Lab Monkey Deaths Raise Questions About Animal Testing in the US

[Dalheim]

I feel you're slightly biased about this because of your avatar.

No, but in all seriousness, yes. I agree that they should live and be treated better, somehow.

[Ealyssa]

first of all, we are animals.

hihihi U so smurt and edgy.

second, you'd have a hard time convincing me

I don't care. Evidences are here. You can also still believe that earth is flat, humans never went on the moon and Elvis is still alive. Not my job to convince stupid.

[Katchii]

Animal testing is the best solution we currently have. It's sure isn't nice for the animals, but there is sadly no alternatives.

human lives > animal lives

100% This.

I'm not saying I don't care about animals, but I care about human lives a lot more so until there is a 100% viable alternative I am in favor of using animals for testing. That said, I think we should always be looking at ways to reduce, remove or refine (just as the FDA is doing) animal testing and do our best to ensure the animals are treated as humanely as possible.

[Underverse]

we're not genetically similar enough to anything but chimps and other great apes for any of this to ever give us truly accurate information.

Yes we are. Most proteins are conserved from mice to humans. You can express a mouse version of a protein in a human cell and it will be compatible with downstream signaling events in the vast majority of cases.

[Techno-Druid]

Then next time label your thread accordingly. If you want to discuss the inherently vague notion of reducing suffering then do so. Just don't label the conversation under lab testing animals.

I literally said "one of our major goals" not "our major goal". I stated that we should try to reduce suffering as possible and lab animals suffer, that doesn't mean they're the ONLY thing we should focus on.

And I believe we should not worry about one until the other is solved. Like you said, "there are obviously subjective viewpoints on what type of suffering is worse" - and I couldn't disagree with you more.

So we should ignore men and women starving in Africa until the issue of homeless children is solved? Should we ignore mass extinctions until the issue of homeless children is solved? Should we ignore the issue of people being falsely imprisoned until the issue of homeless children is solved? Again, we as a species have the ability to multitask and try to improve multiple things as a time. In fact, if we ignore certain issues they will only grow worse and come back to bite us.

[Noah37]

From my own personal anecdotes, the animals I have seen were treated as best as possible by those doing the research. My issue I take with some of the studies is some of the ridiculous LD50 numbers and in another example, where in order to "verify" the safety of a medication, they gave 4 times the normal dosage of a once a month medication, once a day every day, for two weeks. These seem highly unnecessary and I can't see how much information is really being gained by giving such large values.

It'd be great to reduce the number of animal subjects, but currently there is a lot of research that is impossible to do without them, and there is invaluable gains that can come from them.

[derpkitteh]

hihihi U so smurt and edgy.


I don't care. Evidences are here. You can also still believe that earth is flat, humans never went on the moon and Elvis is still alive. Not my job to convince stupid.

stupid is not seeing that humans are animals.

stupid is wasting millions on less effective study on animals when we have a whole population of complete wastes of life to use instead.

stupid is being a pathetic coward, too fearful to use proven methods of getting results. something far too common in modern society.

[ohwell]

(Source)

I definitely think there should be work to find alternatives to animal testing or at very least improve the conditions of test animals.

I heard enough stories when I was at USAMRIID about the monkeys there just hating life and being absolutely pissed off. One guy told me a few stories like ripping tails of others off if it got close enough to grab through the cage or even this one case he said one of them ripped off his own genitals and threw it at him.

- - - Updated - - -

stupid is not seeing that humans are animals.

stupid is wasting millions on less effective study on animals when we have a whole population of complete wastes of life to use instead.

stupid is being a pathetic coward, too fearful to use proven methods of getting results. something far too common in modern society.

I'd be all for testing on humans, but as of today what you've stated is deemed unethical and very shaky ground. Statements like yours is how the Tuskegee Experiments happened. You deem someone inferior and somehow think it's ok to test on inferior people.....

[The One Percent]

"Why haven't they cured cancer or AIDS yet? Fucking incompetent pharmaceutical researchers!"

"You want to research possible solutions? Well, I certainly am not going to risk myself to test if it's safe or not, and if it gets on the market and hurts me, I'll sue the shit out of you!"

"What?! You want to test on animals!? But they're cute! REEEEEEEEEEEE"

[The Stormbringer]

i mean, the fact that all this animal testing is borderline useless beyond telling us "ok, this won't immediately kill you" should account for something.

death row prisoners really should be our lab rats.

One might even be able to refer to them as 'D-Class personnel'. Our friends at the Foundation would like to have a few words with you...

[cubby]

I literally said "one of our major goals" not "our major goal". I stated that we should try to reduce suffering as possible and lab animals suffer, that doesn't mean they're the ONLY thing we should focus on.

And I disagree. I don't think it should be a major goal at all - until other issues, such as homeless children, are resolved first.

So we should ignore men and women starving in Africa until the issue of homeless children is solved? Should we ignore mass extinctions until the issue of homeless children is solved? Should we ignore the issue of people being falsely imprisoned until the issue of homeless children is solved? Again, we as a species have the ability to multitask and try to improve multiple things as a time. In fact, if we ignore certain issues they will only grow worse and come back to bite us.

Imho, yes - homeless children should be above all those issues. However, if we are able to multitask as a species, then we should focus on some of those you listed as well - at the same time even.

But under no circumstances, ever, should animal rights supersede homeless children. They aren't even in the same category of prioritization. Many of the issues you listed above should come WAY before animal rights in regards to lab testing.

