TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Meet your meat
- Thread starter 7santiago
- Start date
There's always the issue of the extremists giving the more reasonable group a bad name, in almost any situation.
However, PETA-authorized spokepeople have advocated violence in their capacity as official representatives, and funds have been used for at least one individual (Rob Coronado) who is a convicted arsonist (burned down a major research lab) and has had numerous run-ins with the law over similar (but thankfully more minor) matters since then. Given this, I would regard PETA as on the fringe at best, and given they secretly support terrorists, that's probably giving them a bit much credit.
Mokele
However, PETA-authorized spokepeople have advocated violence in their capacity as official representatives, and funds have been used for at least one individual (Rob Coronado) who is a convicted arsonist (burned down a major research lab) and has had numerous run-ins with the law over similar (but thankfully more minor) matters since then. Given this, I would regard PETA as on the fringe at best, and given they secretly support terrorists, that's probably giving them a bit much credit.
Mokele
PETA does advocate violence and has done more to set back animal welfare than anyone else. It's impossible to even begin to say something about how the agricultural-industrial complex treats animals without someone mentioning some absurd thing PETA supposedly did or said. The problem is that almost every single time I've fact-checked one of those things, it's turned out to be true. That's why my wife & I are ex-PETA members. PETA had its 25th anniversary last year and conditions are arguably worse in the agriculture industry, which affects many more animals than PETA's other targets. But things are better for lab animals, since researchers have many more hoops to jump through and there's much less gratuitous testing. PETA probably deserves some credit for that.
[b said:
Not really, most of the testing regs are set down by either government agencies (FDA, USDA) or private watchdog groups who have no affiliation with PETA. This is one case where working for change on the inside is superior to standing around with signs harassing people.
Also, as I pointed out with reference to the lab I'm in and their battles with the IACUC people, more hoops isn't necessarily a good thing unless the hoops are put in place appropriately by knowledgable individuals. We'd have to jump through loads of hoops before we get to feed live prey to a snake, and if that takes too long, the animal may have died while waiting for the beurocracy. Alternatively, because we're the only snake lab on campus, we could tell them anything and they'd believe us.
The biggest impact for testing has simply been the rule requiring a statistical power analysis to determine how many animals are needed before experiments are approved. Short, simple, and effective at reducing numbers of animals.
Mokele
Generations of scientists experimented on animals with no desire for oversight. Finally there was enough outside agitation in response to some awful things done by the insiders to get some oversight. The changes were underway before PETA, but PETA probably deserves credit for some of what was accomplished in the 80s. But it's all been downhill from there.
[b said:
Not entirely by outsiders; even prior to regulations, I'd bet most experiments were as humane as possible given the technology of the time. The problem is that prior to regulation, there was nothing to stop the few bad apples.
[b said:
I'd *love* to see some evidence to back up that claim. Animal welfare continues to be a major concern in biology, and refinements of methods and regulations are continually occuring.
In fact, scientists are more concerned with *actual* welfare than the animal rights groups, since we're not so mammal-chauvanistic that we restrict our concern to vertebrates: octopi have been added to the list of animals where special precautions must be taken in the UK, and probably will be soon in the US, in light of evidence of their extraordinary mental abilities. This change was aggitated for by *cephalopod biologists* (as in those who study them, not are them; remarkable as they are, no octopus has yet achieved a college degree).
Frankly, I'd love to know where this moronic stereotype of scientists who torture animals for fun came from, other than PETA's propaganda. The only scientists I know who aren't concerned with their subject's welfare are those who work on microbes. Even the fruit-fly people are careful when handling their flies.
Mokele
My last sentence was meant to be, "But it's all been downhill for PETA from there."
In the early 80s, when I was an undergraduate, a friend had a job taking care of lab rats. The rats' access to water was restricted so cages wouldn't need to be cleaned so often (I think that was the reason), letting the lab save a little cheap student labor. Those rats were ferocious when they got their water ration. I'm not saying whoever was in charge got off on those rats being tortured, but there clearly was no empathy for them.
My only other exposure to animal research was when I worked for an entomology department several years later. Yes, they were careful with their test insects, but it was because they needed them to be alive at the beginning of their experiments and for the controls to still be alive at the end.
Cephalopod biologists can clamor for better protection for their eight legged friends, but researchers who see octopi as ideal test subjects will claim to be the only experts when it comes to experimenting on them. That's why outsiders have to step in and lay down the rules.
In the early 80s, when I was an undergraduate, a friend had a job taking care of lab rats. The rats' access to water was restricted so cages wouldn't need to be cleaned so often (I think that was the reason), letting the lab save a little cheap student labor. Those rats were ferocious when they got their water ration. I'm not saying whoever was in charge got off on those rats being tortured, but there clearly was no empathy for them.
My only other exposure to animal research was when I worked for an entomology department several years later. Yes, they were careful with their test insects, but it was because they needed them to be alive at the beginning of their experiments and for the controls to still be alive at the end.
