portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article portland metro

animal rights

Protest at the Primate Research Center

Word Week For Animals in Laboratories-
Protest at The Primate Research Center
Saturday, April 26th at 12:00
Protest at the Primate Research Center
Protest at the Primate Research Center
Since it's doors opened in 1962, the Oregon National Primate Research Center (ONRPC) has funneled billions of our tax dollars into junk science and animal abuse. Countless primates and other animals have lived desolate, lonely lives within it's walls, and no contributions to human health have come of it. Now ONRPC is attempting to get $200 million of Oregon's tobacco settlement money to expand it's research facilities - don't let ONRPC waste another dime on "research" that doesn't help anyone but the so-called-scientists who profit from it! Meet us at the entrance to the lab at noon on Saturday- we have signs, or you can bring your own. The lab is located at

505 N.W. 185th Avenue, Beaverton, OR 97006

The Trimet goes right near the lab, but if you can't make it unless you can get a ride, please contact  GaryKnudson@earthling.net and we'll try to hook you up.

For more information, visit www.ohsukillsprimates.com or www.boycottohsu.com

homepage: homepage: http://www.ohsukillsprimates.com

oops 24.Apr.2003 10:59

200 pixels, right

onrpc
oops
oops

Junk Science 25.Apr.2003 00:21

Tree Topper

The scientists at ONPRC are known for the worthwhile medical and scientific contributions they have made in the past and are making now. As I write this important information is being gained about neurological diseases such as MS, infectious diseases such as HIV, environmental/genetic diseases such as heart disease (number one killer in America). The knowledge gained at ONPRC has provided and still provides the building blocks for medical advacement. I don't know how you define "Junk Science", but the scientific community at ONPRC has earned my respect and the respect of many in the region.

Thanks.

Animal Research 25.Apr.2003 09:23

Anonymous

Animal research may or may not be conferring great benefits to science. Depends on whom you ask. If you ask the industry that profits from animal research (a multibillion dollar industry), then there have been many miraculous discoveries as a result of animal research. If you ask the animal rights advocates, then animal research has actually caused more misinformation than reliable results. For example, they say that both diabetes research and MS research was actually set back by many years because studies on animals did not reflect the human response. They also say that anti-biotics would never have made it to the people if they had been tested first on animals, because penicillin apparently kills guinea pigs.

I don't pretend to know about this. I have never done any research myself.

I only know that many scientific and medical gains were also made by the Nazis dissecting jews in concentration camps. Similarly, much was learned by performing experiments on prisoners. But you see, our gain does not justify the suffering inflicted on others. People died in these experiments. They were sickening, immoral, and cannot be justified.

I see experiments on animals the same way. It might be convenient, maybe we can learn a lot. And of course we, as humans, can identify more with the needs and emotions of other humans. But animals are living, breathing beings too. They do not owe us their lives. They do not deserve to suffer for our medical knowledge. We must find another way, because using the bodies and lives of other living beings for our own ends is simply immoral.

Thanks for this post 25.Apr.2003 11:46

Tl

I can't think of a more important issue right now than this one. There's all kinds of violence and horror in the world, but this issue epitomizes all that must be changed in order for our culture to progress.

As long as we look upon other living beings as being expendible, as being tools to use for our own ends, we are living in ignorance. These animals have done nothing to deserve the kind of tortured existance the labs have sentenced them to. And as Peter Singer notes in his famous Animal Liberation, all of them are capable of suffering. That fact alone makes it imperative that we wake up and do something about the crimes against nature that are perpetrated behind closed and locked doors in labs across the world.

Once, it was considered acceptable to enslave African Americans, to beat women, to gas Jews, to shoot down Palestinians in their homes. These things have been justified on the grounds that "they're not like us." Indeed, African Americans were once considered to be "no more than animals." As if that said it all.

Animals are frequently the scapegoats of our culture. They are butchered and tortured almost without consequences. All that is done to them is justified on the grounds that, "they're not like us." People who do these things promote the idea that animals don't feel pain "like we do," that they don't suffer "like we do," that they don't think "like we do," that they have no emotions "like we do."

All of these ideas have been discredited. Animals do, in fact, think, feel, suffer, just like us. They deserve to be protected from our excesses, not sacrificed to them.

OHSU has spent years, and has taken the lives of literally thousands of lab animals to prove that alcohol abuse is bad for us. Believe it or not, these experiments are still going on up there. Don't we already know alcohol abuse is bad for us? Why do animals, who don't normally participate in that vice, need to suffer for it?

Why? Because there's profit in it. There's grant money to be had, there are lucrative contracts with suppliers, there are long winded academic papers to write.

The animals encarcerated at OHSU lead lives of abject misery. It's even worse than you think. They are confined in tiny cages, they never see the light of day. They suffer day after day after day. The tortures devised up there are endless. Animals are floated in vats of chemicals, they are cut open, things are implanted in them, they are prodded, poked, electrocuted. They are force-fed horrible poisons, they are gassed, their bones are purposely broken. They are violated and traumatized in every imaginable way.

Most of these victims are sacrificed for trivial irrelevancies. How many rabbits need to be blinded before we can finally, unequivocally say, that bleach in the eye is not a good idea. How many dogs need to be butchered before we admit that poison gasses kill? How many monkies lives will be sacrificed before we declare that depressurization causes the bends? How many rats must be force-fed gallons of nutra-sweeet? How many mice will be sarificed to cocaine?

Yes, most of the "experiments" performed on lab animals have nothing to do with medical breakthroughs. But even among the very small fraction that do pertain in some way to new health information, there are many experiments that are either repetitive, unnecessary, or simply cannot be extrapolated to humans.

But even this is not the point. Even if we could save human lives by sacrificing animals by the millions, what gives us the right? "Because they are different"? Yes, the pain of someone who has Parkinson's, or Alzheimer's, or any number of diseases is immeasurable. Yes, we should do as much as we can to spare them from that suffering. And yes, because we are human, we can identify with their suffering more than we can identify with the suffering of lab animals. But this doesn't mean the animals suffer less. We just have no right to do what is done to thousands of animals every day at OHSU.

There are other ways to discover useful information. Let's find them, and leave the animals alone. Let's take the profit out of killing and torturing animals.

TI/Anonymous 25.Apr.2003 15:54

Tree Topper

Excellent point, points that I will think about. Yes animal testing is bad and yes animals have feelings. I don't think any sane person would disagree with that.

"Anonymous" I'm glad you pointed out that you have never done any research yourself and that you are only commenting on what others have said. I don't know if anti-biotics kill guinea pigs. I could make an educated guess that they wouldn't play any role in compromising the immune system, but I don't know, so maybe it does. About the MS setting back years of research I will look into that as well.

However, to place people into the equation isn't at all what is being debated. Yes, without a shadow of a doubt humans and animals are different. Throughout animal existance the strong have and will survive. Humans are no different, the human race will continue the ever lasting search for the fountain of youth. No animals shouldn't be that fountain, but as of now they are.

"TI", you stated that OHSU has taken thousands of animal lives for the study of alcohol, bleach, poinsions, ect. Please tell me where you have obtained that information. I would be very interested in looking at it first hand. As well as the points you made about there living conditions at OHSU, do you have photos, literature, first hand knowledge, everything would be helpfull so I can draw my own conclusions.

Something to think about. Animal testing in the United States of America is legal at this moment. It's legal because the majority of the people make it that way. I wish that the people would stop fighting animal labs and becaume educated, go after this at the roots. If the government is the one that has the power to stop the labs then why hasn't anyone fought it from the inside. Get voted into Office, make a difference by educating people with the powers you gain from becoming a political power. Why attack an organization that has done nothing illegal, there only doing what is legal to do.

Finally, I would like to thank the both of you for giving me something to research and check out. Also, thanks for pondering what I write about and thinking about both sides of the issue. One who can take two contrary points and think about the both of them are enlighted and knowledgeble.

Thank you.

Wow 25.Apr.2003 18:19

CheshireSmile

Cheers to to coherency of the previous posts! No name calling, accusations or anyone using the letter 'u' as a pronoun!

Some information.. penicillin does kill guinea pigs and hamsters,  http://www.curedisease.com/FAQ.html

Animal testing has set back MS research,  http://www.ohsukillsprimates.com/MS_NotWhatWeThink.htm

And in fact, the Multiple Sclerosis Association of America will not support testing on animals.

100,000 americans die every year because of drugs that the medical community thought were safe because they were tested to be safe on animals. The #2 reason for an american to be in a hospital is because of a bad reaction to a drug... that was thought to be safe because of the animal research.

To asses the situation, one must examine the motives behind the opposing arguments. Animal testing is a multi-billion dollar industry, and allot is at stake if it is exposed as fraudulent. On the other hand, while it is true that there are a few people who actually have paying jobs in the Animal Rights movement, most all of it is the work activists who have nothing to gain, except for knowing that a little less blood was shed in the world today because of their efforts.

An excellent page to check out is www.curedisease.com, although i would encourage any one to set out to do research on their own.

Once again, thank you for the thoughtfulness.

Ride 25.Apr.2003 19:26

nocures jackeggers@hotmail.com

Contact above for a ride, the Gary Knudson's above posted address isn't working.

CheshireSmile 25.Apr.2003 23:27

Tree Topper

Thank you for reading and providing me with information. Unfortunately the two websites you provided were highly biased against animal testing. I respect that this is your point of view as well but I perfer to round out my education and I would appreciate it if you can provide another two websites without the same bias.

Thank you.

To Treetopper 26.Apr.2003 07:24

TI

Critical thinking is always a good thing. I applaud you for not jumping to conclusions either way. Yes, it's very difficult to find any literature that isn't biased one way or another on this issue. My suggestion is that you check as many sources as possible, and then check where they got their information. Of course, you have probably thought of that already.

The trouble with your suggestion about going to the root of the problem by getting voted into office, etc., is that American politics are bought and paid for by corporate interests. (If you haven't, I urge you to do some research there too.) Animal research is a very lucrative industry. Therefore, animal research interests have a lot of control, and you will never get into office -- and if you do, you won't be able to make any substantive changes -- on an animal rights ticket.

Just to give you one example, people got together some time back (I think it was the 1980s, but I just got up and can't think clearly yet) and decided the so-called "extremists" were right. The animals in labs were being treated in an immoral manner. So a bill was put forth to at least address their living conditions. It would have required cages to be at least big enough for them to move around, and some other very minor adjustment in conditions.

The industry got in there with a vengeance, through lobbying and through long ties, and by the time the bill actually got passed, it was so watered down it was all but meaningless. The bill only addressed mammals, so birds and fish could still be treated with more cruelty. But the best example of industry influence is this: Rats and mice, under this bill and contrary to all scientific knowledge, are no longer mammals. That's right, under this bill, they were "exempted" from the category of mammal, to prevent any changes being made in the way they are treated in labs.

As for the appalling conditions at OHSU, and the trivial causes for which animals die there, I must tell you that yes, I do have personal knowledge of this. I'm sure you will understand why I can't share the the source of my knowledge, just as I understand why you will need more proof than just my word on this. For general information, you can go to PETA's webpage and their videos. Yes, PETA is obviously against animal testing, so you will definitely find that "bias" there. But you can certainly balance that against all the pro-testing sources you will find on the net which are much better-financed. Also, you can see firsthand video and photographic evidence of laborotory offenses. As for OHSU, many invesigative articles have come out in the past few years about them, particularly about their primate center. I remember one in WW awhile back. You can check their archives, but I will also look it up and try to post it here later, after I wake up more.

The primate center has gotten a lot of press for the awful conditions they subject monkies and apes to. What is less well known is that at OHSU itself, hundreds of dogs and cats -- many former pets -- are sacrificed, along with rabbits, guinea pigs, mice, rats, piglets, etc. Remember the awful video played ad infinitum on CNN last year of "arab terrorists" gassing a dog? Brutal thugs. What CNN failed to report is that this happens every day in the US. In fact, it happens all the time at OHSU.

This is an emotional issue. So you will, indeed, find a lot of bias on both sides. The industry side tends to try to cloak itself in "rational" scientific jargon, but in the end, they are fighting for their profit margin as surely as animal advocates are fighting for the lives of animals.

Please do check into this. Thanks for having an open mind about it. Yes, I pray that you come to a conclusion that will lead you to help the cause. But either way, I trust that you will make an informed and intelligent decision.

Animal research is not lucrative 26.Apr.2003 10:06

Observer

As someone who has worked in cellular, animal, and human-based laboratories, I can say unequivocally that animal research, indeed any research, is not lucrative. The only people who make money are the supply companies, not the researchers. To maintain a lab of animals correctly costs tens of thousands of dollars in food, water, medicine, housing, filtration, venting, etc. I say correctly because every person I have worked with does not support the torture of animals and tries to minimize all pain and suffering while still getting legitimate data.

In this very website, they talk about sewing the eyes of kittens shut without saying why. Simply put, they're learning about how the brains of the blind and deaf can reorganize so they can provide better options for those people. Indymedia conveniently left that part out, though. We WOULD look at the brains of blind and deaf people, but there is some odd stigma about slicing up the brains of humans.

The difficulty with protesting animal research, in my opinion, is that one tends to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, we all know that animal testing hurts and kills animals. So does non-animal testing. Suprised? Don't be. Most of the products needed in non-animal testing (cellular and DNA testing), are made from animals. Antibodies, polymerases, sera, are all made in animal bodies.

As for "bleach" and " makeup" that is so often trotted around, that's the makeup industry. we don't test belach and makeup on animals in scientific labs. We look at alcoholism. To say that we know alcohol is bad, so why should we research it, is like saying "things fall down, we shouldn't have any physics research. " Alcohol isn't bad for you in all contexts, it effects the brains in different ways, it presents with other types of disorders. We're still learning so much about where exactly in the brain this happens, who is more predisoposed towards alcoholism. Not all of this can be done on humans.

To eliminate animal testing is to eliminate any possible treatment for HIV, cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimers, drug addiction, or diabetes. Universe willing, herbal tinkering alone could come up with that. Until the herbalists do, though, we're the second best line.

But I too want "proof" that isn't biased. I don't send you to "godhatesfags" for information on homosexuality, do I?

NOT 26.Apr.2003 11:50

Observer

Someone used my name, and I do NOT agree with their statement. Yes, there can be more than one "observer," but since I have been the only one using this name in the past, to eliminate confusion, I want to add that I do not agree with animal testing.

I think animal testing is a crime against nature and morality, as has been said here already.

Animal research not lucrative? Bullshit. (Oops. This has been a very civil discussion up to this point. Don't want to rain on that parade.) You need to check your facts, pseudo-observer.

If you don't want bias, then you don't want to learn anything about this issue. Because every bit of literature you can find takes one side or the other, usually vehemently. Better to have that up front, by the way, so you can evaluate what you read accordingly. Scientific American and other "objective," "scientific" journals rarely let you in on their ties to the industry. But they have them, none the less.

I don't mind if you want to use my name, but I don't want to be accused of harboring your pro-animal-torture viewpoint.

TI/Anonymous 26.Apr.2003 12:48

Tree Topper

This is based on first hand knowledge. OHSU DOESN"T have apes. Other wise thank you for your information and being civil in answering me back.

"Anonymous" I do want to learn about both sides of the issue, other wise I wouldn't be asking educated questions to try and gain information so I can come to my own conclusions. I was provided with webaddresses with an animal rights bias and merely requested links for information from the other side of the debate to keep my information base well rounded. In order to form an informed opionion one cannot read or listen to only views from one side of the debate. One must be responsible and seek out informtion supporting all views to avoid bigotry.

Thank you.

to treetopper 26.Apr.2003 17:33

apes

Actually, treetopper, at least as of very recently, OHSU has (or had) chimps. Kept in the surgery rooms I believe. Not sure if that's changed, as I have not been up there for a short time.

Real journals 26.Apr.2003 17:35

Curse-less Observer

(Just to make the distinction...I've been Observer for a while now, on various sections of indymedia. Feel free!)

Scientific American is not what I consider a real, scientific journal. Hippocampus. Cell Biology. Annual Proceedings of the New York Academy of Sciences. Those are real journals. Yes, some have advertisements from drug companies, because paper and ink and staff costs money. Ask the average researcher about how rich he or she is getting and most likely you'll get laughed at. The fact is that the only people who make a lot of cash are those who go into industry or those who stop doing research and start being administrators. Do you, original Observer, know anything about science and research other than what has been fed to you by web-sites? I think that after 7 years in the trenches, I can talk pretty candidly about the realities of science and animal research instead of falling prey to emotionality and name-calling.

We don't torture animals. No one gets pleasure from implanting a tube in a rat's brain. This is quite different than what you might expect, I fear, but it is the truth.

Treetopper, whereever and whomever you are, may the NIH smile favorably upon your grants and may Nature expedite your reviews.

To Pedantic Observer 26.Apr.2003 18:23

Humble Researcher

I don't know whether original observer has done any research or not, but I have. That's Humble Researcher, PhD, to you. Yes, I've read your litany of journals and then some, so I'm not dazzled by your "expertise."

You are lacking in veracity. There is a great deal of money and lobbying in the animal experimentation industry. Not only medical research, but also industrial research -- which is even more pointless and trivial, and costs hundreds of thousands of animal lives every year. This is actually a much larger problem than medical experimentation, since most animal experiments are performed for these useless product tests.

But let's get back to medical research, since that's what you are specifically referring to. The funding dollars flowing into OHSU are heavily influenced by animal experiments. There is a great deal of (undeserved, in my opinion) prestige associated with bringing in grant money for experiments performed on animals. So much so, in fact, that results have actually been faked on more than one occasion. So much so that unnecessary and repetitive experiments may be performed just to enhance funding.

Please don't extrapolate from your limited knowledge as some research assistant that there's no money in animal research, or that this money doesn't influence political decisions concerning the necessity and/or morality of animal research. Back to the "rat is not a mammal" example already used to illustrate this point.

By the way, yes, there are people around who don't enjoy performing animal experiments. However, there are also a surprising number of people who actually do enjoy manipulating, controlling, torturing animals. I've seen it myself, and I find it disgusting and all too common.

we need animal research 26.Apr.2003 18:25

Rhinocratic we need animal research

I consider protesting animal experiments neither progressive or left wing.
I have an incurable genetic disorder ( neurofibromatosis). This disorder affects the 17 gene, which can either be inherited or a spontaneous mutation. Basically tumors grow on nerves anywhere on or in the body. It is one of the most common yet least know of genetic disorders affecting about 1 in 4000 people, regardless of sex or race.
Great strides have been made over the past few years, which includes discovering the defect gene and ways to confront the many problems of NF.
This research includes mice, because mice are so similar genetic wise to humans. So mice have been developed with the defective gene, and hence ways of combating this condition which can be either crippling or even deadly. Incidentally the fruit fly (Drosphila melanogaster) also provides a model for studying the genetics and biochemistry of NF. Is that wrong as well?We shouldn't swat a fly because they are equal to humans?
It is important for suffers of any condition that this research continue so we and our kids can have a future. I do put human lives above animals.
And as for the idea that experiments on animals is the same as research on Jews is just plain racist. Its saying that Jews are the same as rats. The old German Nazi propaganda films showed films portraying Jews as rats.
And its telling that some TV news stations are more concerned about animals in the Baghdad Zoo more than the people who have been killed maimed or made homeless by US bombs.


If you or someone you know has NF then check out www nf.org

Rhinocratic

Rhinocratic

Not so fast 27.Apr.2003 09:34

Animals and Experiments

No, we don't need animal experiments, we need cures for diseases and other ills, but we don't need animal experiments.

Maybe animals aren't on the same plane with humans as far as you are concerned -- but then, you're a human, right? To the mice, their lives are more important. What right do we have to take their lives from them, to cause them suffering? We simply have no right. We only do it because we can, but that doesn't make it morally acceptable.

In your mind, the trade-off between the lives of hundreds of thousands of mice is worth the price if it means one human saved, because humans are infinitely more valuable to you. Surely you don't think the mice agree with you on that.

Yes, taking the lives of others and justifying it because they're different from you is the SAME whether you're talking about killing an ethnic minority or killing an animal. The same moral blindness born out of convenience is at work. Saying it's all right to make another suffer because you can benefit from it, and heck, they're not as good and valuable and important as you anyway, that's what we're talking about here.

Once, people couldn't believe the idiocy of those who thought African Americans were entitled to the same rights as white people. Once, people thought you were crazy if you said women deserved equality, did not deserve to be murdered by their husbands for some perceived ill. Once, people thought it was acceptable to enslave, beat, and kill others because it was to their benefit to do so.

Some day, people will look back and marvel at the blind stupidity of those who think it's acceptable to kill and torture animals because we have something to gain from it.

The animal issue 27.Apr.2003 09:59

CatWoman

This is never an easy argument, because it pits two very worthy sides against each other (with one very unworthy, profiteering industry in the middle). Of course we want to do what we can to stop the suffering of people with awful diseases. No one wants to say to someone with Parkinson's disease, for example, or some weird genetic disorder, that their suffering isn't worth the price we might pay to stop it.

I know that if someone I love had such a thing, I might be willing to rip the intestines out of my own neighbor to save them if it would help. That would be a worthy trade to me, but not to my neighbor. Sometimes, the best thing for me is not necessarily the right thing.

I have to agree with some of the posters here that animals' lives are as valuable to them as human lives are to us. As moral beings, we can't justify taking lives and creating suffering in order to further our own ends.

This is not to say that this is an easy choice. Like I said, it's easier in theory than in reality. How do you tell someone with ALS that the cure is too costly?

The thing is, we do that all the time. More people die in this country because they don't have health insurance, or because the cure for what ails them is too expensive, than would die if we stopped all animal experiments. Drug companies refuse to support research on diseases that "only" afflict a few thousand people each year. Even if the lives of these people could be saved, there's not enough profit in their illnesses.

The research industry isn't simply interested in saving lives, they're interested in profit. If we could save thousands of lives with a drug that required no animal testing, they would not support it unless there was money to be made. That's the bottom line.

The truth is, there are alternatives to experimenting on animals. I don't pretend to be an expert in this area, but we need to look into this before committing another non-human life to the dungeons of science.

As for the person who posted here that sites which are against animal testing are too biased, no shit. Bias oozes out of every side on this. One cannot learn what is done to animals in laboratories for superficial reasons and little gain without becoming strongly convinced it's a bad idea. (Unless you stand to gain enormous profit from it, and that happens to be more important to you than what is right.)

Hmmmm. 27.Apr.2003 21:18

Tree Topper

Again OHSU does not, nor have they ever had apes.....Now you can sit around getting all your information from a website that is totally against or completely for the issue. However, I have chosen to look at both sides of the issue trying to keep an open mind. But how can one keep an open mind when the mind starts to become clouded with the popycock of others emotional opinions rather than critical thinking.

I have never said to be anything but a curious person willing to listen and respond with a civil and open mind. So why can't a debate/disscusion remain focused on the topic. The topic was animal testing not people (Jews, African). I would like to help out both sides of the debate by saying, "stay on task. Present your side of the debate by doing your homework and relaying it in a clear and cordual mannor."

I have commented on many topics in this website. For the most part I have recieved great responses without uneducated fits of rage. However, why is it that if a simple question is placed out for people to discuss someone has to personaly attack another because they don't think the same way. What would be the point of asking a question if all you recieved was what you already thought. What would be the point if everyone thought the same way and never questioned someone else. When I ask questions or respond to someones question, I have a very good idea that my thinking is different than the majority of the people that use this website. That is why I ask questions and welcome the responses with an open mind.

So, this is your chance to convince me that animal testing is not benificial to the human race. Debate is a vehicle of knowledge that one can gain through the eyes of others. However, one can only gain that knowledge if he/she can think about both sides of the issue.

Thank you.

to Animals and Experiments 28.Apr.2003 07:38

me (the one and only me)

Thanks for saying that. You know, you're right. I've always been against animal experiments because it's just wrong to make animals suffer. But the parallel between treating animals like objects and treating people like objects is overwhelming.

Now that you mention it, I see how animal experimentation is tied in with the objectification of the Other. People who think it's acceptable to do these things never even question it because they're so centered around themselves and their own experience of the world.

One wonders now how it was possible for people to treat african slaves the way they did. How could they have been so thoughtless, cruel, immoral? Were they evil people? And then we wonder how the Germans could have incarcerated the Jews in concentration camps and performed awful experiments on them. It doesn't seem possible that people were so backward and un-enlightened that they could do something like that to someone else.

But you're right. That's exactly what they're doing now to animals. The same mechanism is at work. The only way they can continue to justify what they do is by saying, in essence, "Well hell, they're only ANIMALS. WE, after all, are PEOPLE." Like that's enough to explain it all, just as saying "we're WHITE people" or "we're GERMAN people" was once thought to be enough.

Once we rise above our penchant for objectification of the Other, it will no longer be possible to be blinded to this kind of suffering, or to justify it on silly platitudes. Just as Americans are able to objectify Arabs right now, so lab coated technocrats and their supporters are able to objectify animals. In both cases, the implication is, as you have said, that "We" are better than "them," so we have the right to do whatever we want to them.

Thanks again, Animals.

Thoughtful Discussion 28.Apr.2003 10:02

Impressed

This is a very well-reasoned and interesting discussion. I've been on the fence with this issue, because I'm squeamish about being cruel to animals but I also want scientists to be able to find cures for diseases. After reading some of the above comments, I did some research of my own into this. I checked many different sources, and I found that, indeed, just as one of the posters said, animal research has apparently been responsible for some major set-backs in medical research. It doesn't seem to have been as helpful as proponents would have me believe, and may have done as much harm for humans as good.
I was also surprised to learn that there are many alternatives to animal testing. I was not aware of how they might do this, and I found this interesting.
Another thing I learned more about is the conditions that lab animals are subjected to. I did know that animals in labs are not treated well, but I guess I thought it would be a little more benign than it was. I was really appalled at some of the videotaped evidence I saw in the last few days. There's some really hideous footage from a university where chimps were used in head injury experiments. They were just torturing these animals. As brain injuries were inflicted on animals with hammers, the "scientists" just laughed and joked. There was no science going on here. It was sickening. It reminded me of the kind of people who run over oppossums on purpose for the "fun" of it. Sick.
I must say, though, that the most interesting thing I have had to think about in all this has been some of the comments above. I never thought about it like that, but the comparison between the cruelty people inflict on each other and the cruelty they inflict on animals is very interesting. Maybe when we can stop looking at other living beings as being inferior to us, we will end all of the needless suffering that goes on at the hands of humans -- against each other, and against the rest of the world.

TO THE IDIOT "JUNK SCIENCE-TREE TOPPER" 03.May.2004 00:39

ANONYMOUS TruLve4u@aol.com

All medical advancements made for infectious diseases such as HIV and AIDS have all been derived from NON-ANIMAL research.....as for environmental/genetic diseases such as heart disease, and let's not forget most types of heart cancer and stroke, can be almost completely preventable by DIET, EXERCISE, and NO SMOKING. it's sickening that science is encouraged to create "magic cures" from animal testing to benefit the lazy, pathetic, and immoral beings we call humans.....you have a consciousness, f*cking use it to realize the value of it and of all other conscious beings, including animals. It's people like you who disgust me, so saturated in your selfishness to not care about sacrificing the wellness of another conscious being for your own pathetic existence's benefit.
Do us all a favor....gain a little intelligence and do a little research on animal testing before you want to make false claims to back up your ignorant immoral views.

TO THE IDIOT "JUNK SCIENCE-TREE TOPPER" 03.May.2004 00:47

ANONYMOUS TruLve4u@aol.com

All medical advancements made for infectious diseases such as HIV and AIDS have all been derived from NON-ANIMAL research.....as for environmental/genetic diseases such as heart disease, and let's not forget most types of heart cancer and stroke, can be almost completely preventable by DIET, EXERCISE, and NO SMOKING. it's sickening that science is encouraged to create "magic cures" from animal testing to benefit the lazy, pathetic, and immoral beings we call humans.....you have a consciousness, f*cking use it to realize the value of it and of all other conscious beings, including animals. It's people like you who disgust me, so saturated in your selfishness to not care about sacrificing the wellness of another conscious being for your own pathetic existence's benefit.
Do us all a favor....gain a little intelligence and do a little research on animal testing before you want to make false claims to back up your ignorant immoral views.