Animal testing 'requires tighter regulation'

Animal testing 'requires tighter regulation'

www.bbc.co.uk

Better regulation is needed to govern rapidly expanding research in animals containing human tissue or genes, the Academy of Medical Sciences says.

It said such studies were necessary for medical research, but that new ethical issues could emerge and called for a national body of experts.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.bioedge.org

I'm a bit on the fence regarding animal testing in general, and won't comment on that as such or I'll drag myself into an ethical argument before I've started, but some of the experiments spoken of in the article, such as experiments on monkey brains that result in 'human behavior' turn my stomach a little bit.

People have been using animal testing in order to make sure the drugs work on human cells rather than testing on humans but more complex experiments regarding embro's containing human DNA can't be regulated at the moment.

In brief, the article explains that Category 1 experiments, like adding breast cells to mice to treat cancer, will be allowed to continue (hm). Category 2, such as adding genes to an animal to make it 'human like'" will require "strong justification", but will still be allowed. And Category three, like developing "mixed embryos" will be stopped entirely.

I'd like to believe them when they say that none of these things have happened, but I worry that the legislation changes suggest that it has already.

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Being the curious animal that man is, I have to think that even though researchers say "We haven't done that!" that there is someone, somewhere who has. I was reading somewhere this morning, can't find where, that these subjects are destroyed early on, before they fully develop. I see shades of old "Outer Limits" episodes, with someone taking one home and raising it in his basement.

It is a huge controversial subject, and I too have very mixed feelings.

There definitely needs to be more regulation in animal testing. Some of the things they do to animals are DISGUSTING. Like doing major operations and giving the animals no pain medication. Burning pigs with blowtorches to test burns, while the pigs are 100% conscious and screaming in pain. Vivisecting primates, which are highly intelligent. Keeping animals in cages with no stimulation. Putting hair dye in retrained rabbits eyes to see what it does.

I care more about the animals conditions and treatments than if they are going to splice a few genes into another one. Care about the LIVING and CONSCIOUS being tortured in unspeakable ways. Human or not human, they still feel pain and have emotional responses.

Do I ever agree with this. I read an article about the many different animal human hyrids in the UK laboratories, and it brings up so much that is wrong. My concern is consciousness and feelings of pain, and having their feelings hurt. They have no right to up the level of suffering of their lab animals, and there should be always other methods used to begin with.

Animal testing is a positive sign that a society is corrupt to its core, especially when the populace mostly turn a blind eye because they perceive personal benefit will derive from other animals abject suffering.

"Animal" testing is pure malevolence and evil shrouded in a thin veil of irrational and pompous justification, of which only gullible fools are deceived by.

Fruits born from such wicked grounds will always poison and doom the ones who eat them. The effects may not be obvious at first, but their culmination will be undeniable and devastating. Societies and technologies built on such foundations of evil will always crumble and inevitably destroy all that they support.

Every soul on this board with even a minute capacity for compassion should find this "practice" deplorable in the most extreme sense.

This does not need "regulation", it needs abolishment.

Im perfectly happy with animal testing and fully support it.

I firmly believe the advances in science are worth the misery these animals inevitably face. And if i could get away with it, i would basically breed humans for medical testing aswell.

But that just isnt cool apparently.

Why does this need to be regulated by government?

I would like to see some functional and logical reasons for government involvement and regulation - not emotion-based rationalizations.

Why could this not be handled by third parties - like the electronics/computers/communications industry being gauged by the standards set by the IEEE or ISO (for manufacturing)? If you wish to do business in electronics and/or manufacturing - you comply with applicable IEEE and ISO standards and pass their audits - or you don't have many other businesses that will award you a contract.

Let all of these concerned parties start up their own regulatory committee that gains industry recognition.

reply to post by Aim64C


The arguments between people supporting and people dead-set against make it difficult for either of these parties to reach non-biased regulations.

