Animal testing, as simple as ringing a bell in front of a dog and seeing its response. Yet it can also be as complicated as taking a flamethrower to a pig and seeing tissue response. So, what exactly do you think?


Questions for Debate:

1.) Are you for or against animal testing? Why or why not?

2.) Do you believe there are more than ethical concerns on this issue (such as health care, finances, etc.)?

3.) What alternatives to animal testing are there?


Pro-Animal Testing:

Link One

Neutral:

Link Two

Against Animal Testing:

Link Three
Link Four (Opinion-driven article)

My position is that people who oppose animal testing should be consistent and also forsake all medical treatments, food products, and cosmetics that are the result of animal testing. Anything less is bald hypocrisy.


Well, people who tend to support animal rights to the degree that we should ban animal testing tend to be extremely liberal. And extreme liberals tend to get themselves into hot water over conflicting values. Consider AIDS testing. Most extreme liberals would like to see us spend more money on AIDS research. But how is that research to proceed if we do not first test the safety of proposed remedies on animals? Are we to expose human subjects to the full risk of an untested treatment? Is that really a responsible and ethical thing to do? Do any of the animal rights activists want to volunteer for testing? So the question becomes, if the medical industry creates several promising new drugs, is it more ethical to test those drugs on lower animals first (in the vast, vast majority, rodents), or test them on humans directly out of simulation?


The problem is the question. In no case is animal testing used in isolation. In few to no cases is computer simulation used in isolation (certainly no responsible medical lab would forego live testing on the basis of their computer simulations alone, given the current state of the art). The fact is, the human body is a tremendously complex and intricate system with all kinds of unpredictable responses to various impositions. We just don't have the technology to simulate it at a safe level of confidence. Until we do, we must accept the sacrifice of lab animals if we are to harvest the benefits of new medicine.

1.) Are you for or against animal testing? Why or why not?

The way I see it, if it causes the animal any clear pain and suffering, then there has to be, at minimum, a near-absolute certainty that doing this truly will save human lives or alleviate human agony. Otherwise, it just isn't worth the cost to our own humanity that comes from doing it.

Broadly speaking, if it's illegal to do to an animal outside of scientific research, then it probably shouldn't be done to the animal in the name of research.


You may have a point if receiving said medical treatment actually enriched those who performed the testing. But short of that, it makes no sense to expect people opposed to the testing to refuse the treatment.

I have to say, I am not entirely sure there are testing laboratories in which they take a flamethrower to a pig, though if there were I'm not entirely sure what they would be looking for...


My opinion on this has changed enormously recently. I used to be pretty enutral on the topic, as in I frankly just didn't care. If pressed I would say I was gainst testing that caused needles suffering in animals, but as a general rule I suppose I was in favour of it for the benefits to science derived.


Then, I came to Oxford, and was exposed for the first time to animal rights protesters. Rarely in my life have the actions of a group driven me to such hatred and contempt. Examples include:

-A guinea pig farm in central england was discovered by the protesters, this place grows guinea pigs and sells them to pet-stores all over, but also to labs where they are used for animal testing.

The house was attacked so often they had to put 10 foot steel fencing around it. Two family cars were burned down to the ground. When the house was too well protected, the protesters targeted anyone who had anything to do with the family. Their friends had their cars burned, the local pub was vandalised, the place they did their shopping was burned.

Finally, the family burial plot was dug up with a mechanical excavator, and the bones of past relatives including a recently deceased grandmother were taken stolen. That is one example.

In Oxford itself we have to deal with the protests and attacks of these lunatics, their webpages proclaim that since one building on Oxford campus engages in testing, all Oxford students and teachers and staff are acceptable targets for violence and vandalism.



After a year of being exposed to these utter psociopaths, I have now become extremely anti-animal. When I see them in the streets I want to start throwing live gerbils at them, or have them attacked by a pack of wild hyenas and sit back and watch nature's irony.

It is rare, but this is one of the cases where in my mind that the utter insanity of the supporters of an otherwise resonable cause has literally discredited the entire cause.

I am very sorry to hear that, Vermillion. There is no doubt at all that there are fanatics, even terrorists, who abuse the good cause of animal welfare with these crimes. As one who is perhaps a stronger advocate of animal rights than most here, let me say that I do not support this sort of activity in any way.

This is an emotional issue which seems to bring out the worst in some people. It is also an issue which can be argued in a thoughtless, facile way. As an example, take at look at "Link Four" provided above. (I get the feeling that this essay was written by a very young person, and it may be understandable why she writes with her heart rather than her head.)



It is a grotesque distortion of the truth to claim that the suffering of animals is exactly the same as the suffering of humans.

It is also a grotesque distortion of the truth to deny that the suffering of animals is not worthy of any ethical consideration at all.

Where do we find the middle ground? The best I can do is to offer this suggestion.

The degree to which an organism is worthy of ethical consideration is directly proportional to the degree to which it is capable of experiencing suffering.

Very little, if any, justification may be needed for the use of most invertebrates in medical research; a great deal of very strong justification should be required for the use of mammals in medical research.

Here is an organization seeking to reduce the use of animals in medical research which takes a very sensible view of the issue:

Link



FRAME (The Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments) funds scientific research into the development of effective ways to obtain accurate data which do not involve the use of animals. (There is good evidence that animal research is, at best, a mediocre source of accurate information about human biology.)

Like many other ethical issues, the question of animal rights is perhaps best dealt with inside the conscience of each individual human being. I cannot speak for others. For myself, after some years of doubt, I have come to the conclusion that it is better if I do what I can to avoid benefiting directly from the death or suffering of animals. I am sure that I do not always live up to this goal, but at least it points me in the right direction.

And for me, thats all it takes. Intellectually I know that the dangerous lunatics who represent the worst of this lot are likely a small fraction of the overall animal-welfare supporters.

But when the body of a family's grandmother was gug up and desecrated, what did the legitimate, middle of the road, animal rights groups have to say about it? Nothing at all. I expected them to be standing on a soapbox in the middle of the street denouncing these radicals, but not a peep.

I am reminded of the first episode of season 1 of West Wing: Those moderate members of a group who stand by and say and do nothing while extreme members of that group commit crimes might as well stand up and be counted amongst the criminals...





It's a reasonable suggestion, but in runs into a few biological snags. The reality is scientists don't experiment on monkeys because all scientists have a deep loathing for monkeys, they do it because primates are the closest thing to humans in the animal kingdom. It is true that drug testing on a jellyfish would cause it no suffering at all, but it would also be pretty much useless, as the is no link between drug reactions in a jellyfish and drug reactions in humans.

The sad reality is, primates are chosen for experimentation exactly because they are the most human, not despite it.

I have no problem with animal testing. But I think the focus ought to be on human testing. People care about a dog more than a person? Pas moi je m'excuse.
http://gnn.tv/videos/3/The_Most_Dangerous_Game
http://www.newstarget.com/019189.html
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/alpha/speech/Harris.htm

1.) Are you for or against animal testing? Why or why not?

Pro. I simply don't denominate animals with value. Those who disagree with me, would be better off going after butchers then scientists, as the former kill more, and cumalitvely cause more pain. In addition, I think we can all agree that dinner is worth less then virtually any research is.

3.) What alternatives to animal testing are there?

I can't think of anything quite equivalent...