Those who engage in such behavior are dangerously off-balance, willing to torture and kill others to follow through on their own mis-perceptions about the relevance and acceptability of their beliefs, irrespective of the blatant and inescapable harm it causes others. “I’m not a psychopath, really, I’m doing this for the good of mankind!” Yes, humanity is probably better off with most of these people occupied and focused during the day, but unfortunately that focus is simply evil.

Alternatively, we could hope that those who torture and murder other beings as a “profession” are simply the delusional pawns of the multi-billion dollar industry that thrives on the cooperation of people like them, willing to turn a blind eye to the crimes against nature that make up their day-to-day lives. Though, the net effect, whether they’re psychopathic or merely “ethically challenged”, is still on-going terror and death for innocent beings. Those who torture and kill such innocents make a compelling case against the existence of a compassionate and engaged deity, but that’s it’s own discussion.

The argument that there is no other way to gain related information is a self-fulfilling prophecy, which only serves to delay and derail investigation into more relevant and more productive alternatives. That perspective is a self-perpetuating mental state that reveals both a shameful callousness towards other species and a lack of any genuine interest in seeking honorable solutions to HUMAN problems. The advice “seek, and ye shall find” comes immediately to mind; the concept is sound, regardless of how it’s phrased. Until such monsters adopt the mind-set that they can find non-murderous alternatives to helping humanity… they won’t. And as long as they can draw a paycheck to engage in their barbaric behavior, lacking a sufficiently strong conscience, they have no incentive.

Decades ago I lost a parent to cancer. Since then, lots of people have made lots of money harming lots of innocents in the pseudo-pursuit of a cure. I earnestly hope that such people will come to their senses and move on to ethical approaches to improving the human condition instead. Harming an innocent (or an innocent group) to benefit yourself (or your own group) is wrong.

inverse_agonist, why is it that so many animal research supporters act as if a person having ethics in favor of nonhuman animals, that all of their scientific arguments must be incorrect? Ray Greek MD has plenty of experience and knowledge on the issues which is why most animal researchers won’t dare enter into a public debate with him (or many other anti-animal research doctors). AFMA also has several other doctors and veterinarians on their team, are all of them just altering data for some (somehow meaningless) ethical cause?

Also, are you going to address the fact that thalidomide was testing on multiple species of pregnant animals for a long time and the effects in humans could not be replicated, leading to it remaining on the market even longer due to lack of validation in nonhuman animals? Thank god they finally were able to torture a couple of monkeys from one species out of all of the animals they tried it on, enough with high enough doses of the drug to produce the birth defects. Otherwise, we might still have it on the market today due to people like you defending such research.

Scientists’ positions are internally consistent? Do you know how many of them have told me to my face “that doesn’t hurt them” about intensive surgeries, tumors, and so forth? Yes, I work in science- on humans. The only consistency in animal researchers’ positions is their want to keep their jobs and their willingness to be dishonest or unethical in order to do it.

As for your numbers, they are short. Wikipedia is also a horrid source of info. Many times, mice and rats- who make up the majority of animal research subjects- are not reported. They are also not covered under the already minimal protections offered by the animal welfare act, despite the fact that they suffer like dogs or cats or other animals used in smaller numbers that are covered under the act. Nonetheless, the fact that “only 4-5 animals” die per person, even if that were at all true, is your statement, it shows how little you value the lives and suffering of those 4-5 animals. You also neglect to include also of the third world kids and adults that die in hidden drug testing trials because of greed and faulty animal research prediction. How many humans should die for each American life? Would 4-5 be ok with you? Imagine how many lives we could save if the money went into prevention studies rather than this bull.

Advances in medicine are result of human research. The fact that most funding goes to animal research is criminal at best.

http://www.worldcongress.net/2002/proceedings/PCP%20Festing.pdf

Ray Greek is a former PETA member who, to his credit, broke with the organization over their refusal to condemn violence. He has moved on to create a front group, Americans for Medical Advancement, that dishonestly claims to oppose animal research on “purely scientific” grounds.

From a philosophical standpoint, of course it’s easy to reject animal research if it hurts animals and has no benefits. The problem is that it does, in fact, produce a great deal benefits. Thalidomide wasn’t tested in pregnant animals before going to market, so the problem there was NOT ENOUGH animal testing. The case of thalidomide is often used misleadingly by animal rights activists. The other reasons their empirical case against animal research is flawed are well-explained in the paper linked above. If you need to falsely claim that animal research is invalid in order to oppose it, it shows that you aren’t comfortable with the implications of your position, yourself, either.

