learn from.

i mean we can do it if you want, but I don't think you do (does anyone really?)

Any thinker who makes intellectual claims, yet claims he is not hierarchical, is kidding himself, no matter what his name is.

I'm glad you're able to judge the statement of everyone who's ever written.


1.Hierarchy, by definition, is necessary to distinguish right favorable from wrong.
2.By removing Hierarchy, you thus remove this distinction.
3.Productive thought is supposed to be used to bring about actions relevant to the external world, to make changes in order to make one's world "better" and more agreeable.
4.Thus by removing Hierarchy, you remove productive thought.

This argument seems fine logically, but it's very foundationalist in its thinking (you wouldn't think that's a bad thing). It's assuming there is some sort of act, upon which, all of our knowledge/rational thinking etc, is based upon. The act you choose is thinking in hierarchical ways. the problem is that you can't essentialize what it means to "think." i'm not sure i really feel like arguing about thinking about thinking and stupid shit like that (it's important, but i'd rather do something else). we both know i'm going to say "how do you define productive?" and "there's no standard for better/more agreeable" anyway.

i see where this argument will go:

first you'll have to prove that all thinking is hierarchical (i don't think you can, but let's say sure)
then you'll have to prove that using basing an ethic on a hierarchy of beings is what we should be doing. This is where the bulk of my criticism will be. The reason I don't want to argue with you is I've been arguing this all along and you keep claiming it's a straw man. that is and would go nowhere.

If you're really interested, Ecofeminist Karen Warren wrote an essay on environmentalism that talks about the dangers of hierarchical ethics, I think it's called "The Power and Promise of Ecological Feminism".

[EasySkankin]

Firstly, If you don't want to argue, why are you poking at me with a stick so I will? I already defined productive thought in my outline. Hierarchy is accepting the reality that some things are better than others, some things are right, some things should be done, and some things are true. By placing something "above" another, you are taking a step towards realizing what actions must be taken to enforce the "right" thing.

Justification is just that, justification. So if I am able to reasonably justify something, it is no longer reprehensible. If it truly were reprehensible, it would be up to you to justify why it is reprehensible.

So simply because you don't like a conclusion doesn't mean it's incorrect.

If I say any more I'll just be repeating myself. I suggest if you are actually going to argue (productively), you critisize my specific arguments, and not try to classify me into a whole and make predictions as to where this will lead. I've presented my argument, I've given my logical basis, the burden of proof is upon you.

[x togepi x]

Firstly, If you don't want to argue, why are you poking at me with a stick so I will? I already defined productive thought in my outline. Hierarchy is accepting the reality that some things are better than others, some things are right, some things should be done, and some things are true. By placing something "above" another, you are taking a step towards realizing what actions must be taken to enforce the "right" thing.

Justification is just that, justification. So if I am able to reasonably justify something, it is no longer reprehensible. If it truly were reprehensible, it would be up to you to justify why it is reprehensible.

So simply because you don't like a conclusion doesn't mean it's incorrect.

If I say any more I'll just be repeating myself. I suggest if you are actually going to argue (productively), you critisize my specific arguments, and not try to classify me into a whole and make predictions as to where this will lead. I've presented my argument, I've given my logical basis, the burden of proof is upon you.


I said I no longer wanted to argue, but for education's (if you cared enough to know why i was saying whatever i thought), here's a few points and an article to read. I don't view this as an argument to be won or lost, and since you're not saying anything I haven't heard before (no offense), I'd rather be doing something else.

[halfamile]

I said I no longer wanted to argue, but for education's (if you cared enough to know why i was saying whatever i thought), here's a few points and an article to read. I don't view this as an argument to be won or lost, and since you're not saying anything I haven't heard before (no offense), I'd rather be doing something else.

or you're too proud to admit you were wrong...purely speculation within my own brain

[selftitled85]

im for it in some cases. cosmetic no...but to test new vaccines and what not i am definitely for it.

[x togepi x]

or you're too proud to admit you were wrong...purely speculation within my own brain

or maybe I don't feel like arguing about epistemology since how we think has no practical application to my life.

[EasySkankin]

Didn't you say you were going to give me an article or something? I don't see any link

[x togepi x]

it's not online, but I gave you the author and the name of it. It's in many feminist/environmental ethics textbooks. if i still had my book, i'd scan it and throw it up on megaupload. if you're really interested, i can ask my advisor for a copy when I go in to meet her this week.

[open mind]

i think at this point medical testing on animals is one of those ugly things people have to deal with for now as computers can only deal with and analyze what they've been programmed to, and since it hasn't been very long at all since the human genome has been mapped, and work on mapping the immeasuably more complex epi-genome is really only begining there's no way at this point for a computer to produce the somewhat unreliable, but still useful results that animal testing can provide.