Queen's Brian May Opposes Scientific Testing On Dogs

Brian May has no beef with science - dude's an astrophysicist, after all - but the Queen guitarist draws the line at experimenting on animals. As ContactMusic reports, the British rocker has joined the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection in opposing the creation of a dog farm that will reportedly breed beagles for laboratory research.

"Beagles, indisputably, are highly intelligent sentient creatures, friends of Man for centuries," May wrote in a statement directed at Eric Pickles, the secretary of state for communities and local government.

"It is completely morally unjustifiable for these animals to be made to suffer in the name of science, and I am shocked to learn of plans to set up a facility in Yorkshire to breed and supply beagles to the research industry."

This isn't May's first time coming to the defense of furry creatures. In 2010, he led a campaign to stop a badger cull in Wales, and he's also the founder or Save Me, a group that aims to "promote decent treatment for animals."

Thanks for the report to Noisecreep.com.

Comments

[Pagan_Poetry]

I don't get the connection between astrophysics and experimenting on dogs. Just because they're both science related?
Good for him. I find testing like this disgusting. To quote Sealab (as we all know, this is a reliable source) "Monkeys don't need pills. We do. We're miserable, so why shouldn't we test on ourselves?"

I remember the badger thing. That alone makes May an ultimate badass.

[dentrix]

Pagan_Poetry wrote:

I don't get the connection between astrophysics and experimenting on dogs. Just because they're both science related?
Good for him. I find testing like this disgusting. To quote Sealab (as we all know, this is a reliable source) "Monkeys don't need pills. We do. We're miserable, so why shouldn't we test on ourselves?"

I remember the badger thing. That alone makes May an ultimate badass.

I disagree, animal testing is a necessary part of drug discovery, as it provides real experimental evidence about the potential risks of new drugs. It isn't pretty, but it's better than exposing people, voluntarily or not, to potentially life threatening, untested drugs.

[Pagan_Poetry]

...So can't they find volunteers on death row? How many people on death row are going mentally insane because they can't wait to die? Not because they want to die necessarily, but it's inevitable and they can't stand waiting anymore. Not saying to force them, but I'm sure some would volunteer.

[WhoAMEye]

Pagan_Poetry wrote:

...So can't they find volunteers on death row? How many people on death row are going mentally insane because they can't wait to die? Not because they want to die necessarily, but it's inevitable and they can't stand waiting anymore. Not saying to force them, but I'm sure some would volunteer.

How many people are on death row? and how many of those are willing to volunteer to take experimental, potentially highly crippling medication? Certainly not enough to supply the Medical industry with the resource it needs.

I am with dentrix. Its dirty but necessary.

[C0FF1NCAS3]

I can't place a lot of faith in the pharmaceutical industry. They try to make heart medication and they invent Viagra, they try to solve depression and the side effects are suicidal depression.
Given the way it looks I wouldn't be surpirsed if the first six patches of any drug were just straight leathal. Testing is done simply because half the time they put a drug together and don't really know what it will do. They made so very educated guesses based on chemistry and then kill a hundred rats for several year and then move on to the next level of testing. You kill or harm a ton of people if you skipped straight to human test subjects. Then again what do we really care? We have child soldiers, preform abortions, have booming human slave trade, and genocide. Nevermind thatthough,cause we got to save the whales!
Side note: No one tell Brian that they eat dogs in Asia, he might get upset.
@Pagan: it'd be considered inhuman, plus even on death row you've the right to appeal your case(why many are death row for so long).

[al-asad92]

dentrix wrote:

Pagan_Poetry wrote:

I don't get the connection between astrophysics and experimenting on dogs. Just because they're both science related?
Good for him. I find testing like this disgusting. To quote Sealab (as we all know, this is a reliable source) "Monkeys don't need pills. We do. We're miserable, so why shouldn't we test on ourselves?"

I remember the badger thing. That alone makes May an ultimate badass.

I disagree, animal testing is a necessary part of drug discovery, as it provides real experimental evidence about the potential risks of new drugs. It isn't pretty, but it's better than exposing people, voluntarily or not, to potentially life threatening, untested drugs.

But most animals used in testing are almost nothing like us from an anatomic standpoint, so even if these drugs are proven to be safe on animals, they could still ending up being harmful to people.

[calger14]

I want good music news!

[Ryan_Good1]

The Hound of the Baskervilles anyone?

[fede01_8]

better thant test on human, isn't it? or why they don't test on blow up dolls?

[jacobstayton1]

Go Brian May!!!

[Vypor]

I'm all for human rights, but as long as these animals are being tested in a humane way, I don't see the issue.

Anyone heard of a famous psychologist named Ivan Pavlov? He used dogs to discover today what we call "Classical Conditioning"

Very useful piece of psychological history, that is.

[Vypor]

Meant animal rights, my mistake.

[Carl6661]

What about if the product is for dogs.

