Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Still Waters

Retired Lab Chimps See The Sky For First Time

37 posts in this topic

Toxicity tests on animals actually do give us a good idea of how a drug will behave in humans. Not perfect, but pretty good.

It's not even pretty good. Toxicity tests are less than useful, with the LD50 test being abolished in more enlightened countries. The Draize testis also unreliable.

"toxicologists Carrol Weil and Robert Scala of Carnegie Mellon University distributed three test substances for comparative analysis to 24 different university and state laboratories. The laboratories returned significantly different evaluations, from non-irritating to severely irritating, for the same substances."

"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is 'Because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are not like us.' Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction."

-- Professor Charles R. Magel (1980)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe its ethically wrong to rank animals in importance. I feel that human lives are more important than that of a lizard, monkey or any other animal.

However, I believe monkeys are more important than mice, rabbits, etc. Monkeys do have levels of self-awareness, and I wish they wouldn't use them in testing... however, if they need to test medical procedures on other animals I'm all for it. Its sad, but human lives come first. As awful as that video was, a little girl dying of a rare cancer and leaving a family destroyed with grief is worse to me.

I love animals and can't stand abuse of any kind, I hate testing cosmetics on animals. But when it comes to medicine, its just too important not too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not even pretty good. Toxicity tests are less than useful, with the LD50 test being abolished in more enlightened countries. The Draize testis also unreliable.

"toxicologists Carrol Weil and Robert Scala of Carnegie Mellon University distributed three test substances for comparative analysis to 24 different university and state laboratories. The laboratories returned significantly different evaluations, from non-irritating to severely irritating, for the same substances."

"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is 'Because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are not like us.' Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction."

-- Professor Charles R. Magel (1980)

There are many other aspects than LD50 and Draize. Okay then, so let's not bother with pharmacokinetic studies before using drugs in humans. That way we have no idea whether it breaks down into active metabolites, toxic metabolites, or inactive. Or let's not bother with reproductive toxiticty studies, that way we won't know if what we've got is teratogenic,causing birth defects.

I don't WANT animals to be tested on, but until someone gives me a list of suitable alternatives to all preclinical studies necessary for a drug to successfully get for a clinical trials application, that's the way it's going to stay unfortunately. There are some alternatives, such as the chicken eye test (ICE) where abbattoir leftovers are used to test for irritants. However, I'm sure you can see that's less useful, as live animals still have to be used to confirm negative results, because dead eyes are even less close to live human eyes than live animal eyes. Similarly, there's the Ames test, which uses bacteria, which again, while it has its uses, uses organisms less similar to us than the creatures you're saying shouldn't be used because they aren't the same as us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People volunteer all the time for non-approved drugs. A poster in this thread admitted to being a guinea pig. He's lucky. Just because a drug is safe for rabbits doesn't mean the same for humans.

You do know that many of the specialized medical branches were able to be developed thruogh the use of Animals. Take heart surgery for instance. Many of the procedures done today that save thousands if not millions of lives a year were developed using animals first. I do not know of very many people that would volunteer to have thier heart experimented on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, granted, medical research can be argued for. But cosmetics and household product toxicity tests? The results of these tests vary widely and they really are unnecessary. Trust me, if you spray oven cleaner or nail polish remover in your eye, it's gonna hurt. Do we really need to subject rabbits to these tests?

Actually it's rats and mice that bear the brunt of most laboratory horrors. In the U.S. animal cruelty laws take into account a sentient beings inherent interest in continuing to exist. So, to get around this morality rats and mice are conveniently not classified as animals.

From the Animal Welfare Act:

"(g) The term “animal” means any live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warm-blooded animal, as the Secretary may determine is being used, or is intended for use, for research, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet; but such term excludes (1) birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use in research,"

Pretty neat trick eh? They're not animals, they're models. What sophistry!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I couldn't have said it better, Coffey. We could do much better for our kindred.

Why should humans be the only species on the planet that looks after other species?

Chimps may be the most closely-related species to humans, but why do we need to look after them? Come on. I'd like good answers. No other animal has to follow a set of laws that says that they have to protect other species. Humans shouldn't have to be any different. It's not what nature intended, surely.

I don't want any rubbish that says "We are intelligent enough to do so." There is just no reason whatsoever why humans should have to care about other species. No other species on the planet does that. Chimps going extinct does humans no disadvantage as far as I'm aware.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should humans be the only species on the planet that looks after other species?

Chimps may be the most closely-related species to humans, but why do we need to look after them? Come on. I'd like good answers. No other animal has to follow a set of laws that says that they have to protect other species. Humans shouldn't have to be any different. It's not what nature intended, surely.

I don't want any rubbish that says "We are intelligent enough to do so." There is just no reason whatsoever why humans should have to care about other species. No other species on the planet does that. Chimps going extinct does humans no disadvantage as far as I'm aware.

Not to mention the fact that chimps are dangerous, savage creatures that will rip a humans face clean off and mutilate humans if it gets p***ed off. But they are fascinating creatures that we can learn a lot from. But you are right, nature does not require that we look after them or any other creature. In fact in nature if a creature fails to look after itself and adapt to changing conditions then that creature goes extinct. That is just the reality of nature. Humans are rather odd aren't we? I read that some want to air-drop food to help starving polar bears...yeah lets feed the bears and just let millions of impoverished Africans, Haitians, Indians, and countless other humans die of starvation... yup makes perfect sense.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Polar bears aren't endangered. That's a green myth. There are more of them than ever before.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should humans be the only species on the planet that looks after other species?

Look after? From what, ourselves? Yes, that's what we're discussing on this thread, animal testing. It's not elephants experimenting on rats and mice. It's not aliens.

Chimps may be the most closely-related species to humans, but why do we need to look after them? Come on. I'd like good answers.

Look after them? You mean save them from extinction? Human activities are responsible for the latest round of mass extinctions so I think we have a moral obligation to mitigate it. Plus there are pragmatic reasons, loss of biodiversity is unhealthy for the planet.

No other animal has to follow a set of laws that says that they have to protect other species.

There are other species that have laws?

Humans shouldn't have to be any different.

humans should have no laws?

It's not what nature intended, surely.

What, morality and compassion, or laws? Empathy and altruism are seen in other species including archaic hominids, it's very much a natural evolutionary adaptation.

I don't want any rubbish that says "We are intelligent enough to do so."

Intelligence is different from empathy

There is just no reason whatsoever why humans should have to care about other species. No other species on the planet does that.

So humans shouldn't do anything that other species can't do?

Chimps going extinct does humans no disadvantage as far as I'm aware.

This is where everyone for animal testing on this thread should chime in; yes we need chimps for toxicity tests, medical drug testing, entertainment, and food in some countries. I hold that chimps have inherent value, in and of themselves.

What if apes went extinct, would you be ok with that too? Be advised though that we are also apes, naked ones.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those poor animals.

Humanity is disgusting.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those poor animals.

Humanity is disgusting.

Care to donate $$$ so that animals like this can be housed more humanely, perhaps outside even while they are being observed? Or do you have a better suggestion as to how we can gain knowledge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel sorry for them, they shouldn't be treated this way. It wouldn't take any money to take care of them if we had left them in the wild.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.