I once
experimented on 2000 chimpanzees over a decade, which all died painfully. I had a good excuse though. I was looking for a cure for Hepatitis B - a disease which used to kill over 500,000 people a year world wide.

I succeeded, saving countless millions of human lives. I think there's a lesson there somewhere.

*Note: this may not have actually been me that did this.
(Seance Trumpet has got no beef with a man enjoying a croissant, Fri 7 Dec 2007, 10:48, 15 replies)

...
But isn't that simply speciesism? If you would've been unwilling to carry out those experiments on severely disabled human newborns, which have much less self-awareness than chimps, and, importantly, will never develop more self-awareness than they have right now, I don't see how you could permissibly experiment on the chimps but not the children.

Adult chimpanzees are persons in a way that human newborns aren't, and in a way that severely disabled human newborns might never be.

Speciesism is as arrogant and indefensible as racism.

*gets off high horse*
*eats bacon sandwich... pigs aren't persons, y'see*
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 7 Dec 2007, 10:53, closed)

Hear, hear!!
Go Enzyme, there's never an excuse for animal experimentation. NEVER!
( girlinthehole, Fri 7 Dec 2007, 11:10, closed)

yeah love
I bet if your kid got cancer, you suddenly wouldn't give a flying f*ck how many guineau pigs had to cop it...
(jennymnemonic, Fri 7 Dec 2007, 11:18, closed)

Good on yer Jennymnennonic
oo bloody tru, I would like to see some of the campaigners watch their loved ones die simply because a medicine could not be tested on animals! Spot on sir,.
(TAZ220 Not giving a toss since, Fri 7 Dec 2007, 11:28, closed)

I didn't say that there was no case for animal experimentation.
I just made a plea for consistency. I have no problem with experiments on animals subject to basic welfare provision.

But I do think that persons count for more, morally, than non-persons. Chimps are persons - they have self-awareness and so on. And if you're willing to experiment on a chimp, you ought also to be willing to experiment on a human - disabled or not doesn't matter for this point. I don't see any moral difference between human and non-human persons - that's all. Making a non-human person suffer to save the life of a human person is no more defensible than making a human person suffer to save the life of a non-human person.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 7 Dec 2007, 11:34, closed)

.
Twat.
( 100% Cock Raw like carrots., Fri 7 Dec 2007, 12:21, closed)

@Major General
Who?
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 7 Dec 2007, 12:30, closed)

The OP.
Enzyme, I agree with you.
Let's face it, 99% of animal research is not vital and will not save millions of lives. Most of it is so that Chanel can say they have tested their latest lip plumper.
( 100% Cock Raw like carrots., Fri 7 Dec 2007, 12:37, closed)

I'm all for consistency
So I agree with animal testing and I eat meat It's difficult to know where to draw the line. Much of what we wear, eat and use day to day has been produced at the personal expense of the world's poorest people. So do we become entirely self-sufficient? And does animal welfare come above or below that as a priority.

Although I do admit a lot of animal testing is very likely done on products that exist purely for our vanity. I don't mind closing my eyes when I wash my hair. In fact I do it even if the shampoo is supposed to be safe and tested on animals.
(frankspencer, Fri 7 Dec 2007, 12:47, closed)

Well,
The difference between human exploitation and animal testing is that the humans have a choice. They aren't kept in a cage and forced to make Nike trainers.

In anticipation of someone saying "Well their sociological conditions force them into it. They may not literally be in a cage, but they cannot escape from their situation". Well, although i have sympathy for them, this is not true.
They ARE able to leave whichever town it is where they are working in a sweatshop, and they are able to move, perhaps to the country to become a fisherman or something. Just an example. Although they may have been initially pressured or forced into a cruel situation, their lives aren't actually owned by someone.

