As an interesting follow on to my post about people with very narrow mindsets about animal testing, I heard a story (verified accurate) where the protesters impacted on the well being of the animals.
A major pharmaceutical company who does have some dogs for use in testing, actually hires people who's job it is to play with the animals and take the dogs for walks and ensure that the animals received the kind of treatment that a good pet would receive.
Because when the dogs where being walked and taken outside to 'have fun' as it wore, they barked (as dogs are know to do, when enjoying their doggy selves), the animal rights protesters heard the dogs barking and initiated a campaign of regular protesting against this.
The end result is the dogs cannot be taken outside anymore as a direct impact of the animal rights protesters. Nice one guys. You narrow minded approach and complete misunderstanding of both the necessity and technical aspects of animal modelling has made it more difficult for the pharmaceutical enhance the quality of life of the animals. Are you sure you care about the animals as much as you do about being anarchists?
It costs a massive amount of money to do animal modelling. Do you not think the the big pharmaceutical companies would love not to test on animals from a profitability point of view at the very least? Do you not think that the pharmaceutical companies are not trying as much as possible to reduce their costs and reduce their dependency on animal modelling? But then you don't really understand the science of it, so I guess not.
[UPDATE - 6:02pm] Not that the name "Lobster Liberation Front" isn't laudable, but explain to me exactly why these people are not terrorists never mind criminals. The arrogance of thinking they have the right to destroy other peoples livings because they have "a cause". I hope the full force of the law is brought down on them.
1. matthew
Well my dog barks at everything, but when she is at her VERY HAPPIEST, she barks with a particular exhuberance. But that’s an aside.
I’m a vegetarian. Therfore I disagree with any animal being killed for the benefit of humans. There are too many people on this planet right now, which is why it’s in such a mess. I remember reading a paper which explained in exhaustive that the ideal sustainable population for the ENTIRE WORLD is…get this…20 million people.
And aside from that, the pharmaceutical companies are responsible for some relaly awful shit, from men growing tits because of hormones being accidentally released into the water supply by a pharmaceutical company near where they live to the horrors of tholidamide babies in the 60’s and 70’s. The biggest pharmaceutical companies are huge multinationals and are interested in making money above anything else. Don’t get me wrong, the people who WORK for them are mostly totally dedicated in saving people’s lives or making them better, but the companies they work for have employed them because they will help them to make the most money.
Well that’s what I think anyway.
2. Adrian
Actually the sustainable population for the planet is currently estimated to be between 3 and 4.6 billion people so I cannot agree with your figures. And although I agree that the world has an overpopulation problem, you surely can’t be advocating with withholding medicines or stop research to resolve the problem. I have heard racists say that we don’t need a cure for AIDS because it will solve the ‘black’ problem. The solution to overpopulation is education, not death.
Although the pharmaceutical industry doesn’t have the best track record, ethically speaking I don’t think it is fair to make comparisons between now and 30/40 years ago. The face of industry as a whole is changing and has changed a lot and big companies are becoming more socially aware. This coupled with much tighter regulations means that things are somewhat different.
However don’t make the mistake of thinking that because something is a big multinational business it doesn’t have the right to make money. That is how commercial free market economies work. Stem cell research, anti-retro virals, genetically modified cancer targeting virus all cost a phenomenal amount of money to develop. This money comes from running a business that makes a profit. Stop the profit, stop the money, stop the research. Companies have to make money and have to return growth to their shareholders as this is how the system works. If they didn’t they would have to be state sponsored. Which means it would have to come out of your tax. I simply do not subscribe to the notion that because companies are big and make money they are by definition evil.
I respect the fact you are a vegetarian (and I assume don’t wear leather) as a choice. Do you also not take any drugs or medicine? How would you feel if a loved one got cancer, or MS, or aids, or some other illness? Are all those rats and mice and fish worth not using in research to let your loved ones suffer.
Animal modelling is necessary as their is no other way to develop drugs. You could choose not to take a pain killer if you have a headache. But what about to stop someone you love from dieing or being able to function on a day to day basis.
