INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.

For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

We are not accepting any new registrations.

Question Regarding Animal Experimentation

Enter here to explore ethical issues and discuss the meaning and source of morality.
Message
Author
Ted Harvey
Posts: 172
Joined: September 10th, 2007, 4:41 pm

Re: Question Regarding Animal Experimentation

#21 Post by Ted Harvey » October 20th, 2008, 12:32 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

I have to go back to the start of this thread as I'm still very troubled by the statement:
Some humans who are profoundly handicapped as well as infants may be less sentient, less aware of the self and suffering than adult chimpanzees. Is there a difference between experimenting on one rather than the other?
I don't accept the efficacy of the and suffering bit in the first sentence - for me it's in the same realms as making self-referencing judgements about the worth and/or quality of individuals' lives. How do we take it upon ourselves to judge to what extent or quality any ohter being is aware of suffering? I'm aware that in the animal rights realm just now there is much debate over the issue of to what extent that cold blooded species like fish feel pain - and therefore are 'entitled' to certain norms of respect.
I'm also very circumspect on the assertion about awareness of self and just how this would relate to not having suffering inflicted.
On being against all or any experiments on animals; I believe that that is just too simplistic - for example, are we then not to be allowed to experiment on animals with possibly better methods of care, or even with possibly humane methods of animal slaughter (all for whatever purpose?)

User avatar
LilacHamster
Posts: 209
Joined: August 1st, 2008, 11:54 am

Re: Question Regarding Animal Experimentation

#22 Post by LilacHamster » October 26th, 2008, 9:19 pm

I am sure an argument could be made that the Nazis' experiments on human beings might have brought us useful knowledge, for instance in the area of hypothermia treatments,

http://www.nd.edu/~sheridan/HD2004/Nazi ... iments.pdf

but I doubt anyone here would attempt to ethically justify these experiments, even if they did bring some useful results for the future.

I could no more attempt to justify animal torture for any purpose.

Lesley

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Question Regarding Animal Experimentation

#23 Post by Alan H » November 12th, 2008, 11:59 am

An interesting article in today's Herald:
********************************************************************************
Scots Must Tackle Shame Of Primate Experiments (from The Herald )
http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/fea ... iments.php
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Scots must tackle shame of primate experiments

David Martin

The latest figures show that 10,451 primates such as macaque and squirrel monkeys, baboons and marmosets were used in the EU in 2005 for research, drug development and safety testing, 3125 in Britain alone last year. Shockingly, Scotland is the primate centre of the EU with more experiments conducted per head of population than in any other country: 952 primates (30.5% of UK total) were used in 1213 procedures in Scotland in 2007.

Last week the European Commission published its proposals for updating legislation governing the use of animals in experiments in the European Union. This was a great opportunity to implement a clear plan for the replacement of all primates, our closest living relatives, in European research. However, while the changes proposed are a step in the right direction, I do not believe they go far enough.

The use of primates raises ethical and scientific concerns, as highlighted by organisations such as Advocates for Animals. Primates attract particular concern because their advanced cognitive skills and high-level social and behavioural repertoire mean they are capable of experiencing physical or mental suffering, which adds to the case against using them in experiments. It remains impossible to capture and breed these sentient beings, transport them halfway across the world in some cases, and keep and use them in laboratories without seriously compromising their physical and psychological health.
advertisement

Because of this suffering, it is not surprising that primate experiments engender serious concern with the general public. Over the past 10 years, opinion polls in the UK have shown consistently that the majority of people oppose experiments on primates. In fact, the results of the 2005 EU official opinion poll showed 82% of citizens believe we have a duty "to protect the rights of animals whatever the cost". A resolution to end the use of primates, presented at the fifth World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences, also in 2005, was signed by renowned primatologist Jane Goodall and 57 individuals and organisations from 19 countries.

