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

Drugs yes, cosmetics no.

I used to support one of the anti-vivisection groups as an impressionable teenager, but as I grow (hopefully) wiser with age and have lived amongst friends and family who have endured arthiritis, epilepsy, diabetes and cancer I feel animal testing is an unfortunate necessity.

As for cosmetics, I don't bother with shampoo on my No1 cropped locks, and trying to put blusher over stubble is a nightmare...

Always a difficult one this,
clearly testing for cosmetics is a no, no.
Testing for major illnesses/conditions is acceptable, hopefully as more and more diseases/conditions are erradicated then less testing will be needed. Clearly the more human way of doing tests, the better.
.
Another thing, testing animals to cure things like TB in cows ,etc could save a larger number of animals suffering in long run. And clearly a bird flue cure might help people and animals!

OK, we seem to have a consensus on this then.

Initiating a little thread drift, what about cloning?

Personally, I have no objections, but I'm open to suggestion.

I see cloning as legitimate research, but given the proportion of failed clones to successes I wouldn't want to see it happening in any industrial capacity.

If you will pardon the pun, isn't cloning in its' infancy? As techniques are refined and developed, surely success rates will rise?

Playing Devil's Advocate here - what about cosmetics for disguising severe facial blemishes? I'm thinking of disfiguring birthmarks, scars after injuries. Not life or death treatment, but surely people who need this sort of support to mix with the general public should have confidence that the products they use are safe?

Yeah I wouldn't say there it that clear-cut a line between cosmetics and medicine. Which group would an anti skin-rash product fall into?

well, I would probably put facial blemishes and other things of that nature in the non-cosmetic - but that's a good point.

The line is in the sand, not cast in stone.

Hadn't really considered these options to be honest, though I would have though anti-rash is medical.

[Notices upright apple cart]

[Ponders]

[Decides to leave it standing]

Just to sound even more controversial I'm not really against the fur trade either. As long as the fur was from farmed, non-endangered animals I don't give a stuff.

Why would it matter to you whether they were endangered or not? Just playing 's advocate.

Not sure really... it just does.

It's often useful to think these things through.

Didn't see any protesters on my cursory Saturday trip to the city centre, just a few coppers milling around. Apparently it was
a relatively subdued affair.

Well, if animal furs come from 'farmed animals' then they are obviously not endangered.


az

Whoops, think I misread that post from Mr Dreadful.

Well, yes, endangered species killed for their pelts (tigers, for example) should not be condoned. In fact it isn't. It's totally illegal, which unfortunately doesn't stop it from happening. Meanwhile, tell that to a poor farmer in Asia who can barely feed his family and then is offered an absurd amount of money for one tiger skin.


az

I've been trying to google some information about animal testing for cosmetics to back up things I read many years ago - can't find it.

What I read was that any cosmetic company could say they offered products that were 'not tested on animals' if they only used products that *had* been tested on animals up to a specific date - I think it was sometime late 70's or early 80's.

Meanwhile, I also heard (don't quote me) that this is why the Body Shop has changed their byline from 'not tested on animals' to 'against animal testing' as they do still use products that have been tested on animals after this 70's/80's 'amnesty' (for want of a better word).

I personally disagree with any and all animal testing for cosmetics. Frankly, there are far more cosmetics out there already that are available than are needed to suit more than most people's personal preferences. Though I think animal testing for perfumes remains one of the most disgusting and superfluous manners of torturing animals for nothing but $$$.

Can anybody tell me if vivisection actually helps people in our societies (for medical purposes) or if it is only some scientists obviously torturing animals just to find out 'what happens if...?'


az

>>Can anybody tell me if vivisection actually helps people in our societies (for medical purposes) [snip]

That's a big question, and I'd love to get my hands on some relevant neutral evidence.

<>

Torture or not, can you think of a better way of doing it? (bearing in mind that computer models don't work and doing it to human subjects would be even worse).

Yep, you need the medical students to practice on something. And there is such a thing as basic research.