Conference misery::feline_v1

    People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is very active in this
    area.  I don't have their address at hand, but they have close ties
    with the Fund for Animals (Cleveland Amory's group), and I know
    you can reach PETA thru the Fund.  I think the Fund's address is
    in Amory's book "The Cat Who Came for Christmas";  (we all have
    this book, right?).  Or  I will post an address when I get home
    if no one else has by then.
    
    

    While I applaud Mary's intentions wholeheartedly, before I could
    lend any support to her cause, I'd like to know what the experimentors
    were researching.
    
    If they're researching cosmetics or some other thing where living
    subjects aren't required, I'm behind Mary. But if they're doing
    legitimate research on AIDS, cancer or some other devastating
    ailment, I'm afraid the most I can do is say I hope the animals
    aren't suffering needlessly.
    
    Edd

    RE.2
    Legitamte research on aids???
    What on earth is the relationship of the anatomy of a cat to
    that of a the anatomy of human beings. - and no I am not suggesting
    we experiment on people - what I am saying is that to applaud 
    experimantaion on different species and somehow believe that any
    findings in another species bodies is applicable to human beings
    has shades of science fiction.
    If one takes sometime to look into this sitution and see of all
    the mediacal disasters particulary birth defects that resulted
    in medicine developed for humans because thewy worked oh so
    well on different species may intice one to look further into
    this matter of animal experimantaion.
    

    I'm not sure what they were researching.  People were interviewed
    who were able to have life-saving operations due to animal
    experimentation; however, this was not necessarily in connection
    with the cats I saw.  I agree, if it's for something worthwhile
    like Aids or cancer research, I understand that it has to be done.
    But I also realize that research does go one for cosmetics or whatever
    and I can't handle that.  Regardless of what these cats were being
    tested for, it was just a real shock to me to see them this way.
    I'm sure UCLA had all good intentions and the research was legitimate.
    
    But still, something should be done about those "unlegitimate"
    experiments.  
    
    Mary
    
    

    > I'm sure UCLA had all good intentions and the research was
    > legitimate.
      
    Not necessarily.  Stanford, for example, has an appalling record,
    which for the sake of peoples' stomachs I will not document here.
    Also, there is a great deal of needless repetition of experiments
    or downright stupid experimentation (such as taking babies from
    their mothers to see what happens.  Surprise! the babies are unhappy!
    they don't grow as well!  sometimes they even die!  who would have
    thought it!)
                

    re: .3
    
    SET MODE/FLAME=REPRESSED
    
    I have NO training in medicine, but I do not believe that ALL
    animal experimentation is worthless.
    
    Maybe there is no legitimate use for animals in AIDS research, in
    which case I plead ignorance, but I'm sure that this type of
    research has not been entirely wasteful of animal life and that
    some good has come out of it. I'm also able to acknowledge that
    there have been failures and abuses. 
    
    I'm really taken back by your "Oh, really?" attitude. Please take
    the time to 'read between the lines' and understand my position
    before you take the words I used to express it out of context.
    
    Don't think for a minute that I support wholesale experimentation
    and inhumane treatment of any living creature.
    
    Edd
     
                            

    re.7
    I myself am taken back when people generally don't question the
    consequences of accepting the words of researchers and not looking
    further into what can happen as a result of their "claims".
    I have a cousin close to my age who is a physical wreck and
    mentally handicapped as a result of the medication my aunt took
    in good faith to ward off measles during her pregnancy; it all
    worked so well on the lab animals......
    You can flame if you'd like but come look at my cousin and perhaps
    you will just steam over my oh really...
    

    
    Re .3 and .8 and probably .10 on judging from your anger
    
    FELv (one strain of it I believe) is supposed to be similar to the
    AIDS virus and therefore the reason why cats are used in AIDS research.
    I believe it was mentioned in a note in here somewhere...
    
    Now making a sweeping statement about medical research because of
    your aunt's tragedy (for which I truly am sorry) is unfair to the
    research that is done professionally and saves lives.  Please see
    the good in medical research as well as the bad.
    
    Sharon
    

    Actually, I heard it sort of the other way around.  I heard that
    since FELv is so much like AIDS, much more research has been started
    on FELv.  I guess the feeling is that if we find a FELv cure it
    might point to an AIDS cure.
    
