Oxford tops list for animal testing

Watch
warmday
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Think it's sickening that this was not reported by more of the papers and news.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ed...-a6845456.html
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Why? There isn't anything particularly controversial or new about this information. 20 years ago, this organisation was banging the same drum.

I am not really sure which is worse. Having an electrode stuck in my brain to further the knowledge of mankind or being carried around in a handbag by Z-list celebrity as a fashion accessory.
11
reply
Nadile
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
I can see why it's not reported more. Most people don't give a damn about animals. If they use animal tested products on a daily basis, why would they care if the university they go to does animal testing.

I don't understand how can this be legal though, considering that if someone did the same things to an animal in their own home, it would be seen as evil and they would end up in jail. Especially since there are alternative methods to test things that don't involve torture.
0
reply
TheAmazingETF
Badges: 7
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
RIP Oxford vegan soc.

It's not news because to be quite honest with you, most people just don't care enough.
1
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by Nadile)
I can see why it's not reported more. Most people don't give a damn about animals. If they use animal tested products on a daily basis, why would they care if the university they go to does animal testing.

I don't understand how can this be legal though, considering that if someone did the same things to an animal in their own home, it would be seen as evil and they would end up in jail. Especially since there are alternative methods to test things that don't involve torture.
Alternatives such as? Is it somehow more moral to do something to a human than an animal?

And as for the OP, gotta agree with everybody else, it's an incredibly niche disconnected group that actually give a ****.

Posted from TSR Mobile
4
reply
Nadile
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Alternatives such as? Is it somehow more moral to do something to a human than an animal?

And as for the OP, gotta agree with everybody else, it's an incredibly niche disconnected group that actually give a ****.

Posted from TSR Mobile
There are a lot of ways to test on human tissue etc... And not actual people. It's as moral as things get, and far more reliable because animals react to things differently. This has caused many problems in the past such as a medicine for pregnant women killing thousands of unborn babies because it worked fine on guinea pigs... It's also cheaper from what I've heard, even sainsburys/ superdrugs/ boots brand stuff is not tested on animals.
0
reply
JordanL_
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by Nadile)
There are a lot of ways to test on human tissue etc... And not actual people. It's as moral as things get, and far more reliable because animals react to things differently. This has caused many problems in the past such as a medicine for pregnant women killing thousands of unborn babies because it worked fine on guinea pigs... It's also cheaper from what I've heard, even sainsburys/ superdrugs/ boots brand stuff is not tested on animals.
There aren't "a lot of ways". There are very few, most of them are new, and most drugs can't just be tested on tissue. You can't observe the mechanism and side-effects of most drugs by testing them on a sample of tissue, they need to be tested in a living organism. There are no other ways of doing that.

Do you have a source for the medicine which killed thousands of babies? Because it sounds like you're referring to thalidomide, but animal testing showed that it would affect unborn babies and it should never have been approved in the first place.

Unless you're volunteering to test these drugs yourself, I don't understand what you think the alternative should be.
5
reply
Nadile
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by JordanL_)
There aren't "a lot of ways". There are very few, most of them are new, and most drugs can't just be tested on tissue. You can't observe the mechanism and side-effects of most drugs by testing them on a sample of tissue, they need to be tested in a living organism. There are no other ways of doing that.

Do you have a source for the medicine which killed thousands of babies? Because it sounds like you're referring to thalidomide, but animal testing showed that it would affect unborn babies and it should never have been approved in the first place.

Unless you're volunteering to test these drugs yourself, I don't understand what you think the alternative should be.
I can accept that some things have to be tested on a living organism. Shampoo or soap however doesn't, just like many other things. A lot of things that are tested on animals really don't have to be and shouldn't be. That's the thing that honestly bothers me the most, not the fact that animal testing exists but that it's legal to test things on animals that can be tested in different ways (even worse when it's things that are completely unnecessary like make up...). Plus the way the tests are carried out are not particularly humane. Like I said, if anyone did the same thing in their own home, they would go to jail. But when it's done on a large scale to many animals at the same time, it's suddenly ok and legal.

