Animals and Intrusive Scientific Research

[NAU Wildlife Society Admin]

Sometimes science protects animals, and other times it destroys them. Controversial agencies such as USDA and Game and Fish Departments deal with this everyday. Science diciplines too, such as physiology, animal behavior, chemistry and others fields also rely heavily on using animals for test subjects. What do you think about this? Is it worth it?

Please start a discussion here on animal rights, or arguments for continued animal use. This subject is an emotional one, so please respect othere peoples opinions if possible.

[Kitfox]

First off, I'll say that I respect the views of those who stand for animals rights, and I believe that we have many shared goals. Personally, however, I don't believe in animal rights. I believe that people show respect and honor animals to a degree - and for many reasons, not the least which is based on my faith. But if it comes down to a human right versus a supposed animal right, I'd choose the human. Despite that opinion, I think that we have a responsibility to respect and care for animals and preserve their lives and environment.

So what do I think of animal testing? Well, I still haven't completely made up my mind on this one. I guess that it depends on how the animal is treated and what is the cause of the research. I certainly don't think animal testing should be used if there is an alternative method. But I'm not against animal testing if it is carried out in a humane way and for a good purpose. I'd be interested to hear some other sides to this, as I still haven't totally made up my mind.

[Whiskey Jack]

"There will come a time when the world will look back to modern vivisection in the name of Science, as they do now to burning at the stake in the name of religion."
--Henry J. Bigelow

Atrocities are not less atrocities when they occur in laboratories and are called medical research.
--George Bernard Shaw (playwright, Nobel 1925)

Before ya'all judge my position off of those quotes, here me out (I just threw them up there for something to think about )
Do animals have rights? Well, to me, thats an intensley personal choice, and one that can not be judged upon in good consience (<-- don't know how to spell that one). When I look at my dog, my bird, there is no doubt in my mind that they have a spirit, that they have emotions, and that they have the ability to make choice. I can see this so clearly in their life, without anthropromorphizing them too much (one of the main flaws in arguing animal rights I feel). But, for their sake, I am going to go out on a limb and say that animals should have rights in our culture. I value life, all life, and though the animal has no voice to speak with, they should still be viewed as an integral and important part of our society, not just a resource, crop, or oddity.
I think that we cannot complicate the word "animal rights" by envisioning Raccoons and what not going to the polls and casting a vote. I look at it on terms of importance and consideration, and the more that we have compassion for animals as a life form, the more that we as a culture will understand their importance.

Now that you all probably think I am completley insane, I'll move on to laboratories.
Simply put, it is, in a way, simply foolish to assume that tests on a rat, dog or rabbitt will reflect on the physiology of a human being. The argument presented by scientists from the past that say a rat is pretty much the same as a human is so flawed that I will not even rant on it. The fact is, as I have seen it with my own eyes, is that most experiments preformed on animals in modern science are virtually pointless to everyone and everything except the scientist themselves (and their paycheck). For example, and these are all actual and modern experiments, "Lets see what will happen if we cut the testes of two male hamsters and put them in the same room together", or "Lets superglue long feathers on to the tails of birds and see if they attract more mates", or "Lets catch a bunch of animals, feed them various things, kill them, then cut them open to see how far along the digestive tract each food has gone." What is the point of this exactly? Well, ask the individual scientist preforming the task and they will give you very valid reasons in their own field that show why they do this, but broaden it out. What good does this do for the animal itself, or for the world in general? How specialized do we have to be to continue killing things just to find out random facts?

Hope that all made sense.......OK, I am ready for my public stoning.

[Kitfox]

Actually Crow I pretty much agree with you on this one. I realize I just said I didn't think animals had rights, but l was speaking in terms of politics, not in terms of emotional attachment. I feel the same things as you do when I look at my animals (who I miss sooo much).

But in terms of politics - such as rights being given to animals (and therefore being taken away from humans), I can't let my emotions judge my decisions, as much as I'd sometimes like to.

If what you say about the lab experiments is true than I'm going to have to agree with you on that as well. I've heard of some pretty horrible things that go on in labs, but I always assumed that there were good things going on as well and for good reasons. But if you're right, than I would consider testing animals to be unethical and immoral. Should it be illegal? That's a different subject entirely. =)