    Marion                                    
    

    Uh, a dreaded but familiar topic for me...
    
    Before I came to DEC, I worked at a Burns Institute for one of the
    nation's top specialists.  I quit after 5 horrible months as part
    of my responsibilities as his editorial assistant included writing
    up and editing his research papers for professional publication
    in medical journals.  He and his colleagues do ongoing experimentation
    on sheep, dogs ("retired" greyhound racers), pigs and of course
    smaller animals.  I had a long talk with one doctor on the subject.
    For their part, the doctors don't think of their subjects as living
    animals or would-be pets...They completely (try to) block out their
    'soft-hearted' emotions and strictly rationalize the clinical
    procedures. 
    
    While the doctor for whom I worked believed *his* efforts were crucial
    to helping his patients recover, he himself, as a member of the
    editorial boards of 2 leading medical publications, told me outright
    that 70 PERCENT of all medical research on animals is either
    unnecessary, redundant, a race for publication/credit, and even
    pointless.  For example, the same experiment will be repeated over
    and over again with the only difference being the amount of drug
    administered (1cc, 2cc, 15 cc and so forth), the amount of time
    a wound is exposed, etc.  And even the "best" animal experimentation,
    he freely admitted, does not necessarily parallel the results in
    humans, as some of you have noted.  (You don't need to go to medical
    school to figure certain things out.)
    
    This subject has bothered and concerned me since childhood.  After
    years of hearing both sides and getting my own "inside" look, I
    have to say that I'm against ALL animal experimentation.  As the
    "most advanced" of the planetary species, we should be CAREtakers,
    not LIFEtakers/users/abusers.  It is not our right.
    
    So what about "needed medical research," you ask.  More can be learned
    from CELL BIOLOGY (human tissues, petri dishes and the works), hi-tech
    scanners, lasers, PREVENTATIVE EDUCATION, nuclear medicine,
    ....computers.  It's high time we put our "high tech" in high gear.
    
    There is an excellent local group, for those of you in the area,
    called the New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS).  I believe the
    address is One Bulfinch Place, Boston, 02114. They have been excellent
    crusaders against all forms of animal abuse for years, and are atop
    the local front against Gillette.
    
    I can't find PETA's address, but have every group and address available
    at home....There's so much to do (letters, assemblies, boycotts,
    protests, buying habits, you name it).  Believe me, for those of
    you so inclined, if you feel the need to do something, there is
    always something you can do.  I'd love to post EVERYTHING, but since
    animal rights is such a political issue, and since Digital undoubtedly
    donates to medical research via its employees, there may well be
    a conflict of interest.  Also, some groups do occassionally stage
    'illegal' acts of civil disobedience (meaning walking on the lawn
    of the company/facility/hospital in question), and DEC is clear
    on not supporting these particular groups.  
    
    This may not be appropriate for the FELINE notes file, but I had
    to drop the pebble and see how far the ripples go...
                                                        

    
    re. -1
    
    One difference is consent.  Human experimentation is done with
    the consent of the patient.  Animal experimentation is not.
    
    Donna

    Re: .12/.13
    
    And I don't eat meat, or wear leather, or etc.  Anyone who thinks
    experimentation on beings who can think and feel is okay without
    their consent is welcome to volunteer him or herself first, I say.
    

    re. .3 (About how can a cat's anatomy teach us anything about a
    human's anatomy?)
    
    I am very definitely opposed to using animals in medical research
    in most cases, but there actually does seem to be a reason that
    cats are chosen for anatomical studies. When my mother was in
    nursing school (less than 10 years ago), they used cats for all
    of the classes that required dissections, because (I don't understand
    how) INTERNALLY, cats and humans are very similar--or their organs
    and systems are similar, or whatever.
    
    I guess I can believe that, but what I can't understand is what
    in the world the students learned through dissection that couldn't
    have been learned in a textbook! (I think dissections for "education"
    are much less justifiable than the use of animals for medical
    research, except possibly for those students who will NEED to 
    be this intimately acquainted with slicing open an animal, such
    as veterinary students).
    

