dreamchaser

Our psychology class is debating using animals for psychological testing. What do you think about it?

Do you think we we should use psyc drugs and other experimentation on animals?

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

omegaman

I'd rather they experiment on humans such as pedophiles.

__________________

Liebling:-)))

I made several posts in that thread.

http://www.alldeaf.com/general-healt...s-consent.html


I disagree to use animal as an experiment.

Do you really believe that human being and animal are the same?

I'm for Experiments on human as a voluntarily...

__________________

jillio

In a word, yes.

Buffalo

I am with you, Liebling!

__________________

“The problem is not that the (deaf) students do not hear. The problem is that the hearing world does not listen. “- Rev Jesse L. Jackson ( American Civil Rights Activist, Minister)

Buffalo

Could you please explain why? I am with Leibling that animals and humans aren't the same. Mice can't burp so any carbonated beverage will kill them but not us. Suppose they have tested a sure-fire cure for us on mice but they died due to their inability to burp and we missed out a cure for something.

__________________

“The problem is not that the (deaf) students do not hear. The problem is that the hearing world does not listen. “- Rev Jesse L. Jackson ( American Civil Rights Activist, Minister)

pek1

There is nothing in an animal that is even remotely similar to a human, so why experiment on animals. We have a few million prisoners incarcerated, why not experiment on them, as they are wards of their respective state or federal government?

__________________
Pete

dreamchaser

This is a very big subject. I will be really interested in hearing the debates this week in class.

Thanks for your input. It gave me good food for thought.

ClearSky

I don't think humans should be used for experiments. If you go to PETA website....not that I support their ways of handling animal rights, but they do have sources that states that animals are not necessary to be used for experiments or testing of products. They state that there are technologies to do that. It think many people are not aware that the technologies are available. Some companies know it, but they remain ignorant to it for some reason. It's a good reason to research whether or not technologies are more expensive than treating animals, but still technologies should last longer in use than treating animals. Some companies do not test in animals, so why can't companies look for other avenues than animal experimentation? The sources also state that animals are not the same as humans, so that makes a lot of sense to me that I'd be weary that their experimentations on animals are legit that it's okay for human use.

dreamchaser

I, too, fear the use of products and drugs on animals. What do you think about studying their behavior in non-invasive manners?

jillio

Sure, I can explain.

The majority of psychological experiementation is behavioral. We have learned a great deal regarding the connection to learned behavior vs. innate behavior, and how to address the issues of learned behavior via they processes through which it occurs through animal experimentation of this nature. There are certain things that are restricted ethically in the use of a human population. For instance, we have learned a great deal about addiction by the study of animal behavior, and it has led to more effective theory and treatment when it comes to the addiction issues of humans. However, we could not have conducted the same studies on humans because of ethical considerations. Without the research and the findings, humans would not have received the benefits.

When researchers utilize various species of animals, they take those variables that create differences into consideration and control for them. So a mouse not being able to burp would not be an issue, unless they were testing a drug in which burping was necessary for the drug to function as intended. In which case, they would use a species that could burp.

The fact is, with meds and surgical procedures, experimentation is necessary to insure relative safety for use in humans. That experimentation either has to occur with animals, or with humans. Personally, I would rather see a drug tested on an animal prior to it being approved for use in a human than have to be overly concerned that someone came up with something in a laboratory that hasn't been tested, and is being prescribed on a wide spread basis.

jillio

Technology is improving, but the simple fact of the matter is that technology cannot test for the same variables as a living organism. Unless a substance has been tested on a living organism, we do not know how it will interact with other living organisms. We can only hypothesize.

