Insulin
-
Despite Stan's occasionally clunkiness he has hit the nail more or less on the head here. You may not care about the morality but it still affects your view point. If you do not believe that we are 'better' as Stan puts it than the animals and seek to equate this view with racism then you've utterly blown your own scientific stance, you've sided with the crazies as I said before and as Stan notes discredited your own position however soundly based the science may be. Sad but true.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
No, what I'm saying is is that "better" is no excuse for it anyway. Why else did everyone jump on CataclysmicQuantum when he suggested using convicted murderers and rapists in experiments - after all, we're all "better" than them, aren't we? And the scientific argument is a separate one - it will stand or fall on its own, irrespective of the morality, crazy or otherwise, of it's proponents.
-
Following on from 73Zeppelin's response to my post about diabetes, insulin and the role of vivisection[^], I decided to write to the site I linked to for their thoughts. I give their reply below - however, before reading it, I would like to just say this: Obviously if Zep or anyone else wants to comment on it, fine, but there's not too much I can say on that level, not being an expert in the history of medicine. The point I really want to make is this: Will you please accept that there is a strong body of perfectly respectable scientific opinion who oppose vivisection, on scientific grounds (let aloone the moral ones)? And therefore, will you please stop treating all those who do so as nothing more than a bunch of moronic nutters, no better than flat-earthers and the like? If you want to disagree with it, that is your perogative, but please try to remember that there is a valid scientific argument against it, not just a moral one. (The moral argument is another matter entirely, and not one I am intersted in arguing about very much - mainly because it is a personal, subjective matter, and therefore there is not really much to say, apart from "I think...", "You think...". But one can argue about science.) Likewise, it does not follow that all anti-vivisectrionists are heartless people-haters who would rather see a child die than a mouse killed. Morality aside, we scientifically don't believe that killing that mouse is going to help the poor kid - nore than that, we believe that it may actually harm the long-term prospects for helping him. There really is a large body of evidence (disagree with it if you want, but it's still there) pointing to the harm a reliance on vivisection has done to medical progress. Fred "Thanks for your email. As our FAQ acnowledges, insulin harvested from animals saved the lives of many people with diabetes. But your opponent is wrong to say that Banting and Best discovered insulin - they isolated it but did not discover it. The clinical signs of human diabetes have been known since the first century AD, but it was not until the late eighteenth century that physicians associated the disease with characteristic changes in the pancreas seen at autopsy. As this was difficult to reproduce in animals, many scientists disputed the role of the
Howsoever obnoxious some animal experiments are, UK law (for instance The Regulation of Animal Experimentation. UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986) makes certain requirements with regards to animal experimentation. According to http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1279906[^] "We must agree that not all animal studies have been conducted in an acceptable way and not all have been designed properly to answer a scientific or medical question. Conversely, it would be perverse to deny that certain curative treatments and diagnostic advances owe their emergence to animal experimentation. Despite the apparent gulf separating the groups, UK law enshrines certain principles to which both sides can agree, albeit with different emphasis and approach—replacement, reduction and refinement, the ‘three Rs’. Put another way, if you don't have to use animals, don't; if you do have to use them, use the right number; and, if you design an experiment using animals, make sure that the maximum amount of useful data is collected for a minimum amount of suffering."
-
This is all very well and as much as I love animals (some of my best friends are pets) I really don't give a damn that they are used in medical experimentation. Or eaten. It is sad, perhaps, but that's about all. Until and unless you can come up with a better model that can replace animal expeiments (regardless of whether or not the existing animal experiments are of any real use which is very much open to debate) you're wasting your breath. Whilst the general perception is that animal experimentation may save lives no one is going to vote to stop it. Why would they? Better you should focus your attention on preventing cruelty to children: something that we seem less concerned about in this country than our damn pets.
digital man wrote:
Until and unless you can come up with a better model that can replace animal expeiments (regardless of whether or not the existing animal experiments are of any real use which is very much open to debate)
well it isn't "regardless" of it - it is very much the point. *If* the debate finally accepts the uselessness of vivisection then perhaps those in the field will devote more time to finding alternatives.
digital man wrote:
Better you should focus your attention on preventing cruelty to children: something that we seem less concerned about in this country than our damn pets.
Nonsense. There is *loads* of help, concern and aid given to combatting child cruelty.
-
Howsoever obnoxious some animal experiments are, UK law (for instance The Regulation of Animal Experimentation. UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986) makes certain requirements with regards to animal experimentation. According to http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1279906[^] "We must agree that not all animal studies have been conducted in an acceptable way and not all have been designed properly to answer a scientific or medical question. Conversely, it would be perverse to deny that certain curative treatments and diagnostic advances owe their emergence to animal experimentation. Despite the apparent gulf separating the groups, UK law enshrines certain principles to which both sides can agree, albeit with different emphasis and approach—replacement, reduction and refinement, the ‘three Rs’. Put another way, if you don't have to use animals, don't; if you do have to use them, use the right number; and, if you design an experiment using animals, make sure that the maximum amount of useful data is collected for a minimum amount of suffering."
