Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I've just got home after being away and found that there is a lot in the news about this new animal testing plant at oxford university. I was thinking of applying there but wouldn't be happy somewhere where the university was cruel to animals....is it the same at most universities or are there some that don't test on animals? I hadn't even thought of it until i saw stories in the papers! x
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    ah yes, have seen small groups of protesters there from time to time.. & i always do get an urge to try & reason with them..but then conclude they might not be particularly receptive, the fact i'm a med. student might not go down too well + i'm outnumbered & some animal rights fanatics do downright disturbing things.

    anyway, to respond to your more overt query..

    if a university carries out medical/biomedical/biological/pharmacological research then i fail to see how animal testing couldn't take place in their labs or by affiliated staff etc.

    i'm open to corrections by anyone who knows better..but..

    & considering most red bricks unis have medical schools, you may be ruling out a lot of university choices. which although may be principled i'm not sure is necessarily a wise thing to do..
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I don't know about one at Oxford, but there was a lot of fuss over plans to build a primate research lab at Girton (just outside Cambridge). Unfortunately a lot of the research that is going on does to some extent necessitate animal experiments; we wouldn't know half as much as we do now if it weren't for them. You'd have to do a pretty thorough search if you're going to discriminate between universities in that way.
    Offline

    9
    On moral terms you might also want to consider....

    Nottingham - Sacandal over funding recieved from tobacco industry
    Bristol - State pupil discrimination


    erm..... more as I think of them!!!
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    How else could some medicines be tested?
    Offline

    9
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    How else could some medicines be tested?
    Humans willing to take great risks for little financial reward?!? :confused:
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Leekey)
    Humans willing to take great risks for little financial reward?!? :confused:
    From a homocentric view point, it is more important to develop medicines etc for humans that save a few animals.

    Which is quite a logical view point.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    How else could some medicines be tested?
    streptokianase
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is a sensitive issue here but I do agree with testing to a limited extent.. However I do think more research should be done on potential drugs before they're randomly used. However which of these is more likely to cause outrage when it goes very wrong. Testing on animals or on humans?

    Personally I'd line up all those scientists who torture animals and fire a canon ball into them.
    That was just an idiotic view to take and just strengthens the publics view of 'animal rights activists'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Gnostic)
    No amount of benefit can justify the satanic torture of having conscious animals such as dogs having their skulls removed, implants placed in, and kept alive.

    We can experiment on life-long criminals. They're scum.
    I am more likely to agree with you there but I can't think of any basis where that is going to be needed. And I doubt it'll be happening at Oxford (going back to the original post).

    I don't agree with on humans though, I'd rather they brought back the death penalty.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spleenus`)
    I don't agree with on humans though, I'd rather they brought back the death penalty.
    Surely they do more good being subjected to testing than being killed straight up though?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    To me, that is worse than testing on animals.
    Animals are 'innocent' though, whereas the serial rapist/pederast/murderer certainly is not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Testing on criminals is an interesting idea. I don't know how animal testing is done, but the problem that struck me with it is that the scientists who are doing these tests might object to doing them on humans. It's much easier to inflict pain on an animal, because we don't generally empathise with them as much. Cutting up men and pouring nail varnish in their eyes might freak them out.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Well conducted animal testing to help finding cures for human illnesses and diseases is good IMO, animal "lets pretend to test but actually torture them and get nowhere as regards to medical progress" aka "animal testing", isn't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Gnostic)

    Instead of testing products on cats, dogs, and monkeys why don’t we experiment on certain classes of criminals?
    I cannot believe anyone would even consider this. Whatever crimes they have committed, prisoners are still human. I believe animals have rights but NOT above human rights! Hitler experimented on humans. Obviously you agree with him.

    Many genetics experiments couldn't be carried out on humans anyway, because to see how a genes works it often has to be bred through generations. Human generations are too slow.

    The pictures which animals rights groups show you are the same ones they have been showing for 20 years. They weren't taken yesterday.