[Oyface]

Not trying to be a douche, but why post news not related to music?

You do this way too often, UG.

[Paddy McK]

Animal testing isn't really that valuable from what I can tell. Look at it this way, if you tested chocolate on a dog, it could die. Humans and animals are not the same.
Also I love Brian May.

[pbogner87]

+1 C0FF1NCAS3 wrote on 01/24/2012 - 10:56 am / quote |
I can't place a lot of faith in the pharmaceutical industry. They try to make heart medication and they invent Viagra, they try to solve depression and the side effects are suicidal depression.
Given the way it looks I wouldn't be surpirsed if the first six patches of any drug were just straight leathal. Testing is done simply because half the time they put a drug together and don't really know what it will do. They made so very educated guesses based on chemistry and then kill a hundred rats for several year and then move on to the next level of testing. You kill or harm a ton of people if you skipped straight to human test subjects. Then again what do we really care? We have child soldiers, preform abortions, have booming human slave trade, and genocide. Nevermind thatthough,cause we got to save the whales!
Side note: No one tell Brian that they eat dogs in Asia, he might get upset.
@Pagan: it'd be considered inhuman, plus even on death row you've the right to appeal your case(why many are death row for so long).

Viagra is also used for pulmonary hypertension (which has much to do with the heart).

The suicidal ideation warning from depression medications was not a statistically significant finding in trials that the FDA made to be reported. Do you think that some people with depression don't already have suicidal ideations? These medications take 1-2 months to even start working and suicidal ideations are one of the last symptoms to resolve.

Get your facts straight before you go spouting off your opinions about this and that.

[kingbabyduck]

But most animals used in testing are almost nothing like us from an anatomic standpoint, so even if these drugs are proven to be safe on animals, they could still ending up being harmful to people.

An ordinary fruit fly shares about 2/3 of the same genes as humans. That's a fruit fly, something that has little anatomical resemblance to humans, and is not even a vertebrate animal. Anatomy has nothing to do with the effectiveness of a drug, it has to do with whether genes are expressed or not, and the extent of expression.

I believe testing should occur on animals. It is sad to see dogs and other animals suffering because of drug testing, but in the end, it does and will benefit humans. There are many labs that will breed animals to express certain characteristics so they can test drugs on them, and in that instance, the drug that is given may help improve or extend that animals life.

[Eirien]

pbogner87 wrote:

+1 C0FF1NCAS3 wrote on 01/24/2012 - 10:56 am / quote |
I can't place a lot of faith in the pharmaceutical industry. They try to make heart medication and they invent Viagra, they try to solve depression and the side effects are suicidal depression.
Given the way it looks I wouldn't be surpirsed if the first six patches of any drug were just straight leathal. Testing is done simply because half the time they put a drug together and don't really know what it will do. They made so very educated guesses based on chemistry and then kill a hundred rats for several year and then move on to the next level of testing. You kill or harm a ton of people if you skipped straight to human test subjects. Then again what do we really care? We have child soldiers, preform abortions, have booming human slave trade, and genocide. Nevermind thatthough,cause we got to save the whales!
Side note: No one tell Brian that they eat dogs in Asia, he might get upset.
@Pagan: it'd be considered inhuman, plus even on death row you've the right to appeal your case(why many are death row for so long).



Viagra is also used for pulmonary hypertension (which has much to do with the heart).

The suicidal ideation warning from depression medications was not a statistically significant finding in trials that the FDA made to be reported. Do you think that some people with depression don't already have suicidal ideations? These medications take 1-2 months to even start working and suicidal ideations are one of the last symptoms to resolve.

Get your facts straight before you go spouting off your opinions about this and that.

He may have distorted a couple of minor points but other than that C0FF1NCAS3 has got a great point with his post.

[DarkfnTemplar1]

#1 Animal aren't people. Sorry Peta. They don't have meta thinking and they will most likely never reach our cognitive abilities.
#2 Animal testing is crucial for drug development and basic scientific discovery. There are lots of people getting funding for alternatives to this but it simply wont work out. Mice/ chimps have pathways almost identical to ours and this kind of preliminary testing is invaluable. We should respect these animals. At the end of the day, however, I would allow for any amount of non-human animal suffering in order to prevent human suffering.
#3 If you don't trust the pharm industry, you should look at the government first for allowing them to dodge competition and skew optimal testing/success. You should also move to Africa as they seem to be doing pretty well with little to no access to big pharma products.
-Nick
Ph.D. Student -Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
Guitarist

[pbogner87]

He may have distorted a couple of minor points but other than that C0FF1NCAS3 has got a great point with his post.

Distorted minor points + point about people not caring about animal testing = great point?

Perhaps they should test drugs on you first?