Jiro

yes. I have no problem about it. Yes I understand the animals suffered and died from the experiments but it's better than using humans, right? If you prefer no animals and no humans to be involved in experiments - then we wouldn't be here this far. We'd still be stuck with Medieval Ages medical technology and our life expectancy would be barely 40 years old.

oh? don't you know our vaccination, cure, surgery procedure, etc. came from rats? Don't forget to give thanks to rats if they found a cure or medical procedure to restore our hearing via stem cell.

and about performing experiments on a few million prisoners... I suppose you don't have any problem with Holocaust and you must be a Nazi supporter.

jillio

And, humans and Bonobos share 99.9% of their DNA. I say that is more than "remotely close."

dreamchaser

thanks Jillo. I am just now starting to look into these things. I always appreciate your input, because you have taken the time to learn about so many things. Now, I have some angles to ponder on.

I understand that CARE is very valuable in protecting the animals used. I am an animal lover, and I must say, I have been a little torn on the issues. If it came to saving one of my children, I suppose I would be more than willing to sacrifice an inimal or myself for that matter.

The only area of testing I was afraid of was in the psyc drug realm.. Most of the other tests are pretty benign.

Buffalo

Do NOT put the Holocaust victims (Jewish people, Roma people, Gay people, etc) on the par with prisoners (the kind that killed people)!!! Those two groups aren't the same and never will! Those Holocaust victims died just because of what they are, not what they did. I am for experiements on prisoners (just those who took lives and want to make amends - in another word, volunteering prisoners). They took lives but they can make amends by giving life to the future lives.

__________________

“The problem is not that the (deaf) students do not hear. The problem is that the hearing world does not listen. “- Rev Jesse L. Jackson ( American Civil Rights Activist, Minister)

jillio

You are very welcome. And you might keep in mind that there are ethical guidelines for the treatment of animals used in experiments, and research psychologists are, on the whole, very concerned with such.

Tousi

So, if you have been cured of something, kiss a rat.

Buffalo

I am almost all for the behavior studying but I question the drugging/abusing of the animals and the separation of a baby primate/animal from its mom (unless the mom rejected it). I have read "Next of Kin" by Roger Fouts and didn't like the abuses the chimpanzees had endured (not by Roger Fouts). I appreciated that the study of Washoe and other primates has blown some of Noam Chomsky's theories out of the water. There are some linguists who ignored the problems in the Cartesian (the thought that human is only one with language because of speech) thinking. That is where I am leery of any behaviorists as they might try to fit something in what they think it ought to be. I suspect that they (and the some of the public, especially in the past) considered the deaf people to be on the same par as primates (as not able to speak and use gestures) and mabye still is. I also suspect that the Washoe Project might have contribute to the recongization of ASL as a language in its own right.

Animal abusers could be jailed/fined so that should apply to science sector as well. Animals are sentient. The Washoe Project prove that primates do have language. I can see how other mammals do have language. The only thing I can see as win-win situtation is where the pet owners can bring their sick pets for some help. The scientists don't have to keep mice and hire someone to feed them and clean their cages. That is saving the costs. I have heard of vets treating dogs' cancer and I can see how that can help human in some ways. I have seen a permanent leg prothesis is used on a dog who lost its leg in an accident and they said they hope to use it on humans if it goes well. They can help the cats/dogs that don't have a home, with whatever the problem the animal have and then find a home for them (of course, the puppy mills will have to be outlawed first). I do think that is acceptable as it is helping the animals as oppose to breaking their bones/infect them with viruses/forcing diseases on them, just to test them.

I have heard of newborn kittens who had their eyelids sewn shut so the scientists can study the effect of visual deprivation. Why don't they just study the human blind kids instead? They can get feedbacks that way which they won't with kittens.

How do they know that the new medicine would cause gases in mice unless they opened up some dead mice to check for it? Do they really check it out? Or they assumed it won't cause the gases in mice??

I have heard that they test chemicals on rabbits' eyes over and over with same chemical. For what? I also heard of 50:50 which means do the same thing over and over until half of the rabbits died. For what??? If they know that a chemical is not 100% safe then why use it? There are things in animal experiments that really don't make any sense to me. Lot of times, they are downright absurd.

As for drug uses and addictions, isn't it okay to study the drug addicts at their (addicts) places with their permission as long as one doesn't give them drugs?? I know it is unethical to provide them drugs. They can get feedbacks/thoughts which they will never get from animals.

__________________

“The problem is not that the (deaf) students do not hear. The problem is that the hearing world does not listen. “- Rev Jesse L. Jackson ( American Civil Rights Activist, Minister)

jillio

Because in order to study addiction, one has to study both pre-condition and post-condition. That is not possible using the human population.

Noam Chomsky's theories were found to be faulty by several linguistic studies. The Wahoe studies were very flawed, and really didn't do much to advance the understanding of ASL. But that is another story.

The fact of the matter is, new drugs and new treatments will never be approved without experimentation.

ClearSky

This is tricky because what's non-invasive may be invasive or abusive to the animals.

I wouldn't support animals being on cages. I would support them if they were studied in their natural setting. If you take them to study them in a specific area as long as it is not invasive or abusive and returned to their natural surrounding. We humans might do the same.

ClearSky

If something requires the testing on animals because it could be harmful to humans, then it's probably not right to use it on humans. Why bother testing on animals? Why are the other companies able to do No Animal Testing? Why can't the others do the same? We are also not the same as animals. Being close enough is no exuse in my opinion. We know that chocolates aren't safe for animals, so that shows we aren't like the animals to compare.

It's difficult for me to say that it's better to use it on an animal than on a human because animals suffer. How can these people sit there and watch animals be stressed out? Back in the ages we used natural elements than chemicals. I believe we would have evolved without making animals suffer for a new face cream because we now have technologies that could test out those natural elements or those that can be tested with technologies that we didn't have back then. Back then, we lacked technologies.

I saw on tv about a woman who volunteers to have the HIV virus injected to her while testing things to find a cure. She said she was fine with it and probably passionate about finding a cure. There's probably volunteers out there who would do this. Animals are probably used ignorantly because they are probably cheaper to use while humans you have to pay them.

Jiro

because these companies who do not test on animals are the one who make make-up products... shampoo.. or whatsoever. how convenient of them to proudly say "NO ANIMAL TESTING!" Let's see if they can make profits from medicines by doing that way. I can certainly tell you many people are going to die if all pharmaceutical companies do this way.

no. it's not because animals are cheaper to use. it's because it is unethical. "Do no harm" is what doctor has to follow. natural elements.... hmm... so do you propose that we kill all Amazon Forests to provide medicines, shampoo, etc. to billion of people for years?

but no we do not have unlimited natural resources and forests. there are only finite amount of natural elements so how do you propose we supply medicines to billion of people for years? that's what synthetic medicine (or a "chemical" as you called it) is for - an exact copy of natural element and an additional enhancement if needed.

jillio

Observation does not allow for control of variables. In order for a study to defined as experiemental in nature, one must be able to control for the specific variables being investigated.

jillio

This type of testing is not only illegal, it is unethical.

ClearSky

Where do you think the chemicals come from? They come from what's available on earth. It's only that they are modified to become chemicals.

I have become very weary of phamaceutical corporations coming up with pills every year, and some of us already know that those drugs out there can do more harm than good to people's health. Anyway, they are still prescribed with many side effects to it. People take it anyway because it's been approved by the FDA even though it still has side effects. They feel safe that the FDA say it's okay to take even though this amount of side effects could occur. An animal's not going to say who's gonna get those side effects. It is absurd and ignorance. Those companies get millions of dollars. They don't care.

jillio

Anytime you put something into your body that does not occur there naturally, there are side effects. Even vitamins have side effects, especially when taken in megadoses. Herbs have side effects. Aspirin, which comes from the bark of a tree, has side effects. The point of testing is to discover the prevalence of those side effects, as well as the severity. Anytime one takes a medication, one must weigh the benefits against the possible side effects.

Animal testing allows side effects to be kept to a minimum. Animal testing can also determine if a medication works for its intended purpose or not. Until it is tested on a living organism, whether it will work for its intended purpose or not is nothing more than hypothesis.

Would you prefer that we give humans untested medications?