Animal testing helps halt human suffering (From Worcester News)
Get involved! Send your photos, video, news & views by texting WN NEWS to 80360 or e-mail us
Animal testing helps halt human suffering
8:54am Friday 29th August 2008 in
SIR – Mrs Marilyn Brown, presumably referring to my own recent letters defending medical testing on non-human animals, writes (August 26) that she is in “despair” to see these arguments. She says she can only assume that the defence of animal testing is made by people “without compassion and/or ignorant of the appalling suffering of millions of sentient beings each year.”
Surely, Mrs Brown cannot be unaware that suffering human beings are also suffering sentient beings?
I specifically defended medical testing on nonhuman animals on the grounds that it helps to alleviate or end the appalling suffering of millions of human beings each year.
As horrible as it may be to inflict suffering on a small number (relative to the people who benefit) of non-human animals through our actions, this is surely better than leaving many more human beings to endure much greater suffering through our inaction.
To question the empathy, or lack of it, to be found in those debating this issue, is not to address the issue itself.
It is head-in-the-sand ignorance, let alone insulting, whichever side of the argument you are on, to try and paint this image that anyone who disagrees with you over vivisection is “without compassion and/or ignorant”.
Disagree by all means, but the pro-vivisection argument is deeply routed in a mature, consequentialist ethics, and is empowered at every stage by compassion for the suffering of others.
BOB CHURCHILL,
Worcester
Comments(34)
KathyM
says...
3:22pm Sat 30 Aug 08
Dear Sir-This in response to a letter posted by Bob Churchill of Worcester:
Despite his statements to the contrary, animal testing has been shown NOT to be helpful in alleviating human suffering since the results of animal testing are inapplicable to humans, mainly due to the biological differences in the species and the lab conditions under which testing is performed.
Also--we are not talking about a SMALL number of animals. We are talking about thousands. It is estimated that HLS, alone, kills approximately 500 animals EVERY DAY.
Although human beings are sentient beings, that does not justify the torture and death of other sentient beings merely so that drug or cosmetic companies can bring their products to market earlier. There is no justification for deeming an animal's suffering to be less significant than that of a human being. That is a myth created to justify a cruel practice conducted solely for financial gain.
Anyone who is unsure about the effectiveness or morality of animal research should really look into the issue. There is plenty of information available. The only head-in-the sand ignorance that exists is that of those people who take the word of those who benefit financially from animal research instead of looking into the issue for themselves.
Kathy
Las Vegas, NV
Despite his statements to the contrary, animal testing has been shown NOT to be helpful in alleviating human suffering since the results of animal testing are inapplicable to humans, mainly due to the biological differences in the species and the lab conditions under which testing is performed.
Also--we are not talking about a SMALL number of animals. We are talking about thousands. It is estimated that HLS, alone, kills approximately 500 animals EVERY DAY.
Although human beings are sentient beings, that does not justify the torture and death of other sentient beings merely so that drug or cosmetic companies can bring their products to market earlier. There is no justification for deeming an animal's suffering to be less significant than that of a human being. That is a myth created to justify a cruel practice conducted solely for financial gain.
Anyone who is unsure about the effectiveness or morality of animal research should really look into the issue. There is plenty of information available. The only head-in-the sand ignorance that exists is that of those people who take the word of those who benefit financially from animal research instead of looking into the issue for themselves.
Kathy
Las Vegas, NV
CatC
says...
3:07am Sun 31 Aug 08
Well said Kathy.
There is no scientific case for experimenting on other species for human medical research...
and the 'pro-vivisection argument' is firmly rooted in supremacist ideology which should have been consigned to the history books a long time ago.
There is no scientific case for experimenting on other species for human medical research...
and the 'pro-vivisection argument' is firmly rooted in supremacist ideology which should have been consigned to the history books a long time ago.
Alan2
says...
4:22pm Sun 31 Aug 08
The words of Mr Churchill, the atheist and pro vivisectionist,
"but the pro-vivisection argument is deeply routed in a mature, consequentialist ethics, and is empowered at every stage by compassion for the suffering of others".
............
This man's interpretation of "ethics", to deliberately with premeditation, inflict extreme, prolonged suffering and torture and in most cases, eventual death on caged animals by experimentation.
This man's interpretation of "compassion for the suffering of others". Deliberately, with planning beforehand, inflict the most grotesque pain and experiments on imprisoned animals to lessen the suffering of human beings who acquired their illnesses and afflictions mostly by a number of natural or consequential means. In affect, to counteract the naturally acquired suffering of one by the deliberately acquired and inflicted suffering of another. Some ethics, some compassion.
I take pride in fullfilling Mr Churchill's criteria for "head in the sand ignorance" and "insulting" when I say that he and others like him are "without compassion and/or ignorant". I also thank God that the world is not wholly made up of people who think like him and that others are there to maintain a supremacy of humanity and real compassion and real ethics over the odious philosophies and practices of the people who Mr Churchill represents.
"but the pro-vivisection argument is deeply routed in a mature, consequentialist ethics, and is empowered at every stage by compassion for the suffering of others".
............
This man's interpretation of "ethics", to deliberately with premeditation, inflict extreme, prolonged suffering and torture and in most cases, eventual death on caged animals by experimentation.
This man's interpretation of "compassion for the suffering of others". Deliberately, with planning beforehand, inflict the most grotesque pain and experiments on imprisoned animals to lessen the suffering of human beings who acquired their illnesses and afflictions mostly by a number of natural or consequential means. In affect, to counteract the naturally acquired suffering of one by the deliberately acquired and inflicted suffering of another. Some ethics, some compassion.
I take pride in fullfilling Mr Churchill's criteria for "head in the sand ignorance" and "insulting" when I say that he and others like him are "without compassion and/or ignorant". I also thank God that the world is not wholly made up of people who think like him and that others are there to maintain a supremacy of humanity and real compassion and real ethics over the odious philosophies and practices of the people who Mr Churchill represents.
Bob Churchill
says...
2:14pm Mon 1 Sep 08
@ KathyM
No one is suggesting that vivisection is somehow perfect; science is messy and even computer simulations of the solar system can fail in predicting the orbits of planetary bodies, let alone using nonhuman animal biologies as models for our own.
However, that medical testing on non-human animals can be a great benefit to medical progress, and that it is a benefit more often than a hindrance, are well-established facts.
Who on earth is supposed to "benefit financially from animal research" in such a way that lying about the progress made by vivisection was profitable to them? Surely if vivisection was ineffectual, then medical companies for example would be best to drop it immediately.
You don't provide any source or evidence - only a vague rationale - for your claim that "animal testing has been shown NOT to be helpful in alleviating human suffering". Here's a source which details some of the benefits accrued as a direct result of animal testing:
http://www.pro-test.
org.uk/facts.php?lt=
c
And some FAQs on the same site provide some useful information which refutes some of the claims often made by anti-vivisectionists
:
http://www.pro-test.
org.uk/facts.php?lt=
b
@ CatC
I have looked at the evidence and come to the conclusion that medical testing on nonhuman animals is fruitful. Given that I have made this assessment, for me there is a horrible moral choice: should we inflict some suffering on nonhuman animals, in order to prevent the much greater suffering of a far larger number of people. This is a horrible choice to have to make, but given my assessment of vivisection and given that I think that morality consists in doing the greatest good, that choice becomes inevitable. It is not a "supremacist ideology"! My response is based on looking at the science and a consequentialist approach to ethics.
No one is suggesting that vivisection is somehow perfect; science is messy and even computer simulations of the solar system can fail in predicting the orbits of planetary bodies, let alone using nonhuman animal biologies as models for our own.
However, that medical testing on non-human animals can be a great benefit to medical progress, and that it is a benefit more often than a hindrance, are well-established facts.
Who on earth is supposed to "benefit financially from animal research" in such a way that lying about the progress made by vivisection was profitable to them? Surely if vivisection was ineffectual, then medical companies for example would be best to drop it immediately.
You don't provide any source or evidence - only a vague rationale - for your claim that "animal testing has been shown NOT to be helpful in alleviating human suffering". Here's a source which details some of the benefits accrued as a direct result of animal testing:
http://www.pro-test.
org.uk/facts.php?lt=
c
And some FAQs on the same site provide some useful information which refutes some of the claims often made by anti-vivisectionists
:
http://www.pro-test.
org.uk/facts.php?lt=
b
@ CatC
I have looked at the evidence and come to the conclusion that medical testing on nonhuman animals is fruitful. Given that I have made this assessment, for me there is a horrible moral choice: should we inflict some suffering on nonhuman animals, in order to prevent the much greater suffering of a far larger number of people. This is a horrible choice to have to make, but given my assessment of vivisection and given that I think that morality consists in doing the greatest good, that choice becomes inevitable. It is not a "supremacist ideology"! My response is based on looking at the science and a consequentialist approach to ethics.
Bob Churchill
says...
2:15pm Mon 1 Sep 08
@ Alan2
You seem to be stuck on the fact that I'm an atheist, Alan2...?
Anyway, I tried to explain in my letter why I felt it was pointless to try to turn vivisection into a battle of who has the most feelings. Yet you have decided that you can characterise my ethics as you do. Maybe then you'll enjoy it if I take your approach and flailingly characterise your ethics for you: This man's interpretation of "ethics", is to diliberately and with premeditation, abandon and therefore prolong the extreme and often fatal suffering of millions of human beings every year.
How does that suit you?
Alan2, you characterise me in very personal terms - you obviously feel very, very strongly about animal testing. Perhaps then you would care to publicly state that you will refuse in principle to receive any benefit from any research based on animal testing? You can't do that, as such, of coruse, because you are probably vaccinated against a few things like polio or tuberculosis, or you or someone you know might take insulin for diabetes, and you haven't died of smallpox because it was eradicated (the research for the program was carried out on cows). However, you could at least publicly state that you will decline any further benefit from animal testing than those which you have already received?
You seem to be stuck on the fact that I'm an atheist, Alan2...?
Anyway, I tried to explain in my letter why I felt it was pointless to try to turn vivisection into a battle of who has the most feelings. Yet you have decided that you can characterise my ethics as you do. Maybe then you'll enjoy it if I take your approach and flailingly characterise your ethics for you: This man's interpretation of "ethics", is to diliberately and with premeditation, abandon and therefore prolong the extreme and often fatal suffering of millions of human beings every year.
How does that suit you?
Alan2, you characterise me in very personal terms - you obviously feel very, very strongly about animal testing. Perhaps then you would care to publicly state that you will refuse in principle to receive any benefit from any research based on animal testing? You can't do that, as such, of coruse, because you are probably vaccinated against a few things like polio or tuberculosis, or you or someone you know might take insulin for diabetes, and you haven't died of smallpox because it was eradicated (the research for the program was carried out on cows). However, you could at least publicly state that you will decline any further benefit from animal testing than those which you have already received?
Alan2
says...
