6 Responses to “Scientist jailed for animal-testing sabotage”

1. Bilbo Says:
   September 24th, 2006 at 4:16 pm

   Hmmm…well, I might as well come clean. I'm rather undecided on whether or not experiments on animals is ethical. That's why I usually avoid these topics. But now that a scientist — who decided that it was unethical — has been convicted of trying to stop others from such experiments, it makes me wonder: Are animal experiments really necessary?

Comment by Bilbo — September 24, 2006 @ 4:16 pm

2. Joy Says:
   September 24th, 2006 at 4:56 pm

   I'm a vegetarian - by choice - and have been for more than 30 years. My children and grandchildren have known nothing else in my home, but they make their own choices. And they've made some (some got meat and rejected it, some were raised vegetarian and chose hamburgers). They'll end up wherever they end up, for their own reasons.

   My father told me once after we'd gone vegetarian that it was okay to make such a choice for health reasons, but not okay to do it for reasons of concern for the animals. I said "hooey," and meant it. If I were starving or responsible for my family's survival in a very limited environment (no grocery stores), I'd hunt and kill. But in this world, if I wasn't prepared to raise cattle, goats, chickens and rabbits for slaughter, it's fundamentally dishonest to pretend you've removed yourself from the death industry by simply allowing someone else to do the bad karma-generating FOR you. If you support the death industry, support it. Don't pretend you're not a part of it while eating that steak.

   There are scientific purposes for animal testing. But that is quite limited, and primarily pharmaceutical (and even that is iffy, since the effects of drugs aren't 1:1 even when you're testing on chimps/primates). We know a lot about what sort of chemicals, proteins and enzymes effect our biology, and which ones require such animal testing. But we continue to use animal testing in applications where it's mostly moot. Because funding is a big factor (ups the $$$ amount), and funding ends up pretty much calling the research shots.

   It is reasonable to be a scientist who challenges animal testing by such criteria. It is unreasonable to break the law and engage in terrorist-like behavior.

Comment by Joy — September 24, 2006 @ 4:56 pm

3. Bilbo Says:
   September 24th, 2006 at 6:30 pm

   Joy:
   

   There are scientific purposes for animal testing. But that is quite limited, and primarily pharmaceutical (and even that is iffy, since the effects of drugs aren't 1:1 even when you're testing on chimps/primates). We know a lot about what sort of chemicals, proteins and enzymes effect our biology, and which ones require such animal testing. But we continue to use animal testing in applications where it's mostly moot. Because funding is a big factor (ups the $$$ amount), and funding ends up pretty much calling the research shots.

   It is reasonable to be a scientist who challenges animal testing by such criteria. It is unreasonable to break the law and engage in terrorist-like behavior.

   Then instead of an either/or approach, shouldn't there be an attempt at compromise of some kind?

Comment by Bilbo — September 24, 2006 @ 6:30 pm

4. Joy Says:
   September 24th, 2006 at 6:51 pm

   Of course. That's the point of the exercise, isn't it? §;o)

Comment by Joy — September 24, 2006 @ 6:51 pm

5. Bilbo Says:
   September 24th, 2006 at 7:44 pm

   Then instead of referring to animal rights groups as "anti-science", we should try to reason with them?

Comment by Bilbo — September 24, 2006 @ 7:44 pm

6. Smokey Says:
   September 25th, 2006 at 12:01 pm

   Bilbo: I'm rather undecided on whether or not experiments on animals is ethical.

   Why limit your ethical consideration to experiments on animals? What about all the experiments that aren't on animals, but use animals as tools? What about diagnostic tests on humans that use animals as tools, such as HIV tests and pregnancy tests? Both of these use antibodies from animals, and every one of them used directly increases net demand for more vivisection, yet no one will ever protest this clear bit of exploitation.

   Can you explain why using animals as subjects is any different ethically than using them as tools?

   What about experiments on people? Should we stop clinical trials?

   Joy: If you support the death industry, support it. Don't pretend you're not a part of it while eating that steak.

   I agree, but don't pretend that you're not causing plenty of painful, unnecessary animal deaths by just eating vegetables, either. Why would animals that are eaten after death deserve more consideration than the animals that hemorrhage to death after eating warfarin (it's organic!) at a grain elevator?

   There are scientific purposes for animal testing. But that is quite limited, and primarily pharmaceutical (and even that is iffy, since the effects of drugs aren't 1:1 even when you're testing on chimps/primates).

   No, they aren't "primarily pharmaceutical." There's plenty to learn from animal model systems in basic science.

   …Because funding is a big factor (ups the $$$ amount), and funding ends up pretty much calling the research shots.

   How does that raise the demand for animal models? Does NIH have a "Vivisection" study section, for example? Is any one of the institutes that make up NIH devoted to animal models?

   Bilbo: Then instead of referring to animal rights groups as "anti-science", we should try to reason with them?

   How can one reason with people who either don't know, or will blatantly lie about, which methods use animals and which ones don't?

Comment by Smokey — September 25, 2006 @ 12:01 pm

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.