animal research - page 2

Posted for Debbie I'm in an ethics class and I have to do a research paper on the pro's and con's of animal research. (12 people have to work on this - rediculous!!! :scrying: ) Anyways... ... Read More

  1. by   1Tulip
    If you want a cure for Multiple Sclerosis, a new class of antivirals to save lives during the next pandemic, interventions to restore damaged spinal cords, if in fact want to save human lives and see common sources of misery relegated to the medical history books... then you have to believe in animal research.

    Myth: Today we're so advanced we can do all the research we need on established cell cultures and computer models. Wrong: The models are derived from what we know from cells. Almost all cells come from animals. Some "immortalized" cell lines exist. But research on those cells only tells us what those, highly abnormal, cells do.

    Myth: Researchers don't care/can't be bothered about animal suffering. Wrong. First, researchers are highly regulated. Second, if you're found to be failing in animal care protocols, you will lose your funding. Third, all researchers who handle animals have to be trained and certified on all regulations and how to meet them. Forth: Dispatching the animals is definately not pleasant and researchers never "get used" to it.

    Myth: People who are against animal research love animals more than researchers do. Wrong: All the advances made in human medicine through animal research also improves veterinary care for all animals.

    Myth: reasonable people make rational choices when they send money to PETA and other animal rights organizations. Wrong: Study of donation patterns show that in United Way giving, individuals commonly donate to PETA and the American Cancer Society, PETA and the Heart Association, PETA and the Muscular Dystrophy Association... never once considering that the one gift nullifies the other.

    I'm sorry folks... I am just appalled that a majority (according to these poll numbers) of nurses oppose research on animals. I've been a nurse since 1971 and the advances in patient care since then are staggering. Without medical research I would be blind and dying of congestive heart failure right now. No one would have been able to imagine how to fix my juvenile cataracts and there would be no new treatments for essential hypertension.

    People, people, people! What are you THINKING?

    I'm agog. Beyond words.

    Thanks for letting me vent. I feel better now.
  2. by   ktwlpn
    Quote from 1Tulip
    .

    People, people, people! What are you THINKING?

    I'm agog. Beyond words.

    Thanks for letting me vent. I feel better now.
    Actually we ARE thinking----thinking that the "myths"you quote are really so much propaganda.It's easier to deny then to try to effect change-It's easier to pretend that the cruelty does not exist. Also disease is nature's way of thinning the herd-as diseases are eradicated more and more virulent strains are cropping up that are reisistant to everything...What will happen to the resources of our world if we all live to be 110? I believe we are NOT supposed to do so....
  3. by   1Tulip
    Also disease is nature's way of thinning the herd

    There you go folks. I couldn't have expressed the malthusian indifference to human suffering that is characteristic of the animal rights crowd if I tried.

    You say my answers to the "Myths" are lies. Can you give us specific evidence for your charge, or are you just demanding that we all disengage our brains and buy into PETA's polemics like you have?

    Have you done computer modeling or worked with HeLa cells?

    Have you ever submitted a grant, read the Dept. of Agriculture regulations on animal care, or taken the classes required to handle experimental animals? Can you name some scientists that are ghouls?

    Do you deny that medical advances improve veterinary care?

    Wanna bet people don't make silly decisions on their United Way pledges?

    You are so convinced that animal cruelty is rampant. Tell you what, if you know the name of a scientist that handles animals with indifference, why don't you drop a dime on him/her and contact the feds. Here's what will happen... they will be investigated. If the charges are true, they'll lose their grant support and...more than that...all research in that whole institution will be halted until systemic changes are implemented. The researcher will likely lose his job and he will never again be able to apply for federal support nor will he ever be able to publish papers in any referreed journal.

    As a practical matter, when scientists see anything sub-optimal going on with research animals, they (not valiant cruelty crusaders) usually make the complaints that put the situation right. Scientists would not let the carelessness or cruelty of another researcher put their projects at risk. That's how it works in the real world rather than in the fever swamps of PETA fund-raising appeals.

    When you say cruelty is common, you are utterly, and completely wrong.
  4. by   ktwlpn
    Quote from 1Tulip
    Also disease is nature's way of thinning the herd

    There you go folks. I couldn't have expressed the malthusian indifference to human suffering that is characteristic of the animal rights crowd if I tried.

    You say my answers to the "Myths" are lies. Can you give us specific evidence for your charge, or are you just demanding that we all disengage our brains and buy into PETA's polemics like you have?

    Have you done computer modeling or worked with HeLa cells?

    Have you ever submitted a grant, read the Dept. of Agriculture regulations on animal care, or taken the classes required to handle experimental animals? Can you name some scientists that are ghouls?