[pbogner87]

DarkfnTemplar1 wrote on 01/24/2012 - 12:41 pm / quote |
#1 Animal aren't people. Sorry Peta. They don't have meta thinking and they will most likely never reach our cognitive abilities.
#2 Animal testing is crucial for drug development and basic scientific discovery. There are lots of people getting funding for alternatives to this but it simply wont work out. Mice/ chimps have pathways almost identical to ours and this kind of preliminary testing is invaluable. We should respect these animals. At the end of the day, however, I would allow for any amount of non-human animal suffering in order to prevent human suffering.
#3 If you don't trust the pharm industry, you should look at the government first for allowing them to dodge competition and skew optimal testing/success. You should also move to Africa as they seem to be doing pretty well with little to no access to big pharma products.
-Nick
Ph.D. Student -Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
Guitarist

+100000
-Paul
BSPS, PharmD - University of Toledo College of Pharmacy
Guitarist

[spiff-corgi]

DarkfnTemplar1 has got it down. Animal testing is obviously not nice. Nobody wants to do it for the sake of doing it. So many musicians come forward spouting inane drivel like "I DON'T LIKE ANIMAL TESTING"! Nobody f-cking does. But if your kids got ill, Brian, and the only drug available was one that had been tested on animals would you remain so liberal? Does he have kids? I dunno, that's not the point really.

[csensesfail92]

so if we can't test products on animals or people what are we supposed to do to test new products?

[TheLukeMaxfield]

this isn't related at all, but i couldnt believe it when i saw that brian may collaborated with some rapper called dappy, watching the video genuinely made me want to cry.

[Root Beer]

Wow that was a great article. I love how it was so relevant to modern music. We should have more articles like these that are actually about music and not musicians who also happen to be animal rights activists.

/sarcasm

[Skullivan]

BSPS, PharmD - University of Toledo College of Pharmacy
Guitarist

What a cool band name.

[HarrySound]

Brian May is a poodle

[colashanacogh]

although collaborating with a retarded puppy is fine?

[westley23j]

WhoAMEye wrote:

Pagan_Poetry wrote:

...So can't they find volunteers on death row? How many people on death row are going mentally insane because they can't wait to die? Not because they want to die necessarily, but it's inevitable and they can't stand waiting anymore. Not saying to force them, but I'm sure some would volunteer.


How many people are on death row? and how many of those are willing to volunteer to take experimental, potentially highly crippling medication? Certainly not enough to supply the Medical industry with the resource it needs.

I am with dentrix. Its dirty but necessary.

they lost their right to volunteer when they earned their spot on death row. test on them.

[K.i.S.A.]

Root Beer wrote:

Wow that was a great article. I love how it was so relevant to modern music. We should have more articles like these that are actually about music and not musicians who also happen to be animal rights activists.

/sarcasm

Like we haven't seen this a million times before. It's not gonna go away by whining about it. This is clearly in the 'GENERAL music news' section. It belongs here. If you care about new albums then shuffle on over to 'Upcoming releases'.

[rhs5110]

Man I'm surprised at all these selfish people on here if it was your dog they were killing for the name of almighty science you would change ur answer real ****ing quick. How many life saving medications will come out of slaughtering innocent animals seriously we've made huge strides in medication in this day and age testing on dogs is not just wrong but immoral

[jimmyled]

Good for him. No cynicism hides in that sentence. I really do think it's great of him.

[jordo246]

I also oppose when legendary guitarists decide to work with shitty rap artists, but yano.

[MetalMullet]

DarkfnTemplar1 wrote:

#1 Animal aren't people. Sorry Peta. They don't have meta thinking and they will most likely never reach our cognitive abilities.
#2 Animal testing is crucial for drug development and basic scientific discovery. There are lots of people getting funding for alternatives to this but it simply wont work out. Mice/ chimps have pathways almost identical to ours and this kind of preliminary testing is invaluable. We should respect these animals. At the end of the day, however, I would allow for any amount of non-human animal suffering in order to prevent human suffering.
#3 If you don't trust the pharm industry, you should look at the government first for allowing them to dodge competition and skew optimal testing/success. You should also move to Africa as they seem to be doing pretty well with little to no access to big pharma products.
-Nick
Ph.D. Student -Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
Guitarist

Reading this nazi-like crap from well educated people reminds me why I quit university. The world is sure a scary place. Especially when you consider that people of your kind rule it.

[Blargaha]

MetalMullet wrote:

DarkfnTemplar1 wrote:

#1 Animal aren't people. Sorry Peta. They don't have meta thinking and they will most likely never reach our cognitive abilities.
#2 Animal testing is crucial for drug development and basic scientific discovery. There are lots of people getting funding for alternatives to this but it simply wont work out. Mice/ chimps have pathways almost identical to ours and this kind of preliminary testing is invaluable. We should respect these animals. At the end of the day, however, I would allow for any amount of non-human animal suffering in order to prevent human suffering.
#3 If you don't trust the pharm industry, you should look at the government first for allowing them to dodge competition and skew optimal testing/success. You should also move to Africa as they seem to be doing pretty well with little to no access to big pharma products.
-Nick
Ph.D. Student -Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
Guitarist

Reading this nazi-like crap from well educated people reminds me why I quit university. The world is sure a scary place. Especially when you consider that people of your kind rule it.