The government is supposed to approach things from a non-biased viewpoint, and because it's such an emotionally charged issue, I'd guess thats why it was down to a third party. It's their job to face things such as this and set the regulations from a standpoint. I wouldn't want their job. I can see why we need animal testing, and have a lot to thank for it (especially with my medical condition) - I can't condemn it. Yet, I love animals, and therefore don't like it. The idea of people hybridizing things upsets me. We shouldn't mess with things like that, IMO.

But at the end of the day, technology isn't the same as a life. I doubt as many people get worked up about computers as they do about animals. That's why the government needs to step in.

reply to post by Ayana

The government is supposed to approach things from a non-biased viewpoint, and because it's such an emotionally charged issue, I'd guess thats why it was down to a third party. It's their job to face things such as this and set the regulations from a standpoint.

This is a conspiracy forum - surely you can come up with more than a few pieces of legislation (Patriot Act) that you agree are of very questionable benefit (No Child Left Behind) and only continue to further inflame the issue ("Obamacare").

Yet, I love animals, and therefore don't like it. The idea of people hybridizing things upsets me. We shouldn't mess with things like that, IMO.

I can appreciate that. I don't agree with Sony's marketing strategies for their proprietary formats - like how they used the Playstation 3 to secure the Blu-Ray market. That's a rather subversive strategy that undermines the customer in ways worse than 'criminal' profit margins. Similarly, I dislike Apple - but that's just because I find them to be something of a snobbish company and community that seem to be under the impression they don't poop - let alone a variety that stinks. Look no further than their TV advertisements for the mac computers - such an overt -attack- on competitors in an advertisement is completely unprofessional and smells like the type of thinking behind political campaigns. I don't care to support a company that has nothing to offer in support of their product other than "look at the faults of our competitor!" That doesn't belong in the industry.

But I don't expect the government to come in and say that Apple can't make such advertisements - or Sony can't sell its next console with a proprietary data storage system. I just don't support those companies and, when appropriate, discuss my reasons for dislike of those companies with others - sometimes they agree with me - sometimes they don't.

But at the end of the day, technology isn't the same as a life.

Not in an unbiased view.

I doubt as many people get worked up about computers as they do about animals. That's why the government needs to step in.

Why does the government need to step in? Because a bunch of people don't like it? A bunch of people don't like abortion or gay marriage. How has government involvement in those issues done anything to resolve them? When abortion was banned, you had teens running around with coat hangers and bicycle spokes scrambling up their wombs. When it was legal - you had radicals fire-bombing abortion clinics (it's a little less overtly violent now - but that can change with the drop of a hat).

Government legislation has done nothing to tame either issue. If anything - the mere idea of getting the government involved has only made the issue more public and even more violent - as the government declares a 'winner' and a 'loser' to the argument - raising the stakes of the disagreement.

I'm British. I know nothing of Obamacare, I'm afraid. Or at least, not enough to use it in comparisons.

I don't agree with everything the government does, in fact, I don't agree with a lot of it. I don't think anyone does these days. But things generally come back down to them, and so they have to get involved.

I can't accept that a life is at the same level as a computer and needs the same sort of treatment. I also can't think of a committee who would be able to decide, because, like I said, it's very emotional.

But at the end of the day, this is getting off-topic. The thread is about whether the legislation needs changing to prevent the affectionately named 'Frankenstein' creations being made and then destroyed, or made for the sake of making them; not who makes the decisions.

..

reply to post by Ayana

But at the end of the day, this is getting off-topic. The thread is about whether the legislation needs changing to prevent the affectionately named 'Frankenstein' creations being made and then destroyed, or made for the sake of making them; not who makes the decisions.

Legislation doesn't really need changing. What harm is there in this research being done that justifies government involvement?

I would agree to the formation of a non-government group that reports on the types of research being done at a given company as a sort of transparency mechanism - people and businesses do have a rational reason to choose not to award a contract based on the practices of that business.

However, I just don't see the justification for government intervention.