5:16pm Mon 1 Sep 08
Mr Churchill, this world of ours is made up of people with widely differing views, opinions, faiths and call it what you will. I respect them all as human beings and am indifferent to their beliefs until they voice them and I find them objectionable or, to me personally unacceptable.
You, as an atheist, see science and scientists as the saviour for all mankind and every other belief, opinion, faith or whatever, unless it is supported by cast iron, factual, scientific evidence, of which you will be the arbiter, is a nonsence, eg., religion is a nonsence and live animal experiments are "right" and moral. These are but two examples.
That is fine, I know many people who think similar things and I get on fine with them and never argue or disagree. The difference however between those people and yourself however is striking, they appreciate that their views are very controversial and if mentioned, they provoke heated debate, consequently, they are rarely mentioned and they don't go shouting them from the roof-tops. You however, claiming the self appointed moral high ground and an assertion that only your own personal views are valid, choose to broadcast them for whatever reason you deem correct for yourself.
Though I may be wrong, I believe that you would give scientists, total, unfettered right and opportunity to carry out any work that they deem appropriate, again, they themselves to be the sole arbiter. I believe however that scientists should be subjected to the closest possible oversight, scrutiny and control but I don't make a huge issue of my own personal beliefs neither do I try to indoctrinate other people with them as you appear to do.
That is why I find your views so repulsive and unacceptable. Everyone knows that animal experiments take place, everyone knows that atheists exist but why you would wish to broadcast that you believe in both, unless it was in the forlorn hope and intention to expand their acceptance. If that is your intention then I think that you should be exposed in the sence that other views, just as pertinent as your own exist and are those of (I would guess) the greater majority of people.
You choose to bring up the emotive subject of illnesses etc cured as a result of animal experiments and couche it in terms which are the favourite outlet for those who believe in this obscene practice.
My Grandmother brought into my family, the curse of diabetes. She lived to 81 and died before Insulin was discovered and her treatment for it was, by present day standards, primitive. She lived however to a good age without Insulin. I myself, and numerous other members of my family have Type 1 (Insulin treated) Diabetes. My Insulin is not animal but human based which gives rise to a very obvious question which I leave to you to ask or ponder over.
I reject your views Mr Churchill and in your own words, would accuse you of being "without compassion and/or ignorant". What you accuse me of is immaterial and of little consequence to me.
You, as an atheist, see science and scientists as the saviour for all mankind and every other belief, opinion, faith or whatever, unless it is supported by cast iron, factual, scientific evidence, of which you will be the arbiter, is a nonsence, eg., religion is a nonsence and live animal experiments are "right" and moral. These are but two examples.
That is fine, I know many people who think similar things and I get on fine with them and never argue or disagree. The difference however between those people and yourself however is striking, they appreciate that their views are very controversial and if mentioned, they provoke heated debate, consequently, they are rarely mentioned and they don't go shouting them from the roof-tops. You however, claiming the self appointed moral high ground and an assertion that only your own personal views are valid, choose to broadcast them for whatever reason you deem correct for yourself.
Though I may be wrong, I believe that you would give scientists, total, unfettered right and opportunity to carry out any work that they deem appropriate, again, they themselves to be the sole arbiter. I believe however that scientists should be subjected to the closest possible oversight, scrutiny and control but I don't make a huge issue of my own personal beliefs neither do I try to indoctrinate other people with them as you appear to do.
That is why I find your views so repulsive and unacceptable. Everyone knows that animal experiments take place, everyone knows that atheists exist but why you would wish to broadcast that you believe in both, unless it was in the forlorn hope and intention to expand their acceptance. If that is your intention then I think that you should be exposed in the sence that other views, just as pertinent as your own exist and are those of (I would guess) the greater majority of people.
You choose to bring up the emotive subject of illnesses etc cured as a result of animal experiments and couche it in terms which are the favourite outlet for those who believe in this obscene practice.
My Grandmother brought into my family, the curse of diabetes. She lived to 81 and died before Insulin was discovered and her treatment for it was, by present day standards, primitive. She lived however to a good age without Insulin. I myself, and numerous other members of my family have Type 1 (Insulin treated) Diabetes. My Insulin is not animal but human based which gives rise to a very obvious question which I leave to you to ask or ponder over.
I reject your views Mr Churchill and in your own words, would accuse you of being "without compassion and/or ignorant". What you accuse me of is immaterial and of little consequence to me.
CatC
says...
12:14am Tue 2 Sep 08
"I have looked at the evidence and come to the conclusion that medical testing on nonhuman animals is fruitful."
What 'evidence' has led you to that belief though? Can you tell us on what actual hard facts / evidence your belief is based?
"...should we inflict some suffering on nonhuman animals, in order to prevent the much greater suffering of a far larger number of people..."
Your argument fails on two points, firstly your claim re 'greater suffering' fails because it stems from your supremacist mindset rather than any scientific measurement,
secondly, even if there was some such scientific measure your argument fails because any such 'suffering' hierarchy would equally 'justify' experimenting on some humans - eg babies, or terminally ill babies, humans suffering severe brain damage or mental illness etc - 'to prevent the much greater suffering of a far larger number of people'.
"...and given that I think that morality consists in doing the greatest good"
You mean though the 'greatest good' for Your preferred group...not to ensure the 'greatest good' overall.
"It is not a "supremacist ideology"!"
It is exactly a supremacist ideology, you think your preferred group is superior and Therefore that justifies ruthlessly exploiting, imprisoning, harming, mutilating and killing those who are innocent and defenceless but not in your preferred group (thus conveniently deemed inferior).
"My response is based on looking at the science"
I look forward to hearing what actual hard facts have so convinced you.
"and a consequentialist approach to ethics."
There are many forms of consequentialism, which is yours? Although all have in common that only *consequences* be considered when coming to judgements about 'right' and 'wrong', as above this would 'justify' similarly experimenting on humans too....Is that what you are advocating?
What 'evidence' has led you to that belief though? Can you tell us on what actual hard facts / evidence your belief is based?
"...should we inflict some suffering on nonhuman animals, in order to prevent the much greater suffering of a far larger number of people..."
Your argument fails on two points, firstly your claim re 'greater suffering' fails because it stems from your supremacist mindset rather than any scientific measurement,
secondly, even if there was some such scientific measure your argument fails because any such 'suffering' hierarchy would equally 'justify' experimenting on some humans - eg babies, or terminally ill babies, humans suffering severe brain damage or mental illness etc - 'to prevent the much greater suffering of a far larger number of people'.
"...and given that I think that morality consists in doing the greatest good"
You mean though the 'greatest good' for Your preferred group...not to ensure the 'greatest good' overall.
"It is not a "supremacist ideology"!"
It is exactly a supremacist ideology, you think your preferred group is superior and Therefore that justifies ruthlessly exploiting, imprisoning, harming, mutilating and killing those who are innocent and defenceless but not in your preferred group (thus conveniently deemed inferior).
"My response is based on looking at the science"
I look forward to hearing what actual hard facts have so convinced you.
"and a consequentialist approach to ethics."
There are many forms of consequentialism, which is yours? Although all have in common that only *consequences* be considered when coming to judgements about 'right' and 'wrong', as above this would 'justify' similarly experimenting on humans too....Is that what you are advocating?
CatC
says...
1:15am Tue 2 Sep 08
Sorry, forgot to mention re the Pro-test website link -
the info there is just the usual pro-vivisection unsupported claims and fallacious reasoning...where are any scientific arguments?
I have never seen/heard/read Pro-test give any scientific arguments to support/explain the 'cause and effect' they claim.
Also for example, on the link their first claim re thalidomide is entirely misleading, it is simply not a truthful account.
What the pro-vivisection lobby don't say is that thalidomide also caused peripheral neuritis, often irreversible, in around 40,000 humans.
Thalidomide has a toxic effect on the human nervous system. The original animal tests did not show any indications of this serious effect and the licensees of thalidomide in several European countries carried out their own independent animal tests but still the results didn't show any such effect.
So, thalidomide shows why testing on other species is extremely dangerous for humans - if the animal tests had demonstrated nerve damage thalidomide wouldn't have been allowed on the market in the first place, and the major tragedies of birth deformities and peripheral neuritis would have been avoided.
Further, although peripheral neuritis doesn't of itself point to reproductive damage scientists would, should, take damage to the nervous system as grounds for great concern as to that aspect.
'Safer Medicines' is calling for an 'Independent scientific evaluation of the utility of animal tests for drug safety', 250 MPs have supported this call and the inquiry would put the facts in the public domain.
Everyone can support the call for the inquiry via this link -
www.safermedicines.o
rg
the info there is just the usual pro-vivisection unsupported claims and fallacious reasoning...where are any scientific arguments?
I have never seen/heard/read Pro-test give any scientific arguments to support/explain the 'cause and effect' they claim.
Also for example, on the link their first claim re thalidomide is entirely misleading, it is simply not a truthful account.
What the pro-vivisection lobby don't say is that thalidomide also caused peripheral neuritis, often irreversible, in around 40,000 humans.
Thalidomide has a toxic effect on the human nervous system. The original animal tests did not show any indications of this serious effect and the licensees of thalidomide in several European countries carried out their own independent animal tests but still the results didn't show any such effect.
So, thalidomide shows why testing on other species is extremely dangerous for humans - if the animal tests had demonstrated nerve damage thalidomide wouldn't have been allowed on the market in the first place, and the major tragedies of birth deformities and peripheral neuritis would have been avoided.
Further, although peripheral neuritis doesn't of itself point to reproductive damage scientists would, should, take damage to the nervous system as grounds for great concern as to that aspect.
'Safer Medicines' is calling for an 'Independent scientific evaluation of the utility of animal tests for drug safety', 250 MPs have supported this call and the inquiry would put the facts in the public domain.
Everyone can support the call for the inquiry via this link -
www.safermedicines.o
rg
Bob Churchill
says...
3:09pm Wed 3 Sep 08
Alan2,
I don't disagree that we live in a society of pluralistic belief, nor do I disagree that you shouldn't voice criticisms of those beliefs. I do the same thing.
You go on to say, "You, as an atheist, see science and scientists as the saviour for all mankind". I have not said this, nor would I. I don't even believe in "cast iron, factual, scientific evidence" (I'm pretty much a Popperian about the philosohpy of science, if you must know) let alone that any such imaginary infallibility could be the final arbiter of anything.
In what sense have I ever said or employed that the "moral high ground" is mine and mine alone? or asserted that "only own personal views are valid"? I have never said any such thing, nor would I. Neither have I "broadcast" them more widely than anyone else who cares to writes letters to newspapers or place comments on websites. You said yourself that voicing opinions is something that you do yourself - evidently.
It seems to me that you are simply attacking my character - based on assumptions entirely of your own making. It seems like a way of avoiding the actual topic of debate.
You would indeed be wrong to believe that I would give scientists "unfettered" access to do anything they wanted. During this debate I have mentioned a couple of times that scientists are already bound by strict ethical codes, and so they should be. Licenses for vivisection are not easily obtained, no should they be. We are all, scientists or otherwise, obliged to think hard upon our actions and our ethics, and so we should.