Grow up... So you would not kill an animal to save a person? Give me a break..

And comparing a pharmacy PhD to nazis? A PhD is far more than you will ever amount to do.

[Slap-happy]

People here need to get some of their facts right. Whilst we share gene similarities with a lot of creatures it must also be noted that we share around 75% the same genetic make up as pumpkin and over 50% that of cabbage. Can we test drugs on them and monitor their effect?
A canine's physical and mental responce to that of a human's in any condition is completely different and unrelated. As a dog owner I deal frequently with things that seem to bother one of my dogs although he doesn't show pain. Annoyance, sure, but it's far removed from the whining that I hear from many people who seem to be under some illusuion thta a paper cut is the end of the world.

I would allow for any amount of non-human animal suffering in order to prevent human suffering.

Really? Ever killed a creature to put it out of it's misery? I somehow doubt it. I am a meat eater, not some hippy vegan. I have had to physically kill animals, often bare-handed in order to stop their suffering (being hit by cars, severely injured from accidents). Try staring into their eyes as you deliver the final blow or twist of the neck. A horrible experience
Most animals live a life of simple survival with no grounds for gain, greed, one-up-manship or the selfishness that drive many on today.
Would I kill a defenseless little creature? Sure - if I was starving hungry and had no money I would easily kill with my bare hands. But I don't. It's the 21st century and I can go to a butcher purchase my meat.

As for medication? Haven't taken any for over 20 years and see little point in starting now... Phamaceuticals appear to be little more than placebo-like false ideals given out to the needy and weak. Sure there are drugs that work well, but there are far too many that appear to do next to sweet-f**k all.

[Slap-happy]

Blargaha wrote:

MetalMullet wrote:

DarkfnTemplar1 wrote:

#1 Animal aren't people. Sorry Peta. They don't have meta thinking and they will most likely never reach our cognitive abilities.
#2 Animal testing is crucial for drug development and basic scientific discovery. There are lots of people getting funding for alternatives to this but it simply wont work out. Mice/ chimps have pathways almost identical to ours and this kind of preliminary testing is invaluable. We should respect these animals. At the end of the day, however, I would allow for any amount of non-human animal suffering in order to prevent human suffering.
#3 If you don't trust the pharm industry, you should look at the government first for allowing them to dodge competition and skew optimal testing/success. You should also move to Africa as they seem to be doing pretty well with little to no access to big pharma products.
-Nick
Ph.D. Student -Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
Guitarist

Reading this nazi-like crap from well educated people reminds me why I quit university. The world is sure a scary place. Especially when you consider that people of your kind rule it.


Grow up... So you would not kill an animal to save a person? Give me a break..

And comparing a pharmacy PhD to nazis? A PhD is far more than you will ever amount to do.

Since I've met far more intelligent people on the streets, in bars and some of the more "interesting" places on Earth that I ever did at university I think you should engage your brain before typing in a public forum. A PhD, much like many other qualifications displays merely an aptitude for being able to recall facts and figures. Hardly a real education...

[Blargaha]

Slap-happy wrote:

Blargaha wrote:

MetalMullet wrote:

DarkfnTemplar1 wrote:

#1 Animal aren't people. Sorry Peta. They don't have meta thinking and they will most likely never reach our cognitive abilities.
#2 Animal testing is crucial for drug development and basic scientific discovery. There are lots of people getting funding for alternatives to this but it simply wont work out. Mice/ chimps have pathways almost identical to ours and this kind of preliminary testing is invaluable. We should respect these animals. At the end of the day, however, I would allow for any amount of non-human animal suffering in order to prevent human suffering.
#3 If you don't trust the pharm industry, you should look at the government first for allowing them to dodge competition and skew optimal testing/success. You should also move to Africa as they seem to be doing pretty well with little to no access to big pharma products.
-Nick
Ph.D. Student -Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
Guitarist

Reading this nazi-like crap from well educated people reminds me why I quit university. The world is sure a scary place. Especially when you consider that people of your kind rule it.


Grow up... So you would not kill an animal to save a person? Give me a break..

And comparing a pharmacy PhD to nazis? A PhD is far more than you will ever amount to do.
Since I've met far more intelligent people on the streets, in bars and some of the more "interesting" places on Earth that I ever did at university I think you should engage your brain before typing in a public forum. A PhD, much like many other qualifications displays merely an aptitude for being able to recall facts and figures. Hardly a real education...

So, since you think a PhD is "just recalling facts", it's okay for someone to compare them to nazis?

A PhD is a research degree, slightly more advanced than recalling facts, you have to discover things yourself, not repeating things other people has already established.

