dare i say 'disgusting'......................

Yep, a holocaust every few minutes.

Mengele was an amateur.

Before some pro research idiot comes on here to wring his hands and say: oh gee, ya know, we hate doin' this but we have no choice, the universe depends on it--we will all be swept away by plagues if we dont sacrifice "lower" animals to the alter of Science.."

They do it because humans take Nature and members of other species for granted.
They do it because they make money through cages, breeding, grants, since finding cures and using on-toxic chemicals is harder work.

They do it because they are human supremacists, they worship science as a deity, and think humans are the end all great achievement of nature and some sort of evolutionary religion(its the same as Christian humanism, secularist just dont acknowledge that it requires the belief in a mind behind the universe to suggest that nature makes value judgements--like claiming that it is an absolute objective truth and not an arbitrary subjective one that A is better than B because of criteria C).

The problem is human supremacy pure and simple.

you cant cure human disease using members of other species-in layman's terms, you wouldnt try to cure an elephant by using giraffes. Even Pfizer knows that-which is why they go to Africa to experiment on villagers.

Beliefs that you can use rodents to accurately predict human physiology is a quasi Darwinian version of the Christian Great Chain of Being. That life starts out simple and works its way up to human.

Ethically, killing Peter Rabbit in an effort to heal Paul(I say effort, because of thalidomide and other botched research) is like trying to help a homeless man by kicking someone out of their house.

Now, just wait for the idiot researchers with the ethical understanding of 2 year olds to come along and attempt to justify their barbarism.

To save the trouble,
check out http://animalvegfaq.tripod.com

It debunks every one of their arguments already.
Researchers and their supporters dont have any new arguments-just the old ones that have the same flaws to them.

Human supremacy myth= idiocy.

Kelmer,

Well said.

Ghouls.

Kelmer,

I checked out the website you posted and it does make some valid points. However, some of the responses to arguments are incomplete. The questions surrounding what it means for one animal to kill another for "survival" has to be expanded past straight up eating each other. Scientists do not use animals for nourishment, but they use it to expand their chances of survival by learning how animal biology works.

I am not a scientist, so don't take this as though I am speaking for scientists. But your whole argument that studying one species does not help us to understand the makeup of another is not entirely true. Vertebrates and non-vertebrates alike operate on many of the same principles and laws, which is why scientists resort to using animals other than humans in their research. It's like saying if I drop an apple and an orange off a cliff, they won't do the same thing because they aren't the same fruit. Many of the laws that govern the functioning of the animal are robust, much like gravity. They are just very complex and incompletely understood. And sorry to say, anyone who makes the argument that they should just use humans in their research has a lack of understanding of the basic invasive procedures that animals are put through. Nobody would accept the idea of harvesting people or infants for organs so they can study gene expression or cell proliferation or what have you.

Bottom line is, learning is a form of survival. All animals strive to survive. Humans just have some more advanced faculties than some other animals, and trying to get the human race from trying to learn would be pretty hard.

There's no doubt that there are probably many unethical practices going on in animal holding facilities. I have seen them going on. And I personally do not feel comfortable participating in animal research because many animals do suffer, and many animals are pointlessly killed. And no, I don't believe all scientists are in their research to learn, many just need a paycheck, just as you said. Some really want to be famous. Some don't give a shit and don't really care about animals, just as you said. These I believe are the wrong reasons to be involved in science, obviously. But humans use learning (just like so many other animals) as a form of survival, and studying animals is a form of learning.

I can't say this as a fact, but it seems the existence of humans has done more damage to the planet than any other species. The fact that we are all communicating through a medium that is the result of thousands of years of scientific inquiry and tons upon tons of earth that has been displaced to build and maintain its infrastructure... it's somewhat strange that we're having this argument, right? I mean, the very fact that we are here and using up precious electricity probably generated through some form of non-renewable fuel, living in houses that have displaced all kinds of wildlife (and maybe even lower-income people), communicating through wires that dig into the ground and are maintained at humongous energy-eating hubs, typing on computers made from petroleum-based products...

Clearly, there is a cost to existence. And a cost to us arguing the issue. And a cost to gaining knowledge (which sometimes I think some people who are extremists on issues are scared to do -- I'll admit that even I am afraid to look at a fight from a fighter's perspective, sometimes). There's no avoiding it. I believe what we need to do is everything in our power to avoid doing damage to our earth and causing harm to our fellow animals. But the steps that need to be taken is something that everyone will NEVER agree on. What we can agree on is that there is needless suffering caused to animals in the science community and the food industry and something needs to be done about it. But (in the case of science) unless you want to ask people to stop learning, you can't stop animal research completely. Sometimes it is about greed, but not always. We live in a world of uncertainty.