You then go on to say "That is why I find your views so repulsive and unacceptable." No wonder - you're making them up!
You say: "Everyone knows that animal experiments take place, everyone knows that atheists exist but why you would wish to broadcast that you believe in both". Yet again you come back to my atheism - which I hadn't raised in the context of this debate. You know I can actually hold more than one position on more than one topic, don't you? Now, there is a bit of a tendency toward consequentialist ethics among humanists while there is a tendency toward deontological ethics among the religious - but I didn't raise it.
You say "You choose to bring up the emotive subject of illnesses etc". Actually my first letter on this subejct was a response to someone else, and she bought up the subject of illness in a personal capacity - not me. Furthermore, the concept of illness in general is rather likely to come up in a debate about medicine!
The point about diabetes treatment is that in order to establish its the link between diabetes and the pancreas, and the subsequent development of treatments, tests were carried on non-human animals (dogs in this case).
By the way, the words "without compassion and/or ignorant" weren't mine, they were used against me - just as you have recycled them, here.
You could start trying to focus on the issue at hand, perhaps by disputing the veracity of the science of medical testing, by all means, but stop insinuating beliefs of me which you know very well I have not expressed.
I don't disagree that we live in a society of pluralistic belief, nor do I disagree that you shouldn't voice criticisms of those beliefs. I do the same thing.
You go on to say, "You, as an atheist, see science and scientists as the saviour for all mankind". I have not said this, nor would I. I don't even believe in "cast iron, factual, scientific evidence" (I'm pretty much a Popperian about the philosohpy of science, if you must know) let alone that any such imaginary infallibility could be the final arbiter of anything.
In what sense have I ever said or employed that the "moral high ground" is mine and mine alone? or asserted that "only own personal views are valid"? I have never said any such thing, nor would I. Neither have I "broadcast" them more widely than anyone else who cares to writes letters to newspapers or place comments on websites. You said yourself that voicing opinions is something that you do yourself - evidently.
It seems to me that you are simply attacking my character - based on assumptions entirely of your own making. It seems like a way of avoiding the actual topic of debate.
You would indeed be wrong to believe that I would give scientists "unfettered" access to do anything they wanted. During this debate I have mentioned a couple of times that scientists are already bound by strict ethical codes, and so they should be. Licenses for vivisection are not easily obtained, no should they be. We are all, scientists or otherwise, obliged to think hard upon our actions and our ethics, and so we should.
You then go on to say "That is why I find your views so repulsive and unacceptable." No wonder - you're making them up!
You say: "Everyone knows that animal experiments take place, everyone knows that atheists exist but why you would wish to broadcast that you believe in both". Yet again you come back to my atheism - which I hadn't raised in the context of this debate. You know I can actually hold more than one position on more than one topic, don't you? Now, there is a bit of a tendency toward consequentialist ethics among humanists while there is a tendency toward deontological ethics among the religious - but I didn't raise it.
You say "You choose to bring up the emotive subject of illnesses etc". Actually my first letter on this subejct was a response to someone else, and she bought up the subject of illness in a personal capacity - not me. Furthermore, the concept of illness in general is rather likely to come up in a debate about medicine!
The point about diabetes treatment is that in order to establish its the link between diabetes and the pancreas, and the subsequent development of treatments, tests were carried on non-human animals (dogs in this case).
By the way, the words "without compassion and/or ignorant" weren't mine, they were used against me - just as you have recycled them, here.
You could start trying to focus on the issue at hand, perhaps by disputing the veracity of the science of medical testing, by all means, but stop insinuating beliefs of me which you know very well I have not expressed.
Bob Churchill
says...
3:21pm Wed 3 Sep 08
Cat C
I did give you a couple of links to some introductory material. Here's some digest information fro Pro-Test.
> "According to the US-based Foundation for Biomedical Research, 'animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century - for both human and veterinary health. From antibiotics to blood transfusions, from dialysis to organ transplantation, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, bypass surgery and joint replacement, practically every present-day protocol for the prevention, treatment, cure and control of disease, pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained through research with lab animals.'
> "In the last five years in the UK, no fewer than three independent inquiries have been carried out into the effectiveness of animal research in developing medicines for human use. The House of Lords Select Committee, the Parliamentary Animal Procedures Committee and the independent Nuffield Council on Bioethics all concluded that testing on animals is a scientifically sound method, has yielded great results in the past, and is crucial for future advances. ...
> "But animal research hasn't benefited humans alone. Animals also have improved healthcare and a longer lifespan. Farm animals, household pets, wild species and endangered species are all benefiting from the research conducted through animals. There are vaccines for rabies, distemper, tetanus, parvo virus and numerous other illnesses in cats, dogs and countless other domesticated animals. Cats now have a treatment for Feline Leukemia. It's obvious that animal research benefits all living species and that we are all able to live longer, healthier, happier lives because of it.
> "In fact, 71 of the Nobel Prizes for Medicine won in the last 103 years were awarded to scientists who used animals in their research.
My claim that the suffering of humans from disease is a "greater suffering" does not "fail". The number of human beings who suffer from diseases which can be cured or alleviated through treatments developed with animal testing vastly, vastly outweighs the number of animals used in trials.
By the way, you say that my argument would "justify" human tests as well. Well, obviously we do undertake human medical trials as well, where the situation is judged to be beneficial and the risk is low that the unintended effects would be worse than this initial condition. And yes, riskier treatments are carried out on terminally ill human patients, with consent of course.
You're wrong. When I say "the greatest good" I do mean the greatest good overall.
I did give you a couple of links to some introductory material. Here's some digest information fro Pro-Test.
> "According to the US-based Foundation for Biomedical Research, 'animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century - for both human and veterinary health. From antibiotics to blood transfusions, from dialysis to organ transplantation, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, bypass surgery and joint replacement, practically every present-day protocol for the prevention, treatment, cure and control of disease, pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained through research with lab animals.'
> "In the last five years in the UK, no fewer than three independent inquiries have been carried out into the effectiveness of animal research in developing medicines for human use. The House of Lords Select Committee, the Parliamentary Animal Procedures Committee and the independent Nuffield Council on Bioethics all concluded that testing on animals is a scientifically sound method, has yielded great results in the past, and is crucial for future advances. ...
> "But animal research hasn't benefited humans alone. Animals also have improved healthcare and a longer lifespan. Farm animals, household pets, wild species and endangered species are all benefiting from the research conducted through animals. There are vaccines for rabies, distemper, tetanus, parvo virus and numerous other illnesses in cats, dogs and countless other domesticated animals. Cats now have a treatment for Feline Leukemia. It's obvious that animal research benefits all living species and that we are all able to live longer, healthier, happier lives because of it.
> "In fact, 71 of the Nobel Prizes for Medicine won in the last 103 years were awarded to scientists who used animals in their research.
My claim that the suffering of humans from disease is a "greater suffering" does not "fail". The number of human beings who suffer from diseases which can be cured or alleviated through treatments developed with animal testing vastly, vastly outweighs the number of animals used in trials.
By the way, you say that my argument would "justify" human tests as well. Well, obviously we do undertake human medical trials as well, where the situation is judged to be beneficial and the risk is low that the unintended effects would be worse than this initial condition. And yes, riskier treatments are carried out on terminally ill human patients, with consent of course.
You're wrong. When I say "the greatest good" I do mean the greatest good overall.
anarchist
says...
7:17pm Wed 3 Sep 08
Bob,
You really shouldn't bother trying to have a rational debate with CatC on this since she will simply claim that any evidence that doesn't support her position, however strong, is not evidence at all!
Anyone who argues that the millions of fruit flies that have died in advancing our knowledge of genetics didn't produce anything of value for humans is not going to engage in a rational debate!
You really shouldn't bother trying to have a rational debate with CatC on this since she will simply claim that any evidence that doesn't support her position, however strong, is not evidence at all!
Anyone who argues that the millions of fruit flies that have died in advancing our knowledge of genetics didn't produce anything of value for humans is not going to engage in a rational debate!
Alan2
says...
7:57pm Wed 3 Sep 08
By the way, you say that my argument would "justify" human tests as well. Well, obviously WE do undertake human medical trials as well, where the situation is judged to be beneficial and the risk is low that the unintended effects would be worse than this initial condition. And yes, riskier treatments are carried out on terminally ill human patients, with consent of course.
............
Mr Churchill, in the above paragraph, you use the expression, "well obviously WE do etc", and this could be taken that you yourself are a Scientist or former Scientist. I would be obliged if you would satisfy my curiosity by saying if you are one in the Animal Experimentation/Medi
cal sphere. A straight yes or no would more than suffice because in the current climate of militant "animal rights", it is a brave person to advocate animal experimentation and then admit to carrying them out. An admission however would cause the argument to be the more convincing and carry greater veracity albeit still as misguided.
CatC
says...
1:48am Thu 4 Sep 08
"I did give you a couple of links to some introductory material. Here's some digest information fro Pro-Test..."
You have not answered my question though, you have repeated only statements, you have not provided any scientific facts / evidence / rationale for the 'cause and effect' you believe.
Any 'side' can make such statements but mere statements claiming something are NOT scientific fact / evidence / rationale...you, like Pro-test, make the mistake of confusing the former for the latter.
As I've said I've never seen/heard/read the latter from Pro-test, only statements - what scientific fact / evidence / rationale have so convinced YOU?
"My claim that the suffering of humans from disease is a "greater suffering" does not "fail". The number of human beings who suffer....far outweighs the number of animals used in trials."
I've answered this, your argument stems from a supremacist mindset and fails on the 'numbers game' - for example, there are fewer humans with, say, severe brain-damage than without...
so via your 'greatest number' approach it would be 'justified' to experiment on them, or other particular groups of humans, 'to prevent the much greater suffering of a far larger number of people'.
"you say that my argument would "justify" human tests as well. Well, obviously we do undertake human medical trials as well..."
Firstly I apologise if it was not clear that when I said 'equally justify experimenting on some humans', I meant in the same way you advocate experimenting on animals...
anyway though, yes of course we experiment on humans in clinical trials etc...that is my point, *the* point...the previous experiments on other species are not valid, and are dangerously misleading, for humans...
so we need, MUST HAVE, scientific, human-relevant methods instead of invalid, misleading results from other species...
and further we need individually tailored trials, testing and medicines because - due to tiny, tiny genetic variations within the same species - what 'works' in one human can harm, even kill, another human.
"You're wrong. When I say "the greatest good" I do mean the greatest good overall."
No, you mean the greatest good for Your preferred group as shown above by your choice for the numbers game....the numbers argument can be used to 'justify' anything...
it fails because it is entirely subjective, it isn't based on universal morality it is based entirely on the viewpoint of the power group.
You have not answered my question though, you have repeated only statements, you have not provided any scientific facts / evidence / rationale for the 'cause and effect' you believe.
Any 'side' can make such statements but mere statements claiming something are NOT scientific fact / evidence / rationale...you, like Pro-test, make the mistake of confusing the former for the latter.