And don't forget that those PhD:s, that you dismiss, are those that save your life with new medical treatments and they make your life easier with new technical advancements. Engage your brain before dismissing a degree that it is clear you have no idea what it is.

[Kingnichendrix]

Well people have got it programmed into their heads that we are far better than any animal on the planet so im not surprised people would do this

[Slap-happy]

Blargaha wrote:

So, since you think a PhD is "just recalling facts", it's okay for someone to compare them to nazis?

A PhD is a research degree, slightly more advanced than recalling facts, you have to discover things yourself, not repeating things other people has already established.

And don't forget that those PhD:s, that you dismiss, are those that save your life with new medical treatments and they make your life easier with new technical advancements. Engage your brain before dismissing a degree that it is clear you have no idea what it is.

Research based? So you can refer to assorted material in a compare/contrast scenario in order to complete your studies? That's something less than being able to regurgitate facts, then.

Save my life? You have little idea of who I am and what I have done, been through or will go through. Be wary of casual dismissals.

I have no idea about a degree? Odd since I have more than one myself. I simply choose free thought over a systematic belief in what is force fed to me from birth.
Maybe you should think prior to jumping to ill-informed conclusions and believing everything you are told.

And at no point whatsoever did I ever make any claim that it's okay to liken anyone to a Nazi. The fact you even mention it displays your scant regard for checking your facts or even reading and (correctly) interpreting the information in front of you.

[munkymanmatt]

DarkfnTemplar1 wrote:

#1 Animal aren't people. Sorry Peta. They don't have meta thinking and they will most likely never reach our cognitive abilities.
#2 Animal testing is crucial for drug development and basic scientific discovery. There are lots of people getting funding for alternatives to this but it simply wont work out. Mice/ chimps have pathways almost identical to ours and this kind of preliminary testing is invaluable. We should respect these animals. At the end of the day, however, I would allow for any amount of non-human animal suffering in order to prevent human suffering.
#3 If you don't trust the pharm industry, you should look at the government first for allowing them to dodge competition and skew optimal testing/success. You should also move to Africa as they seem to be doing pretty well with little to no access to big pharma products.
-Nick
Ph.D. Student -Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
Guitarist

I'm sorry but this is the post of a simpleton and I can't believe you are studying for a PhD (never mind the fact that you were enough of a douche to mention that - nobody asked).

1. Us humans aren't anything special - we were simply the first to reach our level of intelligence on our planet. As long as we don't **** this planet up too much, give it a few thousand millenia and you'll see plenty of smart animals. Evolution baby. Any scientist would understand this! School of Medicine eh?

2. This is wrong on a few levels. The one I'm most concerned about is proportionality - if you could cause a small amount of pain and discomfort to a man who consented to the tests voluntarily, as opposed to causing extreme agony and suffering to an animal who is clearly not there voluntarily and is already scared shitless, you'd still test on the animal? Seriously? I'm no animal rights activist but that's ridiculous.

3. There's plenty of meds sold in Africa, a lot of pharmaceutical companies develop products specifically for the worse off. Loving the way you generically reference the continent of Africa to refer to poor people - plenty of people much richer than you or I there too you know. Also 'the government' (which government is this?) would only have allowed such things under pressure from big time companies

[centermass]

how dare they mess with snoopy.. BASTARDS!!!!! seriously though breeding dogs to run experiments on whats wrong with these people arent we beyond that. i mean vermin like rats and mice are one thing although still not cool to test on them either but on dogs! dude!!! dogs! they are the most loyal lovable creatures on the planet.

[centermass]

dude we don't need people like darkfntemplar to get phd'sand we really could care less that your a student at jons hopkins and i bet your a shitty guitarist also suck it doc!! munkymann if i could upvote you a million times i would!

munkymanmatt wrote:

DarkfnTemplar1 wrote:

#1 Animal aren't people. Sorry Peta. They don't have meta thinking and they will most likely never reach our cognitive abilities.
#2 Animal testing is crucial for drug development and basic scientific discovery. There are lots of people getting funding for alternatives to this but it simply wont work out. Mice/ chimps have pathways almost identical to ours and this kind of preliminary testing is invaluable. We should respect these animals. At the end of the day, however, I would allow for any amount of non-human animal suffering in order to prevent human suffering.
#3 If you don't trust the pharm industry, you should look at the government first for allowing them to dodge competition and skew optimal testing/success. You should also move to Africa as they seem to be doing pretty well with little to no access to big pharma products.
-Nick
Ph.D. Student -Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
Guitarist
I'm sorry but this is the post of a simpleton and I can't believe you are studying for a PhD (never mind the fact that you were enough of a douche to mention that - nobody asked).

1. Us humans aren't anything special - we were simply the first to reach our level of intelligence on our planet. As long as we don't **** this planet up too much, give it a few thousand millenia and you'll see plenty of smart animals. Evolution baby. Any scientist would understand this! School of Medicine eh?

