talkmagic.co.uk

Farlsborough wrote:...they're already cute, and gah, you beat me to it! God bless you, Rich Hall.

What's more shocking - that animals are tested on in some countries, or that renowned hardman Iain regularly shops at Lush like a big girly man girl...

I too was shocked at the idea of Mr. Iain throwing his Lush bath bombs with relaxing herbs into the tub whilst applying his avocado and coconut face mask.
I for one go au naturale and am often seen scrubbing my bits with a rabbit with shampoo in its eyes

I think the most discusting thing ive ever seen was when an ear was grown on a mouse for a child who needed one. I know I couldnt ever agree to that. Its just not right.

I came up with an idea a long time ago for serious, hardcore, blow-your-house-up anti-vivisectionists to make their wishes known. It takes the form of a simple tattoo somewhere discrete, such as an armpit. If the person is ever taken to hospital and is unable to express their wishes, the tattoo indicates that under no circumstances do they want to be treated with anything that's been tested on animals. No matter how bad the pain, or how life-threatening the condition.

____________________Survey Below______________________________
Animal Testing Survey
Age: 22
Gender: M
Occupation: Studying for a PhD in Chemistry
Education:BSc, MChem, (see Occupation)

What is your opinion on animal testing?

I am 100% in support of animal testing. It is not a nice thing to have to do to animals, nor is it particularly enjoyable to think about - it is, however, necessary for the continued research into pharmacology, immunology and the many, many other fields of medicinal and chemical research that use animals as test subjects.

It is the common view amongst animal rights protesters that animal testing involves scientists trapping wild endangered monkeys and fluffy kittens and torturing them for fun. Needless to say, this is not the case. There are few branches of scientific research more strictly regulated (the only one that springs to mind is, of course, testing on humans) than animal testing.

The cold hard truth of the matter is that scientists spend their time doing research in order to find something interesting enough to get funded to do a bit more research, in order to find something else a bit interesting etc. etc. In other words, it all comes down to money.

Animal testing is not cheap. Animals have to be bought, kept, fed, cared for etc. The work done on them is rigorously scrutinised, and to top it all off they have protesters blowing up their houses and digging up the bodies of their relatives - (no really, that happens.) Still, scientists continue to perform research on animals because it is the best (and sometimes only) way of developing and understanding the effect of the drug/disease/gene being studied. If you could do the same by growing yeast cultures or e-coli strains, they would do that instead, it's a lot cheaper and a LOT easier.

I doubt there's a single person among us who hasn't, at one time or other, used something that wasn't tested on animals at some point. It's not nice to have to think about, but it happens, and we're all better off for it.


Are you concerned in any way that inhumane testing is occurring on these animals; or is it irrelevant to you?

This is a particularly leading question - might I point out that "inhumane" is a poor choice of phrase here. Keeping someone in a barn with nothing but hay to eat is probably considered inhumane. If you did that to a horse, however, I doubt anyone would kick up a fuss.

Is it an important factor in the choosing of shampoo, cosmetics, etc. that it has not been used as a test product on animals?

See Tomo's point.

If you’re against it, what kind of alternatives would you suggest; if it doesn’t bother you that their testing shampoo, cosmetics, etc. on animals why not?

See above.
_________________

Tomo wrote:I came up with an idea a long time ago for serious, hardcore, blow-your-house-up anti-vivisectionists to make their wishes known. It takes the form of a simple tattoo somewhere discrete, such as an armpit. If the person is ever taken to hospital and is unable to express their wishes, the tattoo indicates that under no circumstances do they want to be treated with anything that's been tested on animals. No matter how bad the pain, or how life-threatening the condition.

what happens if the armpit is seriously bitten by an angry ferret and the tattoo is ingested by the miffed domesticated polecat?

greedoniz wrote:what happens if the armpit is seriously bitten by an angry ferret and the tattoo is ingested by the miffed domesticated polecat?

Dunno. I see myself more on the ideas side of this project than on the implementation side...

I'm just shocked that farlsey sees me as a "hard man"...

he should no better after our weekend away in brighton where i kept getting nervous...

IAIN wrote:I'm just shocked that farlsey sees me as a "hard man"...

he should no better after our weekend away in brighton where i kept getting nervous...

Is that the same weeknd where you thought I was a fruit machine and kept popping pound coins in my mouth, pulling my arm and then screaming at me to "Show me your lemons!"?

Serendipity wrote:testing on humans

humans in the west, that is

I agree with you that there is a bias to the questions, though.

aporia wrote:

I agree with you that there is a bias to the questions, though.

Bias in what way? I have a rather nonchalant opinion when it comes to testing on animals.

I still need a couple more responses and if you don't wish to post or PM me your answers, here's a link to Survey Monkey.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=b ... HbPA_3d_3d

In this country hospitals pay student to take part in tests...the taking of medication etc. I dont see why this cant be enough. If someone wants to take part let them. Animals have no choice tho', so I say no to anything I know thats been tested on animals.

No one would want to see their pet cat or dog stripped of its fur and dignity, whats the difference with a lab animal.

Drug testing on humans (clinical trials) comes after preliminary testing (pre-clinical trials). The drug is first tested chemically as far as possible, then tested in animals to check for general safety and how it behaves when metabolised in a living body. Animal testing can also give some rough indication of appropriate dosage and how long the effects are likely to last. None of these data can be determined by chemical analysis, or not yet at least.

In many cases, a drug that seems fine chemically turns out to be toxic in the living body, or causes severe side effects. Or, conversely, it gets cleared out of the body so fast that it's not useful as a drug. Either way, the testing process can stop at this point.

It's only after passing these basic safety checks that testing can begin on humans. The first trials are in healthy people to determine dosage, metabolic clearance, and side effects; and later the test moves on to actual patients. As the Northwick Park tragedy of 2007 showed, occasionally a drug can pass animal tests and still be seriously toxic to humans, but this is very rare.

If animal testing is eliminated, then the first living things to be fed or injected with a new substance would be humans. Frankly, I don't think there would be many volunteers. We could always go back to the classic American method and use prisoners, soldiers, orphans, and mental patients.

I eat meat, eggs, and milk, and take fish-oil capsules. I wear leather and occasionally fur. I kill slugs and aphids in the garden, and would readily kill mice and rats if any came into the house. I own a buffalo-horn carving, leather-bound books, mother-of-pearl jewellery, bone-handled cutlery, and a few bits of antique ivory and tortoiseshell. Thousands of animals have died for my pleasure over the years. I'm happy to boost that figure if it means my next prescription won't kill me.

Anyone else fancy a burger?

Animal Testing Survey
Age: nearly 35
Gender: the fairer sex
Occupation: alcoholic
Education: the big wide world

What is your opinion on animal testing?
Its sick and there is no need for it, except to keep the current 'healthcare industry' secure in its profit margin amongst other things.


Are you concerned in any way that inhumane testing is occurring on these animals; or is it irrelevant to you?
I am 'concerned' that animals suffer needlessly for pointless things and I am 'concerned' that unsafe drugs can be made legal because of it.



Is it an important factor in the choosing of shampoo, cosmetics, etc. that it has not been used as a test product on animals?
Any product thats not been tested on animals I'll buy so long as its pink.


If you’re against it, what kind of alternatives would you suggest; if it doesn’t bother you that their testing shampoo, cosmetics, etc. on animals why not?
Testing these things in the same ways on the people who say its a 'humane necessity'.