If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Huntingdon Life Sciences
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Hey,
Just interested to hear what your views are on this organisation.
For those that don't know what this is: Link
To be honest i dont know a great deal about this company other than that they test on animals, but that i only really knew from seeing the posters created by protestors on the streets.. have anyone else noticed these too?
Just interested to hear what your views are on this organisation.
For those that don't know what this is: Link
To be honest i dont know a great deal about this company other than that they test on animals, but that i only really knew from seeing the posters created by protestors on the streets.. have anyone else noticed these too?
0
Comments
but i still absolutely abhore huntingdon life sciences, the way the mistreat the animals whilst they are being held there. I know that they have a very high death rate there, and they do some completely unneeded tests - dogs are very very different to humans, if you HAVE to test on an animal before a human then surely chimps would be a better idea?
i have been told that they do a lot of cosmetic testing which they convieniently call consumer chemicals testing...its completely unneeded and i believe that all cosmetics should be tested on humans...
I used to be a veggie, and i would only use products not tested on animals, and i'd only take medication if it was nessesary to keep me alive. i have had a little more experiance and see that sometimes self preservation is more important than being a martyr for a cause that has SOME validation. animal ethics are very hazy, and i don't think we're the dominate race, i think we're meant to be care takers, and we have gone too far and become almost god like in some sense. But other animals kill for reasons other than food and self defence...
At least, that's how it worked on me in my early teens.
But I'm not an idiot, and I wanted to know more. So yes, the shocking images created my anger towards such companies and sciences etc. But it's something more ethical than just a shocking image. The shock doesn't come from the gore for me, if that makes sense, it comes more from the resentment.
It's always a funny hypocrisy though that the people who show you those pictures don't show you the photos of the lives of people saved by drugs that were tested on animals......
I'm not going to argue against the necessity of animal testing (though I will agree with t_t that I fail to see the point in testing on rabbits or rats or anything that has little to no similarity to humans). Besides, a lot of the worst treatment is in the cosmetics industry which is NOT necessary by any argument. I'm sure they know how to make fucking shampoo by now.
How you can look at the photos they show, whether they are shown to you by extremists (who I also disagree with) or otherwise and say that that is necessary is beyond me, to be honest.
I'm very rarely shocked by the pictures of vivisection, testing etc these days because I've seen it all so many times, but when I am it's rarely because of the gore, it's because I cannot even begin to imagine how a person would even conjour up the idea of doing that to an animal. If it's a result of testing, fine, that doesn't make it right but that is not the direct responsibility of the person doing the test and it's not their 'fault' that the test hasn't gone as expected, but anything that is not directly related to the actual testing is deplorable and I can't understand how this stuff isn't strictly regulated.
I'm not going to disagree with you, the animals could be kept in better conditions.
As for why animals are used, because despite appearances they share 99% of the DNA with us. A mouse for instance shares many of the hereditary traits as a person does and lots of illnesses that afflict humans can be accurately studied in them.
Also, computers are not yet advanced enough to predict how a medicine will actually react when it comes into contact with living tissues, hence animals have to be used anyway.
As for cosmetics, like I said before I disagree. It's unlikely that a cosmetic will cause anything other than an allergic reaction in a person, something that can be tested on small patches of skin.
Oh I know. As I said above, I can't be justified in being angry if the problem is as a result of the test itself, particularly if it's a new test, as there is no way of knowing how the animal will react. But the truth is that most of the photos you see AREN'T pictures of test reactions, they're pictures of mistreatment and whatever your position on medical testing that is wrong.
It doesnt actually state that the photo was taken at hls, just implys it.
Treatment is far far worse in the big abbatoirs, especially since foot and mouth stopped farmers killing livestock on their own farms. The cheap meat we get from supermarkets comes from these factory abbatoirs, but because the meat is all neatly wrapped up in lovely boxes nobody gives a fuck.
And if we really want to talk about animal cruelty, lets talk about IAMS. They market their pet food as "scientifically proven to be good for the pet". Oddly enough they don't talk about their vivisection of dogs- whilst still alive- to test the nutrition of the pet food. Nor do they talk about the malnutrition tests they carry out, nor the de-barking of dogs, nor the forced ingestion of vegetable oil in large quantities.
I concur.
Another example of the corporate world taking control of the food supply, in the fallacious name of food safety.
A farmer could face prosecution if he supplied his own family with the meat of certain livestock slaughtered on his farm. The law in effect states that each individual must slaughter, process and consume as an individual without any other party being involved.
Wuss.
There is absolutely no rational argument to justify the suffering of animals to alleviate the suffering of humans that isn't based on an inherent speciesism, that's the moral equivalent of the arguments that led to both slavery and nazism.
by I'm With Stupid (a carnivore with a nice bit of chicken in the fridge).
I think we should keep the research we have already aquired by testing on animals, but we should begin phasing it out as much as possible.