Edit: I will stop mentioning the whole babies thing because I don't think I'd be able to find it anyway... It's something I've known for a really long time now from my sister because she spends a ton of time researching these things and sending me whatever she finds.
1
reply
JordanL_
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by Nadile)
I can accept that some things have to be tested on a living organism. Shampoo or soap however doesn't, just like many other things. A lot of things that are tested on animals really don't have to be and shouldn't be. That's the thing that honestly bothers me the most, not the fact that animal testing exists but that it's legal to test things on animals that can be tested in different ways (even worse when it's things that are completely unnecessary like make up...). Plus the way the tests are carried out are not particularly humane. Like I said, if anyone did the same thing in their own home, they would go to jail. But when it's done on a large scale to many animals at the same time, it's suddenly ok and legal.
It's illegal in the UK and all EU member states to test cosmetic products on animals. It's also illegal to sell cosmetic products that have been tested on animals. So nobody's testing shampoo or soap on animals.

Where do you get the idea that the tests aren't humane? The laws governing animal testing are as humane as they could possibly be. A vet is required to supervise, and it's illegal to perform tests on animals when there's a reasonable alternative. Housing, welfare, environment, care and health are all regulated by law. And, despite what PETA and other lying nutters will try to tell you, the people testing on animals aren't sociopathic monsters. They do care about the animals they're testing on, and they make it as quick and painless as possible.

As for doing the same thing in my own home, I don't see how that's relevant. Animal testing is allowed because the benefits vastly outweigh the costs.
0
reply
limetang
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
So? It's an important part of research, it needs to happen.
0
reply
callum_law
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
Great. As leaders of medical research, their efforts should be celebrated.
1
reply
Nadile
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by JordanL_)
It's illegal in the UK and all EU member states to test cosmetic products on animals. It's also illegal to sell cosmetic products that have been tested on animals. So nobody's testing shampoo or soap on animals.

Where do you get the idea that the tests aren't humane? The laws governing animal testing are as humane as they could possibly be. A vet is required to supervise, and it's illegal to perform tests on animals when there's a reasonable alternative. Housing, welfare, environment, care and health are all regulated by law. And, despite what PETA and other lying nutters will try to tell you, the people testing on animals aren't sociopathic monsters. They do care about the animals they're testing on, and they make it as quick and painless as possible.

As for doing the same thing in my own home, I don't see how that's relevant. Animal testing is allowed because the benefits vastly outweigh the costs.
Uh... Why are most shampoos and soaps tested on animals then? It's a pain to find anything in a shop that isn't.

Also in Poland a new law has been passed that allowed for animals to have their vocal cords cut, because the people doing tests on them were being traumatised by the animals' screams. A lot of what is mentioned on the page linked in this thread doesn't sound particularly humane either:

Monkey experiments conducted at some universities were said to involve animals being deprived of food or water, having electrodes implanted in their skulls or limbs, and being blasted with loud noise while trapped in a box. Other “disturbing” experiments allegedly included rats being injected with acid to cause brain damage, and pregnant sheep injected with testosterone twice a week or having their ovaries punctured during surgery.

The things that are being done at home should be relevant. After all we don't torture/kill people to test on them because it's still murder/torture of human beings, regardless of the reason behind it. The law needs to be consistent, and there shouldn't be exceptions when it's convenient to do so.
0
reply
JordanL_
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by Nadile)
Uh... Why are most shampoos and soaps tested on animals then? It's a pain to find anything in a shop that isn't.

Also in Poland a new law has been passed that allowed for animals to have their vocal cords cut, because the people doing tests on them were being traumatised by the animals' screams. A lot of what is mentioned on the page linked in this thread doesn't sound particularly humane either:

[/font][/size]
The things that are being done at home should be relevant. After all we don't torture/kill people to test on them because it's still murder/torture of human beings, regardless of the reason behind it. The law needs to be consistent, and there shouldn't be exceptions when it's convenient to do so.
I really doubt that any of them are tested on animals. Why do you think this? If it's because it doesn't say on the container that it wasn't tested on animals, that's because they don't need to say it because you can assume it since it's the law.

Do you have a source for the law in Poland? It sounds interesting but I can't find anything about it. Still, Poland is Poland. That stuff isn't happening at Oxford.

I never said the experiments themselves are humane, because they inherently can't be. But their treatment is as humane as possible.