    By law in this country and many others a medicine must be tested on animals before it can be tested on humans (all medicines go to human trials eventually). There is some kind of poisons test where they have to know how much would kill a rat, then they scale it up to work out how much would kill a human (not very accurate). Go and petition the government.

    The research place they are building in Oxford is the one they were going to build in Cambridge, but gave up because of terrorists. For example, the NatWest bank gave Huntingdon Life Sciences a loan. So the animal rights people sent letter bombs to the cashiers who work in Cambridge NatWest. It's not as if the cashiers would have anything to do with multi-million pound loans anyway. Terrorists by name and terrorists by nature.

    Animal rights groups are the largest active terrorist groups in this coutry. Think twice before you sign any petitions because the police force regularly checks such petitions and if your name appears, they might check up on you.
    Offline

    9
    (Original post by babyballerina)
    I believe animals have rights but NOT above human rights!
    Explain why not.

    (Original post by babyballerina)
    The pictures which animals rights groups show you are the same ones they have been showing for 20 years. They weren't taken yesterday.
    Unqualified comment.

    (Original post by babyballerina)
    Animal rights groups are the largest active terrorist groups in this coutry. Think twice before you sign any petitions because the police force regularly checks such petitions and if your name appears, they might check up on you.
    I have complete faith in our police force to aimlessly squander resources as the next person but I doubt even they would be so pathetic as to undertake such action. What are they going to "check up on you"? The last time I checked it was not illegal to voice an opinion (NB - Not a que to start a BNP rant for anyone).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by undercover-ange)
    I've just got home after being away and found that there is a lot in the news about this new animal testing plant at oxford university. I was thinking of applying there but wouldn't be happy somewhere where the university was cruel to animals....is it the same at most universities or are there some that don't test on animals? I hadn't even thought of it until i saw stories in the papers! x
    lol! All universities have animal facilities. Sad but true that drugs/medical treatments CAN NOT get marketed without them...

    Animal rights activists meed to target the government, not the researchers, many of whom are looking for animal free models in tandem...

    Cambs had a similar thing a year or two back when their monkey lab was scrapped.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elles)
    ah yes, have seen small groups of protesters there from time to time.. & i always do get an urge to try & reason with them..but then conclude they might not be particularly receptive, the fact i'm a med. student might not go down too well + i'm outnumbered & some animal rights fanatics do downright disturbing things.
    Nurses against Vivisection always make me giggle! They used to always be camped out outside Glaxo. You would have thought nurses would know that drugs couldn't be marketed without animal tests - there's not legal or regulatory provision for it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Leekey)
    Humans willing to take great risks for little financial reward?!? :confused:

    This is called a phase three trial! Occurs after the model testing (phase 1 pre-clinical saftey) and usually involves bacterial and cell line tests (such as the L51, human metaphase analysis, ames etc). 'Animal testing' usually comes next and is required by law for most of the toxicology data necessary before a drug can be tested on humans. The key word I guess is law! It's pointless burning down labs and attacking researchers. They are only following the letter of the law....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Leekey)
    Explain why not.
    Children are dying of cancer. You believe they should be allowed to die because some lab rats have a greater right to life? That's warped.


    I have complete faith in our police force to aimlessly squander resources as the next person but I doubt even they would be so pathetic as to undertake such action. What are they going to "check up on you"?
    My mum has worked for the police force for 14 years. There is a LOT of intelligence on animal rights groups. If you ever have to have a criminal background check, if you've signed a lot of petitions it might come up. It's not pathetic. Animal rights groups are extremely dangerous terrorist groups. They have harmed many more Britons than any arab terrorists that the press so worry about.


    The last time I checked it was not illegal to voice an opinion
    It's not. But terrorist behaviour is. That's what you fund if you give money to the banner wavers.

    Edited to add: - so many people say they are totally against animal testing, but I've never met anyone who is prepared to give up all medicines for life because of it. Yet all medicines in this country (and the EU and North America) have been tested on animals. You could probably take chinese medicine but that's all. If you have ever taken any licenced drug, you have benefitted from animal testing.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.