skellyjp@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (James P Skelly) (01/31/89)
In article <221@anselm.UUCP>, sperry@anselm.UUCP (MALF) writes: > Using animals for scientific research is completely unnecessary and > cruel to the animals. With todays technology we do not need to use > animals for the research. The tests done have been done at least 100 > times allready. This is wrong. There is no substitute for the use of animals in medical research nor is animal research cruel to the animals. Except in rare cases animals are given all the care that pets would get when they go to a vet. Since so many people seem to be unaware of how animal research has benefitted medical practice, including veterinary medicine, I've included some information. The following is taken from the pamphlet "What if - There were no animal research?" put out by the Foundation For Biomedical Research. -Polio would kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and adults this year. -7,500 newborns who develop jaundice each year would develop cerebral palsy, now preventable through phototherepy -Most of the nations 500,000 insulin-dependent diabetics wouldn't be insulin dependent. They would be dead. -Many of the 200,000 individuals who benefitted from coronary bypass surgery in 1984 would never have seen 1985. -The U.S. would experience 1.5 million cases of rubella....over 400 times the current annual incidence of the disease. -50 million Americans would be at risk from heart attack, stroke or kidney failure for lack of medication to control their high blood pressure. -The 100,000 arthritics who each year receive hip replacements would be confined to wheelchairs. -Without cataract surgery, more than a million people would lose their vision in at least one eye. -Death would be a certainty for the 7,500 desparately ill patients who receive kidney transplants each year. -There would be no kidney dialysis to extend the lives of thousands more victims of end-stage renal disease. -Without chemotherapy, doctors would not be able to save the children who now survive acute lymphocytic leukemia. -Hundreds of thousands of people disabled by strokes and head injuries would not benefit from rehabilitation techniques developed in animals.
amlovell@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Anthony M Lovell) (01/31/89)
In article <5963@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, skellyjp@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (James P Skelly) writes: > The following is taken from the pamphlet "What if - There were no animal > research?" put out by the Foundation For Biomedical Research. [examples of ruinous mayhem deleted ] If we let those animals off the hook on this one, what will they ask for next? And next the plants will get all these ideas about how they're equal. I caught an animal rights activist trying to get my dog to sign a petition the other day. And my rabbits Starsky and Hutch just happen to think they look GOOD in Maybelline mascara. They might want to pursue a career modelling cosmetics products and I'm gonna have to tell them they CAN'T because some pansy animal lobby says it's IMMORAL?!? -- amlovell@phoenix.princeton.edu ...since 1963. "But who am *I* going to kill?" .. 7 year-old Paul deMarcellus, upon being told that there are no more Indians raiding Western forts. Bless his conservative heart.
morimoto@intvax.UUCP (Alan Morimoto) (01/31/89)
From article <5963@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, by skellyjp@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (James P Skelly): > In article <221@anselm.UUCP>, sperry@anselm.UUCP (MALF) writes: >> Using animals for scientific research is completely unnecessary and >> cruel to the animals. With todays technology we do not need to use >> animals for the research. The tests done have been done at least 100 >> times allready. > > This is wrong. There is no substitute for the use of animals in medical > research nor is animal research cruel to the animals. Except in > rare cases animals are given all the care that pets would get > when they go to a vet. Since so many people seem to be unaware of how > animal research has benefitted medical practice, including veterinary > medicine, I've included some information. [ Information Deleted} Let's take a hypothetical situation here. Looking at all of the numbers given in the examples, you can see that there are millions if not billions of people out there that would not be alive today if it were not for medical research and developments in new pharmaceuticals. Yet what do we accomplish by all of this. We end up with a lot of sick people that would not survive without medical help. So, if there were a major disaster that restricted medical professionals to treating those who were injured, i.e. a war, then we would have a lot of dying people out there, dying from cronic illnesses. My point is that maybe we need to look at what long term effects we are creating by breeding diseases into our future generations. I can imagine that countries that are not as medically advanced inherit a stronger gene pool of people simply because the weak will perish. Will the future of the world be inherited by us, the medically pampered, or the third world? Alan -- { Humans are the only animals that } { don't breed to improve the species. } --Alan
rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rick Francis Golembiewski) (02/01/89)
