Obelix Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 What you need to appreciate is the reality that scientists really dislike undertaking animal experiments I was once working at HLS (just wait for the storm or protests now..) and that was the time that people were digging tunnels and hiding in them, assualting staff, following them home and bricking windows - you know, civilised stuff like that. So civlisied in fact that Cambs police told us to take our number plates off and drive away from the site like that so we couldnt be tracked. One girl was hiding in a tunnel and had an asthma attack, which was treated with her inhaler. When pointed out that she was saved by a drug tested on animals, she said - yeah it's a bit embarrassing isn't it.... Compare that to the behaviour of staff who found it very hard to deal with the animals but did so in order to develop new treatments and were roundly abused for this by the very people whom were reliant on drugs they had created. I've no respect at all for the fashionable ones that find it convenient to protest yet use the products the rail against. Now, show me someone who does eschew all those benefits and they are someone with a right to protest against the existence of such testing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 . Now, show me someone who does eschew all those benefits and they are someone with a right to protest against the existence of such testing. I suspect there are very few of them, alive or not in pain at any rate.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerrangaroo Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Compare that to the behaviour of staff who found it very hard to deal with the animals but did so in order to develop new treatments and were roundly abused for this by the very people whom were reliant on drugs they had created. I've no respect at all for the fashionable ones that find it convenient to protest yet use the products the rail against. Now, show me someone who does eschew all those benefits and they are someone with a right to protest against the existence of such testing. But they'd probably be dead. In order to protest being alive is favourable. If that means that they stay alive using products they wish found using alternative methods then that's what has to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Tell me again why I should listen to that argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerrangaroo Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Tell me again why I should listen to that argument? People feel obliged to help animals for a multitude of reasons. Their persecution has for centuries seen then wiped out and abused and they still face very much the same despite the progress made in welfare and protection. Why shoud they accept that we do what we do in the name of progress albeit secretively when so much is done in the name of greed in plain sight. I've not gone off on one pronouncing everyone as a monster, I disagree with the industry and hope that things will change. That we have no choice but to use animals is possibly true for now but that doesn't mean that a person should die in order to prove their point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 For anyone thinking of supporting this petition, here's a story about the flip side: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/29/animal-activists-terror-tactics-harlan-laboratories-staff?cat=science&type=article And a usful informative website: http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/how/the-three-Rs/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 People feel obliged to help animals for a multitude of reasons. Their persecution has for centuries seen then wiped out and abused and they still face very much the same despite the progress made in welfare and protection. Why shoud they accept that we do what we do in the name of progress albeit secretively when so much is done in the name of greed in plain sight. I've not gone off on one pronouncing everyone as a monster, I disagree with the industry and hope that things will change. That we have no choice but to use animals is possibly true for now but that doesn't mean that a person should die in order to prove their point of view. But at the very least they should appreciate that if they were to have succeeded in their ambition that they would have done so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 People feel obliged to help animals for a multitude of reasons. Their persecution has for centuries seen then wiped out and abused and they still face very much the same despite the progress made in welfare and protection. Why shoud they accept that we do what we do in the name of progress albeit secretively when so much is done in the name of greed in plain sight. I've not gone off on one pronouncing everyone as a monster, I disagree with the industry and hope that things will change. That we have no choice but to use animals is possibly true for now but that doesn't mean that a person should die in order to prove their point of view. To be willing to use products whose research and development methods you disagree with is a tad hypocritical..it's a pot and kettle situation.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddybare Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I worry about people who are able to afflict this type of treatment on any sentient being. I have no love of cats but could never do anything as cruel to them, regardless of what the possible distant outcome may be. The amount of benefit from animal testing is, I'm told, negligible as very few are ever implemented or even make it to human trials. Just seems to be another self perpetuating industry. people look the other way because they are told it benefits them and their families. If ethics played any part in science an alternative would have been found long ago. Sadly it doesn't. Animals are cheap, readily available and cannot refuse. It's not up to people to refuse any treatment that may have been tested on animals originally if that treatment already exists, it's up to the companies and individuals performing those tests to find alternatives for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 People feel obliged to help animals for a multitude of reasons. Their persecution has for centuries seen then wiped out and abused and they still face very much the same despite the progress made in welfare and protection. Why shoud they accept that we do what we do in the name of progress albeit secretively when so much is done in the name of greed in plain sight. I've not gone off on one pronouncing everyone as a monster, I disagree with the industry and hope that things will change. That we have no choice but to use animals is possibly true for now but that doesn't mean that a person should die in order to prove their point of view. So basically - you are a vegetarian who eats meat then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.