h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4750252.stm

I don't know if this has been debated here before, (it probably has, I'm sure).

Personally I am against animal testing for cosmetics and frivolous reasons, but I agree with animal testing for necessary medical research.

What do you guys think? Can computer modelling do the same job?

Oh, one thing, please no-one try and drag religion into this.

I'm with you on this one.

i think its a good thing for medcians. A computer can never compre to a real animal in medcian terms. For make up allternatives can be used, but for medcian you need a living animal, no other way about it, unless we test drugs out on humans.

>>Oh, one thing, please no-one try and drag religion into this<<

Yeah. Right. Fat chance I give it twenty minutes ...

I don't think it's either a good thing or a bad thing, it's an occasionally necessary thing. I also agree with the idea that the line drawn ought to be ethical (need for new drug to cure or relieve human suffering outweighs interests of the animals on which it's going to be tested) rather than commercial (wizzo new shampoo).

good point Trig, it is neither good or bad. If there was a better way, I would support that.

Well done the Oxford students - a march in favour of coherent thinking, whatever next?

Against for cosmetics, for for medical... my nickname says it all really...

Based on speaking to various people both here and in real life a computer model simply wouldn't work... you can predict the effects of drugs on individual cells using computers, but any thing bigger than that and it has to be living subjects.

<> (Trin)



Well, it's been more than an hour already, but I reckon they're all in bed now . . . we'll probably hear from them after mass tomorrow . . .


az

No absolutely not under any circumstances, the noodly appendages of the great flying spagetti monster absolutely forbids animal testing! does that count as religious objection? I personally, on a more serious note, also go down the 'not good not bad', but necessary path Now, what is very bad, is those stupid individuals who take 'direct action', on what they see as this issue, and distroy personal posetions and cause injury to those who work for firms connected with medical research using animals (a bit topical here in Cambridge what with teh whole huntinton life sciences travisty)

whats your favourite animal mine baby tigers

I see testing as a good thing, and if animals get hurt as a result of that that's a bad thing, and spending money and taking up the testers' time is a bad thing, and you have to balance those for each thing to be tested.

But obviously we need a simplification for that, and the medical ok, cosmetics not division seems like a good one to me.

Do cosmetics companies have to do testing everything they invent a new word for the astrology behind their products?

In some regards I'm quite selfish and this is one of them. If I have a choice of a drug that will save my life, or the lives of those I love and animal testing, or no animal testing and no drug, I'll choose the drtug everytime. Human lives are more important than animal lives in my head

While I'm all against unnecessary crulety to animals, and this includes testing cosmetics etc on animals (if you want your skin to shine or smell nice, test it on yourself) I think we need to have this.

I am shocked by the actions and threats of some of the anti-vivisectionists, threatening every student at Oxford Uni. It also strikes me as slightly flawed logic, you hurt animals, which is bad, so we'll hurt you

I'm kind of stunned, to see this degree of unanimity here.

I'm not, we're generally a good thinking bunch at h2g2.

And sorry not to provide more debate, but I'm also in the: when it's necessary to develop life-saving drugs yes (with a caveat about not causing unnecessary suffering) and not at all for cosmetics.

although I have to say, that having heard the chappie on Radio 4 the other day talking about "making monkeys Parkinsons" (not sure what he actually said, but it was similar to that) I did feel very uncomfortable. But I did agree with his assesment of it being necessary.

hellllllllooooooooo
which animal do you like

"I also agree with the idea that the line drawn ought to be ethical (need for new drug to cure or relieve human suffering outweighs interests of the animals on which it's going to be tested) rather than commercial" - Trin

It really is all about lines being drawn isn't it. What is the purpose of the product being tested? How much is the animal likely to suffer? And perhaps the most poignant one - how far up the evolutionary tree is the animal in question? In other words - testing on rats, okay (rats are nasty vermin that everyone dislikes, even though laboratory rats are hardly like sewer rats); testing on dogs or cats, not okay (who'd want to harm little Fido or Tibbles?); testing on monkeys, not okay (too close to mankind).

Everyone draws their line in a different place, and I'm pretty sure that most - if not all - of us here draw our own line a long way this side of making death threats against anyone who thinks differently to the way we do, no matter how opposed to their beliefs we might be.

I used to have interesting, robust (read heated) discussions with a rabid (and I use the word advisedly) anti-vivisectionist. Apparently I was a sellout because I was a vegetarian who did not completely disagree with animal testing for medical purposes. (but I did use Beauty Without Cruelty cosmetics)

It's fun to say "if chimps saw a bunch of humans being harmed to keep them out of the way of baby chimps do you think they would help the humans?" it's a stupid, provocative sort of question, but it does drive home the point. Sort of.

I fail to see how driving guinea pig farmers out of business helps the cause of these peopl one jot. Still less some of the more violent things they do. But then, it's like a playground, once you run out of good, convincing verbal argument, the fists come out.

My line has been rubbed out and redrawn several times. And as I get older, and as my parents get older, I'm sure it will get redrawn again.

I think the line should be clear - cosmetics no, medical research yes, and I don't care what animal they use. Fruit Flies or Ferrets, Eels or Elephants - they are all animals.

However, I fail to see the benefits of squirting bleach into rabbits' eyes and similar nonsensical experiments. Or have I fallen for some of the anti-vivisectionists' propoganda?

sorry, propaganda. My bad.

It's a fair bet that if you can't see the point, it's propaganda.

It costs a lot to get licences etc. to do animal tests.

well, I assume the point of squirting shampoo into rabbits eyes is to ascertain if it would hurt the person washing their hair if they got some in their eyes.

but since the formulae are pretty well tried and tested, I guess that they do it (if they still do) to make sure that their New! Improved! formulae are equally tear-free.

That I am not in favour of, as I never was in favour of the smoking Beagles etc. (I am guessing they don't do that now?)

Of course, reading The Plague Dogs as a proto-veggie impressionable teenager did colour my views for a long time. Having the Gruesome Twosome was one thing which made me radically re-draw my line.