Putting a New Face on Animal Testing

Putting a New Face on Animal Testing

There are 22 comments on the findingDulcinea story from Nov 6, 2009, titled Putting a New Face on Animal Testing. In it, findingDulcinea reports that:

Studies show Americans' support for animal research has declined significantly. In response, biomedical researchers have launched a national campaign to defend and promote animal testing.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at findingDulcinea.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Against Animal Testing

Whitehall, PA

#1 Mar 7, 2013
I think it is morally wrong and horrific for animals to be unfairly cruelly tested on. Animals dont have a voice! We need to be their voice! There are other ways!

“Use renewable resources”

Since: Apr 11

Wear fur and save the earth

#2 Mar 7, 2013
Animal testing has a long history of saving human lives. Humans are more important to humans than some meaningless animals.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
QWERTY

United States

#3 Mar 7, 2013
USA R0CKS wrote:
Animal testing has a long history of saving human lives. Humans are more important to humans than some meaningless animals.
You really cannot be that uninformed; can you ?!?!?!? Oh, that's right, you can, and you are. How quickly you forget the schooling I gave you several months ago on this same subject. You seem to have a memory like Jodi Arias.

Oh, by the way, there is no such thing as a 'meaningless animal'- but perhaps in your deranged mind, that is how you justify your abuse of sentient beings.

Judged:

11

11

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Use renewable resources”

Since: Apr 11

Wear fur and save the earth

#4 Mar 8, 2013
QWERTY wrote:
<quoted text>
You really cannot be that uninformed; can you ?!?!?!? Oh, that's right, you can, and you are. How quickly you forget the schooling I gave you several months ago on this same subject. You seem to have a memory like Jodi Arias.
Oh, by the way, there is no such thing as a 'meaningless animal'- but perhaps in your deranged mind, that is how you justify your abuse of sentient beings.
Schooled me on what? As I recall, you asserted that the findings of animal testing does not always generalize to humans which is something that everybody already knows. What you haven't been able to establish is that animal testing does not have value. The reason you can't establish that is because it does have value. Animal testing is very expensive and if companies could gain the same information in a less expensive way, they would. The reason that they don't is because they can't. If you have a superior model, simply start a company and put all of the other companies out of business.
Hunters are COWARDS

Luxembourg

#5 Mar 8, 2013
USA R0CKS wrote:
<quoted text>
Schooled me on what? As I recall, you asserted that the findings of animal testing does not always generalize to humans which is something that everybody already knows. What you haven't been able to establish is that animal testing does not have value. The reason you can't establish that is because it does have value. Animal testing is very expensive and if companies could gain the same information in a less expensive way, they would. The reason that they don't is because they can't. If you have a superior model, simply start a company and put all of the other companies out of business.
Take a hike you animal hating slob. NO ONE wants scum like you here. You are nothing but a waste of space.'tis true
Meat Mallet

Gloucester, UK

#6 Mar 8, 2013
Hunters are COWARDS wrote:
<quoted text>Take a hike you animal hating slob. NO ONE wants scum like you here. You are nothing but a waste of space.'tis true
Still trying to silence the majority ?
That's not the way it works in free countries; only in your fascist world... you grubby control freak.

Now get back on your knees because your goat is waiting.
Meat Mallet

Gloucester, UK

#7 Mar 8, 2013
USA R0CKS wrote:
<quoted text>
Schooled me on what? As I recall, you asserted that the findings of animal testing does not always generalize to humans which is something that everybody already knows. What you haven't been able to establish is that animal testing does not have value. The reason you can't establish that is because it does have value. Animal testing is very expensive and if companies could gain the same information in a less expensive way, they would. The reason that they don't is because they can't. If you have a superior model, simply start a company and put all of the other companies out of business.
These AR cretins have more trouble with logic than any other sub-culture I am aware of.