The cats were used for neuromuscular tests...research into things like
muscular distrophy and the other diseases that are the result of the
messages not getting from the brain to the muscles correctly...it was
very legitimate research and is NECESSARY.  The fact that cats were
used is because they have a complex enough physiology and can be acquired
easily and cheaply.  I hate the idea of any animal research, but in this
case, someone's life may be saved with the knowledge gained.

Lets concentrate on the cosmetic companies and household supplies companies
who are really abusing animals needlessly and keep our perspective on the
use of animals in legitimate medical research....someone's child may
live longer due to this research.

    Some experimentaion on humans in the past hace been conducted on
    the mentaly handicapped, who I do not feel have the full capabilty
    to give "consent".
    Also, researchers often say "do you want to be the first?" Obviously
    after some drug has been "perfected" on an animal some human must
    be the first to try it.
    Another question I have is "if you are ill can you make a completely
    rational decision on what is best for you." I have heard that
    many researchers are opposed to the sort of will that people
    are deciding to make prior to illness as to what sort of medical
    procedures thet do not want performed of them if they are too ill
    to voice their choice. This will is made prior to any medical
    trauma and is made without the panic and confusion that accompanies
    illness.
    The case of Baby Fae several years ago in having the baboon heart
    transplanted in the tiny infant, the baby certainly was not
    capable of giving her consent and was at the hands of those
    around her. Her mother was very young and not well educated, when
    you have a sick baby on your hands and you are young and confused
    the omnipotent doctors must seem like they know what they are talking
    about so you allow them to put a monkey's heart inside your
    human baby's. One letter to the editor on Time magazine voted
    that Baby Fae be made Woman of the Year because "she died so that
    others may live" - I find such an attiude appaling as it equates
    an as an experimantal tool for the benefit of others.
    

    in re .15
    
    Before I came to Dec I taught Biology for over 12 years including
    nurses courses. There is a big difference between looking at
    photographs and drawings in a book and actually seeing the muscles
    and bones and organs in place. I would not want to trust myself
    to a health professional who had only 'book' knowledge of anatomy.
    
    Further the cats that are used for disections are not strays or
    lost pets but animals bred specifically for that purpose.
    
    Bonnie
    
    (who has 5 cats and has adopted many strays)

    Rep a few back: As far as household supplies and cosmetics
    experimentation is concerned, we may be looking at some light at
    the end of the tunnel. A program I saw on TV a few days ago dealt
    with ongoing research to use tissue from abbatoirs, make a culture
    of it and do the irritation test on that instead of putting shampoo
    into a defenseless rabbit's eye... It seems they are making progress
    on that. While it still not satisfies the people that feel we shouldn't
    make use of animals at_all, i.e. vegetarians (I'm not but I think
    that's another discussion) this at least could put a stop on torturing
    living animals. Ofcourse people should be made aware of these
    possibilities and of the companies that (refuse to) use them so
    they can help by invoking that powerful 'market' principle....
    
    Humanity is not so used to think about the 'rights' of an animal.
    If a (big:-)) cat kills a human for a perfectly legitimate reason
    i.e. the cat is hungry and needs to eat in order to survive (I've
    been led to believe they try to catch something more tasty *first*)
    it's fairly easy to get a lot of people hunting the cat to kill
    it... Then again if a human kills a cat unnecessary or even for
    fun he gets off with a $ XX fine...if somebody even bothers to report
    him...                                      
                                                
    One observation I made on myself: while it is quite easy to get
    me all in flames by showing me a cat suffering some laboratory's
    experiment, I tend to react far less furious whenever an animal
    is shown that I not so easily relate to as my furry friends, like
    a rat, snake or spider. Wish it was all a bit easier!
    
    Ad
                        

    Has anyone here been to the Humane Society?  Have you been there
    when the dump truck picks up the 50 gallon drums full of dead animal
    bodies?  I have.  I saw it.  It kills me that people are so crazy
    about experimentation on live animals, but they say or do nothing
    about the animals in their own backyard that never get spayed, breed
    more animals who breed more animals, and end up unwanted, a menace
    to the children, starving, lost, and eventually dead at our own
    feet.  The blood is on our own hands.  Thousands of animals die
    each day in California alone - animals that have been picked up
    by Animal Control and taken to the Humane Society for euthanization.
    