All experiments on animals are scientifically questionable as each species is genetically and physically different and cannot be used to mirror accurately other species. Using animals to predict effects in humans can be misleading and dangerous. A recent report by the St Andrew Animal Fund, the Dr Hadwen Trust and the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (Frame) analyses the extent to which primate experiments have been replaced by advanced alternatives, and describes the scope to replace primates in medical research. The report (available at www.advocatesforanimals.org) includes five case studies in different fields of research - malaria, cognition, stroke, Aids and hepatitis C - where vaccines and drug treatments have continually failed to translate from primates to humans. For example, more than 37 HIV vaccines tested on primates have undergone clinical trials involving 17,500 human volunteers and have all failed. The report recommends a targeted and timetabled strategy for replacement of primates in the EU, for the benefit of patients and primates. More scientifically robust methods are needed to improve patient care, prevent disease and raise ethical standards in research.
The moral and scientific cases are overwhelming

It is, of course, taxpayers who foot the bill for the majority of procedures involving animals - of which 68% in Scotland were carried out in universities/medical schools in 2007. Experiments at the Queen's Medical Research Institute at Edinburgh University Centre for Reproductive Biology use primates. One included an investigation of changes in sex hormone receptors in the wombs of 42 marmosets. Investigators at the Queen's centre studied changes in sex hormone receptors in the wombs of these monkeys following removal of ovaries and other hormonal manipulations. The experiment was carried out because not enough was known about oestrogen and progesterone receptors in the marmoset womb - a study for curiosity to see if the animal is a useful model for human female reproduction, despite admitting reproductive species differences between women and female marmosets. The animals were killed prior to removal of their wombs. Medical research such as this is also used by contract testing companies in Scotland.

The future lies not in experimenting on primates, but in replacing animals with non-animal research techniques. Technological and scientific developments are generating advanced alternatives, with the advantage of providing data directly applicable to humans.

There is a vast field of work based on non-animal scientific research and testing that is directly relevant to humans. Examples include: gene-hunting tools to pinpoint and understand the importance of genes in a range of illnesses; cell and molecular studies to understand disease mechanisms and the effects of vaccines and pharmaceuticals; ultra-sensitive analytical techniques, such as accelerator mass spectrometry, allowing safe, ethical, microdose studies of medicines in volunteers; advanced microscopic techniques for imaging and analysing cell functions in health and disease; biosensors that synergise cell research with microelectronics, to study metabolism, toxicity and disease biomarkers; computer models that simulate the human body and its component systems and organs, and their reactions to medicines; gene-silencing approaches to study gene functions in tissues in the test tube; post-mortem studies of cell-level changes in human illnesses; analysis of human data to understand the lifecycle of viruses in the body; tissue engineering to re-create three-dimensional human tissues in the test tube, for disease research, drug development and safety testing; computer predictions of medicinal effects based on the structures of pharmaceutical molecules; and hi-tech, safe imaging of the human brain to understand neurological disorders.

I and many other members of the European Parliament have made our views in support of an end to experiments on primates clear. In 2007, the European Parliament accepted a resolution to end the use of great apes and wild-caught monkeys in experiments and for a timetable to replace all primate experiments with non-animal alternatives.

Funders of research and scientists can help bring about strategic change in the planning and conduct of medical research, so that out-dated and ineffective primate experiments continue to be replaced by modern non-animal techniques fit for the 21st century. Instead of having the shame of being the primate testing capital of the EU, it would be great to see Scotland leading the way in developing, promoting and using cutting-edge modern non- animal research methods.

I hope the European Commission will soon introduce legislation to ensure the replacement of primates in research in the EU. The moral and scientific cases for such a move are overwhelming. Such a move will help to avoid large-scale animal suffering, to enhance medical progress and to accelerate the development and use of novel, effective and humane scientific technologies. It will also set an example for other authorities to implement similar policies which will benefit patients and primates across the world.

David Martin is a Labour member of the European Parliament for Scotland.

[Retrieved: Wed Nov 12 2008 11:57:01 GMT+0000 (GMT Standard Time)]

###################
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply