Animal Experimentation

[tamtam92]

I think that this animals are not badly treated. I'm not against using them for research, but it needs rules.

By the way i wouldn't care so much about animals (even if this is just and important) when there are millions of children starving to death... I think people should have the decency to talk about saving human beings before animals... I'm sure there are less animals suffering than humans...

 

[Playerslight77]

d

 

[kurabrhm]

They are needed in medical research, I used to work at a research hospital, the animals are not mistreated there. They are very well taken care of.....

Yeah but the director and producers of the movie '28 days later' had a very different opinion to that. You'll see in the opening scenes just how badly they are treated. They're forced to live in cages with little light and so on.
In fact, the film's producers are so evidently anti animal experimentation that they went the whole way and made the animals as mad looking as possible when they initially catch the virus.

 

[J'r'd]

as you said, an opinion. the actual treatment of lab animals is top-notch. yes, they're isolated from most contact but that's because they're needed to be non-contaminated.
lab rats are very carefully bred for specific lines with traits that researchers need. you don't carelessly muck about with $1000-$100,000 worth of animals in an animal cruelty experiment. one oughtn't put too much stock in Hollywood movies for realism.

 

[kurabrhm]

as you said, an opinion. the actual treatment of lab animals is top-notch. yes, they're isolated from most contact but that's because they're needed to be non-contaminated.
lab rats are very carefully bred for specific lines with traits that researchers need. you don't carelessly muck about with $1000-$100,000 worth of animals in an animal cruelty experiment. one oughtn't put too much stock in Hollywood movies for realism.

I'm sorry but you obviously dont know what 28 days later is all about.
Its not a Hollywood film actually, its a British film. The realism is one of the most astonishing things about the film.

 

[Playerslight77]

I'm sorry but you obviously dont know what 28 days later is all about.
Its not a Hollywood film actually, its a British film. The realism is one of the most astonishing things about the film.

If you watch the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" you will get the directors version of what will happen if global warming isn't stopped. This doesn't mean that it's accurate or even remotely feasible.

Don't confuse realistic-looking emotion-tugging scenes with an authentic account of medical research techniques in the real world. IT'S A MOVIE. Movie = entertainment medium. To entertain you! Facts tend to get in the way of entertainment...

 

[Deamiter]

Interestingly enough, the environmental changes in 28 days later are all possible, and published (at least I hear they've been published, I only looked into a couple of them personally). Of course, none of them would occur within such a short period of time -- it would take years or even decades (as I understand a science outside of my area of study) but the process of such a sudden climate change (ten years is EXTREMELY fast for such a huge shift in geological terms) isn't that far fetched.

 

[Playerslight77]

d

 

[Jetgirl]

I'm sorry but you obviously dont know what 28 days later is all about.
Its not a Hollywood film actually, its a British film. The realism is one of the most astonishing things about the film.

It's also a movie about a virus infecting people that turns them into raging human-eating zombie-creatures.

Movie = Fiction. They can show anything they want, as realistically as they want. That doesn't make it true.

 

[Playerslight77]

d

 

[Singing Bush]

Just a random piece of information from my rather limited immunology lab training, but from my experiences the mice used in most medical studies are treated very well and probably have it better than most wild rodents. Even their final death before dissection, or whatever process that needs to be done at the end, comes through carbon dioxide asphyxiation which is relatively if not completely painless. Most researchers tend not to be sadists.

 

[crimson_dragon]

The teacher in RE was away away and we were having a debate on animal experimentation, hunting anf vegetarianism. I was surprised that I was the only absolutist when it came 2 this in the class.
I do not agree with fox hunting, i do not agree with eating meat and i certainly do not agree with testing on animals - cosmetic and medical.
I do not value human life above animal life. Yes human life is scared but so is every living thing.

 

[Playerslight77]

e

 

[Angel of God]

I think if animal experimentation is important for medicine then it's ok.

Abraham killed an animal for God mercy........therefore we can utilize
animals for mercy..................

 

[Sgent29]

Crimson,
How do you reconcile the fact that:

1) G-d, at least according to the bible, put animals here for our use
2) Sacrifice of human life is against the bible
3) Animal expirmentation has saved billions of people from death. Most recently partial vaccine for Malaria has been found -- using animal experimentation. Do you realize how many hundres of thousands of children a year this will save?

Sgent

 

[crimson_dragon]

I have my beliefs and they are somewhat different to a 'normal' christians. I don't believe that animals were put here for us to use whether it says so in the Bible or not.