Animal experiments- a few facts

Ever had it before? Well you got it again.
User avatar
Deetee
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: Jupiter's moons

Animal experiments- a few facts

Postby Deetee » Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:44 pm

Here in the UK we have again had radical antivivisectionists "win" by getting a new lab build cancelled because of their terror tactics and threats to contractors and anyone involved in the project.

A few facts might put things into perspective. In 2002 there were 2.73 million experiments on lab animals - that is one experiment per person every 20 years or so. 84% of these are on specially bred lab rats - (see chart).

By driving medical research out of the UK, they not only do a huge amount of harm to the advancement of medical science, but force research abroad where it could be done in a completely unregulated manner.
Image

Trinity
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 12:25 pm

Postby Trinity » Tue Jul 27, 2004 1:53 pm

The way i understand it animal rights people do not accept experiments on any kind of animals. We experiment on animals to avoid hurting humans. This must mean that animal rights people prefer experimenting on humans. I hope they volunteer.

Trinity

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 67984
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 2407 times
Been thanked: 972 times

Postby Abdul Alhazred » Tue Jul 27, 2004 4:45 pm

There are animal rights crazies, even terrorists. Who absolutely must be suppressed as anti-humans.

But the (USA, federal) Department of Transportation definition of a corrosive substance, for the purpose of making regulations for transporting corrosive substances, is something that will burn the skin off a rabbit.

Guess how they determine corrosives?
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
MRC_Hans
Posts: 519
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Denmark
Been thanked: 11 times

Postby MRC_Hans » Tue Jul 27, 2004 8:33 pm

Well, sure. We do not treat animals like humans. Unless you are a hard-core veggie, I suggest you take that up with your next stake. Or leather shoes. Or violin string. Or leather sofa. Or wine-gum candy. Or cheese. Or .......

Hans
Fly pretty, anyone can fly safe...

Trinity
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 12:25 pm

Postby Trinity » Tue Jul 27, 2004 8:33 pm

By burning the skin off a rabbit? Would you prefer they burned the skin off a human?

Trinity

User avatar
Sundog
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:27 pm

Postby Sundog » Tue Jul 27, 2004 8:42 pm

Trinity wrote:By burning the skin off a rabbit? Would you prefer they burned the skin off a human?

Trinity


Can I pick the human?

Trinity
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 12:25 pm

Postby Trinity » Wed Jul 28, 2004 8:17 am

Sundog wrote:
Trinity wrote:By burning the skin off a rabbit? Would you prefer they burned the skin off a human?

Trinity


Can I pick the human?
That is an idea. Latinijral! We have a little job for you :twisted: . It almost will not hurt a little bit.

Really, it is possible to reduce both the number of animals used and the sufferings of those we do use but if we want safe medicine, cosmetics soaps, food preservatives, and all, we have to use test animals. Or humans.

Trinity

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 67984
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 2407 times
Been thanked: 972 times

Postby Abdul Alhazred » Wed Jul 28, 2004 3:07 pm

Trinity wrote:By burning the skin off a rabbit? Would you prefer they burned the skin off a human?

Trinity


They shave a square inch (25.4 millimeters squared) of rabbit belly and apply the substance.

No I don't prefer using humans, but I contend that some non-living substrate could be used for determining corrosiveness for transportation regulation purposes.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

Earthborn
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:02 pm
Location: Terra Firma

Re: Animal experiments- a few facts

Postby Earthborn » Wed Jul 28, 2004 6:40 pm

Deetee wrote:Image

Does that chart depict the percentages of individual animals used in experiments or the percentages of experiments using the mentioned animals?

I also wonder whether there are numbers about what kind of experiments are done. Not all animal tests are the same. There are behavioural tests that cause no suffering at all for the animal, they are just learning something. There are also food tests where animals get specific kinds of food to see what kind of old age symptoms they get when they live their lives beyond their life expectancy in the wild. And there are of course the more cruel tests such a toxicological testing that tries to figure out how a much of a dosis is needed to kill half of the mice, or vivisectional testing whereby the animal is cut open while alive. I suspect anti-vivisectionists don't distinguish between these forms of animal testing in order to boot their scary numbers, but I have no evidence of that.
"Mulder, the Truth is Out There, but so are Lies!"

User avatar
iain
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:55 am
Location: Cheshire, England

Postby iain » Wed Jul 28, 2004 7:58 pm

Some anti-vivisection guy was suggesting that it would be morally right to murder scientists.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/ ... 90,00.html

A top adviser to Britain's two most powerful animal rights protest groups caused outrage last night by claiming that the assassination of scientists working in biomedical research would save millions of animals' lives.

