Click here to visit the Beauty Brains blog.
Welcome to the new Forum. Please feel free to start a new discussion.
Response to animal testing post (warning: long!)
-
(By the time I was done typing this in the comment box under the post, I decided it was so very, very long that maybe it would be more readable and appropriate here. Many, many thanks to anyone who reads it! :D)
fyi: the original thread is http://thebeautybrains.com/2007/11/07/not-everyone-is-against-animal-testing/
(takes a deep breath)
Brains, I agree with you on so many issues and respect your expertise and knowledge. However, this issue is an important one for me, and some of your statements confuse me.
First of all, I hate, hate, HATE that PETA is seen as the ONLY proponent of moving away from all animal testing. Personally? I don't like PETA, at all. I think they're a shady organization whose extremist, aggressive, intentionally controversial tactics give a bad name to ANYONE who supports more humane treatment of animals.
Also, even though I don't like PETA and find it very frustrating that they're often cited as the only example of animal rights groups, I don't think the comparison between PETA's practice of euthanasia and animal testing is appropriate. IIRC, you guys mentioned use of logical fallacies to a poster recently--is the "Well, but PETA euthanizes animals!" not a perfect example of a red herring, or even a "two wrongs make a right?"
Anyway, I remember reading an article last month in the NY Times (which I am well aware is not a scientific, peer-reviewed journal, but it does put some more complex scientific issues into layman's speak, and I generally trust the NY Times as a news source) about alternatives to animal testing. I also think it presents both sides of the argument, which is always a good thing. I found the link, and I'll post it here--I'd be interested to have the Brains (and anyone else!) read it and get your thoughts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/technology/techspecial/12animal.html?pagewanted=1
It's not too long, and I do think it's worth reading for anyone who's interested in this issue.
It seems from this article that in-vitro human testing is the most prominent area of emerging non-animal testing, but the article also mentions virtual testing and testing microdoses in humans.
I found it to be a very interesting article (and it even mentions P&G and L'Oreal)--particularly because of the assertion that a move towards non-animal testing is, for the most part, LESS about the image/publicity issues and more about the scientific and financial issues--reliability, error risk, and the apparently much higher costs for animal testing vs. in-vitro or virtual testing.
I couldn't find on the NY Times website an additional article or link to the "recent study from the National Academy of Sciences, which was sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency," but if anyone else can find it, that'd be helpful. The article states that "the study concluded that over time, the use of animals for testing could be greatly reduced and possibly eliminated."
Okay, two more quick things and then I'll shut up (hehe). One, I think the extermination issue is quite different in that the rats and mice being killed *do* pose a potential health risk to the humans around them. Mice and rats are big disease carriers! The Hantavirus alone is fatal more often than not. Extermination is probably not the *most* humane way to eliminate or reduce rodent populations in homes, but this is an issue where it can be directly human life vs. rodent life. And yes, in that debate, human life always takes priority IMO.
Last thing--back to the euthanasia comparison. The idea of euthanasia is that it is used as a painless way to kill animals who are unadoptable, are adoptable but cannot find a home, or animals who are sick/injured beyond reasonable recovery. The key word, of course, is painless.
One could compare the use of euthanasia to the Coca-Cola testing controversy back in May (of this year). From another NY times article about the Coca-Cola (and the Pom/PepsiCo) controversy--
"...particularly when it involves tests on highly intelligent animals, as did a study involving a Coca-Cola scientist, financed by Nutrasweet, that cut open the faces of chimpanzees to study nerve impulses used in the perception of sweet tastes."
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/business/31testing.html?_r=1&oref=login)
In comparison, I really doubt that was painless for the chimpanzees...
A big thank you to anyone who made it this far! I'd love to hear some more thoughts on this, and I apologize if this came off as rude or too blunt!
Lisa -
p.s. in case anyone was wondering, I am a vegetarian, and have been since I was 8 (I'm 18 right now, so for about 10 years or so)
:) -
Bixbybear, thanks so much for your well-thought out comments.
You are right that the subject of how PETA kills animals is a bit of a red herring to the discussion of animal testing. I didn't raise it to suggest that animal testing was more right or wrong. I merely pointed out that it was (and is) ironic that a group who kills animals merely because they are unwanted would protest other groups for killing animals. For me, it feels hypocritical. But it does not mean animal testing is right or wrong.