    I can't stand the idea of any kind of animal experimentation -
    i would never want it to be done on me!  I'm not out to solve the
    world's problems, but i can do what is right in front of me.  If
    there is a stray cat in my neighborhood, i take responsibility from
    the first day i set out food.  I carry through my decision to care
    for the animal and i pay for having it fixed.  Then i find it a
    home.  If each and every human took responsibility for the happiness
    and well-being of the animal(s) in their own immediate vicinity
    we would not have the problem with having to kill animals like we
    do.  Furthermore, it may cause a change in the way Animal Researchers
    and Legislators view the availability of test subjects!
    
    sabonn

    
    
    If anyone is interested, I heard something to the affect that this
    subject will be the discussion on the Oprah Winfrey show today (this
    week?)
    
    

    re: 21
    
    today at 5:00p.m.
    

    There was an article published in the March edition of Reader's Digest
    called "The Facts About Animal Research," which was written by Dr.
    Robert J. White.  I haven't read this article, since I don't subscribe
    to Reader's Digest, but the article has outraged the president of the
    Humane Society of the United States.  In the Spring 1988 issue of The
    Humane Society News, the inside front cover contains a letter written
    by the HSUS president, John A. Hoyt, to the editors of Reader's Digest.
    It's kind of long, so I'll just post some extracts:

	"Ostensibly, the [Reader's Digest] article is a critique of "the
	animal rights fanatics."  In reality, the piece is a broadside
	against the entire animal protection community.  Even reforms
	championed by scientists who themselves conduct animal research
	are ridiculed.  The immediate aim of the article seems to be to
	undermine pending federal legislation that would help prevent
	former pets from winding up in laboratory experiments.  Dr. White
	would have us believe that dogs and cats from animal shelters
	are vital for research.  This despite the (true) facts that
	(1) shelter animals comprise less than 1 percent of the animals
	used in research (and this percentage is decreasing), and (2) many
	scientists believe that shelter animals make poor research subjects."

	"Dr. White is internationally famous for conducting bizarre and
	macabre head-transplant experiments on nonhuman primates.  In
	published interviews, he has made such outrageous statements as,
	'It would appear that this preoccupation with the alleged pain and
	suffering of the animals used in medical research may well represent,
	at the very least, social prejudice against medicine, or, more
	seriously, true psychiatric aberrations.' "

    This Dr. White sounds like a real winner...!

    If anyone has a copy of that Reader's Digest article, I'd be interested
    to see it.  Also, if anyone wants a copy of the letter from John A. Hoyt
    to the editors of Reader's Digest, send me your mailstop and I'll send
    you one.  This issue of The Humane Society News also contains an article
    about the Reader's Digest article and talks about the pending legislation
    mentioned by Mr. Hoyt in his letter.  It's the Pet Protection Act, which
    would prohibit the use of shelter animals in federally funded research.
    I'll send you a copy of this article, too.  Please use MAIL to send me
    your requests, so we don't clutter up this topic.  You can reach me at
    HUMOR::EPPES or DSSDEV::EPPES.
							-- Nina
						
    P.S. Incidentally, membership in the Humane Society of the United States
    is $10.00 per year.  You can send a contribution to: 

		The Humane Society of the United States
		2100 L Street, N.W.
		Washington, D.C. 20037-9974

    Can someone give me any details about the history of Dr. White?
    In the early '60s I worked with a fellow by the same name at a military
    medical (radiation) facility in Bethesda, MD.  He was a psychologist
    (I think) studying radiation effects on mammals.  I would be interested
    in knowing if this is the same fellow.
    
    Thanks...Gary

    I noticed that Amway Corp. was listed as a company that uses animals
    for testing their products.
    
    Just to let you know, I was at a course last week for the Amway
    Cosmetic line.  The question came up about animal research.  We
    were told that Amway does as little testing on animals as possible.
    The problem they said is that it is a Federal law that states that
    cosmetics must be tested on animals before put on the market.  Amway
    would like to find new tests approved by the Federal gov't that would
    eliminate animal testing entirely.
    
    I am as against research and product testing on animals as anyone
    else here but, if a product is being put on the market that isn't
    safe (which means the testing requirements set by the federal gov't
    weren't followed) I would be very worried about what it could do
    to me.  (Example:  Would you buy a large electrical appliance that
    isn't UL listed?).  
    