The law is consistent. Animals aren't humans, and they aren't treated as humans. You don't get 20 years in prison for murdering a chicken, because it's a chicken, not a human. You can test on animals because they're animals, not humans. Animal testing is entirely different from abusing your pets. It's got nothing to do with it being "convenient", it's about massive advances in understanding life and developing pharmaceuticals.
0
reply
Nadile
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by JordanL_)
I really doubt that any of them are tested on animals. Why do you think this? If it's because it doesn't say on the container that it wasn't tested on animals, that's because they don't need to say it because you can assume it since it's the law.

Do you have a source for the law in Poland? It sounds interesting but I can't find anything about it. Still, Poland is Poland. That stuff isn't happening at Oxford.

I never said the experiments themselves are humane, because they inherently can't be. But their treatment is as humane as possible.

The law is consistent. Animals aren't humans, and they aren't treated as humans. You don't get 20 years in prison for murdering a chicken, because it's a chicken, not a human. You can test on animals because they're animals, not humans. Animal testing is entirely different from abusing your pets. It's got nothing to do with it being "convenient", it's about massive advances in understanding life and developing pharmaceuticals.
Why would some brands specify not being animal tested if that was the default anyway? Companies may not necessarily test themselves, but they will use ingredients that are being tested on animals.

As for the source for Poland, I can only get links to actual Polish news. That's kinda useless for you. I mentioned it since Poland is in the EU. Oxford is likely equally bad, they just don't get the luxury of not hearing the animals' agony.

And the problem is that they are not humane, very far from it. If that's the best they can do then that's pathetic. Anything that's this cruel should be withheld until better methods are found.

The law is not consistent if in specific circumstances animals have next to no rights, and can be treated the way they are in the article in this thread. Also, humans are animals too, we are no better or different so I don't see why should we be considered special and be the only race for which torture is illegal.
0
reply
DiddyDec01
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by Nadile)
Why would some brands specify not being animal tested if that was the default anyway? Companies may not necessarily test themselves, but they will use ingredients that are being tested on animals..
To increase sales. That is basic marketing.
0
reply
nexttime
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
Meat industry >>>>> animal testing in both volume and cruelty.

(Original post by Nadile)
I can accept that some things have to be tested on a living organism. Shampoo or soap however doesn't. .. unnecessary like make up...
How much of this do you think happens in Oxford's medical research laboratories?

Plus the way the tests are carried out are not particularly humane.
How many animal testing labs have you been in?
0
reply
ozzyoscy
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
Today, and as time goes on, people care more about animals. However they're not going to think much about it and look into things. They'll claim to despise animal testing, while at the same time donate money to StandUp2Cancer (because the money splashed out on marketing rather than research told them to).
0
reply
joey11223
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by Nadile)
Why would some brands specify not being animal tested if that was the default anyway? Companies may not necessarily test themselves, but they will use ingredients that are being tested on animals.
As said marketing, though even those companies are telling untruths in a way. They don't test on animals because really the chemical formulations in shampoos, body wash have been done to death, they were tested on animals decades ago. So they can say they don't test now because they don't...but the chemicals would have been. Every chemical there is practically has to be tested for it's impact on animals (rodents generally) so it can be classified as to it's environmental risk, things like chemicals from fracking, industrial dyes etc.

The hoops that have to be jumped through to test on animals are incredibly tedious (for good reason), you have to justify the **** out of it, why you need the numbers you want and can't use less, what the aim is, do you 100% need to do it etc. If an animal involved in a scientific procedure shows signs of suffering it is immediately put to sleep (albeit I'd assume it's not quite the same in some medical research).
0
reply
tengentoppa
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
Good for Oxford. It's bizarre that some people seem to care more about vermin than they do humans.

We already have strict EU rules on what can be done to animals, so I don't know what these brain-dead animal lobbyists want. A ban on animal experimentation in the EU so animals can be tested on free of any regulation in other countries? A blanket ban on animal testing thus putting an end to any new drugs which could help millions of people?

The anti-vivisection society are scumbags, they really are.
2
reply
Serine Soul
Badges: 18
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
In my view, animal testing is justifiable for medical research purposes only. If that's what they're doing, there's nothing wrong with that
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (86)
13.96%
I'm not sure (29)
4.71%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (195)
31.66%
I have already dropped out (13)
2.11%
I'm not a current university student (293)
47.56%

Watched Threads

View All