For those of you who don't know, the University of Oxford is in the process of building a new £20 million research lab. The primary function of this lab will be animal testing.
Unsuprisingly, this has generated alot of interest from animal rights group, including extremist group the ALF, who have announced that anyone connected with the university (students, tutors, construction workers etc.) are, in their eyes, 'legitimate targets'. Previous action has included burning down a university boathouse.

So where do you stand on animal testing, and extremist tactics?

Heres my view;

While animal testing is not pleasant, I believe animal life is an acceptable loss in the persuit of scientific advance.
I can't understand why anyone would not acknowledge (to me, obvious) hierarchy in the animal kingdom.
Animal suffering is kept to minimum feasable level when working with animals, but in some cases is regretably inevitable. The new lab is expected to reduce suffering, I highly doubt it will reduce death (but I am not an authority on this).

Yes there are other methods, but they are not necessarily alternative, they are usually only complimentary - and these methods should be thoroughly explored.

The essence of the debate is one of moral differences.
Pro-lab believe animal suffering is morally acceptable in the persuit of scientific advance. Anti-lab do not.

Whatever you believe, you are unlikely to be persuaded otherwise by anyone. This is why the issue will never be resolved UNLESS the complimentary techniques supersede animal testing, and become stand-alone alternatives.
This is certainly feasable, and I am inclined to believe it is inevitable in the future.

Protesting for animal rights pressurises the scientific community into developing the aforementioned alternatives, which it is doing.
This is why the protests occur.
Using intimidation/violence will not speed up the development of alternative techniques, it only serves to lower everyone elses opinions of animal rights pressure groups. Just as some muslims firebombing embassies were going about their protest against the recent Danish cartoons in the wrong way, so are extremist animal rights groups. This is the main issue I will be protesting about on the 25th.

The Oxford lab is not evil, if anything it is a small step in the right direction.
Scientists are working towards a world without animal testing, but it cannot be forced.
You could put a gun to my head and command me to unite the theories of gravity and quantum mechanics, and I still wouldn't be able to do it, not for lack of trying.

I urge animal rights supporters to voice their opinions in a civilised manner, free of intimidation and violence. Understand that animal testing, from our point of view, is too valuable a tool to be dropped - at least for the time being.

If this thread does become a debate, please keep it civil, I've heard enough petty name calling on the www.oxfordgossip.co.uk forum

just test on the homeless

Could anyone who wants to talk about this issue post constructively. If the thread dies, it dies, I would rather that than a shower of unhelpful comments.

If you want to poke fun with/at a bunch of fuckwits click here.

I pretty much agree on your post, 'cept that the cartoons weren't Dutch but Danish. Big difference.
But ohwell, yesterday they burnt the Switserland flag, and today they burned the Austrian flag

__________________

hahahaha, I saw that too, they really have no idea about how each countrie`s flag looks like.

__________________

Woops, thanks for that.

Test on humans, thousands would be willing to have fuck-knows what done to them for $100.

Or test on people in jail

__________________

My uneducated view.

Animals are beasts of burden.
Sad but true.

Test? Yes.
Random pointless torture....well of course not.
Science is a good thing.

There is a 9MB Video of Penn & Tellers show "Bullshit" where they in detail go into animal rights and testing facts.
It's on my site and not sure if the link will work from here.
http://worldofgore.net/phpBB2/download.php?id=8170

animals<humans

__________________

OpethFan-- There are humans that give themselves to experimental research. My dad was terminal with colon cancer and opted to try something in the experimental stages just incase it might help someone else. It does happen.

It's sad that animals have to be used for the tests, but I think it needs to be done. I think most of the things that get publicized are the extremes anyways. There's a lot of unwanted animals out there and also some that are bred just for the purpose of research.

Too many people just want the excuse to raise havoc and don't know what they're really fighting for anyways. Wait til one of their kids or loved ones has a medical problem and if animal research was used to learn about their cure don't allow them to use it. See what they think then.

I don't know. The world is weird. All that cattle in India and all those starving people.