    I suppose no one can know each and every law.  But, I think if you
    can find out which companies are using animals for testing
    unnecessarily than they are the ones to boycott.  Since there are
    laws which require testing products on animals then that is were you
    should put your anger and energy to make necessary changes.
    
    Kathy

    Re: .25
    
    I believe Amway's statement is incorrect;  there is no Federal law
    that requires testing on animals for cosmetics.
    

    My sister-in-law has M.S. and during the past few years when she'd
    hear about a new drug that could possibly put the disease in remission
    or cure it, she would voluntarily be the human guinea pig.  One
    of the experimental drugs, however, that she was given caused her
    bones to soften so that her spine became permanently damaged when
    she took a fall on her back.  She used to get around using crutches
    before then but now is in a wheelchair.
    
    Even with all this, she would not want an animal to go through the
    tortures of experimentation (usually without pain killers).  She
    has 3 cats herself and like me, she knows animals have feelings
    and rights too.  Unfortunately, too many research projects are done
    (as .11 said) repetitiously and without any meaningful results,
    merely to justify federal funding.
    
    I believe someone replied (.18 I think) that the cats used for
    experimentation are bred specifically for that purpose.  Actually,
    if someone should visit such a "breeding facility" they would find
    not only deplorable conditions but also that most of the breeding
    stock (dogs and cats) had been either stolen (former pets) or "adopted"
    at shelters/pounds.  PETA recently uncovered such a place in
    Quakertown, Pennsylvania called the Quaker Farm Kennels.  This kennel
    is a "licensed dealer" of animals "bred" for laboratory use.
    
    For anyone interested, PETA's address is P.O. Box 42516, Washington,
    DC 20015.  "In Defense of Animals" is another group working for
    laboratory animal liberation.  Their address is 21 Tamal Vista Blvd.,
    Corte Madera, CA 94925.
    
    I am curious, does anyone know what diseases have been cured by
    using animals in research?  I am not being sarcastic, I really would
    like to know.  What about reattaching a human limb after it was
    severed from the body?  I know this has been done with success.
    Was this knowledge the result of deliberately (and without anesthesia)
    severing an animal's limb and reattaching it?
    
    As Leonardo da Vinci once said, "The day will come when men such
    as I will look on the murder of animals as they now look on the
    murder of men."
    
    I get angry too at the thought of all the homeless animals put to death in
    shelters/pounds every day but I don't wish them to suffer further
    in laboratories and laboratory kennels.  I do hope that some day
    every pet owner will be an educated pet owner and stop the
    overpopulation of pets.  I also hope that with man's high technology
    there will come a day when live animal experimentation will be
    obsolete.
    
    

>    I am curious, does anyone know what diseases have been cured by
>    using animals in research?  I am not being sarcastic, I really would
>    like to know.  What about reattaching a human limb after it was
>    severed from the body?  I know this has been done with success.
>    Was this knowledge the result of deliberately (and without anesthesia)
>    severing an animal's limb and reattaching it?
    
All of the modern day vaccines are first tested on animals...the animals
are then exposed to the source of infection to see if the vaccine works.
Much of this research is performed on primates as their immune system
closely reflects Man's immune system.  This is one prime example where
computer models simply will not replace live testing...the behavior of
the average virus and immune system response is still far too complicated
for computer modelling...I hate the idea of animal testing too, but I
am grateful that vaccines to save children's lives are available so there
is a balancing here that must be addressed.  As for the comment about
limb reattachment, I wonder why you would assume the
work is done without anesthesia???  There is less benefit if the animal
goes into shock from the pain...Even uncaring medical researchers would
use anesthesia to control the effects of shock, if not to control the
animal's pain out of compassion.  I think I read that some of the
initial reattachment research was conducted at UC DAVIS School of Vet.
medicine and at Tufts.  The research benefitted humans, but was not
directly designed to benefit humans as much as it was designed to help
animals.  That is a part of animal research that we are not addressing
here - the research that is responsible for the work your vet can do
for your cat to save life and or relieve pain.  That also requires
animal research.