ARPhilo’s “double edged sword” argument is also a double edged sword. If animals are so different from humans that we can learn nothing from animal research, we can’t have any confidence in claims that they suffer like we do. On the other hand, if we can confidently believe that they suffer, they’re similar enough to us that the research has validity.

Nowadays, scientists hold that
1. animals models are valid
2. animals feel distress during some forms of animal research
3. this distress is outweighed by the benefits of the research

The scientists’ position is internally consistent, unlike the animal rights activists’.

If we take the numbers on Wikipedia to be correct, 20 million animals are used in the US annually. If the population is around 300 million, and people live 60-75 years, that means that only 4-5 animals are used for each person, across their entire lifetime.

Below is an informative write-up from the University of Virginia outlining some of their ethical guidelines in terms of animal research pertaining to cancer in particular. Also included are the UCLA policies on tumor development in rodents. The last link is to the UCLA Chancellor’s Animal Research Committee for full information on the policies, development in alternative research, inspections, and veterinary care to name a few.

http://www.virginia.edu/vpr/iacuc/docs/Tumor_Production_Cancer_Research_in_Animals.pdf

UCLA
http://oprs.ucla.edu/animal/help/manual/PoliciesAndGuidelines/PoliciesGuidelines_MaintainingTumors.asp

http://oprs.ucla.edu/animal/#

Thank you for your sources and openness about your experience with cancer. I will certainly give these a read through in order to understand your side of the argument.

In the meantime please see below…

cred·it·a·ble (krěd’ĭ-tə-bəl)
adj.

1. Deserving of often limited praise or commendation: The student made a creditable effort on the essay.
2. Worthy of belief: a creditable story.
3. Deserving of commercial credit; creditworthy: a creditable customer.
4. That can be assigned.

Secondly, what makes you think I don’t go the political route as well? Just because I seek to educate and post on here I am not doing anything else?

For the record, I and most anti-vivisectionists are completely opposed to the idea of testing on prisoners or whatever as if they “deserve” it. That is as wrong as nonhuman animal research. But, there are alternatives that are far more effective.

Third I have dealt with my share of illness, I have a cancer surviving mother, and I fully understand the need for medical research. The difference is, I want medical research that saves lives, not that which kills people and other animals to fill pockets of pharm companies and such. The stuff that saves human lives is because of human research. The law requires “validation” in animals and as a result, cures that would work are often thrown out and treatments that kill people make it to the market.

So, read the books and then we’ll talk. Thanks for playing.

To the poster who said we should use humans for research…well, why don’t you volunteer yourself, then? No, instead you volunteer people in prison, many of whom are there because of things beyond their control or bad mistakes from their past that continue to haunt them. Or, they were framed. You forget that there are people who go to prison and come out reformed; I’m not saying all, but I’m saying some take it as an opportunity to get better. So, who is omniscient enough to draw the line between those suitable to be experimented upon and those who get a second chance at life? You? I highly doubt it.

Back to ARPhilo…tax dollars go toward paying for this research because Americans have elected leaders who represent them and vouch on their behalf to the NIH that research in the fields of schizophrenia, depression, and drug addiction are necessary and applicable to American society. If you have a problem with it, go to your elected official and voice your opinion, rally support if you want to, but don’t be grumpy if the majority out-votes you, and definitely don’t feel you should firebomb someone’s car because you didn’t get your way.

If you are unwilling to go the political route, then should you yourself ever become addicted to drugs or develop a mental disorder, I’d advise you to never seek treatment because the vast majority of it has come from animal research. You’ll just have to deal with your disease on your own and live out a very short, unfulfilling, and emotionally damaging life to you and those around you. Good luck.

Furthermore, Pro-Test on their own site claims “the jury is still out” on Vioxx which killed loads of people (even though it was “safe) in animals and claims that Thalidomide could have been stopped with more animal testing even though animal testing allowed it to make the market AND kept it on the market for years while babies were continuously born without limbs… all because animal research showed the drugs safe and effective and pharm companies and researchers sought to keep making money from it. There are thousands of examples like this. Yet, groups like pro-test who claim to care about human life, would rather have humans die so they can keep doing animal research.

To defend animal research ethically means that nonhuman animals would have to be unlike us enough that it would undermine the findings in this research and their applicability to humans. To defend animal research scientifically would mean that other animals are so like us that there is no ethical defense for testing on them.

Animal research is not only unethical, it is criminal. It is our tax dollars going to killing animals and killing us.

But our position as the dominant species is irrelevant. Of course we’re no ‘better’ than monkeys or rats — the reason other people are more worthy of our consideration than other species is entirely based in self interest. It has nothing to do with intrinsic worth, and it’s an empty argument. Be honest.