Thought for today...

[gemfyre]

gleaned from the lecture on animal ethics/welfare I had today.

Use of animals for teaching/research purposes has become very restricted nowdays. Some of this is for the good (some experiments are totally cruel and uneccessary) but sometimes it borders on depriving students of vital opportunities to learn properly.

Animals are also used for food, too many people are cruel to domestic animals, fishing is an accepted recreational sport, land clearing kills millions of animals pretty much every day, and in the wild most things die by being eaten alive.

So...

Are teachers and researchers an 'easy' target for concerned groups?


discuss.

Comments

[shrika.livejournal.com]

Yes well it's funny where we draw the line at some things...

[bubblishpop.livejournal.com]

This is particularly interesting to me since I work in biotechnology. I would say teachers and researchers are more approachable targets because for the most part we are greatly concerned with ethics and humane treatment. As for bordering on depriving students of vital research opportunities, I'd have to disagree. There is an awful lot that can be done, provided the ends justify the means. And lab mice and rats are not covered by the animal welfare act, so if someone wanted to do fairly horrific things to them, it wouldn't be illegal. Pretty hard to get the protocol through IACUC, though.

[gemfyre.livejournal.com]

hrm, in Australia the law is slightly different. The animal cruelty act (is that right one?? Any legal minded Aussies know??) covers all vertebraes. Which in itself is dumb because - hey you don't have a backbone, I can torture you all I want. Backbone or not, they're all animals and deserve the same respect. There is a push to have cephalopods (squid, cuttlefish and octopus) covered also, but that's it.

So yeah, mice come under all the scrutinies that every other vertebrae does here.

[morninglord.livejournal.com]

I was under the impression that octopi were quite smart in their own, quiet, tentacular way.
Or is it just that they have eyes remarkably similar to a humans? Or both?
I like octopi, they're funny.
Squid I can pass, they're just weird, torture em all you like.

[gemfyre.livejournal.com]

Cephalopod eyes are a great example of convergent evolution with mammalian eyes (i.e. both eyes have the same basic structure, they do differ a little).

But yeah, cephalopods (I keep using that word because it applies to all 3 types) are very smart in their right. Last year we proved that in some aspects an octopus is smarter than a second year uni student. And those in labs where nasty experiments have been done to them have been known to squirt black ink at the guys that do the stuff to them, which points to the fact that maybe they can recognise individuals.

In the world of touch they excell over humans.

[lotus79.livejournal.com]

*giggles*

I like that. But you can't just leave it there, I want details.

How are they smarter than second year uni students?

(asks the smug *third* year uni student ;)

[gemfyre.livejournal.com]

okay. There were about 6 or so corks, each has a different percentage of the cork with grooves in it (some grooves horizontal, some vertical, some both ways depending on how much was grooved). Student was blindfolded, given the corks in random order to feel and had to put them in order of least to most grooved.

This experiment has been carried out on octopii, the octopus got a better result than the student did, however the student got an easter egg for being the guinea pig, I doubt the octopus was so lucky...

in reply to the question...

[lotus79.livejournal.com]

maybe yes, and maybe no.

I think people have their priorities mixed up, because basically they're ignorant. It's easy to shove it all into a big box labelled "research" and label it all inhumane. Much harder to look at each case on it's own merits and judge between necessary/justified, and unnecessary/unjustified.

And on a side note, people who are cruel to domestic animals should be disembowelled.

[morninglord.livejournal.com]

Thats such a great big mouthful. Why not just say "Anybody who hurts domestic animals, I'll have their guts for garters!"
If you know what the word disembowelled means, you're too civilised to do it. Especially if you can spell it too. :P

[lotus79.livejournal.com]

so *that's* why nobody is taking my threats seriously!

In future I will remember to be more creative with my spellamalling.

[terrycat.livejournal.com]

Not true.... *significant look* I can spell it, and even know what it means.

[morninglord.livejournal.com]

You have to remember, a large number of the individuals that make up "concerned groups" are idealistic idiots who have lived in the city all their life and think their dinner grows in the supermarket. They hear of something that doesnt fit into their rather soft and confortable view of the world and they get all uppity about it.
Im not saying ALL people who make up concerned groups are like this, just that those people ARE out there. Ignorant people who have no real idea what they are talking about, but are just grabbing onto the small number of biased facts they have and jumping up and down on all the others that dont fit in with their world view.
Of course, politically, its even worse in australia. We have some of the STUPIDEST laws cos the majority of voters live in the city and think they know how the world really works cos they know how to open their garage doors and tune into the news stations, and the politicians pander to the majority.
Not all humans are like that.
Just a distressingly large percentage.
Stupid humans.