The law is so subjective and open to interpretation it is totally useless. Who si to say "if you don't have to use animals"? Who is to say what the "right number" is? Who is to say what the "minimum amount of suffering" is? The law is nothing more than a palliative drawn up to con the public into thinking that anyone gives a damn. Well actually, some of us do.
-
The law is so subjective and open to interpretation it is totally useless. Who si to say "if you don't have to use animals"? Who is to say what the "right number" is? Who is to say what the "minimum amount of suffering" is? The law is nothing more than a palliative drawn up to con the public into thinking that anyone gives a damn. Well actually, some of us do.
Subjective or not, that is what we have. If the law is wrong or is unnecessarily vague, then it should be amended. However, this statement from http://www.cmf.org.uk/literature/content.asp?context=article&id=747[^] appears to validate why animal experimentation has merit of sorts. "About one third of animals are used in drug development. Animal testing of medicines has been required by law in the US and UK for many years. In both countries, testing became a legal requirement after disasters involving drugs that had not been first tested on animals. In the US an early sulphonamide antibiotic killed 137 people in 1937, whereas UK legislation followed thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe limb deformities around the world. In both cases animal testing would have revealed these serious side effects."
-
No, what I'm saying is is that "better" is no excuse for it anyway. Why else did everyone jump on CataclysmicQuantum when he suggested using convicted murderers and rapists in experiments - after all, we're all "better" than them, aren't we? And the scientific argument is a separate one - it will stand or fall on its own, irrespective of the morality, crazy or otherwise, of it's proponents.
Fred_Smith wrote:
Why else did everyone jump on CataclysmicQuantum when he suggested using convicted murderers and rapists in experiments
Because they are people and have rights. If animals want rights they should fight for them - maybe set up a little doggy congress of some kind. Publish a manifesto perhaps. :rolleyes:
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
-
First off - the scientific argument against vivisection is precicely that it DOES NOT adn WILL NOT give results beneficial ti human society/medicine, and that in fact it has hindered research in this area.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why? Because we are better than they are,
The Nazi's believed they were better than Jews - did that give them the right to exterminate them (or, indeed, experiment on them as some did?) Whites used to believe they were better than Blacks - did that give us the right to enslave them? What a stupid argument. Besides, I don't really care about the morality of it all - if you want to believe you have a right to do it then fine you just go ahead and believe it. But you are still scientifically in the wrong, as far as I am concerned.
Fred_Smith wrote:
First off - the scientific argument against vivisection is precicely that it DOES NOT adn WILL NOT give results beneficial ti human society/medicine, and that in fact it has hindered research in this area.
Clearly, those scientists who use it disagree.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
-
Subjective or not, that is what we have. If the law is wrong or is unnecessarily vague, then it should be amended. However, this statement from http://www.cmf.org.uk/literature/content.asp?context=article&id=747[^] appears to validate why animal experimentation has merit of sorts. "About one third of animals are used in drug development. Animal testing of medicines has been required by law in the US and UK for many years. In both countries, testing became a legal requirement after disasters involving drugs that had not been first tested on animals. In the US an early sulphonamide antibiotic killed 137 people in 1937, whereas UK legislation followed thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe limb deformities around the world. In both cases animal testing would have revealed these serious side effects."
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
whereas UK legislation followed thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe limb deformities around the world. In both cases animal testing would have revealed these serious side effects
Thalidomide WAS tested on animals! Worse than that, as a direct result of these tests it was specifically aimed at pregnant women. In Germany, in 1970, the (then) longest trial in their criminal history acquitted a German company, Chemie Grumenthal, of responsibility for their part in this tragedy after a long line of international medical authorities had testified that animal tests could never be conclusive for human beings. Talk about having your cake and eating it too...
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
whereas UK legislation followed thalidomide, which caused 10,000 babies to be born with severe limb deformities around the world. In both cases animal testing would have revealed these serious side effects
Thalidomide WAS tested on animals! Worse than that, as a direct result of these tests it was specifically aimed at pregnant women. In Germany, in 1970, the (then) longest trial in their criminal history acquitted a German company, Chemie Grumenthal, of responsibility for their part in this tragedy after a long line of international medical authorities had testified that animal tests could never be conclusive for human beings. Talk about having your cake and eating it too...
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
First off - the scientific argument against vivisection is precicely that it DOES NOT adn WILL NOT give results beneficial ti human society/medicine, and that in fact it has hindered research in this area.
Clearly, those scientists who use it disagree.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Clearly, those scientists who use it disagree.
