Crush...Yiff...Destroy!

Charisma · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jan 2004 Posts: 158

I heard about Huntingdon Life Sciences for the first time about 4 years ago when a friend of mine was making a petition to protest against it at school.
He showed me some horrifying pictures of puppies rotting alive by the effects of cosmetic testing and monkeys and cats in tiny cages, all strapped with wires plugged into their skulls.

It immediately made me want to do something about it, just seeing those images.

Huntingdon Life Sciences has been in the news a few times since then because of animal activists vandalising the workers' homes and vehicles in protest.

But just the other day I was in the city centre and there were some charity workers making a petition and taking donation at a table full of leaflets and info on HLS. I gave them some money, signed the petition and took a bunch of leaflets to read up on it.

On a few of these leaflets it states that

"An increasing number of doctors and scientists in medical fields, veterinaries and pharmacists oppose animal experiments on purely scientific and medical grounds. They strongly agree that animal models differ so much from humans, that conclusions drawn from animal research, when applied to human disease is likely to delay progress, mislead and do harm to patients."

Also they say that

"Other, more productive and accurate means of testing include human cell and tissue cultures, organ culture, computer modelling, epidemiology, clinical studies etc..."

But this is contradicted by what HLS have to say, which is almost the exact opposite:

HLS:

"Behind the scare stories and myths there lies an ever growing number of successes and advances in the field of human medicine. For many years, humans have been benefited from the healthcare advances that animal based research has achieved."

and on of their official website this page they argue their point quite well by listing all the operations we wouldn't have without the benefits of animal testing.

While the protesters claim that 500 animals such as dogs, cats, birds, horses, deer, rabbits, guinea pigs and monkeys die at HLS every day, HLS say that they use "the minimum number of animals possible".

What I want to know is, if animal testing doesn't work like the protesters say, then why does it happen? Surely it wouldn't go on if it didn't benefit the human race like they say?

www.frame.org.uk this site focuses on that question and is striving to minimize animal testing although they also recognise that immediate abolition of all animal experiments is not possible.

I'm against certain issues on BOTH sides of this debate, such as protesters setting employees cars alight and encouraging hate mail, and alot of obvious factors of HLS's treatment of animals. Although I'd say I was more against animal testing than for. HLS claim that they treat animals with care, but i can't see how thats possible when you're experimenting on them at the same time with skin-rotting acidic products. Whether animal testing is worth it for all the things we have gained from it or not, I still can't help but feel that its still wrong. There must be another way.

Here are some links for and against:

www.huntingdon.com/hls/home/index.html -Huntingdon Life Sciences offical website
www.huntingdonlifesciences.net -a site against HLS
www.freetheanimals.homestead.com/closehls.html -an anti-site with a few pics of the animals

SLaitila · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jun 2003 Posts: 126

I don't know. I usually try to solve problems by getting ass drunk.

Rankin · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jan 2004 Posts: 488

Having a pathetic furry for a roomate with a PhD in genetics, I can tell you that some of the tests are futile and pointless, but the vast majority actually are considered to be more than useful. They're generally humane, treat the animals well, and distroy them properly - it's not like someone smacks them with mallets until they die.

Then again, personally, sure, I feel guilty about knowing this is going on; regardless, I'd rather people stop killing people first.

Anonymous · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 767

What I want to know is, if animal testing doesn't work like the protesters say, then why does it happen? Surely it wouldn't go on if it didn't benefit the human race like they say?

NOSTRADAMUS PREDICTS THAT THIS THREAD WILL BE LOCKED FOR BEING OFF TOPIC!!!

However, My Ego demands that I put my oar in.

I am not saying that animal testing itself is bad, because it’s not. There are great benefits to it.

But it is both good and bad.

However, Things can gather a certain momentum.

It’s all to do with money.

There is a huge amount of money invested in animal testing, Esp. from drugs companies.

Now, when you have such huge amounts of money flowing around, things gather a life of their own.

If you’re getting funds for animal testing, you’re damn well going to invent some tests to carry out on animals in order to keep that funding going.

If you're a university and you've invested millions in a new animal experimentation lab, you're damn well going to find some experiments to carry out.

Tailgunner · Coadjutor Joined: 28 Oct 2003 Posts: 161

If Huntingdon Life Sciences REALLY wanted to research into human medicine without the backlash associated with animal testing, couldn't they just experiment on people who dress up as animals (Furries)?

What better way to experiment how a certain medication effects a human than by actually experiment ON a human?