As I've said I've never seen/heard/read the latter from Pro-test, only statements - what scientific fact / evidence / rationale have so convinced YOU?
"My claim that the suffering of humans from disease is a "greater suffering" does not "fail". The number of human beings who suffer....far outweighs the number of animals used in trials."
I've answered this, your argument stems from a supremacist mindset and fails on the 'numbers game' - for example, there are fewer humans with, say, severe brain-damage than without...
so via your 'greatest number' approach it would be 'justified' to experiment on them, or other particular groups of humans, 'to prevent the much greater suffering of a far larger number of people'.
"you say that my argument would "justify" human tests as well. Well, obviously we do undertake human medical trials as well..."
Firstly I apologise if it was not clear that when I said 'equally justify experimenting on some humans', I meant in the same way you advocate experimenting on animals...
anyway though, yes of course we experiment on humans in clinical trials etc...that is my point, *the* point...the previous experiments on other species are not valid, and are dangerously misleading, for humans...
so we need, MUST HAVE, scientific, human-relevant methods instead of invalid, misleading results from other species...
and further we need individually tailored trials, testing and medicines because - due to tiny, tiny genetic variations within the same species - what 'works' in one human can harm, even kill, another human.
"You're wrong. When I say "the greatest good" I do mean the greatest good overall."
No, you mean the greatest good for Your preferred group as shown above by your choice for the numbers game....the numbers argument can be used to 'justify' anything...
it fails because it is entirely subjective, it isn't based on universal morality it is based entirely on the viewpoint of the power group.
CatC
says...
2:01am Thu 4 Sep 08
anarchist wrote:Hi anarchist, see you have forgotten that such experiments completely misled scientists to claim humans have 100,000 genes...and that you still think fruit flies are in fact tiny, tiny humans ;)
Bob,You really shouldn't bother trying to have a rational debate with CatC on this since she will simply claim that any evidence that doesn't support her position, however strong, is not evidence at all!Anyone who argues that the millions of fruit flies that have died in advancing our knowledge of genetics didn't produce anything of value for humans is not going to engage in a rational debate!
I've previously explained to you that making statements is entirely different to explaining 'cause and effect', making statements is different from explaining scientific facts / evidence / rationale...
you couldn't give any scientific facts / evidence / rationale to support your claims when we last 'spoke'...can you now?
I've explained the scientific, fact-based case against experimenting on other species for human medical research - can you explain any scientific, fact-based case to support experimenting on other species for same?
CatC
says...
2:24am Thu 4 Sep 08
"I would be obliged....by saying if you are one in the Animal Experimentation/Medi
cal sphere....An admission...would cause the argument to be the more convincing and carry greater veracity"
Alan2, how would claims that animal experiments 'work' be more convincing and carry greater veracity Because they came from someone who makes their living from animal experiments?
*Of course* those who making their living from x are going to say x works!
This issue is far, far to serious to merely rely on the word of those with a vested-interest....
which is why we need an independent, transparent inquiry - that would put the facts in the public domain -into the validity of animal experiments for human medical research.
Everyone who is more concerned about having safe/effective treatments for humans than they are about being anti-animal-rights should support the call for the inquiry, they can do this via -
www.safermedicines.o
rg
cal sphere....An admission...would cause the argument to be the more convincing and carry greater veracity"
Alan2, how would claims that animal experiments 'work' be more convincing and carry greater veracity Because they came from someone who makes their living from animal experiments?
*Of course* those who making their living from x are going to say x works!
This issue is far, far to serious to merely rely on the word of those with a vested-interest....
which is why we need an independent, transparent inquiry - that would put the facts in the public domain -into the validity of animal experiments for human medical research.
Everyone who is more concerned about having safe/effective treatments for humans than they are about being anti-animal-rights should support the call for the inquiry, they can do this via -
www.safermedicines.o
rg
anarchist
says...
9:48am Thu 4 Sep 08
CatC:
"I've previously explained to you that making statements is entirely different to explaining 'cause and effect', making statements is different from explaining scientific facts."
Cause: Experiments on fruit flies (in which many millions died).
Effect: Improved knowledge of genetics leading to major benefits in human and animal medicene.
As a Ph.D. physicist I don't need any lectures on cause and effect and I am completely confident of the causal link between past animal experiments and the results for humans and animals (both positive and negative).
The issue is not the one you paint of all problems and no benefits but instead one of the balance of advanatage when the positives and negatives are considered side by side.
The issue NOW is whether we need to CONTINUE to conduct animal experiments or whether we NOW have the knowledge to do this in an alternative and possibly better way.
Denying any benefits obtained from past animal (and, it seems, in your case, insect) experiments just makes your case look silly and ill informed.
"I've previously explained to you that making statements is entirely different to explaining 'cause and effect', making statements is different from explaining scientific facts."
Cause: Experiments on fruit flies (in which many millions died).
Effect: Improved knowledge of genetics leading to major benefits in human and animal medicene.
As a Ph.D. physicist I don't need any lectures on cause and effect and I am completely confident of the causal link between past animal experiments and the results for humans and animals (both positive and negative).
The issue is not the one you paint of all problems and no benefits but instead one of the balance of advanatage when the positives and negatives are considered side by side.
The issue NOW is whether we need to CONTINUE to conduct animal experiments or whether we NOW have the knowledge to do this in an alternative and possibly better way.
Denying any benefits obtained from past animal (and, it seems, in your case, insect) experiments just makes your case look silly and ill informed.
Alan2
says...
12:06pm Thu 4 Sep 08
CatC, I take your point entirely and my comment came across in a way different to what I intended - which I won't further now because this debate/argument has no conclusion as things now stand. I did end by saying, "albeit still as misguided though".
I would just make one other point though, as most know on these blogs, my name is Alan S. Williams, I make no secret of it and am not ashamed of it. I see that "ANARCHIST" states that he is a Ph.D physicist and he supports and argues in favour of live animal experiments. The pseudonym alone, ie, ANARCHIST is interesting and if the person at the back of this has the courage of his/her convictions and is prepared to stand up and be counted rather than shelter behind a shield we would know his/her true identity. People can make the most outrageous claims to support their case if they hide behind a nick-name.
I would just make one other point though, as most know on these blogs, my name is Alan S. Williams, I make no secret of it and am not ashamed of it. I see that "ANARCHIST" states that he is a Ph.D physicist and he supports and argues in favour of live animal experiments. The pseudonym alone, ie, ANARCHIST is interesting and if the person at the back of this has the courage of his/her convictions and is prepared to stand up and be counted rather than shelter behind a shield we would know his/her true identity. People can make the most outrageous claims to support their case if they hide behind a nick-name.
anarchist
says...
1:00pm Thu 4 Sep 08
Actually, Alan2, I have been careful not to argue either for or against live animal experiments in this thread.
All I have said here is that past experiments on fruit flies have contributed knowledge that has proved valuable for humans and animals.
You ask why I don't express my views in my own name? In short I don't see any incentive to put myself, my family or my colleagues at risk of being intimidated by the extremists in the animal rights movement.
In any event it should be the arguments that matter irrespective of who is posting them.
All I have said here is that past experiments on fruit flies have contributed knowledge that has proved valuable for humans and animals.
You ask why I don't express my views in my own name? In short I don't see any incentive to put myself, my family or my colleagues at risk of being intimidated by the extremists in the animal rights movement.
In any event it should be the arguments that matter irrespective of who is posting them.
CatC
says...
9:34pm Thu 4 Sep 08
"Cause: Experiments on fruit flies (in which many millions died).
Effect: Improved knowledge of genetics leading to major benefits in human and animal medicene."
No no anarchist, like Pro-test you confuse mere statements with scientific facts / evidence / rational.
You are simply making a statement, you have not provided any scientific facts / evidence / rationale - no fact and evidence based theory to explain any causal, rather than casaul, link.
"As a Ph.D. physicist I don't need any lectures on cause and effect"
Hmmmmm....I feel one might reasonably expect a Ph.D. physicist to know the difference between a mere statement and a scientific theory as to process...
"and I am completely confident of the causal link between past animal experiments and the results for humans and animals (both positive and negative)."
Well presumably, as you are a Ph.D. physicist, your confidence would be based on more that mere statements.....IF so then please do tell us the scientific, fact and evidence based theory that has so convinced you.
"The issue is not the one you paint of all problems and no benefits but instead one of the balance of advanatage when the positives and negatives are considered side by side."
There are scientific facts and evidence which demonstrate why your claim fails - ie, each species is different at the cellular and molecular level which is where disease occurs...and further, there are tiny, tiny genetic variations WITHIN species which are crucial re disease and treatments.
These are hard, well-documented facts - there are genetic variations both inter and intra species, these are crucial to both disease and medicines.
"The issue NOW is whether we need to CONTINUE to conduct animal experiments or whether we NOW have the knowledge to do this in an alternative and possibly better way."
The issue NOW - as it always has been - is whether experimenting on other species for human medical research is a valid approach - that's why we need the independent, transparent inquiry which will also put the facts into the public domain....I seem to remember you didn't support such an inquiry though...
"Denying any benefits obtained from past animal (and, it seems, in your case, insect) experiments just makes your case look silly and ill informed."
I can see it might do to those who don't understand the difference between a mere statement and a scientific theory of process :)
To everyone else it is entirely logical and correct to NOT accept mere statements as indisputable hard evidence but to instead require an explanation as to the causal link.
Effect: Improved knowledge of genetics leading to major benefits in human and animal medicene."
No no anarchist, like Pro-test you confuse mere statements with scientific facts / evidence / rational.
You are simply making a statement, you have not provided any scientific facts / evidence / rationale - no fact and evidence based theory to explain any causal, rather than casaul, link.
"As a Ph.D. physicist I don't need any lectures on cause and effect"
Hmmmmm....I feel one might reasonably expect a Ph.D. physicist to know the difference between a mere statement and a scientific theory as to process...
"and I am completely confident of the causal link between past animal experiments and the results for humans and animals (both positive and negative)."
Well presumably, as you are a Ph.D. physicist, your confidence would be based on more that mere statements.....IF so then please do tell us the scientific, fact and evidence based theory that has so convinced you.
"The issue is not the one you paint of all problems and no benefits but instead one of the balance of advanatage when the positives and negatives are considered side by side."
There are scientific facts and evidence which demonstrate why your claim fails - ie, each species is different at the cellular and molecular level which is where disease occurs...and further, there are tiny, tiny genetic variations WITHIN species which are crucial re disease and treatments.
These are hard, well-documented facts - there are genetic variations both inter and intra species, these are crucial to both disease and medicines.
"The issue NOW is whether we need to CONTINUE to conduct animal experiments or whether we NOW have the knowledge to do this in an alternative and possibly better way."
The issue NOW - as it always has been - is whether experimenting on other species for human medical research is a valid approach - that's why we need the independent, transparent inquiry which will also put the facts into the public domain....I seem to remember you didn't support such an inquiry though...