Cephalopod biologists can clamor for better protection for their eight legged friends, but researchers who see octopi as ideal test subjects will claim to be the only experts when it comes to experimenting on them. That's why outsiders have to step in and lay down the rules.
[b said:
Well, that's why we have rules in place.
[b said:
That doesn't mean it's the only motive; some of my upcoming experiments will be terminal, yet the animals are still cared for spectacularly well (better than most pet snakes, even).
Try not to let a few old bad experiences skew your view; most biologists I've met are quite fond of their animals (and several have re-paid a small fraction of their grant in order to keep their subjects as pets later).
[b said:
Um, Cephalopod biologists *are* the ones using octopi as test subjects. The same people doing the testing are the ones advocating for their sake. That was my point.
And I don't have a problem with outsider agencies in control (if you work with mammals, you have to report to 6 different agencies now), so long as the rules are made by people who know what they're doing. It makes no sense for the rules on octopi to be written by people who don't know anything about them. That leads to problems like "Oh, god, it died after 24 months! Your conditions must stink!" "Um, octopi only live for 2 years, moron."
Mokele
From today's Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1786506,00.html - a column to warm Mokele's heart. I'd agree with it if the author included a sentence giving some credit to the anti-testing crowd for creating the pressure that led to the rules and protocols.
[b said:
The laws ensure it is; violations can mean you lose your ability to work with animals at all, which is basically an academic death sentence.
In any system, individuals will break the rules. The measure of a system's worth is that they are punished, not that the system prevents them from even happening (which is impossible).
[b said:
I'll give you $10 to say that to the face of someone who was born without hands due to thalydimide.
Since when is the loss of a few litters of mouse pups unjustified when it can prevent thousands of people from suffering? The only ethically questionable part in this case is why the tests weren't performed *before* the drug's release.
Mokele
I don't consider animal testing to be a pleasant thing either, but I think the real animal welfare problem is the meat industry. That's where serious problems affect huge numbers of animals with no oversight (~35 million cattle slaughtered per year in the US). Animals have to die in a meat-eating society, but they should be treated humanely until the end. I think most people would agree, except that some PETA statement about seeing eye dogs or cancer research can always be tossed out to undercut any serious animal welfare effort.
Well, hopefully it won't be an issue much longer: there's serious efforts to grow edible meat in vitro from tissue culture. Aside from totally sidesteping the entire issue of how to treat food-animals (by rendering them obsolete), it would also allow major environmental savings (cattle and poultry need lots of food and lots of room).
In fact, recently scientists have been able to grow and cook a lovely steak that looked, felt, and smelled exactly like one from a cow (they weren't allowed to taste it due to health regulations), just without the rest of the cow.
Mokele
In fact, recently scientists have been able to grow and cook a lovely steak that looked, felt, and smelled exactly like one from a cow (they weren't allowed to taste it due to health regulations), just without the rest of the cow.
Mokele
[b said:
Try reading posts before replying to them.
[b said:
The entire system is inherent within compassion; the system cannot be atomized. If you act compassionately towards only one aspect of the system and in doing so allow greater suffering to occur, your actions cannot be called compassionate. In contrast, if you actions minimize the suffering in the entire system, even if it means allowing it in a sub-system, that is truly compassionate.
Mokele
That last paragraphy can be pretty disturbing. Not that I don't agree with it in theory, but some voices are listened to more than others and the same "sub-systems" tend to do all the suffering. And I don't mean we need to listen to lab rats. Someone involved in the effort said that if a cure for AIDS required nothing more than providing a glass of safe drinking water to each person on the planet, we wouldn't be able to do it right now. Hundreds of millions of people can't even get a drink of clean water and we're arguing whether it's ethical to use animals to test a cure for toenail fungus or erectile dysfunction. This is the inherent problem with debating for debate's sake. But I can't resist either.
[b said:
Yeah, our priorities can be pretty out-of-whack sometimes. Oh, paying $3/gallon for gas is making me suffer so much! Dafur? Where's that? Do they have oil? Then who cares....
[b said:
Ironically, probably yes.
However, the cynical part of me says they could just put it in the dorm food; nothing's more toxic than that anyway. Mmmm, grade E meat.
[b said:
The best 3 from a quick search:
Article 1
Article 2
Article 3 (pdf)
They're arranged from least to most technical: first is from a major european news outlet, second from a science-new outlet, third from an actual scientific journal.
Of course, this is doubly exciting because many of the challenges that need to be overcome for in-vitro meat are the same as need to be overcome for growing replacement human organs and body parts in-vitro (btw, for those that don't know, in vitro means 'in glass', and is the term for processes in a test-tube or other artifical setting, while 'in vivo' means inside an organism, hence why fertility clinics use 'in vitro fertilization', formerly 'test tube babies'). Imagine the day when organ transplant waiting lists are a thing of the past.
Mokele
