[vyper]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4750516.stm


[q]Up to 600 people marched in support of animal testing at Oxford University's new £18m biomedical research centre.[/q]

Seeing as I wouldn't be here if someone hadn't messed around with a german shepard and some insulin injections 60 odd years ago, I have to say I like this idea.

[aldo_14]

I say we bar all the anti-testing protesters from recieving medication tested on animals.

(NB: not so much against banning cosmetic testing, as that seems rather pointless when it's purely for vanity)

[Flipside]

Same here, especially after that disgusting episode where they stole the ashes of the mother of a guy who ran a guinea pig farm, and refuses to return them unless he closed the farm.

Personally, I would like to track them down, one by one, and publicaly humialiate them for the ill-informed cowards that they are.

Sorry, I have opinions on this

[Martinus]

I say we bar all the anti-testing protesters from recieving medication tested on animals.

(NB: not so much against banning cosmetic testing, as that seems rather pointless when it's purely for vanity)

No seriously, to prove a point you need to push it as far as it can go and show them the worst case scenario.

They can't use medication, hygene products, makeup, food or any household cleaning chemical that has at any time been tested on an animal. No medical procedure or device that was ever tested on an animal either for that matter.

It's only fair.

[Fineus]

To provide a suitable contrast though, should we not have all pro-testing protestors allow themselves to be tested on with the same makeup / cleaning products / medication etc. that they say is OK to be tested on animals?

That would also be only fair.

[Flipside]

Not really no, after all, we do actually ask for human volunteers for medical testing on treatment for terminal diseases so this already goes on.

Science only tests on Animals when no other option is available to be honest, the days of cosmetic testing are drawing to an end, thank God, and the animal rights protestors are now just the remnants of something that had served its purpose by the early 90's. These aren't people who are genuinely concerned about animals, if they were, they would work for the RSPCA or the like and help with the far more common problem of people abusing pets etc, these are just troublemakers who are clinging to a cause because it gives them an excuse.

[aldo_14]

To provide a suitable contrast though, should we not have all pro-testing protestors allow themselves to be tested on with the same makeup / cleaning products / medication etc. that they say is OK to be tested on animals?

That would also be only fair.

I believe they are.  Also anyone that buys the things.

Albeit that's kind of missing the point; the whole pro-testing arguement is that it's better to kill or injure through testing a rat, pig, etc than have a human be hurt or killed.  So it's a simple case of wieghing up the benefits of testing versus the cruelty to animals; IMO there is more than sufficient benefit for vital medication, etc, but probably not for the latest soft drink or lipstick.  Of course, AFAIK there is always some human trial component (usually only legally allowed once some benchmark is set for safety), the purpose of animal testing is to reduce the risks upon the human trial subjects.

[Ford Prefect]

Well, there are always going to be cosmetic products, so I think we're justified in using animals to make sure they're safe for people. It's not like if we do away with animal testing there will be an aesthetic revolution and people will decide they don't need makeup anymore.

[Flipside]

Virtually no cosmetic testing takes place on animals any more, at least not in developed countries. The sad fact is, though, that some companies have evaded the animal cruelty laws and set up testing facilities in 3rd World countries etc.

If animal rights activists really want to do something to help those animals they should be taking positive action and working alongside the likes of the WWF (That's World Wildflife Foundation, not Wrestling) and the RSPCA to do something about situations such as this instead of Petulant acts of semi-Terrorism. But these groups never get involved with this side of things, because that would mean not being Anonymous cowards.

[aldo_14]

Well, there are always going to be cosmetic products, so I think we're justified in using animals to make sure they're safe for people. It's not like if we do away with animal testing there will be am aesthetic revolution and people will decide they don't need makeup anymore.

Not a necessity though, are they?  It depends how much value you put on an animal vis-a-vis keeping Kate Moss happy.  I'm not immune from anthromorphising, so I put a wee bit more upon the former than the latter.

[vyper]

[q]how much value you put on an animal vis-a-vis keeping Kate Moss happy[/q]

Using bunny ears to snort coke... it's just tragic.

[Ford Prefect]

Not a necessity though, are they?  It depends how much value you put on an animal vis-a-vis keeping Kate Moss happy.  I'm not immune from anthromorphising, so I put a wee bit more upon the former than the latter.

Knowing how corporations operate, it's a choice between cosmetics that are tested before entering the market, or cosmetics that are tested in the market. Now, since there are other ways to test cosmetics, I can support companies being forced to use these instead of animal testing. But if this were not the case, I would defend the use of animals to ensure the safety of an item that will exist one way or the other. Personal appearance is important. It's also probably more difficult for men to sympathize with this particular issue.

[Solatar]

Personal appearance isn't always as important to people as you may think. Cosmetics + animals = no. It's not necessary to keep a human healthy, so why should it possibly be allowed to contribute to the injury of an animal even if there are "no other alternatives". Companies will simply stick to using the same tried and tested chemicals they've been using for years.

Medicines, however, don't have that luxery. Testing on animals for medicine, I believe is fine. Better an animal than me because no, the pig is NOT equal to me.

[Ford Prefect]

Companies will simply stick to using the same tried and tested chemicals they've been using for years.

Like hell they will. Companies are looking for growth. In the sale of goods, that means new products with new capabilities. The disasters in the pharmaceutical industry have demonstrated without a doubt that companies would rather test new chemicals on the population and cut their losses when people die rather than adequately ensuring their safety beforehand.

[Solatar]

Pharmeceuticals != Cosmetics. Sure, cosmetic companies will try to expand using their resources, but the government will crack down, people will get angry, and they'll be forced into using standard technology or different testing procedures which involve human volunteers, but most likely under more strict observation. I say let the medicines be tested on animals first, but if somebody wants to look 'pretty' (as a lot of times when people put on make-up...it's less than that) bad enough to use all these chemicals that are harmful, they (or people like them) can sign up to be tested.

Pharmaceuticals keep people alive. Human life is more important than an animal.
Cosmetics keep people better looking. Human looks are not more important than an animal.

[Ford Prefect]

The government will crack down?! To regulate corporations? What government is this? It doesn't matter that pharmaceuticals aren't the same industry; it's a case study of how the private sector's dick is lodged firmly in the government's mouth. Drugs are commonly a matter of life and death, and the FDA is about as vigilant over that industry as a sloth stoned off its ass, so you can imagine where that puts cosmetics on the scale of things. There is nobody watching who cares, except the people, and we don't count. Rest assured, if there is no cheap alternative, the public will be the cosmetics industry's laboratory, the government will keep on sucking away, and independent watchdog organizations will stutter and say, "Uhhh, is anyone seeing this?"

As for the value judgement on makeup, it's hard to achieve any real objectivity on this question, but the way I see it is this: I defend the killing of animals to make fur coats, so I can't very well claim to have a problem with using animals for cosmetics. I refer to the Humean notion that what we refer to as "morals" are derived from our emotional reactions to certain things, which differ according to various factors that define our individual selves.