[terrycat.livejournal.com]

Scary. I wholy agree with wayne! i mean this shouldnt happen, if only so we can have evilly fun arguments that last weeks. However, everything he's said i pretty much agree with.
I was once told by an american that we australians should be ashamed at how we treat the aboriginies. I had to explain to them that aboriginies get more benifits than anyone else, that we arent still repressing them, that we as a people are constantly apologising to their ancestors. im not saying they have an easy life, but on the other hand, who does?
whats the point im making? the point is that its easier for someone to blame and hate me for something they know nothing about, than find out the details and actually think about stuff.
same with animal testing. admittedly, some of it IS cruel and unnessesary, but most isnt now days. people protesting labs humanely killing rats for experiments are idiots! most of these people will without even considering the irony put down rat traps or poison., which is not a nice way to go for the poor little rats.
I am being pretty general here. Not all animal rights people are hypocritical morons, in fact most i know arent. but animal rights can be treated as either an issue or as a cause, and just like any cause the ill-considered and non-thinking flock to the banner to give their pitiful lives a sense of purpose. researchers are the perfect bad guy to these people, because of all the stereotypes of mad scientists, evil experiments, soulless monsters in white coats. coupled with cute fluffy animals, and its a guaranteed target.

[gemfyre.livejournal.com]

Ducks.

Bloody domestic ducks on the waterways, pushing native waterbirds out of their nesting sites.

People who give a shit about the wild animals take steps to remove the ducks, either by removing them and turning them into pets, or by killing them. And all the ignoramuses are like "Oh no you can't go killing all the ducks you heartless person!! What will we throw bread to??"

Well 1) there will still be PLENTY of ducks and other waterfowl, but it will be native and 2) you shouldn't be feeding them anyway. It takes away from their ability to look after themselves and uneaten bread in the water is a breeding ground for botulism that will kill your precious ducks anyway. (Admittedly, I do sometimes enjoy feeding waterbirds, but only on the dry land, never in the water, and when they stop eating it I stop giving it to them).

I used to feel a bit like this over cats. I'd hear about people shooting feral cats and I was like "I'll look after them!" But now I'm a tad more educated. A cat becomes wild two generations down the track and cannot be a pet, it will rip your arm off. They are a plague to native species, they can't be poisoned or trapped easily (because they are the beauty that is cat), the ONLY way to get rid of them effectively is shooting them unfortunately. However the bastards that go around killing pet cats, they deserve more than disemboweling. And idiots who are too arrogant or stupid to sterilise their cats if they are not prize breeders. *grrs*

Meow

[morninglord.livejournal.com]

Not entirely true.
Catch them as kittens and they can be tamed and are just as good as domestic cats.
Our farm cats currently were feral cats caught as kittens. They tried VEWWY hard to rip of my dads fingers when they were little, but were inexplicably unable to do so due to lack of kitty strength.
Now the male cat is like a great big soft dribbly cushion that likes to melt all over the doormat in just the right place that when you put your foot down after opening the door to go out, you land right in the cradle of its curled-up-ness, so that your next unwary step will accidentally boot it halfway across the verandha.
In which case it picks itself up, looks at you askance as if YOU were in the wrong for wanting to use the door, and wanders back to melt all over the mat again once youve left.
Stupid thing. Very friendly. Good with kids. Started out feral. Its all about how they were brought up.
ADULT feral cats, however, needs to be taken out at long range with TOW missiles because trying the same thing with a club results in you losing vital bodily fluids and organs and stuff. Vicious things.

Re: Meow

[gemfyre.livejournal.com]

I'm meaning adults.

Unfortunately catching feral kittens is about as hard as eliminating adult cats.

ehhhh

[peppermintrose.livejournal.com]

Being an animal activist since...well since I can remember, I don't agree with any research done on animals. If we wouldn't do it to humans, then obviously something's wrong there. We just put ourselves above animals because we can, we have the power. It's really sad. The USA has come a long way as far as animal rights are concerned, but have a looong way to go. There's wonderful new technology in computers and with growing cells...which is reducing the "need" for animals, it's just that researchers get paid a lot of money to experiment on animals, easy money. As for teachers/researchers being targets, I'm an equal opportunity target finder ;) I don't like the clearing of land, the shooting of wild animals, the slaughterhouses, the overpopulation...none of it. Someone said that the advancement of civilization can be measured by how well they treat their animals, I just can't remember who at the moment because it is too late and my brain is fried and my computer is about to kick me off again...

Re: ehhhh

[gemfyre.livejournal.com]

I also hate the fact that humans think they are superior. I thoroughly believe that humans should be as available for experimenting on as animals. Oh but that's "unethical", bah, it's more noble than using a helpless animal.

My main problems lie with some of the laws (well ones in Australia anyway, dunno the laws anywhere else). You have to wade through miles of red tape just to get an animal into a classroom or lab to LOOK at, and even then you may not be approved. I mean sheesh, what is wrong with just looking and maybe touching a little?

At TAFE we wanted to get frogs in. We had lizards and fish and needed frogs to round out the unit but CALM (Conservation & Land Management) would not let us have one. Something about this nasty fungus going around and killing amphibians. I don't get that at all. We were going to take one or two frogs from the environment, care for them properly for a few weeks, then place them back. I don't see how that could worsen the fungal problem.