“Use renewable resources”

Since: Apr 11

Wear fur and save the earth

#8 Mar 8, 2013
Hunters are COWARDS wrote:
<quoted text>Take a hike you animal hating slob. NO ONE wants scum like you here. You are nothing but a waste of space.'tis true
If you don't like what I say, do not read my posts. You aren't able to bully me into doing or not doing anything. I will post as often as I please and say whatever I want.
QWERTY

Capitol Heights, MD

#9 Mar 9, 2013
USA R0CKS wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't like what I say, do not read my posts. You aren't able to bully me into doing or not doing anything. I will post as often as I please and say whatever I want.
You GO girl !!!!!!!
You'll show them !!!!!!
You are winning the internet !!!!!!
YEAH !!!!!!!
QWERTY

Capitol Heights, MD

#10 Mar 9, 2013
USA R0CKS wrote:
<quoted text>
Schooled me on what? As I recall, you asserted that the findings of animal testing does not always generalize to humans which is something that everybody already knows. What you haven't been able to establish is that animal testing does not have value. The reason you can't establish that is because it does have value. Animal testing is very expensive and if companies could gain the same information in a less expensive way, they would. The reason that they don't is because they can't. If you have a superior model, simply start a company and put all of the other companies out of business.
Excerpts from 'A Critical Look At Animal Experimentation'

Increasing numbers of scientists and clinicians are challenging animal experimentation on medical and scientific grounds. In the United Kingdom, for example, 82 % of general practitioners said they were concerned that animal data can be misleading when applied to humans - according to a 2004 survey commissioned by Europeans for Medical Progress. Considerable evidence demonstrates that animal experimentation is inefficient and unreliable, while newly developed methodologies are more valid and less expensive than animal studies.

Proponents of animal experimentation (tests, experiments and
«educational» exercises involving harm to animals) claim that
it has played a crucial role in virtually all medical advances. However, several medical historians argue that key discoveries in
such areas as heart disease, cancer, immunology, anesthesia and
psychiatry were in fact achieved through clinical research, observation of patients and human autopsy.
Human data has historically been interpreted in light of laboratory
data derived from nonhuman animals. This has resulted
in unfortunate medical consequences. For instance, by 1963 prospective and retrospective studies of human patients had already
shown a strong correlation between cigarette smoking and lung
cancer. In contrast, almost all experimental efforts to produce
lung cancer in animals had failed. As a result, Clarence Little, a
leading cancer animal experimenter, wrote:«The failure of many
investigators to induce experimental cancers, except in a handful
of cases, during fifty years of trying, casts serious doubt on the validity of the cigarette-lung cancer theory.» Because the human and animal data failed to agree, this researcher and others distrusted the more reliable human data. As a result, health warnings were delayed for years, while thousands of people died of lung cancer.

By the early 1940s, human clinical investigation strongly indicated
that asbestos causes cancer. However, animal studies repeatedly
failed to demonstrate this, and proper workplace precautions
were not instituted in the U.S. until decades later.20 Similarly, human population studies have shown a clear risk from exposure to
low-level ionizing radiation from diagnostic X-rays and nuclear wastes,21-24 but contradictory animal studies have stalled proper
warnings and regulations. Likewise, while the connection between alcohol consumption and cirrhosis is indisputable in humans, repeated efforts to produce cirrhosis by excessive alcohol ingestion have failed in all nonhuman animals except baboons, and even the baboon data is inconsistent.

I guess you are right, there is value to animal experimentation, but only to those who profit from in financially.

“Use renewable resources”

Since: Apr 11

Wear fur and save the earth

#11 Mar 9, 2013
QWERTY wrote:
<quoted text>
Excerpts from 'A Critical Look At Animal Experimentation'
Increasing numbers of scientists and clinicians are challenging animal experimentation on medical and scientific grounds. In the United Kingdom, for example, 82 % of general practitioners said they were concerned that animal data can be misleading when applied to humans - according to a 2004 survey commissioned by Europeans for Medical Progress. Considerable evidence demonstrates that animal experimentation is inefficient and unreliable, while newly developed methodologies are more valid and less expensive than animal studies.
I mean yeah. Nobody disputes that animal data can be misleading as it relates to its effectiveness on humans. That includes people who perform animal research themselves or the people who pay to have the research performed. I also am not going to argue that there are more valid and less expensive measures. What you have failed to demonstrate is that animal testing does not have value. That is what you need to do. So far all you have done is provide evidence that some people don't like it. Please do better.