To the fury of groups working with animals, Jerry Vlasak, a trauma surgeon and prominent figure in the anti-vivisection movement, told The Observer: 'I think violence is part of the struggle against oppression. If something bad happens to these people [animal researchers], it will discourage others. It is inevitable that violence will be used in the struggle and that it will be effective.'

Vlasak, who likens animal experimentation to the Nazis' treatment of the Jews, said he stood by his claim that: 'I don't think you'd have to kill too many [researchers]. I think for five lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives.

User avatar
Deetee
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 5:31 pm
Location: Jupiter's moons

Postby Deetee » Thu Jul 29, 2004 1:03 pm

The chart is from the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3433237.stm

Mice, rats and other rodents accounted for 84% of this total (2.73 million experiments); fish and birds for much of the remainder. Dogs, cats, horses and primates combined accounted for less than 1%.
About 80% of all the experiments are for research and drug development; safety testing accounts for most of rest.


I am appalled at the comments of the trauma surgeon. Many developments in surgery have been developed and continue to be developed through use of animal studies. Unnecessary experiments are not performed nowadays - it is a) too expensive, b) a beaurocratic /peperwork nightmare with current UK regulations as they are.

User avatar
DrMatt
BANNED
Posts: 29811
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Location: Location!
Has thanked: 143 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Postby DrMatt » Thu Jul 29, 2004 4:33 pm

Violin strings these days are made from chromium-wound steel. They're louder and more reliable than the old-fashioned kind made from strips of sheep intestine. Some historical-sound enthusiasts still play on gut strings, though, and so gut violin strings--and viola, cello, bass, and even harp strings--are still manufactured. Most harpists, lutanists and guitarists these days prefer nylon, which captures the softness of gut without its occasional irregularities.
Grayman wrote:If masturbation led to homosexuality you'd think by now I'd at least have better fashion sense.

kookbreaker
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 3:07 am
Location: Somewhere in Time!

Postby kookbreaker » Sat Aug 07, 2004 4:28 am

iain wrote:Vlasak, who likens animal experimentation to the Nazis' treatment of the Jews, said he stood by his claim that:


Wasn't Hitler vehemently anti-vivisectionist?

Oh, never mind.
<A HREF="http://www.spectrum-scientifics.com">My webstore of telescopes and other science fun!</A>

User avatar
Vitnir
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:18 pm

Postby Vitnir » Sat Aug 07, 2004 12:48 pm

Abdul Alhazred wrote:There are animal rights crazies, even terrorists. Who absolutely must be suppressed as anti-humans.

But the (USA, federal) Department of Transportation definition of a corrosive substance, for the purpose of making regulations for transporting corrosive substances, is something that will burn the skin off a rabbit.

Guess how they determine corrosives?

If they give the animal pain-killers before they apply the substance and kill the animal before the pain-killers are gone I completly fail to see how it can be cruel.

User avatar
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Re: Animal experiments- a few facts

Postby Geni » Sat Aug 07, 2004 4:28 pm

Earthborn wrote: And there are of course the more cruel tests such a toxicological testing that tries to figure out how a much of a dosis is needed to kill half of the mice,


For the record this form of testing is no longer used (in the UK at least)

Rolfe
Posts: 201
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 9:00 pm
Location: England

Postby Rolfe » Sat Aug 07, 2004 9:07 pm

I was at a lecture last autumn about how the 1986 legislation to protect experimental animals actually works. The meeting (virtually all vets) was a bit divided, with some declaring that things have gone too far and there are too many restrictions, while others were calling for even tighter legislation.

The speaker mentioned a couple of good research projects and workers who had gone abroad because the sheer bureacracy was putting people off. My own opinion was that the controls were tight, but justified and I wouldn't want to see them relaxed at all. It's just a pity we can't export <I>them</I> to countries with less rigorous control rather than the research.

Of course if the anti-viv lot's actions have any effect it will be to drive research to countries where scientists can do what the hell they like. The law here is so tight that we can be fairly confident that anything that is done is justified as to the aims of the work, as humane as possible, and very tightly supervised. Try telling that to the ALF though!

Rolfe.
"The thing about medicine is, that it all comes down to the numbers."
- Dr. Stephen Franklin, <I>Interludes and Examinations</I>.


Return to “Medicine, Health, & Nutrition”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot] and 0 guests