artschool Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) Then they may be carriers for the condition and also require gene therapy? All 'genetic engineering' does is speed up what could have been achieved through many years selective breeding. I really can't see what you are worried about. We all consume genetically modified foods, most of us just don't know it. No they won't. The first antibiotics we had were the sulponamindes and then good old penicillin. The VAST majority or bacteria are still susceptible to these drugs. They are used daily by doctors, dentists and vets. They still work bloody well. Of course you will get some resistance, but those genes are in the population anyway. Some bacteria are intrinsically resistant to certain antibiotics as it is. It's not quite as simple letting 'your resistance build up' as you make it sound. Remove them and millions of people and animals would die. They are not given out like sweets, they are given when needed. Many conditions you would recover without treatment, but a simple cut on your finger could have you lose your hand without antibiotics. I see farm animals that have to be put to sleep because a small wound has become so infected. They must be used responsibly, but we are no where near total resistance! Many people think that MRSA is particularly virulent, it isn't. The bacteria [staph aureus] does the same thing to people [ie wound infections] whether it's resistant or not, it's just the resistant kind is harder to kill. If things were kept on their own it must have been some time ago. Ten years ago they had to legally have company and toys! it would have been about 14 years ago! doesnt seem that long i take your point about the anitbiotics and i know i oversimplified the problem. to use a rather crappy analogy. we (humanity) are anakin skywalker with his robotic arm. at what stage do we become darth vader? :yp: Edited February 2, 2011 by artschool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schern Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 I'm pro-testing within reason. I don't think it's necessary to test make-up on animals as it's unlikely to kill someone unless they're deviating massively from a known good base. And make-up isn't going to save someones life (directly anyway, not wanting to debate the whole psychological side of things). I'm not too worried about the whole messing with human genetics thing either really, but in a fairly childish "wouldn't it be awesome to be an x-man" kind of way. Or if anyones read any Culture books by Iain Banks. That would be pretty awesome too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artschool Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 I'm pro-testing within reason. I don't think it's necessary to test make-up on animals as it's unlikely to kill someone unless they're deviating massively from a known good base. And make-up isn't going to save someones life (directly anyway, not wanting to debate the whole psychological side of things). I'm not too worried about the whole messing with human genetics thing either really, but in a fairly childish "wouldn't it be awesome to be an x-man" kind of way. Or if anyones read any Culture books by Iain Banks. That would be pretty awesome too! i have read all of iain m banks' stuff. its the Neural Lace i am looking forward to. instant google. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 I'm all for it. As far as I'm concerned human life is more important than animal life. Having said that I'm sure all the drugs and treatments used to help animals are tested on animals too?. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libs Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Its the only reason I can't get a beagal. I couldn't afford the fags. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boromir Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 For me No for most reasons. We are messing with nature too much, What happened to survival of the fittest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC45 Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Unless we used rapists, paedophiles and murderers instead! That would be the perfect animal model. Entirely my view. :good: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 We have produced computer models for very many complex systems, including sufficiently intelligent applications to detect and catalogue plasma and sub atomic particles etc. We have detailed MRI scanners imaging through the use of computers and the human genome has been decoded. Is it possible, given the billions we spend on health to develop and slowly refine a human analogue? Surely the drug companies would part fund such research? If it were possible to 'model' human outcomes, debates such as this would become academic and we would all be happy. That having been said, I'm someone who accepts strictly controlled testing on animals needs to continue until we have a better way. Might even be tempted to donate the bits left for research when I kick the bucket if it would help and it wouldnt be refused ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diceman Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 For me No for most reasons. We are messing with nature too much, What happened to survival of the fittest? My wife had breast cancer in 2009-2010. She had the very best treatment available and is now 'cured' as much as you ever can be, so our baby daughter still has a mum. Still, I suppose we shouldn't have messed with nature by using all those drugs, written her off as not one of "the fittest" and let her take her chances, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diceman Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Is it possible, given the billions we spend on health to develop and slowly refine a human analogue? Surely the drug companies would part fund such research? It is, and they are. In fact as it is potentially so much cheaper and quicker than animal testing they are pouring £billions into it - I know people involved in this area. However, it is very early days. The human body is breathtakingly complex, and the variables in each individual are almost limitless, so it will be a long while before this sort of technology can be used exclusively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksdad Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 I'm totally FOR animal testing, at least until we canuse the lowlife prisoners as already suggested here, and in countless other debates on the same subject. Jack, my son, is 12 years old. He has Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. This is a muscle wasting disease that has no cure at the present.He can no longer walk and within the next few years he will lose the fight against this horrible disease. The only hope for the next generation of boys is the research being done on mice, literally as we speak: a cure is within reach, but because of objections (and lack of funding) the animal research programme has been delayed. If this was your kid, would you put the life of animals before him, saying 'thats the way it is' ? Selection of the fittest? Thats an insult to all the people who are fighting disability ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houseplant Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 For me No for most reasons. We are messing with nature too much, What happened to survival of the fittest? was going to reply to that, but i think this says it all: I'm totally FOR animal testing, at least until we canuse the lowlife prisoners as already suggested here, and in countless other debates on the same subject. Jack, my son, is 12 years old. He has Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. This is a muscle wasting disease that has no cure at the present.He can no longer walk and within the next few years he will lose the fight against this horrible disease. The only hope for the next generation of boys is the research being done on mice, literally as we speak: a cure is within reach, but because of objections (and lack of funding) the animal research programme has been delayed. If this was your kid, would you put the life of animals before him, saying 'thats the way it is' ? Selection of the fittest? Thats an insult to all the people who are fighting disability ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houseplant Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) . Edited February 2, 2011 by Houseplant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boromir Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Ok maybe I should of said some instead of most, I was mostly looking at the view of finding cures for diseases that can be prevented and cosmetics reasons. Sorry if I did offend anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksdad Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Thanks for your reply BFG. I think that people need to see just why animal research is carried out: do people think scientists are actually just weirdos who like torturing animals? If there was nothing to be found from such research, do you think Government would spend money on it? NO, they wouldn't! Just ask the animal rights brigade this: as you hold your child on his deathbed, you can say "well you are dying but no animals were hurt trying to find a cure" ...NO WAY! The same people who say animal research must be stopped would sday " well in this case its different" GET REAL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadkill Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 im all for it , its for the good of mankind no need to be fit any more we have advanced from them days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artschool Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) Ok maybe I should of said some instead of most, I was mostly looking at the view of finding cures for diseases that can be prevented and cosmetics reasons. Sorry if I did offend anyone. this is how all these threads end because people take comments personally. i think you were making an interesting point. Edited February 2, 2011 by artschool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artschool Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 im all for it , its for the good of mankind no need to be fit any more we have advanced from them days isnt that an oxymoron? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadkill Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 isnt that an oxymoron? you could look at it that way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bakerboy Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 one big issue is if we refuse to do it here it will just be done abroad with none of the controls. There is a place for it but it should definitely be well regulated I totally agree with AL4X Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MM Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 I have a hypocritical view sadly. Im against animals being tested on, yet i would and do take medicines that (i imagine) are tested on animals. Nothing i can do about that im afraid, as i view my own life more important than that of a lab rat or rabbit. Some might argue, but im only being truthful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksdad Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Totally agree with you, I don't WANT testing on animals, its a sad fact of life that it is needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.