I'm sure we will have a day when computer modelling can provide the
necessary data to develope a new vaccine or surgical procedure to help
save lives (human or animal) and I do believe we need to stay on top
of the researchers to prevent needless, repetitive, or poorly designed
research...but I'm not willing to be the first person to test the
a virus that may kill me if it doesn't work correctly and I SURE don't
want the surgeon working on me to have no previous experience with
live subjects.  I've had some tricky bone surgery and I could have
lost my leg if it had not gone correctly....I'm glad my surgeon had
had some practice.

    Re: .28
    
    Of course, one might say, just because some vaccine works or doesn't
    work on a cat, what on earth makes one think that the results are
    applicable to humans.  (I guess we'd all better stop taking aspirin,
    since aspirin is so easily toxic to cats.)
    
    There is also no reason why a doctor in training can't apprentice
    to a full-fledged doctor, learning by watching, then working
    cooperatively and under the elder doctor's eye.
    

>    Of course, one might say, just because some vaccine works or doesn't
>    work on a cat, what on earth makes one think that the results are
>    applicable to humans.  (I guess we'd all better stop taking aspirin,
>    since aspirin is so easily toxic to cats.)
    
As I said, I think the model for vaccine testing is always a primate
as they are much close then other animals in immune system response to
virus invasion and reaction to drugs...but they are still animals...and
they still don't get a vote.  And there still does not seem to be any
viable substitute to animal testing in this case.

>    There is also no reason why a doctor in training can't apprentice
>    to a full-fledged doctor, learning by watching, then working
>    cooperatively and under the elder doctor's eye.

Uh, well yeah, maybe....but I'm not willing to volunteer to be the
patient that student doctor first cuts on..the residency program at
teaching hospitals does offer the mentor type of assistance, but
AFTER the doctor has learned how hard to press to get through the
skin, etc. by working on cadavers and on animals (there simply aren't
enough cadavers to go around)..so much of surgery is "by feel" and
so much of what is done can cause irreversible damage, that there
still must be some "hands on" experience.  One solution to make the
use of animals in this case less likely is for lots of people to will
their bodies to science or medical schools.  Then the use of animals
could be greatly reduced.  After all, medical schools would rather
use human cadavers, but there are so few available they use animals.  This
is one place a lot of cat and dog cadavers are used for advanced biology
courses.  I know the animals are bred for this purpose and then
euthanized.  According to my friend David, who is a doctor.    

    I am curious to know that if it were proven that animals could
    in fact think and reason would it matter more to people that 
    animals were being used in research?
    Fran
    

>    I am curious to know that if it were proven that animals could
>    in fact think and reason would it matter more to people that 
>    animals were being used in research?

Newsweek, in fact, carried a story about that in this weeks magazine.
There is much evidence that animals do reason much more than science
originally thought - AND that some animals thought to be controlled
by instinct are actually able to reason, like birds!

I suspect that is the reason this controversy is so strong at the moment.
People are becoming more uncomfortable with animal research for the
reasons mentioned, even if they are not pet owners or "animal lovers".
I still fear the questions are still too complex for simple
answers.  There are so many areas in which animals are used
needlessly and these tests should be stopped. period.  I personally don't
care if anyone ever has a new shade of lipstick or eyeshadow as I don't
use cosmetics.  HOWEVER, there was a company producing a new flea
control for pets that tried to avoid testing the finished product because
the ingredients of the product had been tested so thoroughly.  The
product ended up killing many pets and was finally pulled from the
market.  I remember many notes and comments in this conference that
were angry and dismayed that the product could be released without
proper testing.  How do you think a product like this is tested?  How
else can something be tested for toxicity, other than by exposure to
the product by living creatures - animals?  There are no computer
models that can reliably test for toxicity for products that are a
new combination of known products.  Benefits to ourselves and our
pets are directly derived from animal research, and regrettably there
are not substitutes for many tests.  Scientists are looking for
substitutes, if not out of compassion for animals, then for reasons
of economy and efficiency, but some are not yet available.  Are you
willing to tell a mother of a child that has AIDS because of a blood
transfusion that research for a cure or vaccine for AIDS will be
delayed until we can find a substitute for live animal testing?
The only way we have now to test a vaccine is to innoculate and then
expose an animal (or human volunteer - anyone?) and test whether
the vaccine has prevented infection.  We still know too little about
the human immune system and our attempts to "boost" the immune
response to model this all on computers.  Attempts to find a vaccine
for human leukemia, tests done on cats, directly led to the FeLV
vaccine we all give our cats to protect them from feline leukemia.
Would you rather not have the vaccine?  Research in the field
of neuromuscular control is being conducted on animals right now
because we don't know enough about the functioning of the human brain
to understand why neuromuscular diseases do what they do, no do we
know enough to treat these diseases effectively.  Muscular distrophy
is a hideously destructive disease....are we going to tell victims
of this and other diseases they have to wait until we find other
methods of research?