In article <221@anselm.UUCP>, sperry@anselm.UUCP (MALF) writes: > Using animals for scientific research is completely unnecessary and > cruel to the animals. With todays technology we do not need to use > animals for the research. The tests done have been done at least 100 > times allready. This is NOT true, especially in the case of medical research. Biology is a NEW science, if you look at Biology text books there are a LOT of holes (in very important subjects), a good reason for testing in animals is that we DON'T know a lot of things about biology itself, and this ignorance could kill: For example, if I develope a drug the counters a disease on the cellular level, the drug may have side effects on some other system. These side efects could be lethal, so I'de better be pretty sure that the drug doesn't before risking it on a person, so it is pretty infeasable to test the drug on ALL aspects of ALL cell types (it would take much more then a lifetime, even for a large lab), and even if you did test every CELL TYPE that does not mean that the drug wouldn't have strange effects on the body as a whole... So the most economical (and in my opinion moral too, after all I can't justify testing on humans without some reasonable evidence that it will not kill them...) way of testing for side effects is to use animals. And in the majority of cases the animals are treated well (there are laws to prevent abuses, plus test results can be invalid if the animals are not kept in good health...). There is also another advantage in using animals is that many times the testing of animals may show side effects (ie drugs which may cause birth defects) in a far shorter time scale then if it were tested on humans. All things considered I'de personally rather do tests on cells then animals and I'de rather use a computer simulation of a cell for experiments then a cell, BUT because of the limits of knowlege, you have to do some tests in cells, and you have to do some in animals, or you can't expect to get accurate information, so unless you are willing to risk death/devistating side effects the next time you have to take some medicine, or buy a new product (how do you know that exposure to some chemical isn't toxic?), then remember that animal research helps to protect you. // Rick Golembiewski rg20+@andrew.cmu.edu \\ \\ #include stddisclaimer.h // \\ "I never respected a man who could spell" // \\ -M. Twain //
michaelm@vax.3Com.Com (Michael McNeil) (02/01/89)
In article <674@intvax.UUCP> morimoto@intvax.UUCP (Alan Morimoto) writes: }Let's take a hypothetical situation here. Looking at all of the numbers }given in the examples, you can see that there are millions if not billions }of people out there that would not be alive today if it were not for medical }research and developments in new pharmaceuticals. Yet what do we accomplish }by all of this. We end up with a lot of sick people that would not survive }without medical help. } }So, if there were a major disaster that restricted medical professionals to }treating those who were injured, i.e. a war, then we would have a lot of }dying people out there, dying from cronic illnesses. My point is that maybe }we need to look at what long term effects we are creating by breeding }diseases into our future generations. I can imagine that countries that are }not as medically advanced inherit a stronger gene pool of people simply }because the weak will perish. Will the future of the world be inherited by }us, the medically pampered, or the third world? This might be a valid fear -- if medical and biological advances were to halt and freeze at current techology. Perhaps this scenario would happen if animal research were stopped altogether. Assuming, however, that all research *doesn't* suddenly cease -- then long, *long* before degeneration of the gene pool can significantly take place (i.e., a few centuries from now), we'll have the capability to correct deleterious genes. As long as science continues to advance, the problem is moot. >Alan -- Michael McNeil michaelm@3comvax.UUCP 3Com Corporation hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm Mountain View, California work telephone: (415) 694-2916 We are at present almost completely ignorant of biology, a fact which often escapes the notice of biologists, and renders them too presumptuous in their estimates of the present position of their science, too modest in their claims for the future. J. B. S. Haldane, *Daedalus, or Science and the Future*, 1924
wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (02/01/89)
In article <674@intvax.UUCP> morimoto@intvax.UUCP (Alan Morimoto) writes: > >So, if there were a major disaster that restricted medical professionals to >treating those who were injured, i.e. a war, then we would have a lot of >dying people out there, dying from cronic illnesses. My point is that maybe >we need to look at what long term effects we are creating by breeding >diseases into our future generations. I can imagine that countries that are >not as medically advanced inherit a stronger gene pool of people simply >because the weak will perish. Will the future of the world be inherited by >us, the medically pampered, or the third world? It seems to me that this is just part of the human ability to modify our environment. Wouldn't the same point apply to primitive homo sapiens ? By choosing to live in caves, and use tools and weapons, and cook food, our ancestors allowed those weaklings with low tolerance to exposure, lower physical strength and endurance, and higher susceptiblity to worms, etc, to survive. The history of human progress has been a constant move to improve our own lot, and make our lives easier and longer. And I certainly can see no value in the argument that there's no point in saving lives now because of the possibility they might be lost in the future. (although I don't think Mr. Morimoto meant to imply that) ------------------------------ valuable coupon ------------------------------- Bill Thacker att!cbnews!wbt "C" combines the power of assembly language with the flexibility of assembly language. Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke ! ------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------