The article in the NY Times gives a pretty accurate description of what is going on in the industry. No one likes animal testing. Product manufacturers don't like animal testing. Most scientists in the industry don't like animal testing. I don't like animal testing and have fortunately never personally had to do any.
The fact is that while there is a lot of work going on to develop alternatives to animal testing, they still can not be completely replaced. We have written about it previously and look forward to a day when products don't have to be tested on animals. It will likely happen. And not strictly for financial reasons. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need animal testing. We just don't live in that world now.
I agree with you that exterminators help protect humans from diseases. The comment I made was a response to a previous commenter's righteous proclamation that"If we just agreed that it was wrong to hurt those who can not defend themselves I know that the brilliant scientists and clinicians of the world could find new methods of solving our health problems and also continuing to provide us with great fun stuff like cosmetics."
As if the issue was so simple. It's not simply a black and white decision that hurting animals is wrong or right. Rat extermination is a perfect example. If it's wrong to hurt animals who can't defend themselves, then it's just wrong to exterminate rodents. The fact that they can cause diseases is irrelevant. Similarly, if it's wrong to test chemicals on animals then the fact that this testing helps prevent human suffering is irrelevant. There is a judgment call to be made.
If testing on animals is wrong and exposing people to potentially dangerous chemicals is wrong. Which one is more "wrong"? The choice isn't simple. Until there are real, accepted alternatives, we are forced to choose. Right now, humanity chooses to inflict suffering on animals rather than inflict suffering on humans. Personally, I don't disagree with the choice. I'd love to find another alternative, but there isn't.
ps. You weren't rude at all. Your comments on such a difficult topic were great. -
I guess I kind of sounded harsh in my post. I love animals too and I hope that we can come to a point where we don't need animal testing. I just get frustrated and sad when another person in my family gets cancer. The risk is high. I never got to meet my grandparents and more recently a cousin was diagnosed. Treatment is great nowadays and recovery is amazing....and one day maybe there will be a cure!
I'm not a vegetarian, but I did give up meat for Lent this year. My husband and I generally don't eat a lot of red meat anyway, but we're not going to turn away good food if it is offered. I had my cravings earlier than he did so I was able to make it through and he really wanted meat at the end. It was hard...I give credit to vegetarians -
I think it's interesting that so many people consider animal testing acceptable for "non-cosmetic" purposes but not for "cosmetic" purposes. I don't think the distinction is clear enough that any one can draw that line. Some products are obviously cosmetic but some occupy a grey area. Is soap cosmetic? It's easy to say animals shouldn't be used to test mascara but what about personnal hygeine products? My point is that there's a huge, fuzzy area between what's medical and what's cosmetic. Who gets to draw the line?
Also, mightn't testing done on one product be applicable in other scenarios? Can you judge a specific incident of testing based solely on the product being tested? The results of that testing may be useful or applicable for other products or circumstances.
My first job after college was in a research lab in a Psychiatric hospital. There were no MDs in my group; it was all Psychologists so there was no animal testing in the lab I worked in. However, almost all the other labs were run by MDs so there was a great deal of animal testing (mostly mice) going on in my building. All the "research" was medical so it must have been good and meaningful, right? Much of it was vanity research; many, many mice died so that doctors, grad students and med students could publish. The egos were huge, much of the research was meaningless and the studies were so poorly constructed that no conclusions could be drawn. But it was all being done in the name of medical research so no one ever questioned the need for animal testing. Those were 3 very disillusioning years. -
Im uncomfortable with who makes the decisions of what testing should or shouldnt be done using animals, how well these activities are supervised, and who oversees the testing to ensure guidelines that prevent unnecessary pain or cruelty, assuming there are such guidelines, are followed. Those in the lab probably learn to desensitize themselves to it all and follow directions in order to accomplish intended goals. While some of the testing may have great merit, I think many people would prefer not to hear the details of whats done and how its done and that might play a contributing role for why abuses occur. The Coca Cola experiments pertaining to artificial sweeteners are a very good example of animal experimentation that was cruel and completely unnecessary. I shudder to think what else that screams abuse like this might be going on.
Thank you, Lisa, for sharing your views and posting the link to the NY Times story. I found it so encouraging to read that it is possible to have medical breakthroughs using human tissues that will decrease or even eventually eliminate the use of animals to do so.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!