I feel this controversy is healthy and I hope it stays in the public
conscience for a long time...but, if you are going to stop the
research, then you must be able to justify the results....in some
cases, I don't think we can.  In many cases, however, research is
unnecessary and with the public eye on the researchers it will be
stopped.  That's what we all should be working for.

    I'd like to point out that the many angry notes about Hartz were
    because the company kept Blockade on the market long after it was
    clear that it caused deaths.  (Has it even now been recalled?)
    
    I also still feel that anyone willing to inflict involuntary suffering
    on a being who either thinks or feels has an obligation to volunteer
    themselves first.
    

    As for whether animals can 'think' or 'reason', it 
    doesn't matter a wit to me when it comes to research/
    experimentation.  What matters is whether or not the
    animal feels pain and/or suffers.  And I believe they
    do.
    
    Animal liberation is a broad movement.  It is not about
    'pets', but all animals and the way we treat them, including
    farm animals that we breed for food and other things.  I
    find it paradoxical that some people opposed to the idea
    of animal rights, or the animal rights movement, accuse
    the proponents of emotionalism, yet this is exactly what
    they do.  They do this by constantly focusing the publics'
    attention on the idea that people, especially CHILDREN,
    will die if we sympathize with the animal rights movement.
    
    For some, it's a complex ethical issue, for others it's
    quite simple.  The interesting issue to be debated is, 
    "what moral or ethical right do we have as a species to
     inflict pain/suffering on non-humans?"
    
    Donna

    re.34
    very well put! I wish  I said it ;-)
    

>    re.34
>    very well put! I wish  I said it ;-)
    
Very well put...but it still does not address the legitimate questions that
exist concerning health research for which no substitutes exist.  I'm
not comfortable with animal based research, but I'm also not sick with an
incurable disease like AIDS or a cancer....I suspect THAT might make the
simple issue a little less simple.

    I think that .34 does address the original question in that it is
    the concern for the welfare of other creatures which has been the
    driving force behind the push for alternatives to animal research.
    

>    I think that .34 does address the original question in that it is
>    the concern for the welfare of other creatures which has been the
>    driving force behind the push for alternatives to animal research.
    
At what expense?  I don't believe anyone WANTS animal research for the
pleasure of hurting animals...However, if it is all stopped tomorrow,
there are real and painful questions that need answering.  I
haven't found anyone explaining what can be done INSTEAD of animal
research to:

1) Develop and test and new vaccines for humans and animals
2) Test for toxicity in health care products for both human and animals

Animal research is expensive and a whole lot of unnecessary and stupid
research has occurred.  It is certainly a crime to hurt an animal to
prove your eye shadow is safe to eat or your lipstick is safe to put
in your eyes.  But that is a small part of animal research.  If there
were answers to the two issues mentioned above, animal research could
be ended.  Sadly, there are not answers to these issues yet....and we
can't stop creating and testing vaccines and medicines without 
condemning alot of people (and yes many of them will be children) to
painful deaths.  If you are going to stop the animal research entirely
you have to take responsibility for the results of that decision.
That's why I find the question less easily resolved than some.

    re.38
    no one expects animal research to disappear overnight. The goal
    of animal rights activities is the push for the creation of
    alternatives to animal research so that someday in the hopefully
    near future using animals for research will finally be at an
    end. 
    
    

    
    I saw an advertisement last night for 48 Hours (the news program,
    not the movie) on Thursday at 8pm on CBS.  The subject is animal
    rights.  If you have a weak stomach, this is probably not for you,
    given what was shown in the 15 second time frame alone.