ayermish@asylum.SF.CA.US (Aimee Yermish) (02/01/89)
In article <674@intvax.UUCP> morimoto@intvax.UUCP (Alan Morimoto) writes: > My point is that maybe >we need to look at what long term effects we are creating by breeding >diseases into our future generations. I can imagine that countries that are >not as medically advanced inherit a stronger gene pool of people simply >because the weak will perish. Will the future of the world be inherited by >us, the medically pampered, or the third world? I am afraid I don't know what you're talking about. When I got vaccinated against polio, I was given a substance that forced my body to develop a lifelong immunity to polio. Because of the way the immune system works, this immunity can not be passed to my children (except for passive maternal antibodies should I breast feed -- this immunity lasts a couple years at best), so they too will have to be vaccinated against this and a small host of other diseases. There is no breeding for weakness there. If you're referring to the general concept that "less fit" people who would die of childhood diseases are able (due to the miracles of modern medicine) to survive to reproduce, hence breeding their worthless and weak genes into future generations, all I can say is that you are vastly oversimplifying things. What about diseases that kill people after they have successfully reproduced? What about childhood diseases that are not normally fatal in themselves but can have serious sequelae later in life? And, of course, what about diseases that don't impair the ability of the afflicted to survive to reproduce (like, say, oral herpes)? Another problem with the "natural selection says sick folks should die" argument is that the environment can change for us much more rapidly than evolution can deal with. Remember, your average Galapagos finch species lives for millenia on a little island where the seasons don't change much, the other creatures don't change much, the food doesn't change much, etc. Over that extremely large number of generations, those finches get a chance to try out and select for or against a large number of mutations. Because the environment is relatively stable, or at worst changes only gradually, the same kinds of things are likely to be selected for over many generations. If every five years, the bugs and the seeds changed size, say, then their beaks wouldn't get a chance to evolve to an optimal size and shape. Now, we people change our environment. We move around, we build things, etc. What is advantageous in one environment may be dangerous in another. The best example I can think of offhand deals with sickle-cell anemia. It's a genetic disease in which hemoglobin (the protein in your blood that binds oxygen) has a mistake, so under certain conditions, the red blood cells shrink up into these little sickle shapes. It's not really a terrible disease, as long as you're not homozygous for it, but then again, it's not a good one either. The odd thing about it is that being heterozygous for sickle-cell anemia gives you a certain resistance to an infectious disease, malaria. Malaria is an acute illness and can kill you. In parts of Africa where malaria ran rampant because the environment was warm and damp enough to support the mosquitoes that carry malaria, surprise, surprise, sickle-cell anemia was selected for. When those folks moved to cooler climates or learned how to make mosquito netting or whatever, malaria was no longer such a danger. But they still had sickle-cell anemia, and still passed it on to their offspring. Whoops. --Aimee -- Aimee Yermish ayermish@asylum.sf.ca.us Program in Cancer Biology ayermish@portia.stanford.edu Stanford University 415-594-9268
scj@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG (Scotian) (02/02/89)
Alan Morimoto writes: |We end up with a lot of sick people that would not survive |without medical help. [..] I can imagine that countries that are |not as medically advanced inherit a stronger gene pool of people simply |because the weak will perish. Will the future of the world be inherited by |us, the medically pampered, or the third world? I have come to the same conclusion when pondering the future of the human race, and it is rather disconcerting. However, I do not see this is a case against animal experimentation. If worse comes to worse and medical help was no longer available on the large scale if at all, then the survival of the fittest would take over and the human gene pool would become eventually strong again, assuming people still existed. -- .............................................................................. Scott C. Jensen scj@mecc.MN.ORG
scj@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG (Scotian) (02/02/89)