    Do you deny that medical advances improve veterinary care?

    Wanna bet people don't make silly decisions on their United Way pledges?

    You are so convinced that animal cruelty is rampant. Tell you what, if you know the name of a scientist that handles animals with indifference, why don't you drop a dime on him/her and contact the feds. Here's what will happen... they will be investigated. If the charges are true, they'll lose their grant support and...more than that...all research in that whole institution will be halted until systemic changes are implemented. The researcher will likely lose his job and he will never again be able to apply for federal support nor will he ever be able to publish papers in any referreed journal.

    As a practical matter, when scientists see anything sub-optimal going on with research animals, they (not valiant cruelty crusaders) usually make the complaints that put the situation right. Scientists would not let the carelessness or cruelty of another researcher put their projects at risk. That's how it works in the real world rather than in the fever swamps of PETA fund-raising appeals.

    When you say cruelty is common, you are utterly, and completely wrong.
    Actually no-I have not been trained nor have I ever participated in any type of scientific research-I'm a nurse in LTC.I do know that many of the methods used in handling these animals are cruel-like dropping a large bore NG tube to instill meds a few times a day without even some viscous lidocaine........As you well know we can debate this argument hour after hour-because for every statement you make I can copy and paste evidence to refute you...and you can do the same.In the end we'll just have wasted bandwidth without really changing anything....BUt if you are going to quote me please do it correctly-I don't believe I said this cruelty is "common" or "rampant" but it does exist.You seem SO convinced that it does NOT...If my malthusian attitude means I recognize suffering in animals AND humans and that I don't believe we humans were put on this earth to use up or destroy every other resource in our path so we can reign supreme well then get me the t-shirt AND the bumper sticker..Our current culture leans towards extending a human life at all costs with NO regard towards quality of life (getting off topic but I believe it is relevent here) or any regard to the fact that our resources ARE limited...
  5. by   1Tulip
    Dear Ktwlpn,

    If we were talkng about the White Sox or the Astros, less filling more taste, whether the 2000 election was stolen, or other esoterica, I'd agree to disagree. But the future of animal research is at risk, and the consequences of limiting scientific study are serious. Animal rights groups are on terrorism watch lists for many good reasons. They put scientists' names and addresses on hit lists on the internet. Executives of companies that rely on animal research are getting annonymous videos of their kids walking into kindergarten. They trash labs. They make death threats.

    So... future medical advances are in the balance and I don't think we can take anything for granted. It could go the way the animal rights people envision it... or we can keep making progress against disease and suffering.

    And Ktwlpn... I don't think the NG tube scenario you heard about is true. Think. Let's say you're a researcher. If you had a choice, would you rather engage in daily dangerous and difficult animal wrestling matches, or would you sedate/anesthetize your animals to insert your NG tube? Of course you'd put the animal under. And, I can tell you that the grant that's funding your research would require you to do so. I can also promise you that any data collected on needlessly distressed animals would not be publishable and, as a matter of fact is scientifically worthless.

    The animal rights/liberation groups cannot stay in existance if they tell the public the truth. Cruelty is extremely rare and heavily penalized whenever it's discovered.
  6. by   Tim_RN,BSN
    I think it definitely depends on what type of research is being done. The techniques/methods involved should be considered. I most likely would be against it if the research would cause the animal any great pain or harm
  7. by   1Tulip
    When grant proposals are being reviewed in universities and other institutions, researchers are required to put their protocol into one of five categories that specifically describe the distress to which the animal will be subjected. The grant then goes to a multidisciplinary panel for review. The higher the category, the more difficult it is to get approval and consequently the vast majority of research is done on category 1.

    But Tim... how shall we do research on cancer if we can't grow tumors in rats? How shall we come to understand pain mechanisms if we can't study algesic responses in rats?

    If you read the headlines, you'll know that there are some new breakthroughs in breast cancer treatment and new discoveries on sex differences in responses to analgesics. (We now know that certain types of opioids make pain in men worse.)

    Know anyone whose had breast cancer? How about any men with acute pain?

    There are no good answers here. We have to continue doing responsible research on animals.
  8. by   PennyLane
    So does the end justify the means? If we accept the basis premise that animals feel pain, then they really aren't so different from us. Would we use a mentally retarded child to test our drugs on? Would that be ethical? How about a profoundly mentally retarded child, one with an IQ of, say, 30? Of course not! So how can we say that it's OK to test on animals. Guess what people? We ARE animals.
  9. by   ktwlpn
    Quote from 1Tulip
    Dear Ktwlpn,

    If we were talkng about the White Sox or the Astros, less filling more taste, whether the 2000 election was stolen, or other esoterica, I'd agree to disagree. But the future of animal research is at risk, and the consequences of limiting scientific study are serious. Animal rights groups are on terrorism watch lists for many good reasons. They put scientists' names and addresses on hit lists on the internet. Executives of companies that rely on animal research are getting annonymous videos of their kids walking into kindergarten. They trash labs. They make death threats.

