Good. Simple. Food for thought. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

keep on stirrin sugarpine........ good one!!

Yep, going to go stir some early lunch. Been on this forum way too long, need to get some actual work done...

Interesting site, Sugarpine, but I hate to see research that subjects animals to our curiosity, like this unethical study: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/hlusko_01 "...Her alter ego spends its energy taking thousands of incredibly detailed measurements of teeth belonging to a colony of baboons at a hi-tech biomedical research facility in San Antonio, Texas..."

I like animals, but I am not making the connection between measuring teeth and unethical studies....I noticed the procedure where they were casting molds of the teeth, but the primate was probably knocked out with a mild sedative during the procedure....it but may help us to understand them, their needs, the enviroment effects on them, evolution, why some animals die out, so forth ---------------- To begin with, I think it's unethical to use animals as lab tools-- they certainly don't give their consent. The purpose of this experiment, as I understand it, is to compare ancient fossils with baboons living in the 21st century. The researcher is only measuring teeth, but each baboon must be captured and likely taged to avoid repeating the mold on the same animal. As you noticed, the baboon is under sedation, which always involves some risk. I'm sure other researchers have measured teeth, so I doubt this study will lead to more than what's already known. But even if it did, the mold could made on baboons who have died of natural causes. True, the researcher might not have as many specimens and it would take longer, but that would be a more ethical way of doing it.

Yes, it's cruel that we're enhancing a gene in mice that causes them to have rapid cancer growth; but the research cannot be accomplished on mice that obtain cancer naturally or through tissue cultures. One has to weigh the costs with the benefits and find a compromising ground. Especially, when were talking about the lives of a couple thousand mice and the research consequences that can effect millions. ---------- I agree there is a need when non-animal methods have not been developed, but I still don't think it's ethical.

The values and customs of the community is that if the animals are treated humanely, which these animals seemed to be, because there is no record of harm coming to them, then it is within ethical boundaries. ------------ Whose ethical boundaries? ;) The same argument was made for slavery and other forms of exploitation. But it's fundamentally unethical/immoral to own and/or exploit living beings. Might doesn't make right. ------------- Ethics and morals are a lot alike, depending on the community and beliefs what is ethical to one may not be to another. ------------- I think there are accepted norms in every culture, but that doesn't make them moral. For example, in some cultures women are owned and treated like slaves. I don't think that's moral, do you? ------------- The use of medical testing in development of cures, medical research and such when there are no non-animal testing does not cross ethical lines for the simple fact that if it saves lives, and is necessary than the unethical thing to do would be to avoid it. ------------- That's sounds like you're saying the end justifies the means. I don't think it does. Also some scientists are questioning the value of many experiments on animals.

The argument could be used your right, but as we have discovered about society, things evolve in their natural slow course over time ----------- I agree, Kali. Social change takes time. There are sound objections to speciesism but animal use is so deeply ingrained in our culture, most people take it for granted. Also, animal exploitation is profitable for agriculture, for breeders, and other industries, including medical research. ------------ But I think that some medical testing is vital at the moment, and hopefully we will be able to find other means. ------------ Yes, there is a need but animal research is also a business; and as you know, much of this need is due to a lack of alternatives. John Hopkins and other scientists are developing them. Meanwhile, I still don't think animal research is ethical because speciesism of itself is unethical. You may not be familiar with this stuff, but I know you love animals. And I'm glad you're husband was saved, for himself and for you and your family.

I have watched some "tests" performed on animals, some material on how fur coats are made, cosmetic testing and such. Not pretty at all. I decided that I was not ever wearing the fur coat nor passing it on. I decided to find cosmetic/shampoos and stuff that was not animal tested. One of my professors in college (legal) class had everyone watch the material so that we would know what these animals went through. We watched the medical research regarding burn victims where pigs were used to simulate the burn victims and find treatments that helped those with 2nd and 3rd degree burns. It was not an easy thing to watch, so I would like to know more about alternatives. ------------ I've seen the test on pigs-- once --and I never want to see it again. The pigs were not under anesthesia while being burned. I can understand why you'd want to hold on to the coat, since it was a gift from someone you love, and still not wear it. Thumbs up for your local zoo. Here's a website that describes alternative methods to animal research, as well as companies that don't test on animals: http://www.allforanimals.com/alternatives1.htm