This has been split from the global warming thread -SC



I often say that about people who bag on scientists using animals in research.

Yes, but there's a difference...what stonecrest is talking about, basically, is how the general public think science is so great until findings contradict their preconceived beliefs--then, it's suddenly "just a theory" or "it's not proven" or as PD alluded to "it's just secular liberal scientists with an AGENDA". They pick and choose science as it pleases them, and then everyone's suddenly an expert on the subject matter and spout off what scientists apparently must not be taking into account. I don't think animal rights people are generally disputing the findings of those who test animals (if I'm wrong, then correct me). What is in dispute is their methods which they see as cruel or inhumane...

Once again, in stonecrests own words, it is amazing how so many people believe they understand the issue (in this case the use of animals in experimentation) better than the scientists that work on them.

He is correct.

...which is just further proof that you either refuse to listen to the arguments of other viewpoints or have a very thick skull. For further evidence of this, re-read your response (I use that word very lightly) to skywalker. He makes a very accurate statement, in my opinion, and you do what you always do.. you repeat yourself. Thanks but we read you the first time.

Well, go with the first answer then, and yours as well which agreed with it.

The scientists who work on such matters (global warming and animal research) are the authorities. You said, and I agreed, that it is amazing how many people believe (wrongly) that they understand the situation better than the scientists.

The scientists know more about animal research than you, and you're amazed that you think you know more than they do.

You said it yourself.

I'm just reinforcing the statement you made. If you don't like it, retract it.

Furthermore

I believe your statement holds true for both global warming and animal testing, which makes you appear hypocritical on the latter issue.

As for global warming, the scientists are correct in saying that the earth is warming, but there is dispute among scientists as to why it is occurring. I side with the scientists that believe that humans are not the sole responsible party for global warming.

For animal testing, because I have done it, I consider myself among the "scientists who are working on the issue" that you referred to.

I consider you one of the very folks who you, yourself, are amazed to think that they know more than the likes of myself and other researchers.

You were speaking about YOURSELF....you were amazed by YOURSELF.

Which is fine, I guess...but not what you probably had intended.

Sigh. You still have not read skywalker's post, have you? Let me bold the important part for you:



Do you see the words? Are they registering? I have never once claimed that I know more than animal researchers and I would love for you to prove otherwise. I certainly do disagree with their methods though and I do think that alternative methods, if they were researched more rapidly than they currently have been (see my "Your Prototype WIll See You Now" thread), could end up yielding much more accurate, and faster, results than animal testing. Yes, animal testing has had its benefits for mankind, and I've never said otherwise. But it's also true that it has had its faults/inaccuracies.

Nothing is more amusing to me than you continually calling me things like hypocritical or close-minded, or even anti-human, solely because of your inability to understand the words I type.

Nope.

You said, that you are amazed by some people who believe they know more about an issue than the very scientists who are working on it.

What I am saying, and what you fail to understand, is that you question the METHODS of these scientists....which places YOU into the very category of person you are amazed by.

You may not question the results or the WHYs of the study, but you are questioning the methods or the HOWs of the study, in which YOU do not know as much about as the scientists do.

You can continue to try and defend it, but you're in the wrong here Scott.

hmm, I think "methods" was totally the wrong word for me to use. Maybe it would be better to say "the ethical considerations of various practices."
tsunami I understand your point fully, but I think you're approaching this the wrong way. I don't know what type of animal testing you've done, but I think you're assuming you can speak for every party out there that does "research" on different animals for differing purposes. There's plenty of contract "laboratories" that do "research" that many people find unethical and it doesn't necessarily have to do with the scientific method being in question, so much as the nature of what they are engaged in. It doesn't take a phd in biology to realize that there's something a tad unsettling about, say, dogs living their lives in a "research" lab in slatted steel cages with their vocal cords removed so the "researchers" won't be annoyed by their cries of pain, while the big companies that utilize these labs don't seem bothered by it in the least, and get away with it despite evidence aganist them (**coughcoughproctor&gamblecoughcough**). Ethical guidelines are in question sometimes. That's all I was trying to say.
This argument is retarded and repetitious. Apples and oranges.

