Obama and Vivisection

[conchis]

ah ah ah, let's laugh together!
A Shocking Look Inside Chinese Fur Farms

 

[Mt.Dew_Addict]

Science is about objective analysis. The closest a good scientist can come to bias is in writing their hypothesis (which is based on logic, not predisposition) or the more likely cause of who is writing their paychecks. Of course if they fudge some data and what they were working on kills a couple people when they cleared it, Mr. Paycheck-Writer isn't going to be very happy.

I bring this up for a number of reasons, chiefly that objective analysis in this thread was tossed out the window somewhere between posts one, three and nine. When the Conchis wanted us to extrapolate Obama's thoughts, championed animal rights with a large list of facts, then told us to stop discussing what he derailed the thread into and get back to the original topic.

I've read that maraschino cherries cause cancer in rats and while I'm sure there is enough red #4 or whatever in them to fry the rat's tiny little brain, the human body is much more resilient against that diabolical nonvegetable-based dye. A good scientist will recognize this and likely design another experiment based off the results of the previous one. Repeating the process dozens or hundreds of times until the data is satisfactory.

Animals make excellent test subjects for a number of reasons. Unlike humans the noble rat does not enter a study as a test subject with a bias, they do not lie about their symptoms, they do not have higher thresholds for pain that vary wildly from human to human, and they won't try to shun or please anyone. Rat diets, environments, activities, and just about every aspect of their life can be controlled, where as humans doing tests are going to want to go back to their families at night, keep eating their diet laced in saturated fat and sugar even if they've been instructed not to, they are going to get lazy or forgetful, they will get worried and stay up all night worrying instead of getting healthy amounts of sleep. They are going to get different amounts of exercise and fresh air, the number of differences between two human lives are staggering.

Often times you want a large sample size from many variations of the human body, and that is certainly fine. But if you want something very specific you almost have to turn to animals.

In another decade when computers are 100 times more powerful than they are now we'll have the processing capacity to work out a lot of questions without moving away from a keyboard.

 

[B_Nick8]

Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum. I smell Fanaticisum. Or, to paraphrase Bette, Pet-a, Pet-a, Pet-a.

While I find animal testing distasteful, I also believe it necessary until such time as (someone above remarked) computer models can replicate or project the same results.

As to the OP's original question, and despite Nick4444's typically silly comment, Bbucko put it best:

Obama has no stated position on animal rights. But his positions on disability, HIV and science more generally leads me to guess that he's cautious and pragmatic, as he is about most things.

 

[dreamer20]

Attn Mr. anti-science: Because of animal research and vivisection Barbara Bush and many others like her were made well again:

Barbara Bush expected to make good recovery, surgeon says:

(CNN) -- The surgeon who performed heart surgery Wednesday on former first lady Barbara Bush said Thursday that she is recovering well from the 2 1/2-hour surgery in which her aortic valve was replaced with a pig valve.

Barbara Bush expected to make good recovery, surgeon says - CNN.com


and

Cook Biotech Offers Stunning Tissue Regeneration Capability

Imagine healing from a serious tissue wound after only a few days or weeks simply by injecting it with tissue regenerating foam or gel... The tissue regeneration industry, including leading player Cook Biotech, is hard at work to achieve this exciting goal.
Cook Biotech’s awesome family of tissue regeneration products are marketed under the Biodesign name. These sheets of pig derived bio-material, known as acellular matrix, can greatly enhance the body’s ability to regenerate healthy, lasting tissue when inserted into wounds from burns, gashes, or surgery.

Tissue Regenerating Foams and Gels Under Development | Singularity Hub


Cook Biotech Incorporated To Be Featured on History Channel's Modern Marvels | Reuters

 

[nattynatt]

There are most certainly too many animal experiments. However, if the practice was to be outlawed in western, 'liberal' democracies, pharmaceutical companies would shift the laboratories to developing countries & experiment with impunity. Also allowing the pharms to save money on accommodation & handling costs of the experimentees. In basic terms: their treatment & living conditions would be appalling. This has already happened in many cases. For this reason, I am a cautious supporter of animal experimentation

 

[conchis]

Attn Mr Scientific Dreamer:

as prof Pietro Croce said, Vivisection or Science: a choice...
50 Disasters

 

[conchis]

ps:
VIVISECTION OR SCIENCE: A CHOICE TO MAKE

 

[JustAsking]

Dear OP,
Nothing has been published on our new President's view on vivisection. As such, this makes it difficult to answer your question. I can call hiim if you like?

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Attn Mr Scientific Dreamer:

as prof Pietro Croce said, Vivisection or Science: a choice...
50 Disasters

Well, apparently Pietro Croce never took a course in logic... which essentially calls into question every paper he has ever published, as failure to analyze experimentation logically is a fundamental methodological flaw.

I say this because the title IN ITSELF is a perfect example of a logical fallacy... a False Dilemma.

In any serious scientific circle stating such an argument would get cat calls boos and your funding cut.

Animal testing has gone on for hundreds of years...
Most of it in the past 100 years.

And you would have to be a class A moron to suggest that the results of that testing... everything from antibiotics to break-thru surgical procedures... do not classify as products of science.


So, sorry Mr Rabid animals rights guy... but "prof" Croces's thesis is insupportable hyperbole on its face.

Animal testing has saved millions of lives around the world, and made products we consume vastly safer.


Period.


And you should not invest too much faith in matters best left up to actual verifiable results.

 

[conchis]

Well, apparently Pietro Croce never took a course in logic... which essentially calls into question every paper he has ever published, as failure to analyze experimentation logically is a fundamental methodological flaw.

I say this because the title IN ITSELF is a perfect example of a logical fallacy... a False Dilemma.

In any serious scientific circle stating such an argument would get cat calls boos and your funding cut.