2. This is wrong on a few levels. The one I'm most concerned about is proportionality - if you could cause a small amount of pain and discomfort to a man who consented to the tests voluntarily, as opposed to causing extreme agony and suffering to an animal who is clearly not there voluntarily and is already scared shitless, you'd still test on the animal? Seriously? I'm no animal rights activist but that's ridiculous.

3. There's plenty of meds sold in Africa, a lot of pharmaceutical companies develop products specifically for the worse off. Loving the way you generically reference the continent of Africa to refer to poor people - plenty of people much richer than you or I there too you know. Also 'the government' (which government is this?) would only have allowed such things under pressure from big time companies

[Vypor]

Fun FACT:

Over 80% of the earths living organisms/animals have already become extinct, according to the currently accepted theory of evolution.

With that fact in mind, I think they study of animals to advance human knowledge is just another one of the universal things helps us as a race significantly. I do think it should be humane, and its unreasonable to say that we are not better than other animals: We are. We can effectively communicate, travel, socialize, hunt, and adapt better than any other creature on the planet.

[Blargaha]

Slap-happy wrote:

Blargaha wrote:

So, since you think a PhD is "just recalling facts", it's okay for someone to compare them to nazis?

A PhD is a research degree, slightly more advanced than recalling facts, you have to discover things yourself, not repeating things other people has already established.

And don't forget that those PhD:s, that you dismiss, are those that save your life with new medical treatments and they make your life easier with new technical advancements. Engage your brain before dismissing a degree that it is clear you have no idea what it is. Research based? So you can refer to assorted material in a compare/contrast scenario in order to complete your studies? That's something less than being able to regurgitate facts, then.

Save my life? You have little idea of who I am and what I have done, been through or will go through. Be wary of casual dismissals.

I have no idea about a degree? Odd since I have more than one myself. I simply choose free thought over a systematic belief in what is force fed to me from birth.
Maybe you should think prior to jumping to ill-informed conclusions and believing everything you are told.

And at no point whatsoever did I ever make any claim that it's okay to liken anyone to a Nazi. The fact you even mention it displays your scant regard for checking your facts or even reading and (correctly) interpreting the information in front of you.

Did I say that you compared to the nazis? If you look a bit more up you will see the guy I orginally replied to.

Several degrees you say? Are any of them a PhD? If not, how is that relevant to bring up?
You have to have a peer-reviewed paper published and "okayed" by a board of scientists to get a PhD. Trust me, you will not get away by remembering facts, you do your own research, refer if necessary to previous research, but your research is your own, and stands on its own merit. I'm in in the natural science department myself, and you would never ever get away by using someone else's conclusions, you need to do the lab yourself, draw conclusions yourself, and write the paper yourself.

Even if you claim to have several degrees it doesn't seem like you are familiar with how a PhD works. It's not like basic or advanced level where you write exams (and remember facts), but you do the research yourself, and as above stated, publish a paper on it.

Regarding saving your life... I thought a man with so many nice degrees would be able to understand a manner of speaking, you is not the current you, and not just you, but all of you.
TL;DR it is not meant to be taken litterally.

[no lolage]

So many people in here who have no grasp of basic physiology or how the medical industry works. I literally have no words.....

[Slap-happy]

I started a PhD but left as I had the oportunity to make far more money (that paid for a house in cash in the day) doing something I enjoyed and was whole heartedly into. I fully comprehend the intrinsic qualities and level of work, research and testing required to complete a PhD (maybe I'll complete mine one day, although I doubt it as I have a successful career without one).
My initial reaction was more one of disgust at the original post of the user who feels it neccessary to inform us of his status as a student and guitarist... I try not to gloat over things and find petty one-upmanship to be rather distasteful. Having re-read your posts, Blargaha, I actually think we're coming from a similar place.

[Blargaha]

Slap-happy wrote:

I started a PhD but left as I had the oportunity to make far more money (that paid for a house in cash in the day) doing something I enjoyed and was whole heartedly into. I fully comprehend the intrinsic qualities and level of work, research and testing required to complete a PhD (maybe I'll complete mine one day, although I doubt it as I have a successful career without one).
My initial reaction was more one of disgust at the original post of the user who feels it neccessary to inform us of his status as a student and guitarist... I try not to gloat over things and find petty one-upmanship to be rather distasteful. Having re-read your posts, Blargaha, I actually think we're coming from a similar place.

Yeah, I think we do too, and I am not one for waving credentials like a flag either. I hope you finish your degree one day, if only for the possibility of having Dr in front of your name

Luckily one can make quite a lot of money in the field of chemistry, so I think I'll be staying put myself.

But, studies isn't anything, if you are succesful without a degree, who needs it?