"Denying any benefits obtained from past animal (and, it seems, in your case, insect) experiments just makes your case look silly and ill informed."
I can see it might do to those who don't understand the difference between a mere statement and a scientific theory of process :)
To everyone else it is entirely logical and correct to NOT accept mere statements as indisputable hard evidence but to instead require an explanation as to the causal link.
CatC
says...
9:59pm Thu 4 Sep 08
"I take your point entirely and my comment came across in a way different to what I intended"
Oh good, ok then :)
"I see that "ANARCHIST" states that he is a Ph.D physicist and he supports and argues in favour of live animal experiments. The pseudonym alone, ie, ANARCHIST is interesting"
Yes, I've 'spoken' to anarchist on a previous board, reasonably civil conversation - it's something to do with being anti-database-state.
..which allayed my suspicions it was another pro-vivisection ploy :)
Oh good, ok then :)
"I see that "ANARCHIST" states that he is a Ph.D physicist and he supports and argues in favour of live animal experiments. The pseudonym alone, ie, ANARCHIST is interesting"
Yes, I've 'spoken' to anarchist on a previous board, reasonably civil conversation - it's something to do with being anti-database-state.
..which allayed my suspicions it was another pro-vivisection ploy :)
anarchist
says...
10:37pm Thu 4 Sep 08
CatC,
What I claim as evidence you claim are simply statements and hence not factual evidence. Which, of course, is complete nonsense since scientific evidence always has to be presnted in the form of statements.
That experiments on fruit flies have advanced our knowledge of genetics is not subject to sensible dispute. Nor is it sensible to claim that knowledge gained in this way has not been of benefit for human medicene.
We are not going to agree on this so we will have to leave those reading this exchange to judge for themselves who is right.
Me:
"Denying any benefits obtained from past animal (and, it seems, in your case, insect) experiments just makes your case look silly and ill informed."
CatC:
I can see it might do to those who don't understand the difference between a mere statement and a scientific theory of process :)
Which is a good place to leave it since it means that 99.999...% of those reading this will draw the right conclusion.
What I claim as evidence you claim are simply statements and hence not factual evidence. Which, of course, is complete nonsense since scientific evidence always has to be presnted in the form of statements.
That experiments on fruit flies have advanced our knowledge of genetics is not subject to sensible dispute. Nor is it sensible to claim that knowledge gained in this way has not been of benefit for human medicene.
We are not going to agree on this so we will have to leave those reading this exchange to judge for themselves who is right.
Me:
"Denying any benefits obtained from past animal (and, it seems, in your case, insect) experiments just makes your case look silly and ill informed."
CatC:
I can see it might do to those who don't understand the difference between a mere statement and a scientific theory of process :)
Which is a good place to leave it since it means that 99.999...% of those reading this will draw the right conclusion.
CatC
says...
2:50am Fri 5 Sep 08
"What I claim as evidence you claim are simply statements and hence not factual evidence."
Your 'evidence' IS merely statements - you are merely stating 'x does y therefore z'....without any supporting facts or rationale as to why and how x doing y effects outcome z.
I am astonished that a 'Ph.D. physicist' doesn't understand that.
"That experiments on fruit flies have advanced our knowledge of genetics is not subject to sensible dispute. Nor is it sensible to claim that knowledge gained in this way has not been of benefit for human medicene."
Yet you are unable to provide any scientific fact and evidence based theory to support your claims - you are making assumptions based on illogical reasoning - just because x did y does NOT prove x doing y equals z....
the causal link has to be explained / shown, this is the correct approach to science and medical research.
"We are not going to agree on this so we will have to leave those reading this exchange to judge for themselves who is right."
I expect they will see you haven't answered the question and now want to stop the conversation :)
However, as this is such a serious issue for us all I genuinely hope they look into the facts for themselves, rather than making up their minds based on what people say on a comment board.
Your 'evidence' IS merely statements - you are merely stating 'x does y therefore z'....without any supporting facts or rationale as to why and how x doing y effects outcome z.
I am astonished that a 'Ph.D. physicist' doesn't understand that.
"That experiments on fruit flies have advanced our knowledge of genetics is not subject to sensible dispute. Nor is it sensible to claim that knowledge gained in this way has not been of benefit for human medicene."
Yet you are unable to provide any scientific fact and evidence based theory to support your claims - you are making assumptions based on illogical reasoning - just because x did y does NOT prove x doing y equals z....
the causal link has to be explained / shown, this is the correct approach to science and medical research.
"We are not going to agree on this so we will have to leave those reading this exchange to judge for themselves who is right."
I expect they will see you haven't answered the question and now want to stop the conversation :)
However, as this is such a serious issue for us all I genuinely hope they look into the facts for themselves, rather than making up their minds based on what people say on a comment board.
anarchist
says...
9:07am Fri 5 Sep 08
CatC
These statements:
1: "The earth is round, not flat"
2: "Matter can be converted into energy and vice versa"
summarise our best current understanding of what we observe around us and are built on a huge body of scientific work built up over centuries.
But these 'facts' are not absolute truths and some, indeed, challenge their validity. But I don't need to defend them here as it simply isn't necessary or appropriate to write a thesis recounting the detailed scientific basis for these statements on this site.
But the evidence is available for those who question these 'facts' and it is up to these people to show that they have a better explantion for what we observe. It is not up to supporters of the conventional wisdom to make their case because that has already been done in the body of scientific literature.
My claim that:
(a) genetic knowledge has been built in part on experiments on fruit flies in which many died, and
(b) this knowledge has been of benefit for human medicene
is a summmary of a huge amount of establsihed and accepted scientific work that can easily be recounted in an appropriate forum (which these pages are not).
If you wish to challenge this established and widely accepted scientific knowledge it is up to YOU to disprove it. It is not up to me to prove it because that has already been done by hundreds of scientists before me.
And to discount my claim you will have to show that there have been no benefits whatsoever for human medicene that have been built in part on any genetic knowledge gained in part from experiments on fruit flies.
And you won't be able to do this because it simply isn't true.
Likewise, on balance, animal testing is still accepted as necessary by the scientific community as a whole. The pro and anti arguments have been rehearsed as nauseum over decades and, on balance, the pro-argument has been accepted in current legislation.
As I have said before I am willing to support this status quo, not because it is necessarily right, but becaause I consider it necessary to show solidarity with those who find themselves subject to criminal intimidation by the extremists in the animal rights movement. In my view their actions make your task unimaginably more difficult since resort to violence against individuals (as opposed to civil disobedience) is a clear sign of a failed argument.
These statements:
1: "The earth is round, not flat"
2: "Matter can be converted into energy and vice versa"
summarise our best current understanding of what we observe around us and are built on a huge body of scientific work built up over centuries.
But these 'facts' are not absolute truths and some, indeed, challenge their validity. But I don't need to defend them here as it simply isn't necessary or appropriate to write a thesis recounting the detailed scientific basis for these statements on this site.
But the evidence is available for those who question these 'facts' and it is up to these people to show that they have a better explantion for what we observe. It is not up to supporters of the conventional wisdom to make their case because that has already been done in the body of scientific literature.
My claim that:
(a) genetic knowledge has been built in part on experiments on fruit flies in which many died, and
(b) this knowledge has been of benefit for human medicene
is a summmary of a huge amount of establsihed and accepted scientific work that can easily be recounted in an appropriate forum (which these pages are not).
If you wish to challenge this established and widely accepted scientific knowledge it is up to YOU to disprove it. It is not up to me to prove it because that has already been done by hundreds of scientists before me.
And to discount my claim you will have to show that there have been no benefits whatsoever for human medicene that have been built in part on any genetic knowledge gained in part from experiments on fruit flies.
And you won't be able to do this because it simply isn't true.
Likewise, on balance, animal testing is still accepted as necessary by the scientific community as a whole. The pro and anti arguments have been rehearsed as nauseum over decades and, on balance, the pro-argument has been accepted in current legislation.
As I have said before I am willing to support this status quo, not because it is necessarily right, but becaause I consider it necessary to show solidarity with those who find themselves subject to criminal intimidation by the extremists in the animal rights movement. In my view their actions make your task unimaginably more difficult since resort to violence against individuals (as opposed to civil disobedience) is a clear sign of a failed argument.
CatC
says...
11:20pm Sat 6 Sep 08
"it simply isn't necessary or appropriate to write a thesis recounting the detailed scientific basis for these statements on this site"
Not asking for a thesis though, just a fact, and evidence as we have been experimenting on other species for around 2000 years, based theory, the rationale, to support your claim...you don't seem able to give any such.
"But the evidence is available for those who question these 'facts' and it is up to these people to show that they have a better explantion for what we observe."
That is exactly what those against on scientific grounds HAVE done, evolution and genetics show why experimenting on other species is not valid and can be very dangerously misleading for human medical research...
unfortunately, as history shows us, getting those who have an interest in maintaining the status quo/who support 'conventional wisdom', to admit they are wrong is an arduous task to say the least.
"It is not up to supporters of the conventional wisdom to make their case because that has already been done in the body of scientific literature."
It certainly IS for them to make their case, particularly when they go about telling people - as you have done - that the 'conventional wisdom' is correct...merely saying it is correct simply isn't good enough...
how can people question the 'conventional wisdom' when All they are told is that the conventional wisdom is the conventional wisdom - not upon what scientific facts/evidence it is based, not why, no rationale etc.
Like Pro-test you seem to expect people to just believe the 'conventional wisdom' BECAUSE it is the 'conventional wisdom'!
"My claim that a)...b)...can easily be recounted in an appropriate forum (which these pages are not)"
I'm not asking for examples or who said what etc, I'm asking for the fact/evidence based Rationale, the Theory itself, that should underpin the claim.
It wouldn't take more than a few sentences, a few short paragraphs at the very most, to give any rationale as to how your a) has your effect b).
"If you wish to challenge this established and widely accepted scientific knowledge it is up to YOU to disprove it"
It has been - evolution and genetics - and I've briefly explained it...so it is now for you to counter what I've said.....IF you can :)
"It is not up to me to prove it because that has already been done by hundreds of scientists before me"
Hmmmm...history is littered with theories / 'conventional wisdom' that have been 'proven' by hundreds of scientists...but were subseqently proven...and more to the point eventually accepted as being...entirely wrong.
Besides, you've made claims here so it IS for You to back them up, to say on what they are based, when asked to....of course you don't Have to but people will and should draw their own conclusions as to why you can't/won't.
"And to discount my claim you will have to show that there have been no benefits whatsoever for human medicene that have been built in part on any genetic knowledge gained in part from experiments on fruit flies."
Well firstly if I adopted the same approach as you to doing that I'd just state 'there have been no benefits whatsoever for human medicine etc etc'...
however, all I have to show is Why your claim is scientifically flawed, Why your claim fails - and I have, eg each species different at the cellular and molecular which is where disease occurs, and re genetic variations WITHIN species make ALL the difference re disease/treatments.
"...on balance, animal testing is still accepted as necessary by the scientific community as a whole."