[Techno-Druid]

"Why haven't they cured cancer or AIDS yet? Fucking incompetent pharmaceutical researchers!"

"You want to research possible solutions? Well, I certainly am not going to risk myself to test if it's safe or not, and if it gets on the market and hurts me, I'll sue the shit out of you!"

"What?! You want to test on animals!? But they're cute! REEEEEEEEEEEE"

What exactly is your point? I never said "End all animal testing" I said that we should reduce the amount of suffering test animals go through and search for alternatives.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

i mean, the fact that all this animal testing is borderline useless beyond telling us "ok, this won't immediately kill you" should account for something.

death row prisoners really should be our lab rats.

Sure thing, Mengele.

[Super Kami Dende]

For as long as we need to test things that could be fatal to humans during development, I have no issue with Animal Testing.

[Techno-Druid]

And I disagree. I don't think it should be a major goal at all - until other issues, such as homeless children, are resolved first.

Imho, yes - homeless children should be above all those issues. However, if we are able to multitask as a species, then we should focus on some of those you listed as well - at the same time even.

But if you ignore the plight of starving men and women in Africa then you will only create more homeless, starving children. If you ignore the issue of mass extinctions then you will cause a negative ecological impacts on communities, which will affect children. Climate refugees are also a thing that will affect children. Again, if you ignore those issues like I said, you'll only create more issues down the line.

We are a planet of 7+ billion, we have room to cover all those issues and surplus more.

But under no circumstances, ever, should animal rights supersede homeless children. They aren't even in the same category of prioritization. Many of the issues you listed above should come WAY before animal rights in regards to lab testing.

Why do you keep bringing up homeless children? It's not relevant to reducing the suffering of test animals. Both fall under suffering and both should be addressed, but why continue on with this? Changing the subject of the topic, which I will reiterate is about animal suffering in labs.

[derpkitteh]

Sure thing, Mengele.

in the short reign of the nazies, we gained quite a bit of medical knowledge from the human testing they did.

while their reasons for it being ok to test on jews were very wrong, their results were things that we still benefit from today.

some people in this world just do not amount to anything but a detriment to it. they hurt or kill other people. we remove them from society either through life in prison or through death. we have the capability to turn them into a benefit to all of humanity, but instead we would just wast them on vengeance.

a better future can only be attained through heavy cost. those that understand that are too few.

[cubby]

But if you ignore the plight of starving men and women in Africa then you will only create more homeless, starving children. If you ignore the issue of mass extinctions then you will cause a negative ecological impacts on communities, which will affect children. Climate refugees are also a thing that will affect children. Again, if you ignore those issues like I said, you'll only create more issues down the line.

I agree. But I would prioritize homeless children first. That's just me. Others would make different choices. Plus, it's hard to spend money in foreign countries when your own people are suffering. However, I also acknowledge that there are valid arguments against this point - you brought up a few yourself. If you want to get into a discussion about the monetary prioritization of the United States, I'm happy to do so.

We are a planet of 7+ billion, we have room to cover all those issues and surplus more.

And yet we as a country can't seem to do so.

Why do you keep bringing up homeless children? It's not relevant to reducing the suffering of test animals. Both fall under suffering and both should be addressed, but why continue on with this? Changing the subject of the topic, which I will reiterate is about animal suffering in labs.

Because your post called into question the prioritization of suffering as a whole.

Changing the subject of the topic, which I will reiterate is about animal suffering in labs.

Also, I see you recently edited your OP to remove the parts that I was addressing. Specifically, you removed part of your OP that I quoted. That's pretty disingenuous of you. Really calls into question your integrity.

[Techno-Druid]

I agree. But I would prioritize homeless children first. That's just me. Others would make different choices. Plus, it's hard to spend money in foreign countries when your own people are suffering. However, I also acknowledge that there are valid arguments against this point - you brought up a few yourself. If you want to get into a discussion about the monetary prioritization of the United States, I'm happy to do so.


And yet we as a country can't seem to do so.


Because your post called into question the prioritization of suffering as a whole.

Also, I see you recently edited your OP to remove the parts that I was addressing. Specifically, you removed part of your OP that I quoted. That's pretty disingenuous of you. Really calls into question your integrity.

I don't want to stir ridiculous arguments through wild misinterpretations. I said we should attempt to reduce suffering as much as possible and literally said nothing about prioritizing lab animals over homeless children. You were the one who brought that up.

[cubby]

I don't want to stir ridiculous arguments through wild misinterpretations. I said we should attempt to reduce suffering as much as possible and literally said nothing about prioritizing lab animals over homeless children. You were the one who brought that up.

And you are lying. Here was part your original post - before you edited it (the mods, btw, can follow edits and changes - just in case you were wondering ) - the part I was responding to specifically:

I think one of our major goals as a species should be to reduce as much suffering as possible (human or otherwise)..

I brought it up because you suggested we make it a priority "for all suffering" - I disagreed, and I explained why. You answered me. I responded. This is called a discussion. If you don't want to talk about it anymore, this particular prioritization issue, then don't answer me anymore. I won't get offended.

But don't change the OP - that's just selling your integrity for forum points.

[Underverse]

What exactly is your point? I never said "End all animal testing" I said that we should reduce the amount of suffering test animals go through and search for alternatives.

I think this is a reasonable and moral position to take. People should stop taking it out of context. Reducing animal suffering is not exclusive with reducing human suffering, as an ideological goal. We might not quite have the technology now, but some day we will.