[Blargaha]

Banner would be more appropriate instead of flag*

[DiverDown316]

Comming from an individual that kills animals for sheer shits and giggles ... and food.... I have no problem with animal testing as long as they get results.

[DiverDown316]

rhs5110 wrote:

Man I'm surprised at all these selfish people on here if it was your dog they were killing for the name of almighty science you would change ur answer real ****ing quick. How many life saving medications will come out of slaughtering innocent animals seriously we've made huge strides in medication in this day and age testing on dogs is not just wrong but immoral

It would be one thing if they took MY dog but if they are using THEIR OWN animals or animals taken out of kill shelters then I do not care...

[Gypsy Eyed]

dentrix wrote:
... It isn't pretty, but it's better than exposing people, voluntarily or not, to potentially life threatening, untested drugs.

'Better' huh.. depends from what point of view you're lookin' at it. :p From a human's perspective maybe, but I reckon dogs must be pretty pissed by this bill!

[limpidgreen345]

Humans first.

Jeepers crimeny... is this a first-world white person problem or what?

[Veratyr5]

If you are going to make a drug for humans then you should test it on humans and leave the animals alone. If some people die I don't see that as a bad thing. There are way too many people on this planet anyway.

[Blargaha]

Veratyr5 wrote:

If you are going to make a drug for humans then you should test it on humans and leave the animals alone. If some people die I don't see that as a bad thing. There are way too many people on this planet anyway.

So, are volounteering then?

[Blargaha]

are you volounteering*

[Eifler121]

Also against dog testing: dogs.

[thebigredjj10]

Test deathrow inmates against their will, I'm up for that. Also, put more inmates on death row (not the undeserving of course). I wouldn't feel pity for a character such as Dahmer or Bundy, beings who sadistically ravaged innocents for pleasure, being tested on to better the race of mankind.
I'm against testing where there are other options, but in some cases tests I know are necessary, as it isn't really a black and white issue to me.

Also against dog testing: dogs.

Haha.

[Eifler121]

Vypor wrote:

I'm all for human rights, but as long as these animals are being tested in a humane way, I don't see the issue.

Anyone heard of a famous psychologist named Ivan Pavlov? He used dogs to discover today what we call "Classical Conditioning"

Very useful piece of psychological history, that is.

This doesn't work when the subject of the experiment is essentially an attempt to control some form of a poison, which drugs are.

Feeding your dog isn't a crime.

It also wasn't exactly a rocket science level discovery; it didn't take the dog and the scenario to figure this out. It took the man to put words on paper to define an observation. That's all it was; an observation.

Veratyr5 wrote:

If you are going to make a drug for humans then you should test it on humans and leave the animals alone. If some people die I don't see that as a bad thing. There are way too many people on this planet anyway.

The ethics of human testing aside; it doesn't seem counter-intuitive to you to kill heaps of people testing drugs that are supposed to keep them alive? We aren't exactly running out of dogs or rats either. I love my dog, but it isn't like we're doing the tests on Tigers or Polar Bears. From your ultra-distanced point of view, it's stupid not to test drugs on rats and dogs.

munkymanmatt wrote:

DarkfnTemplar1 wrote:

#1 Animal aren't people. Sorry Peta. They don't have meta thinking and they will most likely never reach our cognitive abilities.
#2 Animal testing is crucial for drug development and basic scientific discovery. There are lots of people getting funding for alternatives to this but it simply wont work out. Mice/ chimps have pathways almost identical to ours and this kind of preliminary testing is invaluable. We should respect these animals. At the end of the day, however, I would allow for any amount of non-human animal suffering in order to prevent human suffering.
#3 If you don't trust the pharm industry, you should look at the government first for allowing them to dodge competition and skew optimal testing/success. You should also move to Africa as they seem to be doing pretty well with little to no access to big pharma products.
-Nick
Ph.D. Student -Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
Guitarist
I'm sorry but this is the post of a simpleton and I can't believe you are studying for a PhD (never mind the fact that you were enough of a douche to mention that - nobody asked).

1. Us humans aren't anything special - we were simply the first to reach our level of intelligence on our planet. As long as we don't **** this planet up too much, give it a few thousand millenia and you'll see plenty of smart animals. Evolution baby. Any scientist would understand this! School of Medicine eh?

2. This is wrong on a few levels. The one I'm most concerned about is proportionality - if you could cause a small amount of pain and discomfort to a man who consented to the tests voluntarily, as opposed to causing extreme agony and suffering to an animal who is clearly not there voluntarily and is already scared shitless, you'd still test on the animal? Seriously? I'm no animal rights activist but that's ridiculous.

3. There's plenty of meds sold in Africa, a lot of pharmaceutical companies develop products specifically for the worse off. Loving the way you generically reference the continent of Africa to refer to poor people - plenty of people much richer than you or I there too you know. Also 'the government' (which government is this?) would only have allowed such things under pressure from big time companies

-We didn't need to know you were a PHD. Congratulations I guess?