That is just an appeal to authority...as above, history is littered with examples of what is 'accepted by the scientific community' being shown subsequently to be wrong.
"The pro and anti arguments have been rehearsed as nauseum over decades and, on balance, the pro-argument has been accepted in current legislation".
Unfortunately it is pro-vivisection propaganda which gets rehearsed in the public domain, the anti scientific arguments barely get a hearing at all.
Also, Of Course the establishment is going to support the 'conventional wisdom' as a matter of protecting their own interests and those of big business.
The problem isn't proving the anti case, the problem, as has happened throughout history, is getting the establishment to admit it has been proven.
"As I have said before I am willing to support this status quo, not because it is necessarily right, but becaause I consider it necessary to show solidarity with those who find themselves subject to criminal intimidation by the extremists in the animal rights movement."
There is so much wrong with that it's shocking, eg what about those who need safe/effective medicines/treatments
, why do you feel no need to support Them by insisting on an objective approach? It is an emotional and totally unscientific approach to what is an extremely serious and important issue for Everyone.
Not asking for a thesis though, just a fact, and evidence as we have been experimenting on other species for around 2000 years, based theory, the rationale, to support your claim...you don't seem able to give any such.
"But the evidence is available for those who question these 'facts' and it is up to these people to show that they have a better explantion for what we observe."
That is exactly what those against on scientific grounds HAVE done, evolution and genetics show why experimenting on other species is not valid and can be very dangerously misleading for human medical research...
unfortunately, as history shows us, getting those who have an interest in maintaining the status quo/who support 'conventional wisdom', to admit they are wrong is an arduous task to say the least.
"It is not up to supporters of the conventional wisdom to make their case because that has already been done in the body of scientific literature."
It certainly IS for them to make their case, particularly when they go about telling people - as you have done - that the 'conventional wisdom' is correct...merely saying it is correct simply isn't good enough...
how can people question the 'conventional wisdom' when All they are told is that the conventional wisdom is the conventional wisdom - not upon what scientific facts/evidence it is based, not why, no rationale etc.
Like Pro-test you seem to expect people to just believe the 'conventional wisdom' BECAUSE it is the 'conventional wisdom'!
"My claim that a)...b)...can easily be recounted in an appropriate forum (which these pages are not)"
I'm not asking for examples or who said what etc, I'm asking for the fact/evidence based Rationale, the Theory itself, that should underpin the claim.
It wouldn't take more than a few sentences, a few short paragraphs at the very most, to give any rationale as to how your a) has your effect b).
"If you wish to challenge this established and widely accepted scientific knowledge it is up to YOU to disprove it"
It has been - evolution and genetics - and I've briefly explained it...so it is now for you to counter what I've said.....IF you can :)
"It is not up to me to prove it because that has already been done by hundreds of scientists before me"
Hmmmm...history is littered with theories / 'conventional wisdom' that have been 'proven' by hundreds of scientists...but were subseqently proven...and more to the point eventually accepted as being...entirely wrong.
Besides, you've made claims here so it IS for You to back them up, to say on what they are based, when asked to....of course you don't Have to but people will and should draw their own conclusions as to why you can't/won't.
"And to discount my claim you will have to show that there have been no benefits whatsoever for human medicene that have been built in part on any genetic knowledge gained in part from experiments on fruit flies."
Well firstly if I adopted the same approach as you to doing that I'd just state 'there have been no benefits whatsoever for human medicine etc etc'...
however, all I have to show is Why your claim is scientifically flawed, Why your claim fails - and I have, eg each species different at the cellular and molecular which is where disease occurs, and re genetic variations WITHIN species make ALL the difference re disease/treatments.
"...on balance, animal testing is still accepted as necessary by the scientific community as a whole."
That is just an appeal to authority...as above, history is littered with examples of what is 'accepted by the scientific community' being shown subsequently to be wrong.
"The pro and anti arguments have been rehearsed as nauseum over decades and, on balance, the pro-argument has been accepted in current legislation".
Unfortunately it is pro-vivisection propaganda which gets rehearsed in the public domain, the anti scientific arguments barely get a hearing at all.
Also, Of Course the establishment is going to support the 'conventional wisdom' as a matter of protecting their own interests and those of big business.
The problem isn't proving the anti case, the problem, as has happened throughout history, is getting the establishment to admit it has been proven.
"As I have said before I am willing to support this status quo, not because it is necessarily right, but becaause I consider it necessary to show solidarity with those who find themselves subject to criminal intimidation by the extremists in the animal rights movement."
There is so much wrong with that it's shocking, eg what about those who need safe/effective medicines/treatments
, why do you feel no need to support Them by insisting on an objective approach? It is an emotional and totally unscientific approach to what is an extremely serious and important issue for Everyone.
anarchist
says...
1:24pm Sun 7 Sep 08
It is an important aspect of scientific advance that new theories cannot easily supplant pre-existing ones since this ensures that ill founded theories do not replace well founded ones.
CatC:
"It certainly IS for them to make their case, particularly when they go about telling people - as you have done - that the 'conventional wisdom' is correct...merely saying it is correct simply isn't good enough..."
Not so, CatC, since I do not have to conduct this debate according to your rules. All I need to do here is to convince any open minded person reading this thread that my position is the one that they should back rather than yours.
If I do a Google search on 'fruit flies' and 'medicine' it doesn't take long to find a number of advances in human medicine that have been developed as a direct result of experiments with fruit flies.
If I do a search on 'fruit flies' and any of the words: alzheimers, parkinsons, cancer, tumours, diabetes, multiple schlerosis, liver, pancreas, kidney, ..., I get many, many thousands of hits covering literally thousands of scientists who are experimenting with fruit flies with the explicit aim of improving human health.
Now I can take the view that each and every one of these thousands of scientists is deluded in believing that what they are doing will lead to improvements in human health.
Or I can take the view that CatC is deluded in thinking that not even one of these thousands of studies will lead to improvemnts in human health.
It's an easy choice.
CatC:
"It certainly IS for them to make their case, particularly when they go about telling people - as you have done - that the 'conventional wisdom' is correct...merely saying it is correct simply isn't good enough..."
Not so, CatC, since I do not have to conduct this debate according to your rules. All I need to do here is to convince any open minded person reading this thread that my position is the one that they should back rather than yours.
If I do a Google search on 'fruit flies' and 'medicine' it doesn't take long to find a number of advances in human medicine that have been developed as a direct result of experiments with fruit flies.
If I do a search on 'fruit flies' and any of the words: alzheimers, parkinsons, cancer, tumours, diabetes, multiple schlerosis, liver, pancreas, kidney, ..., I get many, many thousands of hits covering literally thousands of scientists who are experimenting with fruit flies with the explicit aim of improving human health.
Now I can take the view that each and every one of these thousands of scientists is deluded in believing that what they are doing will lead to improvements in human health.
Or I can take the view that CatC is deluded in thinking that not even one of these thousands of studies will lead to improvemnts in human health.
It's an easy choice.
CatC
says...
9:58pm Mon 8 Sep 08
"It is an important aspect of scientific advance that new theories cannot easily supplant pre-existing ones"
Species differences making experiments on other species invalid for human medical research have been recognised for many centuries though, it isn't a new theory.
You seem unaware that many scientists and medical professionals have been against experimenting on animals for human medical research over many centuries - the evidence against is well-documented at the gross and, now today, at the cellular and molecular level.
"I do not have to conduct this debate according to your rules. All I need to do here is to convince any open minded person reading this thread that my position is the one that they should back rather than yours."
They are not my rules, they are well established rules of debate. As for convincing people, I wonder who will be convinced by your lack of any rationale to support your belief, and indeed by your claim there is a rationale but it's in scientific literature so no need for anyone to know what it is.
To be clear, I'm not asking people to be convinced by my arguments, I am asking them to consider the facts for themselves because this issue is so crucial to us all, and our loved-ones.
People can find more info re the scientific case against at
www.safermedicines.o
rg
"If I do a Google search on 'fruit flies' and 'medicine' it doesn't take long to find a number of advances in human medicine that have been developed as a direct result of experiments with fruit flies."
Post some links then so we can see if any actually explain any causal link which Could have achieved any actual advances in human medicines...or whether they are just statements claiming 'x did y therefore z'.
The fact that such experiments are carried out is NOT OF ITSELF proof that they led to actual advances in human medicines...
remember the joke about the man sprinkling a powder everywhere to keep elephants away...'does it work?'...'do you see any elephants?!'.
Do you see? x (the man) did y (sprinkled powder) therefore z (no elephants) - but of course there was NO CAUSAL LINK between x doing y and outcome z, the fact x did do y did NOT mean therefore y at all.
"If I do a search on 'fruit flies' and any of the words: alzheimers, parkinsons, cancer, tumours, diabetes, multiple schlerosis, liver, pancreas, kidney, ..., I get many, many thousands of hits covering literally thousands of scientists who are experimenting with fruit flies with the explicit aim of improving human health"
Do any though actually explain any causal link that will make their experiments valid for humans?
"Now I can take the view that each and every one of these thousands of scientists is deluded in believing that what they are doing will lead to improvements in human health."
That - 'lots of scientists are doing it therefore it must be true' - is a totally UNSCIENTIFIC approach to the issue, to any issue, it is irrational to believe something is true on that basis!
You believe it because 'lots of scientists are doing it'...hey, perhaps those scientists believe it too simply because 'lots of other scientists are doing it'!
Or then again perhaps they do it because it's easier to get funding grants, papers published (in a 'publish or perish' environment), they are far, far removed from human research etc etc.
We've been experimenting on fruit flies for at least 100 years - think of all those thousands upon thousands upon thousands of experiments on, and scientists experimenting on, fruit flies over that time....
so can you explain why then humans are still today suffering and dying of alzheimers, parkinsons, cancer, tumours, diabetes, multiple schlerosis, liver, pancreas, kidney disease etc?
At least 100 years of experimenting on fruit flies....yet still today people are still suffering and dying from those diseases....how many more hundreds of years do you expect people to wait?
The simple, scientifically indisputable fact is fruit flies are NOT tiny, tiny humans...so we need scientific, HUMAN-relevant research, and - because tiny, tiny genetic variations between individual humans make ALL the difference - we need individually tailored medicines/treatments
.
"Or I can take the view that CatC is deluded in thinking that not even one of these thousands of studies will lead to improvemnts in human health."
It isn't deluded though, as shown above - all the untold experiments on fruit flies over at least 100 years, all those scientists over that time experimenting on fruit flies...yet today people are still suffering and dying from alzheimers, parkinsons, cancer, tumours, diabetes, multiple schlerosis, liver, pancreas, kidney disease etc.
Please think about it - then perhaps you'll see that the choice is to continue to squander vital resources experimenting on other species OR putting those resources into scientific, human-relevant research.
Species differences making experiments on other species invalid for human medical research have been recognised for many centuries though, it isn't a new theory.
