New Pamphlet Section: Animal Experimentation
Part 2 of Thinking Critically About Animal Rights: What you need to know, What you need to question, complete with a photo by Deb Durant (but not one from the pamphlet), is now available on Rethos. It’s sure to be controversial. There’s a young man who is terminally ill and frequently writes of his dedication to personally infecting chimpanzees with HIV, as he does research during the summer, I believe (meanwhile, infecting chimps has yet to produce human AIDS in them), and I’m sure he’ll come a-calling. I also know that he is a very distraught person (understandably) and I’m fairly certain he will be a bit upset by this post. Please be kind if you happen to run into him. In fact, treat everyone as if they might not be long for this world!
As you know my stand is: don’t use animals–it’s not right. And that makes for a really short pamphlet. In addition, that concept simply won’t register in the minds of some people. Hence the conversation-like handling of major objections or common misconceptions. That’s what happens, in my experience, in real life.
You cannot rate the post or submit a comment without registering, but you are certainly welcome to read it and give me feedback.
Thanks.
Thanks, Mary, I got a reply from the Rethos people, and I hope I can now post.
Some good points but I think there are two areas that you might look at
* Research that doesn't cause physical harm or even confinement is still research and only very lightly referred to here.
* Sociological data shows quite clearly that most actual researchers aren't in it for the money–as it happens the money sucks compared to other jobs that rwequire similar skilsl and qualifications. Most animal research as counted by number of researchers (not number of animals) is not pharmacological and doesn't yield a finincial profit for the researcher.
I think animal testing is wrong because the animals are not here for us in the sense that they were not created for us to use for our selfs.If you go to church then you know that when good wants you he wants you and be experimenting on animals to find cures for the sick we are trying to define gods power.
I think animal testing is a good thing because would you want to be the first person to try out a face cream and it make your face itchy or scratchy no didn't think so!
Arryn,
You shouldn't assume you know what I would choose. I don't buy face creams (and the like) that have been tested on animals or contain animal ingredients. Science has demonstrated that experimenting on animals is a faulty system, not to mention it doesn't align with my vegan beliefs. I don't see why I wouldn't be the first person to try a face cream made of organic, plant-derived ingredients, like the ones from body and soul organics (www.bodyandsoulorganics.com).
I don't think you can say 'science' per se has unambiguously demonstrated any such thing. There are net benefits (of a debateable magnitude) to experimenting on animals, and we could reasonably choose to forego those benefits for the sake of the animals and not accept that some should die so others can live. But to say the benefits don't exist at all doesn't strike me as in any way plausible as I have seen treatments go through the research process that demonstrably saved more lives than they cost.
I would also mention, again, no suffering-no kill research which does exist both in the field and in laboratories–such as ethilogical, cognitive and sentience research.
I'm convinced that the science is faulty after reading the series by the Ray and Jean Greek: http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Jean%20Swingle%20Greek&page=1
I'm referring to disease, drug and toxicology.
I will go and read that but I doubt the Greeks themselves or that article, or a collection of similar articles, can reasonably be described as representing a conclusion of "science" in general. Science, per se, doesn't have any position because the people who practise it are diverse. Often scientists try to say 'science' supports animals experimentation–it doesn't do that either. I am very careful when speaking to people on any side or in the middle *never* to represent myself as speaking for science, merely as being a person who practises it and tries to present some of the things this method has revealed about animals.
I totally get that if animal are given the right of autonomy then experimenting on them is by defintion unacceptable. I totally accept that biomedical research as it currnelty exists is a deeply flawed process in which I decided not to participate. The implication that biomedical science produces tangible benefits and is representative of science in general strikes me as unreasonable. After all, you pamphlet does make reference to scientists who experiment on animals and uses them as a source of information about the complexity of their lives and experiences.
It seems that science=toxicology is not really any more accurate than animal rights=Peta. The core feature of science is discovery, and repetitive safety testing is a populist and commericalised componant in which relatively few research scientists participate.
p.s. a good discussion of the flaws of animal models specifically in psychology is this book: http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Models-Psychology-Kenneth-Shapiro/dp/088937189X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196968440&sr=1-1
I review it here: http://www.psyeta.org/BookReviews2003.html
Have you read equally in depth works showing what we would sacrifice if absolutely no animal experimentation was done in the field or in the lab? As with knowing what farms really do to make cheap meat–people should know what animal experiments do generate, and could generate at varying levels of restriction and oversight–then they could choose. Some benefits be delayed or sacrificed and perhaps they should be. I certainly support the slowing of research caused by introducing welfare standards and that could be taken further or to the ultimate step. Not my preference, but science serves at societies' pleasure.
Oh, I see your point. My usage of the word "science." I should have said something like "Scientists such as" and then mentioned a handful.