Animal testing to save the lives of other animals (including us...)

Nobody owns an animal. We have no right to torture them for our own gain. They deserve to live life just as much as we do.

PETA video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QRBcHIIsXc

"Life inside a cage, is no life at all"

At a simple, individual level that statement is true. But no one can say they follow that in practice 100% throughout their lifetime.

I don't believe it's morally right to say, we will not use any testing on any sort of animal in every instance.

Eg. If we know from our current scientific knowledge that placing deliberate suffering (within regulations - reduction of any suffering on those involved is obviously applied) on 3 animals of any species will most likely lead to dramatically decreasing suffering for 100s or 1000s more - how can you feel comfortable that you saved 3 animals but happy for many more to suffer for longer, particularly if you know it will be for the rest of their lifetime?

Also, think of that if it wasn't just non-human animal testing for humans. But also for when we do test of the same species (human and human, non-human and non-human).

Again, I refer back to the previous links I presented. Science is constantly changing. No one will deny that they've done some crazy things in the past, and that they don't have areas to improve on nor is there some sort of resistance in science to move on from animal testing where they can. It's easier and cheaper in the long run using the alternative methods when they are applicable. Unfortunately, technology still have some catching up to do as well as our own understanding of the world/space.

FYI: Here's some current research looking for *human* volunteers to be tested on:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/human-guinea-pigs-needed-for-tests/story-fn6ck51p-1226211729695?fb_ref=rec-bot&fb_source=profile_oneline

Who's seriously happy to volunteer? I know some are happy to just get sick and die but not everyone in our communities wants to suffer if they know scientists can have a shot to improve things. We care about our own species. There's nothing wrong with that.

Also, usual PETA style video too. But I'll leave it. Jack might up me for being biased as I'm a 'PETA hater'.

You seem to present your argument as if animal experimentation is actually scientific and leads directly to an applicable cure in humans. If it were the case that simple animal experimentation could lead us to a cure, then your utilitarian stance would be viewed (somewhat) differently, but, what about the millions of animals that continually suffer and die for absolutely no change to be made in the human condition? Wouldn't a utilitarian say that there is no end to justify the means...it's just wasted lives?

You may feel there's no evidence but I think things such as:

-Helping to develop vaccines against diseases like rabies, polio, measles, mumps, rubella and TB        
- Antibiotics, HIV drugs, insulin and cancer treatments rely on animal tests. Other testing methods aren't advanced enough currently.        
- Operations on animals helped to develop organ transplant and open-heart surgery techniques.

... is science advancing to reduce suffering with the assistance of animal testing at various stages. It's great now that we're starting to get more computerised methods and knowledge so laws allow more human testing. You can't say that for the earlier generations that had no access to those technologies we have now and required a polio vaccine pronto.

Here's the 2010 US government statistics for animal research:
http://speakingofresearch.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/2010_animals_used_in_research.pdf

This article breakdowns the numbers:
http://speakingofresearch.com/facts/statistics/

They also note that:

But overall, the number of animals in research is steadily declining as our technology and knowledge improves. Those figures, I feel consumption of animals is more the concern than research, at least in countries that ensure that researchers do follow all welfare regulations.

I don't think anyone can truly say they're against animal testing unless they are willing to make a commitment to say that they are never going to accept any type of medical treatment or anything that has been tested on animals.
When I first became vegan I was completely against all kinds of animal testing, but then I thought to myself...If I ever became ill I would not think twice about receiving medical treatment even though I know for a fact that it has been tested on animals. If one of my family members, friends or pets became ill I would want them to receive medical treatment to help them too.

I can say that I am 100% opposed to using animals for food as there is no doubt in my mind that I would never intentionally eat anything that is non-vegan.  But with animal testing I know that I would not reject something that could possibly improve or save my life.

It might sound selfish...and maybe it is. But that's how I feel. So for me to say I was 100% against animal testing would be hypocritical.

Overall though I think people should be focusing on animals being used for food, as that is where the most animal suffering and deaths occur and it does not extend or improve the quality of human life.

Also wondering...what are peoples thoughts on animal testing which could potentially save a species from extinction? Because if animal testing was banned that would certainly disadvantage scientists  in finding a cure for a disease etc. and would decrease the species chances of survival.

No I didn't say there was no evidence, I said it was unscientific. Because of species differences, what results in animals can not be inferred to result in humans (e.g. thalidomide).

So you are saying that we shouldn't worry about animal experimentation because more animals die for food (just clarifying)?

I personally can't look at things like that. In my course at uni, the experiments we learn about that they have done to animals (they mostly use primates) are  so horrible and uncomfortable to think about and other footage I have seen often haunts me. I can't just put it on the backburner because their torture is not as common the suffering on other animals.

Nope, not saying that. We should worry and we should work to help improve the system. But banning it all outright right now will lead to devastating impacts on all sentient beings. And isn't that what most animal rights groups campaign for - a total ban ASAP?

There's no way to be 100% against animal testing unless you go leave out in the wilderness, enjoying raw foods. So like Abbiesaurus, I'd believe I am a hypocrite to say I was totally oppose to all animal testing.

And personally for me, consumption will take priority over animal testing currently with my activism as I roll with statistics to make that choice.

Also, in regards to the footage you described. Were you provided with a date of when that was filmed and information regarding what legislation that were suppose to be implementing at the time of those tests?

In regards to the neuroscience experiments, the references are probably in my textbooks for those experiments, but the 'legislation' never matters as long as the 'ethics committee' decide that there may be a benefit from the research.

One example that comes to mind is at uni, where animals are killed every year for us to learn something we can be shown on video (or through computerised alternatives), and the man that kills them for this is the head of the animal ethics committee at my university....there's something very wrong with that picture.

I mean, severing monkeys physically and forcing them to relearn tasks they once knew with their enforced disability is cruel to me, but some believe the knowledge gained is worthy of the suffering.
Sticking coils in monkeys heads and making them do tasks for you is torture to me...acceptable to some.

So are you saying that your university promotes material that promotes other science bodies that 'play by their own rules'? That all they need is a committee board to be happy to sway a scientist away saying that can do whatever they want with any animal and just call it testing?

Doesn't work that way. If it's occurring now or recently - they can be prosecuted. If it occurred prior any sort of animal welfare laws and regulations, then you'll see times have changed.

You'll need to back this claim up for me to take it on board.

I'm confused (sorry!)....I was just saying that when someone wants to experiment, they submit their proposal to an ethics committee and they decide (like the one that we have at our uni. I clearly disagree with their regulations because to me, killing an animal when a video can be shown is not 'ethical'). It is clear that rarely are the 3 R's actually adhered to ( Reduction: to reduce the number of animals used to as few as possible; Replacement: to use alternative non-animal methods whenever they are available;  Refinement: to refine all procedures to ensure that as little pain and stress as possible is experienced by the animals).
It can be required by the purpose of the study for the animal to feel the pain inflicted on him or her, so pain killers are not administered in these cases.

As for the neuroscience experiments, I was just describing some that are in my textbooks and that we've had to learn in lectures. They are so cruel to me, but permissible in the world of animal experimentation because from them we have learned about the visual system (for example).