Animal testing has gone on for hundreds of years...
Most of it in the past 100 years.


And you would have to be a class A moron to suggest that the results of that testing... everything from antibiotics to break-thru surgical procedures... do not classify as products of science.


So, sorry Mr Rabid animals rights guy... but "prof" Croces's thesis is insupportable hyperbole on its face.

Animal testing has saved millions of lives around the world, and made products we consume vastly safer.



Period.


And you should not invest too much faith in matters best left up to actual verifiable results.

Since when did ignorance become a point of view?

 

[Nrets]

I would wager to say that animal testing has been beneficial in the development of many human medical treatments. Sure there are misses, like the drug that created limbless babies, or cervix cancer in women, but some of the drugs that help fight disease were proven amongst non-humans. This is an excerpt from a website: "Testing on animals has helped develop vaccines for many life threatening diseases like Herpes Simplex, Hepatitis B, Polio, rabies, malaria, mumps and virus related to organ transplantation rejection. In addition to this, animal testing has also helped in the refinement of procedures related to measuring the blood pressure, pacemaker technology and the perfection of the heart and lung diseases. You will be surprised to read that anesthesia which is used to numb the body during surgery and acute pain is available today after it was successfully tested on animals first."

The question on vivisection is not about the infliction of pointless harm on animals in the name of science.
The question of vivisection is about wanting true equality for all sentient beings, even if it means putting a halt to sciences that help humans. Industrialised society makes this level of equality very difficult.
The people who are very anti-vivisection are usually anti-civilization.
It is not a stance I am entirely against.
We HAVE lost our connection with the Earth, a living breathing entity.

I think in America, land of the free enterprise, home of the brave capitalist; vivisection is an issue that most people have never heard of.

I know the FBI has heard of it. Which is why mere hooligans who take strong stances in the U.S. against vivisection are labeled terrorists.

http://www.mercurynews.com/centralcoast/ci_11955595

Solidarity with the AETA 4! : Indybay

Support the AETA 4


Vivisection is not something Obama, an elected leader of the establishment, would touch with a ten-foot pole. Maybe it will be in 20 years after groups like the AETA 4 bring it to the forefront.

 

[dreamer20]

I think they should do the experimental testing on criminals. The jails are overcrowded...

Let the animals go...

You could also inject these prisoners with deadly diseases and monitor different treatment patterns, etc.

^^That type of research, which the U.S. government once did on unsuspecting persons, was rightly condemned and outlawed. I hope to never see such abhorrent experimentation reinstated or persons sharing the above P.O.V. gaining control of the U.S. government to re-establish said practices.

CBC News - Health - U.S. sorry for Guatemala syphilis experiment


Plutonium Files: How the U.S. Secretly Fed Radioactivity to Thousands of Americans

 

[Empathizer]

Can we get a PETA spokesperson in here?

Please, let's not.

PETA is less about loving animals and more about worshipping Peter Singer and Ingrid Newkirk.

Oh, and killing scientists.

 

[Empathizer]

^^That type of research, which the U.S. government once did on unsuspecting persons, was rightly condemned and outlawed. I hope to never see such abhorrent experimentation reinstated or persons sharing the above P.O.V. gaining control of the U.S. government to re-establish said practices.

CBC News - Health - U.S. sorry for Guatemala syphilis experiment


Plutonium Files: How the U.S. Secretly Fed Radioactivity to Thousands of Americans

Yeah. But rabid Animal Rights activists would cheerfully sign the paper allowing for further Tuskegee-style experimentation if it meant not hurting any more rats.

 

[Penis Aficionado]

Yeah. But rabid Animal Rights activists would cheerfully sign the paper allowing for further Tuskegee-style experimentation if it meant not hurting any more rats.

I don't think that's true. At least I hope not.

I would never approve of what went on in the Tuskegee syphillis studies, where the government allowed innocent people to suffer and die from a treatable disease.

With people who've committed violent crimes, and face either very long prison sentences or execution, I wouldn't object to giving them the choice to serve as experimental subjects in exchange for somehow making their lives longer and/or more pleasant.

 

[dandelion]

^^That type of research, which the U.S. government once did on unsuspecting persons, was rightly condemned and outlawed. I hope to never see such abhorrent experimentation reinstated or persons sharing the above P.O.V. gaining control of the U.S. government to re-establish said practices.

Im sure human experimentation was the original way of finding out most things, either deliberate or accidental. It still is. Yesterday someone was talking about the drug trial in the recent past where the test subjects were given some drug approved on animals and all ended up seriously ill. The point being argued now was how come such trials were typically conducted on several people at once, rather than starting with one and working upwards if all was well.

It is a commonly held view that one human life is worth more than any number of animals, thus justifying as many animal trials as you please for any minimal gain in knowledge. Maybe there are more animal trials now, but the cost of making a mistake and killing someone in a human trial is going up all the time. So however useless the animal trials, companies are still going to do them.

I dont know about the US, but the Uk is now paranoid about terrorist attacks. This despite the fact there are far fewer now than when I was young. I put it down to the generation with experience of war in the UK having largely died off or passed out of positions of authority. If you experienced swathes of London being blown up nightly, it put the IRAs efforts into perspective. Compared to the IRA the current lot of terrorists have done hardly anything. We have an unrealistic expectation now of having risk free lives, and politicians who for reasons of their own pander to this. Human beings have always lived by killing animals and still do. We choose to make use of animals for different things before we kill them with varying levels of barbarity. Mostly we make species entirely extinct, so perhaps the lab rats are some of the lucky ones. Rats are one of the few to have done well out of humans.

No idea what Obama thinks. Probably thinks it is something else he would rather not get involved in.

 

[liberalcynic]

I like to consider a plastic surgeon a vivisectionist.