I don't think human beings are any more special than animals. I don't see any difference morally in testing on an animal, or a human. I believe in seeing all creatures as deserving of compassion and respect. Human beings aren't seperate from animals, we're just better at some things than non human animals are.
And yes, I would take drugs tested on animals if I got dangerously ill... I'd take a drug tested on humans too if I absolutely have to. That's survival, that's life.
It's not about black and white for me. It's about doing as little harm to our planet and to others as possible.
Am I an animal rights activist? No... I focus my attention on other areas, but support peaceful activism. I don't support people who are overly aggressive, or nasty with others. In fact some of them piss me off because they make the campaign look bad.
I don't think we're any more 'special' than animals, and we shouldn't be needlessly cruel to animals, but if we can save our own lives by testing on animals then there's nothing wrong with it. A hungry tiger wouldn't weigh up the moral pros and cons of eating a human alive, it would do what it needed to do to survive.
Unnecessary testing, like for cosmetics or for IAMS pet food, is morally and ethically wrong. Testing on animals for drugs that will make a difference to our lives is not wrong.
Anyone who wants to argue that the big fish shouldn't eat the little ones is welcome to go and climb into the lion enclosure any time they want.
See I don't care if a tiger would eat me or not, just as I don't believe in the death penalty for somebody who would happily try to kill me. I don't think our morals should be based on whether or not those around us are the same mentally.
It's true, animals don't have the same capacity to reason morally, but that doesn't make them of any less worth in my view, even if they do view me as prey.
I still don't see any difference in testing on animals and humans. Quite frankly, testing on humans would technically be safer. It's not that I support testing against humans mind, I think it should all start to be phased out as technology develops.
I don't think I have to justify it by stepping in to a lion enclosure. That doesn't make sense.
It debunks the myth that humans are the same as other animals. We're not.
It wouldn't be particularly safe for the humans being tested if there hadn't been preliminary testing on other animals.
CAD testing of drugs is used, but you don't know it will work until it's injected into something that's alive. Mammals have pretty much the same reactions humans would, which is why they're tested on lab animals before being tested on people.
I'm not talking about humans being tested after animals... But instead of. This has been done in the past, no?
And no, mammals don't always have the same reaction to drugs as humans do. We have different chemistry.
Either way, I'm not arguing whether or not it makes medicine safer, I am saying I think it should be phased out and to have newer technology replace it as it develops.
I find Peter Singer’s argument for vegetarianism in Animal Liberation, cogent. He essentially argues that our discrimination against animals is based on the species boundary, and that this in itself is arbitrary. His argument boils down to the idea we should look for a trait more meaningful than just which species we are when deciding what is morally permissible behaviour towards animals; he chooses ‘capacity for suffering’ are his yardstick.
I also don't see how comparing ourselves to other animals in a 'What would they do?' sense really further the discussion.
Err yes, you said it further above
So they are different then.
It still doesn't seperate us as humans from the animal kingdom, we are just another species of animal, which is (in general and arguably so) better at certain things than some other species.
It still doesn't stand as a good moral argument as to why non human animals should suffer for our survival or pleasure, over other human animals.
Then they treat the rats with this treatement, to see if it has the potential to regrow tissue. At this stage, signs indicate that it could, but obviously there are a hundred and one other stages to go through, at best we could see this treatment in use in 10 years time. That's too long for some people.
So I am all in favour of testing on animals, if it speeds up the process, because when it comes down to it you are weighing a human life against an animal's life and in my opinion the human life is more important. I don't think it's a case of "there's no point, they're not human" because at the cellular level they are seeing whether a certain treatment will interact properly with cells.
When they were looking at a treatment to see if they could repair spine damage, they forcibly cut the spinal chord in rats so they were unable to use their legs, then attempted the treatment. If it works, it shows promise, they can use that to justify further tests which costs millions of pounds.
It's an unfortunate scenario, but it is a necessary one. I don't agree with flat out animal abuse but I think arguably the standards in the UK are much higher especially because there has been so much pressure on HLS, than say in China or Russia where abuses can fall by the wayside.
Namaste - I could say the same argument if a starving hyena was trying to gnaw my leg off, that what gives me a greater right to life than it? Nothing especially, except that I want to live, and I want my friends and family to live. It's no crime to be selfish, so I would in that hypothetical situation shoot the hyena to save my own life. This in my opinion is just an extention of that. Heartless as it sounds - survival of the fittest.
It does, though. When it comes down to it, all animals will do what is necessary to protect themselves. That is right and proper. A hungry tiger will eat me, a hungry human will eat a dog and a hungry dog will eat a cat. None will worry about the ethics of it first, or if they do, the feeling in their bellies will trump ethics.
I agree that testing drugs is more complicated, in that the progress is quite separated from the benefit. But when it comes down to it, if testing a drug on a domestic cat will save humans from dying then that is what should be done.
Testing should only be done when necessary. Testing for cosmetics is wrong. Testing for IAMS pet food is wrong. But testing for a drug that could cure cancer isn't wrong.