I'll just shut up now. Gettin' in a downer.

__________________

I love animals ,Im not a hunter , that said I think ,If we could cure some terrible disease because we tested on lab rats .Well then .
as far as ALF goes to me they are cowardly terrorists who sneak around and damage peoples stuff under the cover of darkness.They are balless little fucks.Every one has a right to protest but when you hurt kill or damage shit ,well then in my book your fucked.
Same as true with the anti abortion folks.

ok, so we have people who want to advance science through animal testing, and people who think its fucked up because its animal testing. my opinion, take into account that im almost a hippie, is that animal testing isnt that bad, given they are actually doing something productive, like testing medicines or the like. now, if they were to, for example, inject the animals with draino, i could see that as wrong. or if they were to try out cosmetics on animal, again, i could see that as wrong. but if they are legitamately using animals to help society, ie. infecting rodents with a specific disease, say aids, or the common cold, and then test new medicines to see how they work, im all for animal testing. as for the extremist animal rights groups, who are calling people "targets", that is pure bollocks, that does nothing but make them look like pricks, making their argument less legitimate. there is a fine line between being an activist and being a terrorist, and blowing up buildings in the name of animal rights is no better than blowing up buildings in the name of whatever god you happen to pray to.

__________________

Have you guys seen how they can grow human cartilage on rats, for example - they can grow an ear under the skin of a rat, remove it, then with some skin grafting they can attatch it to a burn's victim or someone with a deformation, and they have an ear.

I like rats, but thats still pretty nifty

__________________

Cosmetics are under FDA for a reason. They need tested on something. Have you looked at the ingredients in regular make-up? It's amazing some of the stuff in there. Some is non-animal tested and marketed as that, but there's a lot that isn't that way.

Violence isn't going to solve anything. Maybe they should have the security of a nuke plant and hire sharp shooters to knock off intruders. At least shoot them in the kneecaps. I know I just said violence wouldn't solve anything, too.

__________________

I support stem cell research. Yadda yadda yadda. The only thing I don't want to hear or see is something like inbreeding or species breeding. That would be weird......60 years from now, walk down the street to hang out with your buddy Ratboy and Batgirl.

__________________

anybody who's come near spinal injury supports stem cell research to their fullest! its a good thing south korea kicks our ass at researching it anyways

__________________

That's only because the USA is the only place in the world that doesn't allow stem cell research yet. Fuckers.

__________________

Don't use anyone from West Virginia then.

__________________

you'll be suprised to know that its not allowed in "progresive" holland too...

__________________

i cant stand those ALF/Peta/vegan mother fuckers. fuck them

__________________

And after we've all been asked nicely for a constructive response, too. Move over Steven Jay Gould. And your next little thought-fart...



Of course they do, sweetie.

"Hwang's team intentionally fabricated data in two landmark studies on human embryonic stem cells, a Seoul National University investigation panel said last month. Hwang resigned from the university in December.

The papers -- a 2004 report on cloning human embryos for research and a 2005 report on producing tailored embryonic stem cells -- have been debunked. The U.S. periodical Science which published them said they would be retracted."

__________________

Humans < Animals

__________________

I hate science/technology. The Romantics would be proud.

How are you posting when you are suspended?

__________________

The Romantics would be angry their entire philosophy of life has been blindly reduced and followed by a mentally immature and philosophically uninteresting dweller on a forum that will not be noted for its profundity. I know I'd be insulted if my way of looking at the world got simplified to the bullshit you spit out here and there on these boards as though it were in some way clever or intelligent or special. 'I hate the media. I hate technology. I want to live in the woods.' Bully for you, fuckwit, but shut the hell up about it until you've got something interesting to say. Get off the internet

I like Penn and Teller's take on the issue. I would also personally strangle every monkey on the planet to save the life of a heroin addict. Well, probably not. But I'd kill them to save somebody. Just not everybody. We need people to keep dying. But I'll strangle some monkeys, let me tell you. Just give me half a chance.

i take it back. but what exactly is wrong with animals<humans? it sums up my point of view without repeating the same thoughts on the subject everyone else is. animals are fine and its unfortunate they have to be put through any kind of clincal life but its not so unfortunate as to halt science.

and thanks for correcting me about seoul. i mean it.

