[karezza]

10% of experiments involving monkeys carried out in the UK have no benefit of any kind, a panel of leading scientists has concluded.

Should the monkey torture by psychopathic vivisectionists be banned?

[arista]

Yes its to be stopped

[Lee.]

Dunno.. obviously the thought of any creature being tortured is horrific to me, but (now don't shoot me down in flames as I admit I don't know enough about this subject to debate it) isn't some animal experimentation beneficial when it comes to new medicines etc?

[Novo]

10% is pretty low, 90% is somewhat beneficial so no it shouldn't be banned

[karezza]

We would learn more by experimenting on these 3:

Levi Bellfield
Robert Black
Ian Huntley

[Lee.]

Is Ian Huntley not dead?

[MeMyselfAndI]

It should definately be banned

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Novo

10% is pretty low, 90% is somewhat beneficial so no it shouldn't be banned

This

Originally Posted by happyland

Is Ian Huntley not dead?

Nah, he had his throat slashed by a fellow inmate but he survived I think

[AJ.]

Originally Posted by Novo

10% is pretty low, 90% is somewhat beneficial so no it shouldn't be banned

Aren't the benefits tiny compared to the confused torture some monkeys go through. They should just as pay humans to test things like alot already do.

[Lee.]

Originally Posted by MTVN

This



Nah, he had his throat slashed by a fellow inmate but he survived I think

Shame.

[InOne]

Yes. They have humans who are monkey like enough to do it

[Harry!]

Test on humans, much better results.

[Joelle.]

Why not test on human scum (rapists, paedos, murderers) instead?

[Benjamin]

If humans want to test new medicines then test on humans that have the free will to choose to be experimented on, not these poor creatures that have no choice in the matter.

[Novo]

it's all well and good saying these are poor creatures that don't have a choice etc.. but these tests could in the future turn out to save peoples life's so it's all worthwhile in the end.. and they do test on humans as well as monkeys don't they?

[Joelle.]

Rose West, Peter Sutcliffe, Steven Wright and Ian Brady are all still alive. Why not use them?

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Novo

it's all well and good saying these are poor creatures that don't have a choice etc.. but these tests could in the future turn out to save peoples life's so it's all worthwhile in the end.. and they do test on humans as well as monkeys don't they?

So. If we find a cure for something, mother nature will create a new diesease to cull our population and keep our numbers down. It's the way the world works.

But I don't see why monkey's need to be tested on to save us. Test on humans.

[Stu]

I'm against animal testing save for cases where a clear route to something beneficial to the human species can be trodden. If testing on an animal will make obvious inroads into AIDS research then go for it. My animal welfare views don't extend as far as considering monkeys of greater importance than human beings.

Another extreme case would be where the tests could prove dangerous. Again I value human body and mind more than that of a monkey. I'm not even sure where I stand on testing on the likes of paedophiles.

As for mother nature inventing new diseases to cull our numbers ... that's no reason to not constantly fight them. Besides I'd question to science of that statement. The animal kingdom culls it's numbers and whatnot but I don't think this invisible, generic 'mother nature' actually consciously creates diseases in order to maintain equilibrium.

If she is then she is doing a very bad job of it.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by ukturtle

So. If we find a cure for something, mother nature will create a new diesease to cull our population and keep our numbers down. It's the way the world works.

But I don't see why monkey's need to be tested on to save us. Test on humans.

So we should just not bother trying to find a cure for cancer or something like that?

If by experimenting on monkeys we can discover something that can be used to save human life then the benefits outweigh the costs imo, I wouldn't mind humans being tested on if they agreed to it but that's unlikely considering the nature of the experiments so I think doing it on monkeys is the best option tbh, it's the lesser evil.

[Stu]

I'd also hope those totally, evangelically against unnecessary animal testing are vegan. After all your consumption of animal products is just as unnecessary given suitable alternatives exist. 'It's natural' or 'but meat is tasty!' arguments don't quite cut it and in no way subvert the obvious non necessity of eating animal produce.

I declare this can of worms open.

[Lee.]

Originally Posted by Stu

I'm against animal testing save for cases where a clear route to something beneficial to the human species can be trodden. If testing on an animal will make obvious inroads into AIDS research then go for it. My animal welfare views don't extend as far as considering monkeys of greater importance than human beings.

Another extreme case would be where the tests could prove dangerous. Again I value human body and mind more than that of a monkey. I'm not even sure where I stand on testing on the likes of paedophiles.

As for mother nature inventing new diseases to cull our numbers ... that's no reason to not constantly fight them. Besides I'd question to science of that statement. The animal kingdom culls it's numbers and whatnot but I don't think this invisible, generic 'mother nature' actually consciously creates diseases in order to maintain equilibrium.

If she is then she is doing a very bad job of it.

yeah this is pretty much how I feel, but just couldn't be arse to type that much.

I think cosmetic testing is a different thing though..

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Stu

I'd also hope those totally, evangelically against unnecessary animal testing are vegan. After all your consumption of animal products is just as unnecessary given suitable alternatives exist. 'It's natural' or 'but meat is tasty!' arguments don't quite cut it and in no way subvert the obvious non necessity of eating animal produce.

I declare this can of worms open.

Monkeys are far cuter than other animals though

[Stu]

Chickens are far sexier than Monkeys.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Stu

Chickens are far sexier than Monkeys.

Spoiler:

[Lee.]

Originally Posted by Stu

Chickens are far sexier than Monkeys.