I don't agree with everything the government does, in fact, I don't agree with a lot of it. I don't think anyone does these days. But things generally come back down to them, and so they have to get involved.

What kind of complacent dependence is this? Deferring everything to a governmental authority pretty much makes an effective oligarchy. I'll refrain from commenting too much more - but I do consider this to be somewhat on-topic. The very premise of regulation is the premise that another group of people should be allowed to mandate the actions of another group.

"It usually comes back around to government, anyway..." is merely a complacent reason for supporting the expansion of power held by a disproportionately small group of people. Using emotional rationale to support it doesn't constitute, in my opinion, a very valid or substantial reason for government involvement. Which is a very important consideration in any regulatory initiative.

reply to post by Aim64C


The harm is in what they're doing, and that's the point. To start along this path is the same as starting along the path of euthanasia, or abortion. In other words, it's an ethical issue, and as far as I'm aware (at least over here) the ethical issues are usually debated and decided in parliament.

At the end of the day, the government will get the flack if it gets out of hand, and because there is nowhere else to go to - it comes down the them.

I can imagine setting up the organisation you propose would take a lot more money and effort than people have. To create another governing body to enforce the rules would be a lot of hassle, and finding the right people would be too.

Really, I doubt anyone in parliament actually cares - they're too busy worrying about how they're coming across in the News of the World scandal, so it would probably be better to have a separate organisation.

Problem is, right now, we don't - and I don't think it's a viable option in the medical community, or animal rights community (imagine the fights!) - so it comes down to the people 'in charge' at the time. And really, they'll do what suits the masses anyway - allow testing to go on to an extent, but prevent the more sickening stuff from happening.

Don't get me wrong, I see where you're coming from. We just both think quite differently. And that's never a bad thing on a discussion board.

reply to post by Ayana

The harm is in what they're doing, and that's the point. To start along this path is the same as starting along the path of euthanasia, or abortion. In other words, it's an ethical issue, and as far as I'm aware (at least over here) the ethical issues are usually debated and decided in parliament.

How is what they are doing harmful to people in a way that requires regulation?

There's an ethical issue in abortion because a fetus is/will-be (depending upon your view) a -human- life that, if aborted, is being denied the 'right to live.' It's a -human- rights issue - something the governments are involved in inherently.

Where's the issue here that requires government involvement?

I can imagine setting up the organisation you propose would take a lot more money and effort than people have. To create another governing body to enforce the rules would be a lot of hassle, and finding the right people would be too.

So... who is going to pay for it and organize it if the government decides to do it? You go on, later, to state that parliament is busy hassling with other things (as-is our congress).

Organizations like the IEEE and ISO were established using private and corporate funds because it was realized that establishing and maintaining industry standards was good for business and consumers, overall.

Problem is, right now, we don't - and I don't think it's a viable option in the medical community, or animal rights community (imagine the fights!) - so it comes down to the people 'in charge' at the time.

This doesn't make any sense at all. The companies are already doing whatever it is that they are doing. Rights groups are their own forms of regulation - they tend to investigate and report these companies. I have more than a few friends who have chosen to not support the large-scale factory slaughter-houses and prefer to be vegetarian spare for when they can get meat from sources they don't disagree with. An entire industry has arisen out of concerns over genetic engineering of crops and chemical pesticides.

The medical industry won't behave in a manner that is fundamentally different.

reply to post by Aim64C


From a medical point of view, the mutating and cross-species jumping of disease is an issue if the creatures are allowed to grow and live. Now, that's all pretty doomsday, but it is a potential threat to the human race.

On the other hand, if something 'becomes' part-human by our creation then who's to decide it doesn't have the same rights. To create it and then destroy it as an embryo then becomes a massive issue - an issue we then usually pass on to parliament.

At the end of the day, they have a say in the regulation process because they do. The people involved in the debate are more concerned about putting across their views on whether or not it should be done than who says it's so. Whether or not they should be is an entirely different matter, but personally, I see why they are. It's fine if you don't, I do understand that. But we're running in circles here

No, no no...