__________________

There you go. Should have said that the first time.

I have a lengthy discourse on this subject which is concerned with the nature of moral debate in the public sphere. I am also two meals behind and going to work soon, so it'll have to wait.



Ahh I hoped you'd notice that was a correction in good faith and I didn't say "You're a batfucking nematode" or anything similar. Aren't I a sweetie, sweetie?

__________________

I would take these animal rights activists a bit more seriously if they weren't so ready to harm a human in order to save a rat. Most of these people would walk past a dying vagrant yet they care so much about the fortunes of one laboratory mouse that was bred for testing. If they care for animals more than humans then why don't they put their hypocrisy to one side and offer themsleves up to be tested on?

I wonder if these people have used medicines tested on animals? I wonder if they would refuse medical treatment that was honed on animals? I'd be willing to bet that most of these activists have double-barrelled names, were born with a silver spoon wedged in their throat and are desperate to be associated with something other than the snobbish, inbred upper class of British society. At least those in the UK, anyway.

Get a fucking job and let those of great use to society at large get on with theirs.

__________________

One nice thing pointed out by that Penn & Teller episode is that one of the highest-ranking members of PETA is diebetic and survives using insulin, which was of course developed through animal testing. Her response is something like 'Yeah, it does seem to be hypocritical, but if I didn't use the insulin I wouldn't be able to do all the good for the animals I can do by staying alive.' In other words 'I'll fund terrorists who're willing to destroy property and human life in order to halt medical progress that could help millions of people, but only because it's already progressed enough to save my worthless life.' Cunt.

The other nice thing was that PETA euthenizes almost all of the animals it 'saves.' Cute.

Actually, there was one last nice moment: when the chicken ate some fried chicken. That was actually one of their best episodes. Not only did they show PETA to be absolute cunts in their 'uncompromising' attempt to achieve their goal, they also showed that they're willing to compromise whenever convenient while still maintaining moral outrage and funding terrorists, and they got a chicken to eat chicken without trying.

Now that I didn't know. Hypocritical cunts.

__________________

Yeah. It turns out it's not practical to keep animals nobody wants alive, so, like the pound, PETA has to kill them. Actually I think they killed a higher percentage than most pounds, but I can't quite recall. In any case, at about the same time they rabble-rouse people to protest local pounds for doing the exact same thing but being honest about it. This suggests to me that PETA are at war with honesty.

Yes..they are widely known to covertly go to animal shelters under the guise of "people seeking family pets" and take the animals and destroy them themselves.

Their theory is no human should have a "pet" and they're stopping that plus any future procreation of that pet.

hahaha, if they're not our pets: what else could we do with them, or what good are they?....:

__________________

Well...they imagine 1000000s of former pets running the streets living in harmony with nature and traffic signals and mauling each other on public roadways so they can be "FREE" like mother nature meant for them to be.
But see...many animals alive today are not as a result of random nature but by mans hand in the matter.
PETA is a bastion for self induced guilt "do-gooders" and the greedy.
When you have a mix like that...it's pure comedy/tragedy



Here's a GREAT argument PETA cant touch....
Cattle...being tastey...has ensured it's survival.
There are more cows alive today than ANY time in human history.

thats what iam saying

+1

__________________

Or criminals.

__________________

cynic (the old incarnation of them,when they were thrash) had a song about using death row inmates for medical testing. it was called "useful human waste"

not a bad idea at all if they volunteer themselves. if they dont volunteer themselves then obviously that crosses into cruel and unusual punishment territory

__________________

Testing on the dead might even work. If I was even terminally ill, I might give myself up. Hell, I want to be burned anyways.

__________________

Well, there on Death Row aren't they?

__________________

do you not have cruel and unusual punishment laws in canada

__________________

Psh. They don't have laws in Canada.

__________________