Alan Morimoto writes: |We end up with a lot of sick people that would not survive |without medical help. [..] I can imagine that countries that are |not as medically advanced inherit a stronger gene pool of people simply |because the weak will perish. Will the future of the world be inherited by |us, the medically pampered, or the third world? I have come to the same conclusion when pondering the future of the human race, and it is rather disconcerting. However, I do not see this is a case against animal experimentation. If worse comes to worse and medical help was no longer available on the large scale if at all, then the survival of the fittest would take over and the human gene pool would become eventually strong again (assuming that it is now weak), if people still exist. -- .............................................................................. Scott C. Jensen scj@mecc.MN.ORG
marty@june.cs.washington.edu (Marty Sirkin) (02/02/89)
In article <674@intvax.UUCP>, morimoto@intvax.UUCP (Alan Morimoto) writes: > [ about saving people via animal research] > Yet what do we accomplish by all of this. We end up with a lot of sick > people that would not survive without medical help. Not always. I remember back in the early-mid 70's when my father was about to die. He had a bad heart, and the doctors told him that he wouldn't last the month. They did tell him that they could try a very new medical procedure which had been tried on animals, but very few humans. He went ahead and had a bypass. And survived until 1983. Granted he had some problems in the 8+ years extra he lived. But very few. He was not much of a burden on society, and lived to see his children graduate from college, and one of his children married. Seems like a useful procedure to me. In addition, he was a diabetic for some 30 years (after he had had children, and passed on his genes). Without the animal research he would have been dead. With the medicine he lived a very useful, productive life. He was not "sick" save that he had to have his shots/pills twice a day. Seems like a very good tradeoff to me. Marty Sirkin
avatar@pnet51.cts.com (Timothy Fay) (02/02/89)
skellyjp@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (James P Skelly) writes: >In article <221@anselm.UUCP>, sperry@anselm.UUCP (MALF) writes: >> Using animals for scientific research is completely unnecessary and >> cruel to the animals. With todays technology we do not need to use >> animals for the research. The tests done have been done at least 100 >> times allready. > >This is wrong. There is no substitute for the use of animals in medical >research nor is animal research cruel to the animals... I can accept that, under certain conditions, some animal research MAY be necessary. But please spare us this baloney that animal research isn't cruel to the animals. It IS cruel and, someday hopefully, it will also be unnecessary. UUCP: {uunet!rosevax, amdahl!bungia, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!avatar INET: avatar@pnet51.cts.com
wood@vaxwaller.UUCP (John Wood) (02/02/89)
In article <5963@phoenix.Princeton.EDU->, skellyjp@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (James P Skelly) writes: -> In article <221@anselm.UUCP>, sperry@anselm.UUCP (MALF) writes: -> > Using animals for scientific research is completely unnecessary and -> > cruel to the animals. With todays technology we do not need to use -> > animals for the research. The tests done have been done at least 100 -> > times allready. -> -> This is wrong. There is no substitute for the use of animals in medical -> research nor is animal research cruel to the animals. This categorical statement deserves some discussion. (See below) -> Except in rare cases animals are given all the care that pets would get -> when they go to a vet. Well, I don't know about that claim. I spent two years in the Parmacology department of a major Medical School where dogs were used for most of the medical research that I was involved in. I must say that the post-operative care given the animals was less than desirable from my point of view. Perhaps this school is the "rare case" but it's the only one that I have personal knowledge of. -> Since so many people seem to be unaware of how -> animal research has benefitted medical practice, including veterinary -> medicine, I've included some information. -> -> The following is taken from the pamphlet "What if - There were no animal -> research?" put out by the Foundation For Biomedical Research. -> -> -Polio would kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and -> adults this year. -> (A long list of other diseases that killed and/or maimed a large number of humans because animals were not used for research was deleted) It seems to me that there is a possible error in this thinking. The assumption is that if animals were not used for research then all these diseases would still be killing us. Perhaps that is too black and white. I believe that if scientists were not able to use animals for research they would find some other way to solve the difficult problems that they encounter. I submit that the problem would be harder to solve but I don't think that the problems are insurmountable. Perhaps the animal rights folks could add some constructive diologue by suggesting other possible solutions. BTW, I am not an activist in this area I just have a personal ethical belief that _I_ should not be involved in the unnecessary killing of animals. -- John Wood (415) 945-2273 Varian Instruments, 2700 Mitchell Dr. Walnut Creek, Ca. 94598 {zehntel,dual,amd,fortune,rtech,lll-crg,ista,pacbell,csi}!varian!wood (These are my opinions. I don't know what Varian's opinions are.)