“Use renewable resources”

Since: Apr 11

Wear fur and save the earth

#12 Mar 9, 2013
QWERTY wrote:
<quoted text>

Proponents of animal experimentation (tests, experiments and
«educational» exercises involving harm to animals) claim that
it has played a crucial role in virtually all medical advances. However, several medical historians argue that key discoveries in
such areas as heart disease, cancer, immunology, anesthesia and
psychiatry were in fact achieved through clinical research, observation of patients and human autopsy.
Human data has historically been interpreted in light of laboratory
data derived from nonhuman animals. This has resulted
in unfortunate medical consequences. For instance, by 1963 prospective and retrospective studies of human patients had already
shown a strong correlation between cigarette smoking and lung
cancer. In contrast, almost all experimental efforts to produce
lung cancer in animals had failed. As a result, Clarence Little, a
leading cancer animal experimenter, wrote:«The failure of many
investigators to induce experimental cancers, except in a handful
of cases, during fifty years of trying, casts serious doubt on the validity of the cigarette-lung cancer theory.» Because the human and animal data failed to agree, this researcher and others distrusted the more reliable human data. As a result, health warnings were delayed for years, while thousands of people died of lung cancer.
By the early 1940s, human clinical investigation strongly indicated
that asbestos causes cancer. However, animal studies repeatedly
failed to demonstrate this, and proper workplace precautions
were not instituted in the U.S. until decades later.20 Similarly, human population studies have shown a clear risk from exposure to
low-level ionizing radiation from diagnostic X-rays and nuclear wastes,21-24 but contradictory animal studies have stalled proper
warnings and regulations. Likewise, while the connection between alcohol consumption and cirrhosis is indisputable in humans, repeated efforts to produce cirrhosis by excessive alcohol ingestion have failed in all nonhuman animals except baboons, and even the baboon data is inconsistent.
I guess you are right, there is value to animal experimentation, but only to those who profit from in financially.
You really need to take a course on research methods or something. Do you know why they didn't trust the validity the "human research" for smoking and asbestos? It is because the smoking and asbestos research was only CORRELATIONAL. We cannot glean cause and effect relations based upon correlational evidence. It would also be unethical to set up experimental research designs to test potentially deadly effects of chemicals/materials on human subjects. Testing on humans in this way would be similar to what Hitler did in the extermination camps. The fact that you don't know this speaks volumes about ignorance as it relates to this subject. I sincerely wish you were better educated.
QWERTY

Middletown, MD

#13 Mar 10, 2013
USA R0CKS wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't like what I say, do not read my posts. You aren't able to bully me into doing or not doing anything. I will post as often as I please and say whatever I want.
Keep posting. You are winning the internet !!!!!

Plus I need fresh material for my comedy routines.
QWERTY

Middletown, MD

#14 Mar 10, 2013
USA R0CKS wrote:
<quoted text>
I mean yeah. Nobody disputes that animal data can be misleading as it relates to its effectiveness on humans. That includes people who perform animal research themselves or the people who pay to have the research performed. I also am not going to argue that there are more valid and less expensive measures. What you have failed to demonstrate is that animal testing does not have value. That is what you need to do. So far all you have done is provide evidence that some people don't like it. Please do better.
How many independent reports do you need to realize that animal testing has value only to those who profit from it. Read something other than comic books for a change.
QWERTY

Middletown, MD

#15 Mar 10, 2013
USA R0CKS wrote:
<quoted text>
You really need to take a course on research methods or something. Do you know why they didn't trust the validity the "human research" for smoking and asbestos? It is because the smoking and asbestos research was only CORRELATIONAL. We cannot glean cause and effect relations based upon correlational evidence. It would also be unethical to set up experimental research designs to test potentially deadly effects of chemicals/materials on human subjects. Testing on humans in this way would be similar to what Hitler did in the extermination camps. The fact that you don't know this speaks volumes about ignorance as it relates to this subject. I sincerely wish you were better educated.
The discussion is about the value of animal experimentation.
Its not surprising you missed the whole point, Pointdexter.

Thats right, initially the link was correlational, so they did experiments on animals to find if there is a causal link. Its known as the Scientific Method. Maybe you've heard of it ? Probably not. Anyway, they took the hypothesis that these things (cigarette smoke, asbestos) were carcinogenic, and devised experiments to test it. Since they tested it on animals and could not replicate the cancerous results, they erroneously concluded there was no cause and effect. Therefore the animal experiment had no value as it has been subsequently determined, there IS a cause and effect. Unless you are the lone holdout.

