News
Navigation
Other Issues
This Issue
- Front page
- News
- Sports
- Opinions
- Intermission
- Dining Guide
- Night Life Guide
- Careers
- Features
- Classifieds
Buy
SMS
RSS feeds
Comments about "Researchers deny poor animal care"
<< Back to Researchers deny poor animal care
11 Comments on this article:
The points made by Matthew Liebman and Michael Budkie are 100% correct! The whole basis of invasive animal research is, in current times, based on financial gain, not scientific gain. The amount of reduntant research and wasted tax dollars is incredibly high, and the lives of many sentient beings are suffering. No human has the right to do that to another sentient being!
I can't believe that Liebman would propose replacing ethically sound animal research with unethical, destructive "stem-cell research". This kind of logic is what is leading our society downhill. What sane ethicist would value the building-blocks of humans, as more happily destroyable than animals without sentience?
I just love these religious nuts! It's wrong to use cells which feel nothing, but it's ok to subject living feeling animals to misery suffering and death. Sick. I bet Michael Smith is a vivisector too.
Animal testing has been a hinderance to scientific progress for decades. Animals cannot predict how humans will be affected by certain products. e.g. This is why smoking warnings were added so late to cigarettes, because cigarette smoke doesn't cause cancer in beagles. On the other hand, simple asprin causes birth defects in monkeys, but it is perfectly safe for humans. Over 100,000 people die every year in the United States due to adverse reactions to medical procedures that have passed animal tests. It is the 4th biggest killer in the western world. 95% of drugs that pass animal tests are called back because the drug was either useless, harmful, or in some cases, fatal. Animal testing should be abolished for the good of the animals and the humans alike.
You should all take a look at how researchers could get funding if their research was redundant (that's a major criticism or any grant proposal), and also consider how many people are helped everyday by animal research... many more than the 100,000 hurt by adverse reactions. In addition, the money coming in to do research is used to pay for the research and salaries, it's not some sort of prize money for doing research. The research barely pays for itself, there's no real "financial gain". Saying that all that money comes in as a result of research makes it sound like the University at large benefits from it... but there's no incentive like that. All research brings in money or it can't operate and DO research.
Why do so many Americans love animals but hate people?
Are these really the comments of Stanford students? Are these legacy students? Does Stanford not require biology? Apparently these students are so blissfully ignorant that they feel no shame in exposing their ignorance for all to see. Perhaps one will be president someday.
If you believe that the costs of animal research outweighs the benefits, I encourage you to refuse all medical treatments which have been developed with the use of animals. In a word, boycott. Encourage your friends and family to do the same. Discourage your dad from taking any drugs to control blood pressure or cholesterol, and if he eventually needs heart surgery encourage him to refuse the procedure. Tell your grandmother it would be wrong for her to pursue chemical or surgical treatments for her Parkinson's; that it's better that she just sit still. Write letters to congress describe your moral objection to the continued distribution of AIDS medications in Africa - drugs which were developed using the blood of animals. But most importantly, and this is crucial, DON'T VACCINATE YOUR CHILDREN.
"Think for yourself," your argument is very persuasive. I take back my statement, posted above. Witness the joy of free discourse and intellectual growth that characterized our nation.
Lets see, we have a large pig that walks funny, some monkey's and a Cork! Sounds like tha makings of a good joke!
THE MONKEY AND THE PIG
Three agricultural scientists were determined to discover how much a pig could eat before it just had to take a censored. To this end they procured a Yorkshire sow and pushed a large cork into her arse.
After six weeks of force feeding, the sow was the size of the Goodyear airship and threatening to burst. Being humane types, the scientists agreed that the cork must now be removed.
No-one wished to volunteer for the job, however, so in true scientific tradition, they decided to train a monkey for the task and swiftly put a small gibbon through a crash course in cork-pulling.
The day came and the pig was air-lifted out to the desert for safety's sake. Special equipment was set up to monitor the event. Picture the scene: In the middle of the desert, the pig. Behind the pig, the monkey. One mile behind him, the first scientists with a video camera. One mile behind that scientist are the other two scientists with a seismometer. Finally, the monkey reaches up and pulls out the cork. SPLAT!
When the massive geyser has subsided, the two scientists find themselves knee-deep in pigcensored. Grabbing shovels they wade forward and dig out the first man who has been buried up to his neck. When they free him they find that he is laughing hysterically.
"What's so funny?" they ask.
"You should have seen the monkey trying to get the cork back in!"
Enjoy,
Many scientists argue that if we expended the same amount of time and money on alternative research methods, we would get better results.
In fact, in a USDA press release January 12, 2006, Health & Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said:
"Currently, nine out of ten experimental drugs fail in clinical studies because we cannot accurately predict how they will behave in people based on laboratory and animal studies."