muller@ditsyda.oz (Carl Muller) (02/02/89)
In article <674@intvax.UUCP>, morimoto@intvax.UUCP (Alan Morimoto) writes: > [Verbiage deleted]... My point is that we need to look at what long term effects we are creating by breeding > diseases into our future generations. I can imagine that countries that are > not as medically advanced inherit a stronger gene pool of people simply > because the weak will perish. Will the future of the world be inherited by > us, the medically pampered, or the third world? > > --Alan As any player of a Role Playing Game will tell you, Constitution isn't everything. So called "Stronger" gene pools are rubbish. *Much* bigger improvements in performance are possible through things such as improved diet (as in the Japanese). Besides that, the physically weak are not necessarily useless. Many geniuses (such as Blaise Pascal) have had weak constitutions. Admittedly they survived without modern drugs but not without adequate sanitation (which is lacking in many third world countries). With regard to "breeding diseases" into the population, have we "bred Smallpox" into the human race by vaccination? There aren't too many cases of it now, are there? After the disease was practically eliminated, the preventative measures became unnecessary. With regard to the future of the world, why so "them and us"? Shouldn't we be trying to give all of us adequate medical facilities rather than worrying about factional differences? -- Carl. ("11. Thou shalt not waste bandwidth.")
hes@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Henry Schaffer) (02/02/89)
In article <1252@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG>, scj@meccsd.MECC.MN.ORG (Scotian) writes: > Alan Morimoto writes: > |We end up with a lot of sick people that would not survive > |without medical help. [..] I can imagine that countries that are > |not as medically advanced inherit a stronger gene pool of people simply > |because the weak will perish. ... > > I have come to the same conclusion when pondering the future of the > human race, and it is rather disconcerting. However, I do not see > this is a case against animal experimentation. ... > -- > Scott C. Jensen Two topics intermixed - animal experimentation and genetic consequences of medical intervention. 1)If the argument is correct that animal intervention makes for more effecive medical treatments and that leads to increased gene frequencies of deleterious genes, that seems to be admitting the effectiveness of animal experimentation in developing medical treatments! (If we really want to stop saving lives, it would be *much* more efficient to just stop applying medical treatments, rather than to stop animal experimentation and hope that medicine will stop improving.) 2)While medical intervention clearly leads to changes in gene frequencies (as do *many* other changes in the selective nature of the environment) there still is a question of how much and how fast. If an illness/condition was caused by purely environmental effects, with no genetic component, then medical intervention does not make any change in gene frequencies. (I'm thinking of things like automobile and other accidents. There may be a second order genetic effect - e.g. that good genes for nimbleness will help one keep from being hit by cars, but I'll ignore that as being second order.) Also illnesses which occur after reproductive years do not affect gene frequencies. Whether or not medical intervention saves a life at that time does not affect whether or not the genetic basis of that illness has been passed on. Then for illnesses which have a genetic basis, and which affect the reproductive potential of the individual, medical intervention has a genetic effect on the population - which depends on how much it changes the survival rate. (I.e., if the base rate is 80% survival, and medicine changes it to 90%, that is not a dramatic change in the selective situation.) Even if medicine changes a lethal condition to complete survival (the most extreme example possible) how fast will the population gene frequencies change? The medical intervention does not in itself *increase* the frequencies of deleterious genes. It just stops the selection against them, and allows mutation to increase the frequencies. Mutation is a slow process, with rates often found in the 10**-5 to 10**-6 range. For deleterious recessive genes gene frequencies are often found to be in the area of 10**-1, and so it takes *many* generations for an appreciable change. --henry schaffer n c state univ
dpb@hen3ry.Philips.Com (Paul Benjamin) (02/02/89)
In article <593@orbit.UUCP> avatar@pnet51.cts.com (Timothy Fay) writes: >I can accept that, under certain conditions, some animal research MAY be >necessary. But please spare us this baloney that animal research isn't >cruel to the animals. It IS cruel and, someday hopefully, it will also >be unnecessary. Up till now I've been just observing this seemingly eternal argument, but I feel I have to point out the extremely simplistic position that seems to be emerging. There is no doubt that a lot of cruel animal research exists, and that regulations are needed. But to say that ALL animal research is cruel is wrong. There is a great deal of valuable work involving many topics that are not cruel at all, e.g., diet (large doses of vitamins), or biological rhythms (20-hour days, 30-hour days, etc.), that are not necessarily cruel at all to the animals involved, and cannot be realistically done with humans (and certainly not with simulations). Try controlling the daylight and night hours of a large group of humans for a long time. To lump all animal research together is oversimplifying, and gives a vacuous argument. Let's try to stick to the main point - cruelty to animals, whether in the name of research or not. Paul Benjamin
jonb@hpcupt1.HP.COM (Jon Bayh) (02/03/89)
From: morimoto@intvax.UUCP (Alan Morimoto): > My point is that maybe > we need to look at what long term effects we are creating by breeding > diseases into our future generations. I can imagine that countries that are > not as medically advanced inherit a stronger gene pool of people simply > because the weak will perish. Will the future of the world be inherited by > us, the medically pampered, or the third world? > > Alan Hmm...Maybe we should create legislation to painlessly sterilize anyone who comes down with a non-trauma-induced illness. Have you ever had the flu, Alan? :-) Jon Bayh hplabs!hpda!jonb "...It's for his own good." "That's what they said to the cat before his operation." - Robert Heinlein
avatar@pnet51.cts.com (Timothy Fay) (02/06/89)
dpb@hen3ry.Philips.Com (Paul Benjamin) writes: >In article <593@orbit.UUCP> avatar@pnet51.cts.com (Timothy Fay) writes: >>I can accept that, under certain conditions, some animal research MAY be >>necessary. But please spare us this baloney that animal research isn't >>cruel to the animals. It IS cruel and, someday hopefully, it will also >>be unnecessary. > >Up till now I've been just observing this seemingly eternal >argument, but I feel I have to point out the extremely >simplistic position that seems to be emerging. There is no >doubt that a lot of cruel animal research exists, and that >regulations are needed. But to say that ALL animal research >is cruel is wrong. There is a great deal of valuable work involving >many topics that are not cruel at all, e.g., diet (large doses >of vitamins), or biological rhythms (20-hour days, 30-hour days, >etc.), that are not necessarily cruel at all to the animals >involved, and cannot be realistically done with humans (and >certainly not with simulations). Try controlling the daylight >and night hours of a large group of humans for a long time. >To lump all animal research together is oversimplifying, and >gives a vacuous argument. Let's try to stick to the main point - >cruelty to animals, whether in the name of research or not. The person I was responding to claimed that animal research *wasn't* cruel. If my argument is 'vacuous', then the claim that all animal research isn't cruel is at least equally vacuous. It may be that not *all* animal research is cruel, but the overwhelming majority of it is. Most lab animals are used in cancer research or product testing, and the methods used can be very cruel, indeed. The vitamin research you cited often invoves administering hyper-doses to a sample group of animals, until 50% of them die. To me, that's cruel. Necessary, *perhaps*, but don't tell me it doesn't cause the test animals pain and suffering. This is not to say all researchers are horrible, fanged monsters and sadists. Nor am I demanding an immediate halt to all experimentation on animals. I am, however, asking that we consider how this kind of research affects the animals involved, and to work to find methods of experimentation that do not require animals as unwilling subjects. UUCP: {uunet!rosevax, amdahl!bungia, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!avatar INET: avatar@pnet51.cts.com
pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) (02/07/89)
In article <614@orbit.UUCP> avatar@pnet51.cts.com (Timothy Fay) writes: >> >>There is no >>doubt that a lot of cruel animal research exists, and that >>regulations are needed. But to say that ALL animal research >>is cruel is wrong. > And someone else adds: (sorry) >This is not to say all researchers are horrible, fanged monsters >and sadists. Thankyou for that compliment. (+: Just a silly anectdote. We are having a bit of a cold spell here in the Rockies, as is, I gather, the rest of the country. Temperatures have been down to -25 (not counting wind-chill). Well, the researcher in charge of the animal facility here at our department was worried about the mice on the top floor getting sick or dying from hopothermia. So, he brought all of the space heaters from his own house (I've been in his house, it needs space heaters) into the lab to keep the mice warm. You could say that he was only concerned about his experiments going wrong, except that he is a bacteriologist and does not use the any of the animals in the facility. I guess this is one