This is ATS, and on ATS we consider 'regulation' a communist Muslim tool of Oppression.

Just let the free markets figure it out on their own, right guys??

reply to post by Ayana

From a medical point of view, the mutating and cross-species jumping of disease is an issue if the creatures are allowed to grow and live. Now, that's all pretty doomsday, but it is a potential threat to the human race.

Would you care to establish this as a valid concern? Trans-species viral strains are not all that uncommon - but centered mostly around cell types rather than the species. This is because viruses operate through the structure of the lipids in the cell membrane.

Further - this is genetic engineering of the potential host cells - not the viruses. Is there any known phenomena where a virus that affects, say, felines, would somehow be modified by infecting a hybrid line of cells to allow infection of a human being?

If there is - I'm not aware of it. At worst - you're taking a cat and making it potential vulnerable to certain viruses that affect humans - not allowing feline viruses to infect humans.

On the other hand, if something 'becomes' part-human by our creation then who's to decide it doesn't have the same rights.

This is the main issue. Who is to say it -does- have the same rights? Chimpanzees share over 98% of their DNA with us. Dogs and cats both display human-like behavioral phenomena and have an affinity for perceiving and interpreting human emotion.

We don't need: "its cells use a human protein!" to try and argue that animals deserve respect. It is, in my opinion, the pinnacle of ignorance and disrespect to animals to reduce the definition of 'human' to DNA. As we speak - the human gene pool only grows more broad and we, ourselves, will be striving to define "human" as some populations self-select for various traits (I find intelligent women attractive and desire my children to be intelligent) in another 500 years. I already consider most gang-activity to be sub-human - but as those populations increase exponentially - I expect 'my type' of person will isolate themselves and even begin to identify themselves separately as another race or species, entirely.

We need to define what "human" is before we can start throwing around human rights beyond what is already soundly established as human.

To create it and then destroy it as an embryo then becomes a massive issue - an issue we then usually pass on to parliament.

Why is it a massive issue?

At the end of the day, they have a say in the regulation process because they do.

Why do they? Or, perhaps, why should they?

The people involved in the debate are more concerned about putting across their views on whether or not it should be done than who says it's so.

Every industry has regulation imposed. ISO is about business practices - proper tracking of job numbers, parts, - record keeping and ensuring the documented process is being used to produce the product. When you pass your ISO 9000/9001 audits, the ISO auditors are pretty much saying that "if you buy from this business, you are getting the product you are told they are producing, how they say they are producing it." If you fail to pass... then you aren't doing what you say you are... or what customers are paying for.

The question of whether or not there will be some kind of regulation simply doesn't need to be asked - it will happen.

Whether or not they should be is an entirely different matter, but personally, I see why they are. It's fine if you don't, I do understand that. But we're running in circles here

It's a very valid question. Does the government have a justified responsibility to impose regulation, and if so, to what degree, and on what levels of government should it be applied?

For example - environmental regulations should be handled at the most local levels available and apply to businesses in the area. The only reasonable exceptions apply to issues that have an impact well beyond that of the governing district (such regulations involving what can be put into rivers).

In a way - we are talking in circles. You're used to the nanny state. Why shouldn't the government handle this issue? It's what they've always done - and it doesn't really involve you - only those big research companies - so why should you be all that concerned about who imposes the regulation - so long as the regulation agrees with your sense of ethics?

To me - that's a very curious and even intimidating concept of government and legislation. It's a line that continually moves toward everything being regulated by the government. The most dangerous thing about this trend is that it's not centered around justifying the involvement of government - but merely justifying the moral standpoint. All that's needed to get people aboard with legislation is to appeal to morality/emotions and you can do something like abolish alcohol.

Well, maybe abolishing something at the center of a lot of social activity won't go over so well and you'll end up repealing it a few years later after it fails massively and empowers criminal elements... but, if you pick something that isn't so common to the common man - you can probably get away with it. Justified or not.