3. matthew
I stand corrected on several issues.
I take several prescription medicines. I have no earthly idea if animal modelling was used in their creation or not. They are not lofe-saving drugs. Obviously research involving rats and mice is necessary in production or several life-saving drugs, but that doesn’t mean I agree with it wholeheartedly. And there is another way to develop drugs. Test them on people.
I would also be quite prepared to pay extra tax if it meant I never had to pay to get better. I spend over a hundred Euro a month on prescription drugs for several conditions, I would much prefer to pay it through my taxes like is the case in some other countries, Denmark to the best extant of my knowledge being one.
4. Adrian
Every drug you take, life saving or otherwise has been tested on an animal at some point. It has too, and you cannot test drugs directly on people. You cannot breed pure people for the purpose of getting clean test results.
5. matthew
Ah why not? BOO! Pure people would be fun to experiment on. Maybe when that cloning legislation comes through we’ll all be sorted. But you’re right, I wouldn’t really agree on testing drugs on people either. Perhaps I’ll just have to accept this necessary evil. But it IS evil. :-P
6. Adrian
I disagree. Evil is kicking a dog to death.
One of my best friends died of cancer. I am quite happy for animal testing to save someone elses best friend. Animal testing is necessary, but not evil.
7. matthew
Necessary but not evil in your opinion, a necessary evil on my opinion. Friends of mine have died from cancer as well as AIDS. People die every day and have died every day since there have been people. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with scientists creating cancers in monkeys or giving them AIDS so they can test out their new wonderdrug. I may be hypocritical in that I take drugs which have been tested using animal modelling, but I wouldn’t if I could avoid it.
But either way kicking a dog to death is totally evil.
8. Erin
Animal testing is necessary. Think of the thousands of people dieing because of scientists who don’t do animal testing. Maybe killing an animal may be wrong, but think of the thousands that are dieing, one or two of those people maybe being a friend, a family member, a relative, someone you loved, who would you pick? An animal, or someone you love? I would pick my loved ones. And I am hoping you would to. When the 911 attack occured, almost everyone in the states cried, people from other countries from the death of theyre loved ones, without animal testing, it sort of is the same thing. Animal testing can help thousands of people from dieing, keeping our population the same. So think about it, is animal testing as bad as you think it is?
9. Destructor
Think of the thousands of people dieing because of scientists who don’t do animal testing.
Think of the thousands of people who can’t spell ‘dying’.
Maybe killing an animal may be wrong, but think of the thousands that are dieing, one or two of those people maybe being a friend, a family member, a relative, someone you loved, who would you pick?
Under the assumption that human lives are more valuable than those of animals, of course humans win that little mind game every time. But that is a premise which can never be proven or disproven- it’s just a belief you happen to have, and if someone choses not to share in it, then all those animals being killed so we can have a slightly longer/more comfortable lifespan is as horrible as having humans living in cages and being experimented on for the benefit of others.
It’s not an ‘us or them’ situation. Humans are actually doing pretty well since we invented ‘no more tears’ shampoo. Yes: You are going to die. Everyone is going to die. It’d be lovely if you could live a little longer. When I get AIDS or cancer I’m sure I’ll be happy to line up monkeys around the block and melonball them in the head for a little light relief. But if someone said to me that was horrible and wrong of me, I’d kinda have to concede the point.
When the 911 attack occured, almost everyone in the states cried
You’re a moron.
10. Mich
As far as not testing drugs on people, your wrong, they do. Mostly inmates who are on death row or incarerated for life. This is, as far as I know, voluntary. They do receive compensation for this as well. testing on animals in NOT necessary. To view there is only one way to go about things is close minded.
11. Adrian
Drugs are only tested on people after they have passed certain other trials. The type of testing done on animals is much earlier in the development process.
There are other ways of doing things, like computer modeling. However in some cases animal testing is the necessary method. I suggest you study some of the science behind how this done before accusing people of being close minded.