    So... future medical advances are in the balance and I don't think we can take anything for granted. It could go the way the animal rights people envision it... or we can keep making progress against disease and suffering.

    And Ktwlpn... I don't think the NG tube scenario you heard about is true. Think. Let's say you're a researcher. If you had a choice, would you rather engage in daily dangerous and difficult animal wrestling matches, or would you sedate/anesthetize your animals to insert your NG tube? Of course you'd put the animal under. And, I can tell you that the grant that's funding your research would require you to do so. I can also promise you that any data collected on needlessly distressed animals would not be publishable and, as a matter of fact is scientifically worthless.

    The animal rights/liberation groups cannot stay in existance if they tell the public the truth. Cruelty is extremely rare and heavily penalized whenever it's discovered.
    It seems that few of us would want animal testing stopped but most of us agree that it needs to be limited and policed.Limited to medicine.Animal research should certainly not be used by the cosmetics industry.As for the NG tube scenario-You can view numerous videos on several sites-I tried to upload a pic....It costs money to anesthetize or euthanize an animal and it's not always done..Your post points out an interesting parallel between animal rights groups and right to lifeers...Interesting....Stem cell research is rigidly controlled...
  10. by   grannynurse FNP student
    Quote from 1Tulip
    When grant proposals are being reviewed in universities and other institutions, researchers are required to put their protocol into one of five categories that specifically describe the distress to which the animal will be subjected. The grant then goes to a multidisciplinary panel for review. The higher the category, the more difficult it is to get approval and consequently the vast majority of research is done on category 1.

    But Tim... how shall we do research on cancer if we can't grow tumors in rats? How shall we come to understand pain mechanisms if we can't study algesic responses in rats?

    If you read the headlines, you'll know that there are some new breakthroughs in breast cancer treatment and new discoveries on sex differences in responses to analgesics. (We now know that certain types of opioids make pain in men worse.)

    Know anyone whose had breast cancer? How about any men with acute pain?

    There are no good answers here. We have to continue doing responsible research on animals.
    I agree with everything you have posted. My daughter works in the animal control industry and has for ten years. The amount of regulation enforced by her division, is beyond the average person's comprehension. I love animals, otherwise I wouldn't be living with four cats, two dogs, one hampster and several tropical fish. And I do not wish to see any animal tortured. But when it comes to an eye liner being tested on an animal or a human being, the human being comes first. I am tired of PETA and their like putting up the incorrect informatiobn. No responsible researcher tortures a test animal. And the few irresponsible ones that do, are eventually caught.

    Grannynurse
  11. by   1Tulip
    For the record, KTlpn, I have not seen the videos to which you refer, and I'm sure you're telling the truth that the pictures are out there, but let me suggest the possibility that at least some of them(maybe most ... likely all...) are faked. Now, is that possible? Well, as a matter of proven fact, video "evidence" of animal torture has been faked by PETA and ALF (Animal Liberation Front). I know, in particular, of some notorious pictures of monkey research that were bogus, totally bogus. And the incriminated labs proved their innocence, but you never heard that part of the story. It's not sensational. This begs the second question. Why would the animal rights groups put out fake pictures? Simple. They raised huge, huge amounts of money by ginning up the public's sense of outrage. Those faked pictures were (pardon the pun) their cash cow for a long time.

    Vis. anesthetizing an animal. Pennies. Truly pennies. It's easy, quick and cheap. But... replacing trained lab personnel... you're talking thousands of dollars and time wasted while research can't continue. Why would it mean replacing personnel? Because doing those things to animals sucks. No one I know would want to do it. It's nasty. It's disgusting. It's dangerous. Really KTlpn... how did you come to think that people in science represent some special class of sadists or ghouls? They're just normal folks and almost all of them (that I know) have pets that they love.

    And, let me say one more time. Data from distressed animals is worthless. You can't replicate your findings. Nothing reaches statistical significance. It is a complete waste of time and money. It is NOT done!

    For the record, I don't have an opinion on cosmetic animal testing. The stakes in that fight are next to nothing compared to the threat to medical research.
  12. by   teeituptom
    whats the difference between animal research and me barbecuing animals, except maybe taste
  13. by   HeartsOpenWide
    I think it depends on what they are testing. If they are testing animals to find the cure for cancer that is one thing, but for cosmetics and other frivolous things...no way.


close