You seem unaware that many scientists and medical professionals have been against experimenting on animals for human medical research over many centuries - the evidence against is well-documented at the gross and, now today, at the cellular and molecular level.
"I do not have to conduct this debate according to your rules. All I need to do here is to convince any open minded person reading this thread that my position is the one that they should back rather than yours."
They are not my rules, they are well established rules of debate. As for convincing people, I wonder who will be convinced by your lack of any rationale to support your belief, and indeed by your claim there is a rationale but it's in scientific literature so no need for anyone to know what it is.
To be clear, I'm not asking people to be convinced by my arguments, I am asking them to consider the facts for themselves because this issue is so crucial to us all, and our loved-ones.
People can find more info re the scientific case against at
www.safermedicines.o
rg
"If I do a Google search on 'fruit flies' and 'medicine' it doesn't take long to find a number of advances in human medicine that have been developed as a direct result of experiments with fruit flies."
Post some links then so we can see if any actually explain any causal link which Could have achieved any actual advances in human medicines...or whether they are just statements claiming 'x did y therefore z'.
The fact that such experiments are carried out is NOT OF ITSELF proof that they led to actual advances in human medicines...
remember the joke about the man sprinkling a powder everywhere to keep elephants away...'does it work?'...'do you see any elephants?!'.
Do you see? x (the man) did y (sprinkled powder) therefore z (no elephants) - but of course there was NO CAUSAL LINK between x doing y and outcome z, the fact x did do y did NOT mean therefore y at all.
"If I do a search on 'fruit flies' and any of the words: alzheimers, parkinsons, cancer, tumours, diabetes, multiple schlerosis, liver, pancreas, kidney, ..., I get many, many thousands of hits covering literally thousands of scientists who are experimenting with fruit flies with the explicit aim of improving human health"
Do any though actually explain any causal link that will make their experiments valid for humans?
"Now I can take the view that each and every one of these thousands of scientists is deluded in believing that what they are doing will lead to improvements in human health."
That - 'lots of scientists are doing it therefore it must be true' - is a totally UNSCIENTIFIC approach to the issue, to any issue, it is irrational to believe something is true on that basis!
You believe it because 'lots of scientists are doing it'...hey, perhaps those scientists believe it too simply because 'lots of other scientists are doing it'!
Or then again perhaps they do it because it's easier to get funding grants, papers published (in a 'publish or perish' environment), they are far, far removed from human research etc etc.
We've been experimenting on fruit flies for at least 100 years - think of all those thousands upon thousands upon thousands of experiments on, and scientists experimenting on, fruit flies over that time....
so can you explain why then humans are still today suffering and dying of alzheimers, parkinsons, cancer, tumours, diabetes, multiple schlerosis, liver, pancreas, kidney disease etc?
At least 100 years of experimenting on fruit flies....yet still today people are still suffering and dying from those diseases....how many more hundreds of years do you expect people to wait?
The simple, scientifically indisputable fact is fruit flies are NOT tiny, tiny humans...so we need scientific, HUMAN-relevant research, and - because tiny, tiny genetic variations between individual humans make ALL the difference - we need individually tailored medicines/treatments
.
"Or I can take the view that CatC is deluded in thinking that not even one of these thousands of studies will lead to improvemnts in human health."
It isn't deluded though, as shown above - all the untold experiments on fruit flies over at least 100 years, all those scientists over that time experimenting on fruit flies...yet today people are still suffering and dying from alzheimers, parkinsons, cancer, tumours, diabetes, multiple schlerosis, liver, pancreas, kidney disease etc.
Please think about it - then perhaps you'll see that the choice is to continue to squander vital resources experimenting on other species OR putting those resources into scientific, human-relevant research.
anarchist
says...
11:11pm Mon 8 Sep 08
CatC:
www.safermedicines.o
rg
and the other side of the debate at:
http://www.pro-test.
org.uk/
http://www.rdsonline
.org.uk/
and at the Royal Society web site.
Experimentation with fruit flies has led to major advances in our understanding of genetics and cellular biology, knowlege that has and will provide major advances in human medicine.
Anyone wishing to check this can use the google searches I descibed in my earlier post.
www.safermedicines.o
rg
and the other side of the debate at:
http://www.pro-test.
org.uk/
http://www.rdsonline
.org.uk/
and at the Royal Society web site.
Experimentation with fruit flies has led to major advances in our understanding of genetics and cellular biology, knowlege that has and will provide major advances in human medicine.
Anyone wishing to check this can use the google searches I descibed in my earlier post.
CatC
says...
11:16pm Thu 11 Sep 08
anarchist, why don't you post some links to examples so we can see if any actually explain any causal link which Could have achieved any actual advances in human medicines...or whether they are just statements claiming 'x did y therefore z?
Also, can you explain why, if your claim is true, still after at least 100 years of experimenting on fruit flies, humans are still today suffering and dying of alzheimers, parkinsons, cancer, tumours, diabetes, multiple schlerosis, liver, pancreas, kidney disease etc?
"and the other side of the debate at:..."
'Debate' isn't the right word given Pro-test merely make statements unsupported by any scientific facts, evidence or rationale!
Those against on scientific grounds can and do argue their case from indisputable facts....
Pro-test and other anti-animal-rights groups never do same though, they just make mere statements and/or resort to pure emotional blackmail and fallacious reasoning...as any objective scrutiny of the Pro-test site clearly shows.
Also, can you explain why, if your claim is true, still after at least 100 years of experimenting on fruit flies, humans are still today suffering and dying of alzheimers, parkinsons, cancer, tumours, diabetes, multiple schlerosis, liver, pancreas, kidney disease etc?
"and the other side of the debate at:..."
'Debate' isn't the right word given Pro-test merely make statements unsupported by any scientific facts, evidence or rationale!
Those against on scientific grounds can and do argue their case from indisputable facts....
Pro-test and other anti-animal-rights groups never do same though, they just make mere statements and/or resort to pure emotional blackmail and fallacious reasoning...as any objective scrutiny of the Pro-test site clearly shows.
anarchist
says...
8:17am Fri 12 Sep 08
I have given the google search terms that are needed to bring up thousands of links that give details of why scientists use fruit flies in experiments. That's as far as I intend to go here because people are free to investigate this further in as much or as little depth as they wish. As I have said before, they can choose to believe that thousands of scientsist are not all wrong in conducting this research or that you are wrong.
Fruit fly experimentation has made a major contribution to many existing and safe human medicines. And, as my list of google search terms can be used to show, thousands of scientists believe that research now underway will make many further contributions.
Its no surprise to me that the anti animal testing lobby see pro-test web sites as propaganda and anti-test sites (such as the safe medicines site you love) as 'all sweetness and light'. And no surprise, either, that the pro animal testing lobby see this the other way round.
In fact anyone who wants to take a serious look at the need for animal testing in genetics and cellular biology should not go to these sites but instead to:
http://genome.wellco
me.ac.uk/
This is a site run by the Wellcome Trust, a charity that funds medical research and development. It is funded by a large endowment and is independent of government and industry lobbies. I can hence offer a truly unbiased assessment of the importance of animal experimentation for human medicines.
In particular it explains the importance of fruit fly experiments in advancing our knowledge of genetics and celluloar biology.
Fruit fly experimentation has made a major contribution to many existing and safe human medicines. And, as my list of google search terms can be used to show, thousands of scientists believe that research now underway will make many further contributions.
Its no surprise to me that the anti animal testing lobby see pro-test web sites as propaganda and anti-test sites (such as the safe medicines site you love) as 'all sweetness and light'. And no surprise, either, that the pro animal testing lobby see this the other way round.
In fact anyone who wants to take a serious look at the need for animal testing in genetics and cellular biology should not go to these sites but instead to:
http://genome.wellco
me.ac.uk/
This is a site run by the Wellcome Trust, a charity that funds medical research and development. It is funded by a large endowment and is independent of government and industry lobbies. I can hence offer a truly unbiased assessment of the importance of animal experimentation for human medicines.
In particular it explains the importance of fruit fly experiments in advancing our knowledge of genetics and celluloar biology.
CatC
says...
11:50pm Fri 12 Sep 08
"...That's as far as I intend to go here because people are free to investigate this further in as much or as little depth as they wish."
Hmmmmm...you posting as requested would not stop them doing that though...so illogical.
"As I have said before, they can choose to believe that thousands of scientsist are not all wrong in conducting this research or that you are wrong."
Also illogical - but of course typical of the pro-vivisection 'arguments'...
1) anyway who on earth taught you to believe that 'majority opinion' determines the truth, or not, of any issue?
2) why are you setting up a false scenario? It is not a matter of 'thousands of scientists' versus me - as I've already explainedthroughout the ages *scientists* have made the arguments against and still today, with our technology and greater knowledge of genetics, *scientists* are making the case against.
As I've also said, I don't want people to just 'choose' to believe me - I want them to be able to come to a informed, reasoned conclusion based on hard, indisputable scientific facts...this issue is so important, so crucial to us all that any other approach is immoral.
"Fruit fly experimentation has made a major contribution to many existing and safe human medicines"
So you keeping parroting...but still you offer no scientific facts, no rationale to support your claim.
Btw, you haven't answered my question re why, IF your claim is true, after at least 100 years of experimenting on fruit flies humans are still today suffering and dying of alzheimers, parkinsons, cancer, tumours, diabetes, multiple schlerosis, liver, pancreas, kidney disease etc.
Perhaps you could also answer why, after around 2000 years - TWO THOUSAND YEARS! -of animal experiments, humans are still today suffering and dying of alzheimers, parkinsons, cancer, tumours, diabetes, multiple schlerosis, liver, pancreas, kidney disease etc.
"...the Wellcome Trust, a charity that funds medical research and development. It is funded by a large endowment and is independent of government and industry lobbies. I can hence offer a truly unbiased assessment of the importance of animal experimentation for human medicines."
Lol - 'truly unbiased' oh come now, have you even actually looked at the site? Not only does the Wellcome Trust FUND vivisection but try going to 'About Us' then have a good look at 'History...
then 'Wellcome Drug Business'...
then the 'Board', this it part of what it says re the current Chairman -
'Previously President and Chief Executive Officer of GE Healthcare...
before that Sir William was Chief Executive of Amersham plc for 15 years.
Earlier in his career, he held various positions with the Wellcome pharmaceutical company, which was then owned by the Wellcome Trust....
previous not-for-profit roles include being a council member of the UK Medical Research Council (2001-2004)...
He is currently a member of the Prime Minister's Business Council...'.
"In particular it explains the importance of fruit fly experiments in advancing our knowledge of genetics and celluloar biology."
Well it makes that claim, makes lots of mere statements, but I can't find an explanation of any causal link...would you post the website link to that please?
Hmmmmm...you posting as requested would not stop them doing that though...so illogical.
"As I have said before, they can choose to believe that thousands of scientsist are not all wrong in conducting this research or that you are wrong."
Also illogical - but of course typical of the pro-vivisection 'arguments'...
1) anyway who on earth taught you to believe that 'majority opinion' determines the truth, or not, of any issue?