of the non-fanged type of researchers. The point is that most (ok, so not all) researchers do care about the animals. They care about increasing our understanding of biology more, so they do use animals in that pursuit. I do not (anymore) use animals in my research, because what I do cannot be done on animals. When i did, I treated them well, gave them the attention I could and, when the time came, I killed them. It was not easy, but I believe that the research was important. Those are my priorities...I chose them thoughtfully. The animal-rights types have no right to sit in judgement over me. But, if they had won a while back, it would be the parents of children who died of small pox and polio now sitting in judgement. I can just hear them: "you mean medical science had a way to save my Timmy and you bastards let him die to save a few animals!?" Oh well, can't please everyone. -tony
pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) (02/07/89)
> In article <6409@boulder.Colorado.EDU> I wrote: >Just a silly anectdote. and then... > >But, if they (animal-rights activists) had won a while back, it would >be the parents of children who died of small pox and polio now sitting in >judgement. I should have checked my facts. I am informed by Sean Eddy that the smallpox vaccine was developed without animal research (unless you count a small child as an animal). Leave it to me to pick the one disease for which the researcher did not use animal research. I think this whole thing boils down to differences in ethical/moral priorities. I consider my position well thought-out. All living things depend on death in some way to survive. The mystic in me finds that appealing. All animal kill other things (plants or animals--why are plants always considered inferior life forms? Don't give me the "they-don't-feel-pain" argument. Neither could Karren-Anne Quinlin but I doubt you would want to have chowed down on her). All living things have intrinsic value that extends beyond inteligence or even a complex nerve network; but all animals must kill something to live. Also, all animals will take advantage of other animals to improve their own lot in life simply because they can. Humans play unwilling prey for a number of viruses and bacteria that survive at the expense of human life. We fight to prevent the deaths, but we don't feel especially picked-on because of it--all things are prey to something. Killing for food is different from killing for medical research, you say? Why? Both attempt to extend your own life. This is nit-picking. It is either okay to kill for your own benefit or it is not. If it is not okay for you, you will die really soon. This is my response to the extremists who want all research involving animals stopped. Of course, it will not convince any of them. For those who recognize the complexity of this issue and would like to minimize pain and suffering, let's continue to talk about regualtion and checks. There is alot of grey area that needs to be considered thoughtfully. -tony
ogil@tank.uchicago.edu (Brian W. Ogilvie) (02/08/89)
In article <674@intvax.UUCP> morimoto@intvax.UUCP (Alan Morimoto) writes: > >So, if there were a major disaster that restricted medical professionals to >treating those who were injured, i.e. a war, then we would have a lot of >dying people out there, dying from cronic illnesses. My point is that maybe >we need to look at what long term effects we are creating by breeding >diseases into our future generations. I can imagine that countries that are >not as medically advanced inherit a stronger gene pool of people simply >because the weak will perish. Will the future of the world be inherited by >us, the medically pampered, or the third world? > >Alan Whoa! Wait a minute. Most of the diseases which are being controlled through the use of antibiotics, reconstructive surgery, etc. are not genetic diseases. Influenza, polio, and the like are caused by viruses and bacteria, and as such there is no way that our medical technology is causing these diseases to be "bred into future generations." We _may_ be slowing down the evolution of genetic compensations for these diseases, but as an examination of sickle-cell anemia or any other genetic antimalarial shows, the cure is often nearly as bad (though the logic of selection prevents it from being worse) than the disease. A far worse result of the _indiscriminate_ use of antibiotics is the development of resistant strains of bacteria, which can pass on this resistance to other strains during conjugation. This has nothing to do with the gene pool. Of course, a number of genetic diseases have been identified, and many are treatable. For example, phenylketonuria, which is caused by an inability to digest the amino acid phenylalanine and which results in brain damage, may be identified and prevented by a special diet. If phenylketonurics reproduced at the same rate as the rest of the population, the gene would remain fixed at the same frequency in the population. However, phenylketonurics are aware of their genetic deficiency (otherwise they would have suffered severe brain damage during youth), and they can choose not to have children. As long as they have fewer children than non-phenylketonuric families, the frequency of the phenylketonuria gene will decrease. The fear that we are becoming "genetically inferior" to "third world" populations is not really justified. Perhaps, after a few centuries of advanced medicine the frequency of recessive lethals will be higher in our gene pool, but then our population size is much larger (because of transportation, etc.). The major problem, antibiotic-resistant microorganisms, will affect everyone equally. Furthermore, it seems likely that in any situation where we lose our biomedical technology, more of us will be dying from starvation or exposure than from any nasty recessives in the gene pool. -- Brian W. Ogilvie / ogil@tank.uchicago.edu "Cartesianism is the most popular 'popular science' ever invented." --Noel Swerdlow
sparks@druwy.ATT.COM (A. Sparks) (02/14/89)
Some animal research is cruel to the animals, some is not. Some animal research produces results useful to humans or animals, some does not. The benefits of some animal research could be achieved without using animals, some can not. However, whenever one takes a position that "it is worth it", or "it is not worth it", this is a moral position, and one should recognize that an important voice may not be heard on the issue: the animal's. Some attempt to consider the animal's viewpoint, some do not. Those who consider it may give it different weight, but the animal does not speak.
sarima@gryphon.COM (Stan Friesen) (02/24/89)
In article <593@orbit.UUCP> avatar@pnet51.cts.com (Timothy Fay) writes: >skellyjp@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (James P Skelly) writes: >>This is wrong. There is no substitute for the use of animals in medical >>research nor is animal research cruel to the animals... > >I can accept that, under certain conditions, some animal research MAY be >necessary. But please spare us this baloney that animal research isn't >cruel to the animals. It IS cruel and, someday hopefully, it will also >be unnecessary. This sounds very nice, but HOW will animal research become unnecessary! As long as there is any relevent aspect of animal physiology or behavior that is unknown the only way of discovering it will be experimentation. Remember, simulations are only useful for revealing the implications of what we already know, they cannot actually provide new basic data. Or are you imagining some other method of gaining radical new knowledge? If so tell us what it is, we would like to know how to discover new things without experimentation. -- Sarima Cardolandion sarima@gryphon.CTS.COM aka Stanley Friesen rutgers!marque!gryphon!sarima Sherman Oaks, CA
avatar@pnet51.cts.com (Timothy Fay) (03/11/89)
sue@blake.acs.washington.edu (Geometrodynmcs) writes: >... >So just because one group has already put "formaldyhyde" on some rabbits' >eyes DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NO LONGER NECESSARY to "put formaldyhyde" on OTHER >rabbits eyes AGAIN (within a context of a totally different experiment)!! Perhaps. As long as it is in the name of Science, and not a new line Mary Kay Cosmetics. UUCP: {uunet!rosevax, amdahl!bungia, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!avatar INET: avatar@pnet51.cts.com
drsmith@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (drew smith) (03/13/89)
In article <3254@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes: >More practical I think, would be the use of computerized record-keeping for >some kind of national or even international database to record the results >of specific animal tests, so that tests, especially tests that cause pain to >animals, need not be unnecessarily repeated. Why should a hundred different >research institutions, for instance, have to independently find out what >happens when a rabbit has formaldehyde squirted in its eye? Granted, for >animal rights partisans even once is too much, but surely more than once is >even worse! > >Unlike computer modeling which would require both compute power and basic >information that we just don't have available to us yet, this could be done >NOW. That is precisely what the scientific literature is for. For better or worse there are no rewards in science for repeating others experiments. Therefore no *competent* scientist will waste his/her time doing what's been done before. The problem is that the size of the literature is just too big for anyone to keep up with. There do exist computerized databases, such as Dialog, that will direct users to the relevant publications; these are fast, but expensive. Every university library also has a set of ISI scientific indexes and biological abstracts that will do the same thing for free, but can be tedious and time-consuming. Still, it is always faster to find someone else's results than to do the experiment yourself. Given the cost of animal experimentation, it is also vastly cheaper. -Drew Smith, Dept. of Biology, Indiana Univ.