Animal experimentation - your opinions.... - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-08-2006, 09:05 AM   #1
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel
Posts: 1,300
Local Time: 06:41 AM
Animal experimentation - your opinions....

There was a report in one of the Israeli papers today about the rise in animal experimentation worldwide and in Israel in general.

I have mixed feelings about this subject. New research is done each day leading us closer to cures for cancer, AIDS and other life-threatening diseases. I am against cruelty to animals, but until someone thinks of an alternative, I believe that these lab experiments ultimately lead to the saving of millions of lives.

On the other hand, I am TOTALLY against animal experimentation for cosmetics. It is just horribly cruel to submit animals to abuse just to achieve a better shade of rouge or lipstick.

What do you think?
__________________

__________________
AchtungBono is offline  
Old 02-08-2006, 11:17 AM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 06:41 AM
We need to do experiments on animals to continue progress in medical science. If we don't do any animal experimentation the only thing that will happen is make PETA happy.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-08-2006, 11:51 AM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:41 PM
Re: Animal experimentation - your opinions....

Quote:
Originally posted by AchtungBono
On the other hand, I am TOTALLY against animal experimentation for cosmetics. It is just horribly cruel to submit animals to abuse just to achieve a better shade of rouge or lipstick.
Are you saying people should not use cosmetics, or should use only untested cosmetics?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-08-2006, 08:01 PM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 01:41 AM
I saw Ted Nugent on a talk show several years ago.
He was surrounded by animal rights activists and getting grilled
by them and most of the audience for hunting animals for food.

Someone asked him this same question.

His response:

"If you told me that by killing a monkey, we could save the lives of human beings, bring me a hammer and I would kill a monkey."
__________________
the iron horse is offline  
Old 02-08-2006, 09:21 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 01:41 AM
You can't not test cosmetics - either the final product or the components of it, because it is unethical. You can't put something on the market which you cannot vouch won't give people a skin irritation, exacerbate their eczema, make their hair fall out or trigger an allergic response.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-08-2006, 09:27 PM   #6
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
VertigoGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: I'm never alone (I'm alone all the time)
Posts: 9,860
Local Time: 01:41 AM
Actually I don't see how you could be so supportive of testing for medical purposes and against testing of cosmetics. Most people would deem a cure for cancer more important, but it's not as if the animal cares what's being tested on him.

Anyway I think it's fine...cruelty or torture etc should be minimized as much as possible, but ultimately there are greater problems in the world to devote your time and effort to than the plight of a rat, in my opinion.
__________________
VertigoGal is offline  
Old 02-08-2006, 09:31 PM   #7
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 05:41 PM
Cruelty and torture is a different issue, in my humble one. I'd think that even for cosmetics, the testing is done in an humane way or at least it's attempted to prviding your country has standards which need to be met.

Apart from that, I dont see it as a stretch to be opposed to one and not the other.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 02-08-2006, 11:01 PM   #8
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 07:41 AM
There are cosmetics companies which do not test any of their products or ingredients on animals. They do it by limiting their formulations to the 10,000 or so ingredients already approved for human use, or, where appropriate, using cell toxicology or in vitro methods instead.

Some of these animal tests do indeed involve considerable suffering (dripping eye makeup into an immobilized animal's eyes, applying face makeup to their shaved and abraded skin, force-feeding them large quantities of makeup to ensure low toxicity, etc.). While anitram is right to point out that it would be unethical to introduce new ingredients for human use without conducting such tests first, it seems to me a worthwhile enough sacrifice to limit oneself to using products whose ingredients no longer require this. Unless, perhaps, you have sensitivities which bar you from using any of them.
__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 02-08-2006, 11:15 PM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 01:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
There are cosmetics companies which do not test any of their products or ingredients on animals. They do it by limiting their formulations to the 10,000 or so ingredients already approved for human use, or, where appropriate, using cell toxicology or in vitro methods instead.

That's true, but it's also a technicality in the sense that at some point, some animal had to be tested for their product.

I think people who don't work in animal research are for the most part, not aware of just how strict the guidelines and regulations are. For example, there are more federal (and provincial where I am) regulations I have to follow when working with mice than the regulations my PI has to follow with me.