Your attempts at misdirection are laughable. I hope for your husband's sake that you didn't waste too much money on that community college 'education' you brag about. You still are not smarter than a fifth grader.

“Use renewable resources”

Since: Apr 11

Wear fur and save the earth

#16 Mar 10, 2013
QWERTY wrote:
<quoted text>
The discussion is about the value of animal experimentation.
Its not surprising you missed the whole point, Pointdexter.
Thats right, initially the link was correlational, so they did experiments on animals to find if there is a causal link. Its known as the Scientific Method. Maybe you've heard of it ? Probably not. Anyway, they took the hypothesis that these things (cigarette smoke, asbestos) were carcinogenic, and devised experiments to test it. Since they tested it on animals and could not replicate the cancerous results, they erroneously concluded there was no cause and effect. Therefore the animal experiment had no value as it has been subsequently determined, there IS a cause and effect. Unless you are the lone holdout.
Your attempts at misdirection are laughable. I hope for your husband's sake that you didn't waste too much money on that community college 'education' you brag about. You still are not smarter than a fifth grader.
Type I and type II errors abound. Like it or not, it is part of the scientific method. If you are turned off to type I and type II errors, then you are turned off to science. Why are you so opposed to science? Scientific errors occur...but will eventually be corrected. Why can't you grasp this simple and basic scientific concept?
John

Australia

#17 Mar 10, 2013
No animal experimentation means no progress in the medical sciences.
The end.
QWERTY

United States

#18 Mar 10, 2013
USA R0CKS wrote:
<quoted text>
Type I and type II errors abound. Like it or not, it is part of the scientific method. If you are turned off to type I and type II errors, then you are turned off to science. Why are you so opposed to science? Scientific errors occur...but will eventually be corrected. Why can't you grasp this simple and basic scientific concept?
Again you miss the point Nancy. You claimed that animal testing has a long history of saving lives and that it has value. You have done nothing to back up your claims. In fact, you have done the opposite by stating that Type I and II errors occur because of statistical versus scientific experiments. What you have said is that the value of animal experimentation is that it has no value in saving human lives.

Now, without going off on a tangent, can you provide concrete examples of animal experimentation having a long history of saving lives and that it has value.

“Use renewable resources”

Since: Apr 11

Wear fur and save the earth

#19 Mar 10, 2013
QWERTY wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you miss the point Nancy. You claimed that animal testing has a long history of saving lives and that it has value. You have done nothing to back up your claims. In fact, you have done the opposite by stating that Type I and II errors occur because of statistical versus scientific experiments.
What are you talking about? Type I and type II error are part of the scientific process. I also have no idea what you mean by "statistical vs. scientific experiments." It really doesn't make any sense but I suspect that is because you really don't know what you are talking about and are just throwing around terms haphazardly.
QWERTY wrote:
<quoted text>What you have said is that the value of animal experimentation is that it has no value in saving human lives.
Nope. Quite the opposite. LEARN TO READ.
QWERTY wrote:
<quoted text>Now, without going off on a tangent, can you provide concrete examples of animal experimentation having a long history of saving lives and that it has value.
http://lmgtfy.com/...

Seriously. Pasteur. Skinner. Do you know anything?

“Use renewable resources”

Since: Apr 11

Wear fur and save the earth

#20 Mar 10, 2013
John wrote:
No animal experimentation means no progress in the medical sciences.
The end.
Pretty much sums it up.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Startups Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Restaurant comes under fire for pun on sign 4 min USS LIBERTY 87
News 11 most memorable social media marketing succes... (Dec '15) 10 min repeat often 3
News Crystal Hefner Removes Her Breast Implants Beca... 23 hr Elise Gingerich 1
News Father of slain social media star: 'It is my de... Mon CenaFoura 1
News Lifestyle: 9 ugly lessons about sex from Big Data Sun Marco R s Secret ... 2
News You'll Never Guess Which State Is Building a Re... Sun Solarman 1
News Oklahoma Tea Party Candidate Endorses Stoning Gays (Jun '14) Sun Pigeon Forge Demo... 111
More from around the web