It is this casual slavery of animals which needs to be addressed. Back in the 1700s, African people were not considered to be people, and were not treated with humanity, hence why the majority of people had no problems with slavery.
How much has that attitude changed now? It's just moral evolution, and i fully expect that in 100 years time or so, people will look back and say "How could people have farmed and eaten our brother animals? How could they have performed vile experiments on them?"
( 100% Cock Raw like carrots., Fri 7 Dec 2007, 13:14, closed)

for the sake of argument
Yes people have a choice, but they don't often realise it. For many people, the idea of moving away from their home and family is utterly unimaginable. They'll accept any conditions because they can't conceive of a choice. They are, in that sense, prisoners. It's like saying animals could commit suicide if they wanted to in order to deprive their masters of experimental fodder - but I don't imagine this occurs to many animals.
(frankspencer, Fri 7 Dec 2007, 14:30, closed)

"Most of it is so that Chanel can say they have tested their latest lip plumper."
Cosmetic animal testing is banned in the UK (meaning, licences to do it are no longer granted).

Animal testing for medical purposes is essential, and most of it is done on mice and fruit flies, things like that.

We kill animals all the time, from the meat-eaters, to the vegetarians whose food has been supplied by animal-shredding combine harvesters, and every one of us who has ever owned a cat, or dealt with rodent or insect infestations. At least medical testing serves a useful purpose. I'm vegetarian myself, but the leathers I wear on my motorbike has saved my skin numerous times.
(Musuko, Fri 7 Dec 2007, 16:07, closed)

Animal Testing
As someone who has worked in the truly grubby end of this business (i was an animal technician in a lab, I worked with rodents, dogs and primates) I feel the need to speak up here. Nearly all the studies I worked on have been concerning truly needy causes, a large chunk of the work was on carcinogen (cancer) studies as well as alzheimers, MS, HIV, AIDS and parkinsons.
The animals (at least in the UK) are very well cared for, they have better standards of living then most pets and the technicians truly care for the welfare of the animals (even the evil, evil rabbits.)
All the disgusting pictures you see are either photoshops, photos form before the UK reformed its animal welfare laws or from a few labs on the continent and in the states that have been infiltrated.

/end rant

(apologies for spelling, im quite stupid really)
(big king bob Lord of the Ska, Fri 7 Dec 2007, 19:25, closed)

Yay, more debate!
I swear I only ever come to b3ta for the crudely drawn magenta cocks, but I always seem to end up throwing in my two new English pence in on this kind of thing...

It’s a lovely little discussion going on here, I just have a few points…

Firstly, thank you major general, your post calling someone a twat because they expressed an opinion you disagreed with, without forming any kind of counter argument it was as interesting as it was informative.

Secondly, I would like to congratulate enzyme on cutting through all the tedious ethical debate and discussion with regard to the morality of experimenting on chimps with his "chimps are persons" statement. Many people would have felt inclined to put the words "in my opinion" somewhere in that sentence, but mister enzyme has stuck to his guns and issued this final definitive declaration for the benefit of all persons everywhere.

And lastly, I would like once again to thank major general for his insightful comparison between 18th century slavery, modern sweatshop workers, and in vivo experimentation. I wonder if you have considered contacting UNICEF to pass on the information to children employed in sweatshops that "they are able to move, perhaps to the country to become a fisherman or something." I am sure they will find this information most useful.

I also believe "that in 100 years time or so, people will look back and say "How could people have farmed and eaten our brother animals? How could they have performed vile experiments on them?"" as this opinion is clearly that of a person well educated in these matters, and does not fail to take into account the issues of species, intelligence, and emotional development, no matter what naysayers may suggest.

But seriously, all sarcasm aside, if someone I cared about became terminally ill I would skin alive basket after basket of the cutest puppies and kittens in the world if there was a chance that it would make them better. Would you let that person die, perhaps you could explain why their life is not worth any more than a lab rat or a chimp? If so may I say, that in my opinion (see what I did there?) there is something very wrong with your value system...

Oh, don’t get me wrong by the way, it makes me sick to think of animal experimentation for cosmetic research or any other frivolous reason, I only support in vivo experimentation in the context of medical research.

God, I got awfully sarcastic and preachy there didn’t I? Do apologise for any offence, this argument just winds me up. Also apologies for spelling, I’m sure I slipped up somewhere…
(Lord of Marzipan Fact: Clouds are worse than Hitler, Mon 10 Dec 2007, 13:26, closed)

Enzyme
I'd have been willing to carry out those experiments on healthy humans even. 2000 of anything (including humans) vs 500,000 humans is pretty simple maths to do.
(Seance Trumpet has got no beef with a man enjoying a croissant, Tue 11 Dec 2007, 10:45, closed)