terrorizing people to save animals who save people...

[SSimon]

From all the research I've done on the topic, animal testing doesn't have to be performed on cosmetics, household cleaning products, etc., in order to ensure safety. A lot of cosmetic companies no longer test on animals to ensure safety and I'm sure they wouldn't forgo this if there were any liability concerns.

There are now means other than the maiming of animals to ensure that end goal. It took a few progressive companies to set the stage for this and that's why I make sure I support them with my money. Thankfully we now have the option of choosing not to live at the expense of other living beings.

[ShellyT]

Cosmetic companies that don't do testing are either sticking to ingredients that have aready been tested, or are outsourcing their testing. It's most likely the former. Animal testing is expensive. When I was in school, a generic lab mouse started at $10, and prices climbed from there.

[galaxee]

well, i think we should clarify animal research vs animal testing...

there is no way around use of an animal model for some research applications. i can't use a cell culture model for studying development of the brain, for example. the researcher whose house was firebombed studied the development of the eye. again, there is no less-complex model for eye development and an animal model is needed. the use of each animal has to be justified to an outside committee, along with every method we plan to use.

you can't really study systemic drug toxicity without an animal model either. there is no artificial brain, liver, etc model that will tell you how a given drug will affect each organ system. we know that animal models don't translate perfectly to humans, but if we can eliminate drugs based on adverse animal effects before causing serious harm to humans (ie, people with productive lives, families to support, etc) then those animals have done very much for people. i would sooner give large doses of a drug to a lab rat, find out that it causes cancer, and use that result to stop the development process of the drug rather than find out it's carcinogenic or teratogenic after 5 years of the drug being on the market because an insufficient test was used. the intact body is too complex for some of the more simplistic models like cell culture, and when people's lives are at stake it is very important to *not* screw them up while trying to help them.

i personally don't care for the use of animal testing for consumer products. yes, i would rather the product be tested on a lab animal than sustain a serious injury myself and substantial medical bills from an untested product. but i would prefer to stick with products with a record of safety that do not need proving or testing.

[Testm0nkey]

In the lab I worked in post-grad the use of the lab animals was totally and completely pointless. Could have easily done the study with a human population and not run into any ethical dilemmas. I got the idea a lot of animal testing/research is "pointless" - just from my scope of experience and the other labs we worked with doing the same thing to their animals. That is what I disagree with and why I left that lab for another.

Is trying to blow up a family wrong? Of course

But the crazzies are right about one thing - there is a problem (in my opinion)

[SSimon]

Originally Posted by Testm0nkey

In the lab I worked in post-grad the use of the lab animals was totally and completely pointless. Could have easily done the study with a human population and not run into any ethical dilemmas. I got the idea a lot of animal testing/research is "pointless" - just from my scope of experience and the other labs we worked with doing the same thing to their animals. That is what I disagree with and why I left that lab for another.

Is trying to blow up a family wrong? Of course

But the crazzies are right about one thing - there is a problem (in my opinion)

That's where my problems lie. When the use of animals is senseless and without reason or necessity I surely will not support it. Especially if the end product is for frivolity (which I label cosmetics). I don't need to be beautified at the expense of another living being. I'll do without.

[Sufferin' Prius Envy]

Originally Posted by F8L

WTF is wrong with people???

In general, or for use in lab testing?

[Godiva]

Originally Posted by SSimon

That's where my problems lie. When the use of animals is senseless and without reason or necessity I surely will not support it. Especially if the end product is for frivolity (which I label cosmetics). I don't need to be beautified at the expense of another living being. I'll do without.

Are contact lenses frivolous? I think so. You can just wear glasses. But try to get people to give up their contact lenses. They were animal tested.

There are people on insulin pumps now that were tested on animals. There's nothing frivolous about diabetes. But some might think hey, why not use a syringe?

Is there unnecesary or frivolous use of animals? Yes. Is there some mistreatment or intentional cruelty? I'll bet there is but it is rare.

There are people that are intentional cruel to other people for frivolous reasons....such as ego or entertainment. I am more concerned about them.

[eagle33199]

The difference between the items you pointed out, Godiva, and what i consider frivolous, really comes down to quality of life measurements. An insulin pump could be considered a quality of life improvement for individuals. True, it's not necessary because needles could do the job too, but it is much more than a cosmetic change. In a similar, though lessened manner, contacts could be seen as a quality of life improvement for some. There are professions out there where glasses could get in the way or seriously hinder advancement - a problem that contacts help solve. Now, i know that doesn't apply to everyone, or even a majority of contact users, but it is something to consider.

Many medical products out there could be seen as "frivolous" to some people, but to people who actually use them these products turn into quality of life improvements. You might have a person with Bradycardia that could live a normal lifespan as they are... but throw in a pacemaker and their quality of life will improve. before, they would get winded walking to the mailbox or climbing a set of stairs... afterwards, they can do those activities just fine.

What about Liposuction? Many, many people see that as a purely cosmetic procedure designed to allow people to become supermodel thin, but at the same time such a procedure can drastically improve the life of an individual genetically disposed towards obesity.

So i guess what i'm saying is that not everything is cut and dry - for one individual something might be a cosmetic improvement (like contacts of Liposuction), but for another it might be a quality of life improvement, and i don't think we should condemn animal testing for those.

[SSimon]

Galaxee can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe there are still a lot of companies that continue to test on animals when clear alternatives exist. At least that's how I interpreted her post when she defined a need for animals so long as systemic effects are being studied. I think lotions, cosmetics, household cleaners and the like can be tested without the use of animals and companies don't utilize these options either due to profit concerns or simply because they haven't reconsidered their philosophy. For me, all I'm saying is that I try to make my life choices with the least derogatory impact on other life forms so when presented with an option, I choose to select the option that's the lightest on my conscience. I don't need or want an animal to suffer on my behalf so that my life improves by an insignificant margin.

I hear from some that we are superior, more advanced and more intelligent than other life forms so why shouldn't we use these animals for our own betterment. There are some people here who, though they haven't specified reasons, take the position that we have the right to use animals as long as it contributes to human life. I then have to wonder how these people would feel if a more advanced, intelligent life form evolved or inhabited earth and determined the benefits of experimenting on humans (themselves included) for their own betterment. Would they acquiesce with the same disregard and lack of concern for the (human) lesser life form? It may seem like a silly point but it's a valid point. Since we are supposedly more advanced and intelligent, shouldn't we be applying compassion and reflection with our decisions and actions instead of cavalierly declaring that we can do something simply because we have a right and self appointed entitlement?

[galaxee]

i don't know how well proven all of those alternatives are- according to NICEATM-ICCVAM - Test Methods Evaluated by ICCVAM there is a lot of reviewing left to do for many alternative methods, and they have the potential to reduce but not completely eliminate animal use.

remember that some cosmetics qualify as drugs (think antiperspirants, medicated soaps, etc) so the FDA does regulate some of those for safety and they require certain tests to be done.

humanity is inherently fairly selfish. but i think that bearing witness to human suffering just makes that selfishness even stronger- we hate to see our loved ones and friends suffering and want progress to treat the illnesses that affect them. animals are required for that end, and we're willing to accept that with the condition of animal suffering involved being kept to a minimum...