Hull vivsection puppy farm given green light

[ProfessorDavey]

From Wiki.

Dogs are widely used in biomedical research, testing, and education—particularly beagles, because they are gentle and easy to handle. They are used as models for human diseases in cardiology, endocrinology, and bone and joint studies, research that tends to be highly invasive, according to the Humane Society of the United States.[94] The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Welfare Report shows that 67,772 dogs were used in USDA-registered facilities in 2013.

The awful thing is that I'd want my loved ones to have access to the best medical advances too. But just because I want something that doesn't make it morally right.

You can check out all the details of numbers of animals used in research in the UK via the Home Office. This is because no research can be performed without the researchers acquiring three separate licenses and part of that licensing approach is a requirement to report the numbers of animals used, and these are collated to produce annual statistics.

So in the latest figures about 3000 dogs were used, which represents less than 1% of all the animals used in research, the overwhelming majority of which (over 98%) are mice, rats or non mammalian species (e.g. zebrafish).

The licensing approach requires researchers to use species with the lowest neurophysiological level appropriate for the research. So you won't get a licence to use a dog if the research can be done on a mouse, and you won't get a licence for a mouse if the research can be done on a zebrafish. And you won't get a licence at all if the research can be done without using animals.

Just to give some broader context the RSPCA and other organisations estimates that about 1 billion animals are reared and slaughtered for farming in the UK each year (not including fish).

[jeremyp]

One reason you can be sure that animal testing is still necessary is the fact that we still use it.

Anybody who normally appears to think as logically and as rationally as you purport to should easily be able to see everything that's wrong with that statement.

There is nothing wrong with the statement.  It's true.  Animal testing in this country is (rightly) strictly regulated to the point that it is extremely expensive to do it.  Couple that with the fact that the scientists who do animal testing are just people like us most of whom balk at the idea of causing animals unnecessary pain and there are very strong incentives to do something other than animal testing.  Yet the fact that people still do it should tell you that sometimes there is no alternative.

If it comes down to saving a few dogs or saving the life of me or my loved ones, I'm sorry, the dogs lose.

Not that it ever comes down to a few dogs over a few arbitrary humans; it never does. It's never a few dogs (or rats, or guinea pigs, or rabbits ...); it's dozens, then hundreds, then thousands, then tens of thousands, then - by now - millions of them.

And billions of people have been saved by drugs and other treatments that have been tested on animals.

I'm more than happy to sacrifice your life and the life of your loved ones to save these few dogs.

The sentiment is not reciprocated.  I would never put dogs ahead of saving you or any human being.

[jeremyp]

And it should also be remembered that vets and welfare experts all oppose puppy farms on welfare grounds and campaign to ban them. These puppies are going to suffer poor treatment from birth, and their mothers will suffer unnecessarily too.

There are strict standards of care required for animals that will be subject to medical experimentation in this country.  Here's a link to the code of practice

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/388535/CoPanimalsWeb.pdf

If you have evidence of any breach of the regulations, you should report it to the authorities.

[floo]

Do people who object to animal experimentation for medical purposes refuse to use drugs tested on them?

I am of the opinion that animal experimentation is probably still necessary, but strict guidelines should be adhered to in order not to cause anymore suffering than absolutely necessary.

Animals should never be experimented on for frivolous purposes like testing out cosmetics, for instance. 

[Rhiannon]

I've bought cruelty-free cosmetics for 30 years nearly - cosmetic testing is still allowed in the USA and elsewhere AfAIK. I also use natural washing powders etc from brands such as Ecos, Greenscents and Ecoleaf as big companies like Unilever test on animals.

When it comes to medications I use what we need to get or stay well. I wish I didn't have to use animal-tested products but I guess we have an urge to ensure that our offspring survive, and indeed that we are fit enough to look after them.

[ProfessorDavey]

Do people who object to animal experimentation for medical purposes refuse to use drugs tested on them?

I am of the opinion that animal experimentation is probably still necessary, but strict guidelines should be adhered to in order not to cause anymore suffering than absolutely necessary.

Animals should never be experimented on for frivolous purposes like testing out cosmetics, for instance.

But the regulations in the UK are exactly that - very strict guidelines and you cannot do any research without obtaining three separate licences from the Home Office.

And a key requirement for obtaining a licence is that you must prove the following (direct quotes):

'The purpose cannot be achieved by any other reasonable and practicable method.

The minimum number of animals with the lowest degree of neurophysiology will be used.

The procedures will cause the minimum distress or suffering to the animals.'

If you cannot prove these three in your application you won't get a licence.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Did you all get how much Shaker hates human beings? He's willing to sacrifice your loved ones for the life of a dog. Must be real hoot at parties, oh wait, he's probably never been asked to one.