There is a movement within science to move away from animal models, as possible.

http://caat.jhsph.edu

http://www.pg.com/science/animal_alt.jhtml

The day I see a mass movement of animal rights activists refusing to be vaccinated and refusing all medical treatment- then I will take their words seriously. Until then, it's just rhetoric.

There was a time as an undergrad that I considered study in neuroscience. I took a grad level course in neurobiology which I found fascinating but unfortunately very disturbing as well. When I got to an experiment that required "blending" 900 rat brains in order to extract a certain amount of a neurotransmitter, I was done and never went back.

A microbiology professor once pointed out to our class of about 100 students that if it were not for animal experiments about 80% of us would not be alive. Considering the destruction humans are wrecking upon the planet, maybe fewer humans wouldn't be so bad. Maybe we have sacrificed animals for our species survival only to end up destroying the planet.

Wow, 80 percent decrease sounds about right, right now. Science should be working away from people right now, it seems, considering we keep beating up on all the other species just to kill the planet before our "tests" are done.

"The vast majority of the animals used were rodents (83.5%) with primates, cats and dogs making up 0.15%, 0.06% and 0.24% of the total respectively."

That can't be right: what about all the fruit flies? Or do they not count because they ere not furry?

"Science should be working away from people right now, it seems,"

Oh? If that's what you truly think, then why not start by hanging yourself, you goddamned hypocrite? Everyone is all "oooh: animal research bad, embryonic stem cells bad" until it's them or someone they love with cancer or parkinson's.

The point is Paul that almost all of experiments on animals is unnecessary. Most of it is not for groundbreaking medical research, but so somebody can get a PhD or advertise the fact that he is doing this or that to see what will happen.

And no, I don't like to see my grandchildren sick or dying, but that is the instinct of a grandfather.

If we keep on breeding more and more humans faster and faster the world will become an unpleasant enough place that people will be standing in line to "go home".

This suggestion should make some "waves".

One hears often, most often from the Conservative Mind set that "Globalization" is a terrible hazard to avoid.

Globalization has been taking place from the begining, and will follow the natural course it now takes almost daily.

Human kind may have a wonderful opportunity now to "Globalize the Standards" of "Humane Treatment of all life forms" (even include other humans if they want).

This would require a concerted effort by countless people ---most of which would be free thinking progressives in the begining---but as soon as it became
"fashionable" "EVERYBODY" would want to have their "humane photo opp"--------

The point I wish to make is that until there is a "standard" of "Humane Treatment of all Life Forms", there will always be those who can justify the manner in which they obtain their information. Should it be against the law to "spray for fleas"---even if those fleas are carrying the Plague? Is that the ethical treatment of the fleas AND the Plague Bacillus---or do Human beings who have the knowledge to ascertain that the flea is a vector for the disease--have the RESPONSIBILITY to kill off those fleas? Do ALL fleas deserve to die, because they are vectors of several diseases? These are just a few of thousands of situations.
Just a few hundred years ago, it would have been considered "demonic" to conduct an autopsy or necropsy for the sake of information/education/knowledge. THEN through the concerted effort of intelligent free thinking progressive---- inspired people
( exactly like those who read CD) standards were established that allowed the acquisition of information. The same could be accomplished with other standards.

The truth is that Human beings are the most influential "intelligent" life forms on the planet; they can solve their problems, but only if they look ahead---- after learning from their mistakes of the past of course.

Personally I prefer to live in the tribal manner I learned from the "traditional" of my family. That is; live in as much harmony as possible with all other life. If you need to eat it to survive, expect it to fight, then take it with respect for it's life. If it needs to eat you, you can fight as much as you need to stay alive----but if you become it's food, then that is as much a part of life -----as life ...........
"Only the water lasts forever, and it never stays the same".

There obviously much more work that needs to be done.

So, all of you "freethinking" "progressives"

GET BUSY

why don't the use Repubicons or anyone who votes for war.

Save a rat use a Republican sort of has a nice ring to it

Yes Coco - you may use the word "disgusting". It is exactly the word I was going to use.