One thing that REALLY pisses me off is the stupid law that says things must be euthanised after being used for an experiment!! I mean WHAT!!?? You claim to be animal welfare and here you saying we must put down what could possibly be a perfectly healthy animal?? I don't understand that one little bit. If anything an animal should be used to it's full extent before it's death. Then no more animals than neccessary are used. It's pathetic.

And then there's vermin. Rats, mice, cane toads, rabbits, cats (feral ones, not pets) are all major pests. You should be able to catch them from the wild and use them. I felt no sympathy towards the cane toads I dissected last year (they had been pithed, brain dead but the nerves were still responsive - it was required for the experiment). I'm sure in their native environment they are as beautiful and well adapted as the next creature. But we need them OUT of Australia, and welfare is even anal about protecting them.

[ric-the-dratini.livejournal.com]

"Are teachers and researchers an 'easy' target for concerned groups?"
Short answer yes, Long answer... yes :).

I hate any filthy animal that disturbs my way of life and will smish it a second notice *also btw how do you sex roaches, I want to know if I discriminate*. Why don't the activists complain at the companies which produce bug zappers and bug sprays?.. if they did you'd hear stories of the phantom demonstrator squisher.

Why are teachers easy targets? cause they advertise that they kill animals to 30 students a day, of course someone little girly is gonna get offendede.
Why are researchers easy targets? cause tv says they are bad ppl cause they put make up on pigs and teach monkeys to smoke.

The question should be do animals deserve to be a pawns in creating a better future for a offspring (and not to include researchers looking for the next lipstick colour). How many lives should warrent slaughtering a monkey? Or 2 monkeys? Or a zebra? Or a dozen chickens?...
Ok chickens are "different" cause we eat them anyway, but I think monkey would taste nice too if they breeded fast enough :). I think the problem is monkeys is the researchers fault, if darwin didnt point out evolution then people would care less-er if they killed the *catch 22*.

And thats all I have to say about that.

PS. I think we are doing BJ's homework and this her evil way of getting a public opinion on her subject :)

Re:

[gemfyre.livejournal.com]

no, actually I'm just curious.

I'm actually hoping Lisa will read this and reply. :)

[ric-the-dratini.livejournal.com]

You didn't tell me how to sex roaches :)

Well since you asked....

[(Anonymous)]

Interesting discussion here... I would have replied sooner but I usually only read LJ's once a week or so when I'm bored.

Are teachers/researchers easy targets?

Yes, becuase you can sit down and have an intellectual discussion with most of them, even the ones who think you should vivisect & kill everything. On a regular basis I sit down with researchers and we discuss various animal ethics related issues and come to an agreement civilly. Even when debates get heated they aren't physically violent or unable to listen to reason.

Sorry but the majority of intensive animal farmers (& I say majority but not all) I've met aren't willing to talk to you about it in any form of civil manner. Ditto the majority of circus people- even the clowns when we make a specific point of saying that we think human acts are great it's the animal usage we have a problem with.

Another thing is people often don't like thinking about the impact they themselves have on the world. For example there are heaps of people against the Live Sheep Trade who eat animals becuase they don't like to think the way their lamb chop was produced wasn't as cruel as the trade is. It is easy to say oh that's bad to something they aren't going to benifit from. It's easy to say testing for drugs that someone won't use is cruelier than looking in their own feet and seeing the leather they are waring.

Animal experimentation often uses animals that urban people can identify with (eg dogs, domestic rats and mice, rabbits, cavies etc) rather than pigs, cows, sheep etc that urban people don't even identify with as being dinner. You can think of it in terms of "it could be my cat Fluffy, and Fluffy has feelings therefore it is wrong" rather than people thinking hang on maybe the cows and pigs they eat have feelings as well.

Also what the majority of wider community think is very inaccurate such as we need meat to be healthy, farm animals are free to wander, baby roosters aren't gassed to death at a few days old becuase they don't lay eggs and the majority of experimentation is on cosmetics or on weight loss pills.

Oh & someone else said that rats & mice were not covered under the Animal Welfare Act. That is *wrong* in regards to experimentation/usage the WA AWA which comes into effect mid 2003 means that the NHMRC guidelines are complusory by law (rather than being recommended). They do extensively cover rodents. Also many places do make exception for observational work in reguard to the everyone has to be killed rule. I also know of some places that try to rehome suitable animals if possible.

As for experiments having to be passed even if they are on so called "pest" animals, you could also say that disabled people are "pests" as well (after all they don't make any valuable contribution to society) so why don't we use them for experiments, after all the results when applied to humans would be more accurate? Why are you willing to do an experiment on a cane toad if you aren't willing to do it on a tree frog?

BTW Peter Singer will be giving a free public lecture at UWA on Feb 14th which you might find of interest, it's about ethics without the species barrier.

HTH
-L.