So what should we do? Go and test drugs on people in prison, or people with learning difficulties? Someone did that before, it was this guy called Adolf.
I think the more rational response would be to move toward (for example) dermatological testing on sheets of cloned tissue, as is already being pursued...
I think we probably agree about experimentation on animals - at least in our conclusion. I was trying to highlight that I don’t see how the action of another species is an informative, moral cue; just because we share the same feelings of hunger doesn’t mean the process by which we go about sating that hunger should be the same – on either a physical, moral or intellectual level.
I tentatively agree, however, my conscience feels a bit nagged by the implications of the logic behind what I suspect is your (and mine) rationale behind the statement.
What is the difference between testing drugs on prisoners and testing it on rabbits? Why should human prisoners get special treatment over animals?
How do we define the moral worth of a life? Why are human beings special?
Yep, this... As well as other moves in science.
I'm not arguing for killing people, I'm arguing about the way in which we view life. As I've already said, animal testing exists and it is morally the same as testing on humans in my view, but I'd like to see it phased out with new technology.
Well this is an interesting point. You argued that animals are different to humans based on the assertion that they lack the capacity for moral reasoning. And so do many people with mental problems. So are they different to the rest of us too then? Are they fair game for testing of drugs because they lack the moral reasoning that the rest of us have? If you're going to use the ability to reason as an example of why humans are different, then this is the only logical conclusion of your argument.
I think Peter Singer's measuring stick of capacity for suffering is the only way to determine morality. Species doesn't work, because there are examples of genetic humans that aren't capable of suffering (an unborn foetus, for example). And the ability to be moral doesn't work because a sizable chunk of humans would come lower on this scale than some animals. And the ability to reason doesn't work because of the same problem. We don't say it's okay to hit a mentally disabled person because he wouldn't stop himself hitting us, so the analogy with the lion doesn't work.
What we can say, however, is that most of us wouldn't argue that it's a moral choice to kill 2 people to save you family member. But most of us would have a moral dilemma if given the choice, despite on the face of it, it being a fairly straightforward choice in terms of the suffering and loss of life caused. And I think there's a parallel with animal testing here. Whether it's moral or not is another question, but it's up there with whether it's okay to accept collateral damage of thousands of foreigners to save our own families? A lot of us would say no, but when push comes to shove, most of us would probably do it (assuming it was literally a straight choice, obviously, which these things rarely are). We're not as moral as we think we are, but we do a good job of trying to convince ourselves that our immoral actions are actually moral. The most despicable actions seem to occur by people who've convinced themselves that some atrocity is actually for the greater good. I'd rather just admit that we're not always moral, then at least it's out in the open.
But if I have the choice between testing on a mentally handicapped person or an animal, again I would say the animal because the person is part of my society, and I have evolved to be protective of my society. That's the fundamental reason we are top dog, not because biologically we are better than another animal, but because we evolved the trait of protecting each other even if it is irrational to do so. As such we have ensured the prosperity of our society and that instinct remains today.
Remember that there is no such thing as right or wrong, it's just a construct we have built.
I think Singer fails to emphasise the differences between animals and people and the difference. The biological differences between us may not be so great, nor our capacity to feel physical pain, but that is a significant difference between animals and people that we should not ignore. Our feelings about animals (and our feelings about other humans) are complex and often contradictory; to say that we should simply view animals as "beings with the capacity for suffering" is reductive.
In response to something like this, I would say that there is a sense that part of being human involves making sense of our lives, there are potential emotional and psychological depths to human suffering that set us apart from animals. It would be senseless to talk of a dog questioning the meaning of his life, or feeling he had wasted his life, but it is not senseless to talk about this in terms of humans. There is also an important point to make with regards to the idea that humans have an "inner life" completely different from than of an animal. To quote Christopher Hamilton, "we can tell the life story of any human being, the narrative of his journey through time. We cannot do the same with an animal’s life. If we try to tell the story of an animal’s life, this is nothing more than relating the events in that life – what happened, and when. With a human life, things are quite different".
Also, look at our reactions to death - when someone dies young, for example, there is a sense of wasted potential, a sense of pity for the possibilities and opportunities that the deceased will never be able to take advantage of. Even an animal lover will not respond to the death of an animal in exactly the same way as they would to the death of a human, even if the feeling of grief would run as deep. There IS a significant difference between animals and humans and the way we view ourselves and them. No one responds to the slaughterhouse in the same way that they would respond to genocide; that in itself reflects the fact that even the most committed animal activist simply does not view animal life in the same way as they view human life. Nor should they, in my opinion.
Now after that long spiel that I am sure not many people will read, I am wholly in favour of animal testing for medical purposes. I think that although we should carefully examine our attitudes towards animals, and that perhaps viewing them as fellow creatures would be a positive way forward, there nonetheless IS a big difference between animals and humans, and there is nothing morally questionable about valuing human life above animal life.