Yes, they do. And all I'm arguing is there are plenty of respected scientists who hold the opposing view too - that not everyoen that does so is a crank. So therefore can we please stick to debating the science and not the sanity of those who hold their respective views. There are two aspects to this debate: the scientific and the moral. The moral debate is a waste of time, IMHO, as it is a personal and subjective choice. And the scientific one will stand or fall INDEPENDENTLY of it. It doesn;t matter if I am a total loony as regards my moral attotude to humand vs animals, the sciewnce is still the same. My feelings may well make me lean one way or another, but science is, or should be, objective and its arguments should hold up whatever.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Clearly, those scientists who use it disagree.
Yes, they do. And all I'm arguing is there are plenty of respected scientists who hold the opposing view too - that not everyoen that does so is a crank. So therefore can we please stick to debating the science and not the sanity of those who hold their respective views. There are two aspects to this debate: the scientific and the moral. The moral debate is a waste of time, IMHO, as it is a personal and subjective choice. And the scientific one will stand or fall INDEPENDENTLY of it. It doesn;t matter if I am a total loony as regards my moral attotude to humand vs animals, the sciewnce is still the same. My feelings may well make me lean one way or another, but science is, or should be, objective and its arguments should hold up whatever.
I think all of you guys who make this same basic argument, that scientific debate equates to scientific absolutism in defense of some social or political agenda, are no different from the intelligent design creationists. Science is not perfect and never will be. There are no absolute truths in science. None. When push comes to shove, when in doubt, science should always err on the side of benefit to humanity. If there is any reason at all to believe that some desease might be better understood if observed in other animals, those animals should be used in experiments. Your arguments are wrong for the same reason that fat boys global warming arguments are wrong, or why anti-torture arguments are wrong or why intelligent design arguments are wrong. Sciece is a method for formulating questions, not a method for providing absolute answers to any given question. You need religion for that.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
-
I think all of you guys who make this same basic argument, that scientific debate equates to scientific absolutism in defense of some social or political agenda, are no different from the intelligent design creationists. Science is not perfect and never will be. There are no absolute truths in science. None. When push comes to shove, when in doubt, science should always err on the side of benefit to humanity. If there is any reason at all to believe that some desease might be better understood if observed in other animals, those animals should be used in experiments. Your arguments are wrong for the same reason that fat boys global warming arguments are wrong, or why anti-torture arguments are wrong or why intelligent design arguments are wrong. Sciece is a method for formulating questions, not a method for providing absolute answers to any given question. You need religion for that.
The only conspiracies that concern me are the ones I am completely unaware of. By the time I find out about it, its probably a done deal. Nothing in the entire universe is more useless than morality without authority. A morality free of hypocrisy is no morality at all.
Weel, you have a certian point, but mine is that we can at least argue about the science of things, whereas there is little point in arguing about the morality of it, just as there is little point in arguments about the existence of God - people will believe what they believe; at least in the scientific realm there is emprical evidence and experiment to argue about.
-
First off - the scientific argument against vivisection is precicely that it DOES NOT adn WILL NOT give results beneficial ti human society/medicine, and that in fact it has hindered research in this area.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Why? Because we are better than they are,
The Nazi's believed they were better than Jews - did that give them the right to exterminate them (or, indeed, experiment on them as some did?) Whites used to believe they were better than Blacks - did that give us the right to enslave them? What a stupid argument. Besides, I don't really care about the morality of it all - if you want to believe you have a right to do it then fine you just go ahead and believe it. But you are still scientifically in the wrong, as far as I am concerned.
Fred_Smith wrote:
The Nazi's believed they were better than Jews -
BZZZT Godwins law. Discussion over. You lose.
-- Join the Campaign to Help Stamp Out and Abolish Redundancy The preceding is courtesy of the Bureau of Unnecessarily Redundant Repetition Department.
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
The Nazi's believed they were better than Jews -
BZZZT Godwins law. Discussion over. You lose.
-- Join the Campaign to Help Stamp Out and Abolish Redundancy The preceding is courtesy of the Bureau of Unnecessarily Redundant Repetition Department.
:) Touche - but, Godwin's Law only states that the liklihood of Nazi compariosons appraoches 1 as the number of messages increases, but it (purposefully) avoids making any reference as to the validity of such claims.
modified on Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:56:31 AM
-
:) Touche - but, Godwin's Law only states that the liklihood of Nazi compariosons appraoches 1 as the number of messages increases, but it (purposefully) avoids making any reference as to the validity of such claims.
modified on Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:56:31 AM
it's usage is to declare the thread over and the committer of the reducto ad hitler the loser by default.
-- Join the Campaign to Help Stamp Out and Abolish Redundancy The preceding is courtesy of the Bureau of Unnecessarily Redundant Repetition Department.