Or apples to apples.

If scientists believe that it is necessary to test on animals, and they do, then according to stonecrest, we should not question them (because it would be amazing to him to think that we would know more than they).

The statement he made is not mutually exclusive from this argument.

Also, your stories about animal testing, while amusing and entertaining, have little to no basis in reality except for what exists on activist boards and peta circle jerks.

Of COURSE there are problems here and there, but they HARDLY represent the state of research as a whole.

Not in the slightest.

This thread just gave me a headache.

You're still missing the point here. You don't have to have any degree in the sciences to argue about the ends. Is it necessary to test on animals? That depends wholly on what end you're trying to achieve. If you believe that humans are the end-all-be-all of all life on earth, then yes, you'd probably say it's necessary. But if you have a different viewpoint, you're not going to agree with that. And this philosophical and moral question does not rely on science to be understood.

If I agreed that all life should be exploited at the expense of mankind and we should do everything that is humanly possibly to benefit mankind, and the scientists told me that animal testing is the necessary way to do so, then I wouldn't have any right to argue. But that is not where the argument lies; we're not starting from the same premise. Which is what I keep trying to explain over and over and over...

Me too. Let's just test on criminals on death row.

I have to agree. I realize why animal testing is currently taking place. Hell, the FDA requires it for any drug that will be marketed to humans. Does that make it right? It's definitely up for debate. One of the reasons I don't see myself ever working for a drug company is the animal research they are required to conduct. I just don't know if I can agree with all of it, despite the vast amount of money I could make.

I don't think the two issues are this easily comparable. Animal testing is an ethical issue, and global warming is not. Scientists have the knowledge and the expertise about climate change and I choose to listen to the facts and findings they present in deciding what to believe. That has very little to do with people's ethics, and that's what I believe the animal testing debate is about.

Really? Why did Iams just get into trouble? Why are rabbits having their eyes burned out? Why is the EPA looking to retest many pesticides that have already been tested?

At this point, I think you might be applying your experience with animal testing to the entire practice, which almost puts you in the same category as those that are amazed when they don't really know the subject matter. There is no way that you have seen even a small percentage of animal testing centers and yet because you've been involved with the practice you claim to understand all of it.

By the way, animal testing isn't infallable anyway. Humans aren't dogs, monkeys or mice. I wonder how many tests were run on that drug that was just yanked because it causes strokes.

Precisely what I was trying to say, thank you.
And while the story is apparently taking all kinds of twists and turns these days, Iams sent out emails to concerned customers, one of which I received over a year ago, stating something along the lines that the lab in question didn't meet their professional guidelines and the animals had been removed and supposedly adopted out. But yes, it's all made up.

my cat got a 27 on the ACT.

A-one a-more a-time,

Stonecrest stated, in paraphrase, that he is amazed by those who think they understand a subject better than the expert scientists who work on the very issue in question.

He said that.

Which is DIRECTLY related to this:

Researchers who experiment on animals do so because they know it is either the only or most effective way to conduct their research.

Outsiders and activists, whom Scott said think they know MORE about what the scientists know, think that it is wrong for them to do so.

I side with the EXPERTS as opposed to the ACTIVISTS on this issue.

Again, these are his words, not mine, but I agree.

Leave this issue to the experts and not the activists, which would place many of those on this board on the outside (thus "amazing" Scott).

My comments were directly related to your comments on animal testing, specifically your comments that the stories about animal testing and the inhumane treatment of the subjects have little basis in reality



One doesn't need to actually perform tests to realize many of the practices involve extremely cruel treatment to the animals. That is where the activists and opponents come into play. Did I need to own a slave to realize it is wrong? Do I need to abuse a child or work with abused children to understand it is wrong?

Also, if we all left things up to the "experts" this board would have very little activity as we would each have a very small area we were allowed to discuss.