2) why are you setting up a false scenario? It is not a matter of 'thousands of scientists' versus me - as I've already explainedthroughout the ages *scientists* have made the arguments against and still today, with our technology and greater knowledge of genetics, *scientists* are making the case against.
As I've also said, I don't want people to just 'choose' to believe me - I want them to be able to come to a informed, reasoned conclusion based on hard, indisputable scientific facts...this issue is so important, so crucial to us all that any other approach is immoral.
"Fruit fly experimentation has made a major contribution to many existing and safe human medicines"
So you keeping parroting...but still you offer no scientific facts, no rationale to support your claim.
Btw, you haven't answered my question re why, IF your claim is true, after at least 100 years of experimenting on fruit flies humans are still today suffering and dying of alzheimers, parkinsons, cancer, tumours, diabetes, multiple schlerosis, liver, pancreas, kidney disease etc.
Perhaps you could also answer why, after around 2000 years - TWO THOUSAND YEARS! -of animal experiments, humans are still today suffering and dying of alzheimers, parkinsons, cancer, tumours, diabetes, multiple schlerosis, liver, pancreas, kidney disease etc.
"...the Wellcome Trust, a charity that funds medical research and development. It is funded by a large endowment and is independent of government and industry lobbies. I can hence offer a truly unbiased assessment of the importance of animal experimentation for human medicines."
Lol - 'truly unbiased' oh come now, have you even actually looked at the site? Not only does the Wellcome Trust FUND vivisection but try going to 'About Us' then have a good look at 'History...
then 'Wellcome Drug Business'...
then the 'Board', this it part of what it says re the current Chairman -
'Previously President and Chief Executive Officer of GE Healthcare...
before that Sir William was Chief Executive of Amersham plc for 15 years.
Earlier in his career, he held various positions with the Wellcome pharmaceutical company, which was then owned by the Wellcome Trust....
previous not-for-profit roles include being a council member of the UK Medical Research Council (2001-2004)...
He is currently a member of the Prime Minister's Business Council...'.
"In particular it explains the importance of fruit fly experiments in advancing our knowledge of genetics and celluloar biology."
Well it makes that claim, makes lots of mere statements, but I can't find an explanation of any causal link...would you post the website link to that please?
anarchist
says...
8:50am Sat 13 Sep 08
There is nothing illogical in my position. The sequence:
1) fruit fly experiment conducted
2) and this yields new knowledge of how cells work
3) this, in turn, suggests how a new drug can be designed
4) the resulting drug is a success and provides benefits for human health.
is one that has been repeated many times.
You don't believe that this sequence has ever succeeded, nor will it ever succeed. On the other hand I believe it has succeeded many times already and will succeed many more times in the future.
Since we are clearly not going to change each other's views on this, we can only leave any open minded and uncommitted readers of this exchange to look at the evidence and make up their own mind.
And the Human Genome site run by the Wellcome Trust:
http://genome.wellco
me.ac.uk/
is a good place to start for objective evidence in that it is a self funded charity and not part of any pro or anti testing lobby.
1) fruit fly experiment conducted
2) and this yields new knowledge of how cells work
3) this, in turn, suggests how a new drug can be designed
4) the resulting drug is a success and provides benefits for human health.
is one that has been repeated many times.
You don't believe that this sequence has ever succeeded, nor will it ever succeed. On the other hand I believe it has succeeded many times already and will succeed many more times in the future.
Since we are clearly not going to change each other's views on this, we can only leave any open minded and uncommitted readers of this exchange to look at the evidence and make up their own mind.
And the Human Genome site run by the Wellcome Trust:
http://genome.wellco
me.ac.uk/
is a good place to start for objective evidence in that it is a self funded charity and not part of any pro or anti testing lobby.
CatC
says...
8:21pm Sat 13 Sep 08
"There is nothing illogical in my position"
Please see the top of my previous post, I was specifically referring to the reason you gave for not posting any links as requested, and your claim re majority opinion - any comment re those?
Also, you have not answered re explaining why, IF what you say is true, after at least 100 years of experimenting on fruit flies, and around 2000 years of experimenting on other non-human species, humans are still today suffering and dying of alzheimers, parkinsons, cancer, tumours, diabetes, multiple schlerosis, liver, pancreas, kidney disease etc.
Re your sequence 1 -4, yet again you are simply making statements, you provide no facts nor rationale to support those statements, no facts nor rationale to show any causal link between any of your sequence 1 to 4. You are still simply saying x did y therefore z.
"You don't believe that this sequence has ever succeeded, nor will it ever succeed. On the other hand I believe it has succeeded many times already and will succeed many more times in the future."
The point is though that our beliefs re this issue - which is so crucially important for us all - should NOT be based on mere statements nor illogical claims re majority opinion etc...
our beliefs must be based on a scientific theory, a rationale, which is supported by hard facts and the evidence.
"Since we are clearly not going to change each other's views on this, we can only leave any open minded and uncommitted readers of this exchange to look at the evidence and make up their own mind."
I sincerely hope they do objectively consider the actual Evidence, the hard Facts, then they will see the case 'for' is merely statements, fallacious reasoning and emotional blackmail...while the case Against is based on hard scientific facts and evidence.
"a good place to start for objective evidence in that it is a self funded charity and not part of any pro or anti testing lobby"
I've already given information in my previous post re why The Wellcome Trust would NOT be regarded as an unbiased, objective source, of course people can view that information for themselves...
you also seem unaware that it is indeed part of a pro-animal-experimen
ts lobby, just for example its booklet promoting primate experiments which was published for circulation to the public...
and also for example that it is a member of CMP which is a pro-vivisection lobby group!
Again I urge everyone who wants safe and effective cures/treatments to please support the call for an independent, transparent public inquiry into the scientific validity, the following link has more details
www.safermedicines.o
rg
Please see the top of my previous post, I was specifically referring to the reason you gave for not posting any links as requested, and your claim re majority opinion - any comment re those?
Also, you have not answered re explaining why, IF what you say is true, after at least 100 years of experimenting on fruit flies, and around 2000 years of experimenting on other non-human species, humans are still today suffering and dying of alzheimers, parkinsons, cancer, tumours, diabetes, multiple schlerosis, liver, pancreas, kidney disease etc.
Re your sequence 1 -4, yet again you are simply making statements, you provide no facts nor rationale to support those statements, no facts nor rationale to show any causal link between any of your sequence 1 to 4. You are still simply saying x did y therefore z.
"You don't believe that this sequence has ever succeeded, nor will it ever succeed. On the other hand I believe it has succeeded many times already and will succeed many more times in the future."
The point is though that our beliefs re this issue - which is so crucially important for us all - should NOT be based on mere statements nor illogical claims re majority opinion etc...
our beliefs must be based on a scientific theory, a rationale, which is supported by hard facts and the evidence.
"Since we are clearly not going to change each other's views on this, we can only leave any open minded and uncommitted readers of this exchange to look at the evidence and make up their own mind."
I sincerely hope they do objectively consider the actual Evidence, the hard Facts, then they will see the case 'for' is merely statements, fallacious reasoning and emotional blackmail...while the case Against is based on hard scientific facts and evidence.
"a good place to start for objective evidence in that it is a self funded charity and not part of any pro or anti testing lobby"
I've already given information in my previous post re why The Wellcome Trust would NOT be regarded as an unbiased, objective source, of course people can view that information for themselves...
you also seem unaware that it is indeed part of a pro-animal-experimen
ts lobby, just for example its booklet promoting primate experiments which was published for circulation to the public...
and also for example that it is a member of CMP which is a pro-vivisection lobby group!
Again I urge everyone who wants safe and effective cures/treatments to please support the call for an independent, transparent public inquiry into the scientific validity, the following link has more details
www.safermedicines.o
rg
anarchist
says...
10:45pm Sat 13 Sep 08
CatC:
The point is though that our beliefs re this issue - which is so crucially important for us all - should NOT be based on mere statements nor illogical claims re majority opinion etc...
My position is logical and is based on the evidence as I interpret it. I am sure you feel the same way about your position.
As I have said before, we can only leave open minded readers of this thread to assess the evidence for themselves.
And for the sake of completeness the anti-animal testing site is at:
www.safermedicines.o
rg
with the pro-animal testing equivalent at:
http://www.pro-test.
org.uk/
It is important that anyone who wishes to assess the evidence for themselves should read both these sites.
The point is though that our beliefs re this issue - which is so crucially important for us all - should NOT be based on mere statements nor illogical claims re majority opinion etc...
My position is logical and is based on the evidence as I interpret it. I am sure you feel the same way about your position.
As I have said before, we can only leave open minded readers of this thread to assess the evidence for themselves.
And for the sake of completeness the anti-animal testing site is at:
www.safermedicines.o
rg
with the pro-animal testing equivalent at:
http://www.pro-test.
org.uk/
It is important that anyone who wishes to assess the evidence for themselves should read both these sites.
CatC
says...
11:46pm Sun 14 Sep 08
"My position is logical and is based on the evidence as I interpret it. I am sure you feel the same way about your position."
I have asked several times what evidence has so convinced you and my point has been that it is not logical to believe on the 'evidence' you have cited.
My position is based on scientific rationale and facts, indisputable evidence - not just statements - which I have checked untold times over many years.
"As I have said before, we can only leave open minded readers of this thread to assess the evidence for themselves"
Yes, we agree on that at least :)
"..with the pro-animal testing equivalent at:"
well no, not the equivalent, the case against made by Safer Medicines is firmly based on scientific evidence, the case for made by Pro-test is just statements.
"It is important that anyone who wishes to assess the evidence for themselves should read both these sites"
We agree on this too, I urge everyone to forget which 'side' either is on - because this issue is so important to us all - and objectively consider the information given on both sites.
I have asked several times what evidence has so convinced you and my point has been that it is not logical to believe on the 'evidence' you have cited.
My position is based on scientific rationale and facts, indisputable evidence - not just statements - which I have checked untold times over many years.
"As I have said before, we can only leave open minded readers of this thread to assess the evidence for themselves"
Yes, we agree on that at least :)
"..with the pro-animal testing equivalent at:"
well no, not the equivalent, the case against made by Safer Medicines is firmly based on scientific evidence, the case for made by Pro-test is just statements.
"It is important that anyone who wishes to assess the evidence for themselves should read both these sites"
We agree on this too, I urge everyone to forget which 'side' either is on - because this issue is so important to us all - and objectively consider the information given on both sites.
More Read stories
- This pantomime was perfect in every way
- Come on, Mr Cameron, we need you to lead
- Hospital staff were absolutely marvellous
- What sort of bus ‘service’ is this?
- Is integrated rail system plan so bad?
- Incinerator would be so costly to taxpayers
- Join the fight to protect our quality of life
- £10 does seem a lot for the cinema
- Car parkers are not breaking the law
- Please consider the problems cyclists face
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Comment now! Register or sign in below.
Log in with us
Fields marked with * are mandatory.
Or
Log in with