There are strict protocols which have to be handed in for every experimental procedure you are doing. They need to be approved and then you are capped at a certain number of animals per year. There are guidelines for sacrificing animals, guidelines for injecting and anaesthetizing them, guidelines for how many can be kept in one cage together, the size of their accomodations, how often they are changed, fed, etc. Anyone who has worked in a barrier unit knows that it's a loooooooong procedure to even get near the mice, involving anything from a full get up including those cool sterile space boots to sterile showers.

You can't not have animal research because no governmental agency will ever allow human phase 1 onwards testing without animal models first. That is the bottom line. Another reason why people use animals in research when it is sometimes not absolutely necessary to do so is because when it is time to publish a paper, these days you need to provide data from an in vivo system for all the top papers if you want a decent shot at publishing. In vitro systems won't get you very far with Nature, Science, Cell. And since your publication record directly correlates to your funding, you bet your ass if 50 mice are needed, you'll order 50 mice.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-08-2006, 11:58 PM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 01:41 AM
I'm not opposed based on what anitram said (regulations).

I have two cats who were from a local research lab. When I tell people where I got them, their initial reaction is horror. But really, these cats were taken in from overcrowded rescues and shelters and given a completely clean, sterile, and healthy environment (where they are free to socialize and not confined to cages all day). They receive brand name meds and the best foods. The only "tests" done to them is that they are put under anaesthesia and used for pre-med lessons on intubation. I guess a cat's throat is similar to a human baby's, so while the cat is down, students learn how to intubate. It's painless and has no effect whatsoever. Also, the cat is then neutered/spayed and front declawed if the owner requests. They are treated by vets and lab technicians. My two from the lab are the most lovely, happy, healthy, and social cats I've ever known, certainly compared to our additional two from overcrowded rescue situations.

In the past, I've also adopted two hairless guinea pigs from the lab. Each of them had a small red patch on their backs. It was basically sunburn because I think they were testing sunscreen or something like that. The guinea pigs were thoroughly checked by vets before being put up for adoption.

I know this lab has very strict policies about accepting research projects involving animals. Your project proposal has to be reviewed and voted on by a board composed of scientists, civilians, veterinarians, none of whom have any association with the lab or the project.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 05:28 AM   #11
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel
Posts: 1,300
Local Time: 06:41 AM
Re: Re: Animal experimentation - your opinions....

Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Are you saying people should not use cosmetics, or should use only untested cosmetics?
There are cosmetic products (such as shampoos) which state specifically that they were not tested on animals. Those are the ones that I buy.
__________________
AchtungBono is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 07:47 AM   #12
Refugee
 
fly so high!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: St Andrews NSW Australia
Posts: 1,835
Local Time: 04:41 PM
Me too!
__________________
fly so high! is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 11:40 AM   #13
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:41 PM
Re: Re: Re: Animal experimentation - your opinions....

Quote:
Originally posted by AchtungBono


There are cosmetic products (such as shampoos) which state specifically that they were not tested on animals. Those are the ones that I buy.

If you used a shampoo that wasn't tested, and you suffered permanent eye damage, would you accept that as part of the consequences of no animal testing?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 11:49 AM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 01:41 AM
Re: Re: Re: Animal experimentation - your opinions....

Quote:
Originally posted by AchtungBono


There are cosmetic products (such as shampoos) which state specifically that they were not tested on animals. Those are the ones that I buy.
The shampoo may not have been tested but every single component of it was tested on animals at some point in time.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-09-2006, 01:43 PM   #15
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 07:41 AM


No one is going to suffer permanent eye damage from a product marked "cruelty free" under current labeling laws, because said laws require that all the components have been tested at some point in time.

I don't really get why the fact that all components were once tested would defeat the purpose of buying such products, though--from the standpoint of someone concerned about it, the point is that no new tests had to be done for this particular product. Callling that a meaningless distinction is like saying that recycled paper is a meaningless distinction, because it still involved killing a tree at one point or another, so why bother using it.
__________________

__________________
yolland is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com