1. Maybe not. There have been reports suggesting that Humans have evolved to the highest level of intelligence we can reach.

The only reasons why another animal would have to become smarter is if something other than a fast-acting natural disaster was wiping them out AND it was advantageous either to start hunting animals much larger and/or in greater numbers than previously, or if a predator began hunting another, more cunning animal (most likely another predator). I can see some species of bird maybe, they can't really use tools and hunt pretty dumb animals, but if you see an octopus go after a dolphin, get ready.

Any other kind of intelligent animals that would evolve up to our level would probably have to be done artificially.

2. Voluntary discomfort is not really suffering, so it would not fall under the statement you were apparently so disturbed by.

3. I agree with you on his bringing up of Africa, except that I think he brought Africa up not because they are poor by percentage of population, but because it is a disease ridden continent.

The government would not likely stop animal testing unless non-corporate citizens stood against it in enough numbers to influence their lawmaking. Animal and human rights types of laws aren't usually made preemptively. There usually has to be some sort of public outrage, so assuming that (

[Eifler121]

Anyway... my personal opinion is that vivisection is brutality. It is cutting open and taking apart a still living creature to see what's ticking from the inside. Dogs are relatively smart, creatures that, if there is such a thing as a soul, I think they would have one. I don't understand what a blood test, cell samples, or X-rays or scans couldn't find that would require cutting a living creature up like that.

[brian mayden]

Pagan_Poetry wrote:

I don't get the connection between astrophysics and experimenting on dogs. Just because they're both science related?
Good for him. I find testing like this disgusting. To quote Sealab (as we all know, this is a reliable source) "Monkeys don't need pills. We do. We're miserable, so why shouldn't we test on ourselves?"

I remember the badger thing. That alone makes May an ultimate badass.

100% agree, also how a dog reacts to a drug will not always be the same as how a human might react, so in some cases, the animal testing seems pointless

[Plan009]

I'm sorry, but Brian May died in my eyes the day that he even considered Lady Gaga to be a fill in for F. Mercury...

[PsiGuy60]

Animal testing is a necessary evil in my opinion.

Sure, testing on human volunteers would be far better.
However, it's really hard to get volunteers for things like this.
Many people don't want to be injected with things that may make them sick. Can't really blame them.

Of course, with the current state of science we can grow human skin on a petri dish. However, this is really expensive and complicated to the point where it's not viable on a large scale.

However, considering dogs and humans react very differently to certain chemicals (chocolate kills dogs, for starters) I can't say I'm enthusiastic about testing medication on dogs.

[MightAndMusic]

Random

[lukeserious]

What do you do, when you have a headache? I guess you'll take an Aspirin or something similar. What keeps your cancer-struggling grandpa alive? Drugs, possibly tested on animals.
Testing on animals is a necessary evil. The goal is to find a middle way between the appropriate treating of animals and the needed tests.
Rockstars should make rock-music...

[DaniArrow]

dentrix wrote:

I disagree, animal testing is a necessary part of drug discovery, as it provides real experimental evidence about the potential risks of new drugs. It isn't pretty, but it's better than exposing people, voluntarily or not, to potentially life threatening, untested drugs.

Says who? Why is the life of one dog worth less than the life of one human? Just because they can't speak like we do?

[DaniArrow]

lukeserious wrote:

What do you do, when you have a headache? I guess you'll take an Aspirin or something similar. What keeps your cancer-struggling grandpa alive? Drugs, possibly tested on animals. Rockstars should make rock-music...

I disagree, I think people who know they will be heard in public should speak up for their beliefs. Otherwise no one will. Besides, people should think about if it's neccessary to keep a cancer-struggling grandpa alive. I know death is sad and a topic people don't talk about very much in public. But this craving for an eternal life which the human race is so fascinated with is just wrong I think. When your time comes, your time comes. It's a shock but it's natural, and it's supposed to be this way.

[Thesageofonion]

I agree that dogs should not be tested - especially English Setters. They get embarrassed by their low IQ and they struggle to hold a pencil.

[spiff-corgi]

I was wondering why the only comment by an apparent PHD student has been dismissed in favour of thumbing up people with no understanding of scientific research programmes... then I realised this is the internet. I return to my point which got widely ignored above: YOU may not use drugs, but at some point in history and the future one of your family members will need to. Think about it.

[flashmdg]

To all the people here against animal testing - I would love to see you if you still held your views if in the future you contracted a life threatening disease (that would make your life agony for years before finally killing you) that was untreatable because animal testing had been made illegal.

[snaaake]

I could've told you this.

[DaniArrow]

spiff-corgi wrote:

I was wondering why the only comment by an apparent PHD student has been dismissed in favour of thumbing up people with no understanding of scientific research programmes... then I realised this is the internet. I return to my point which got widely ignored above: YOU may not use drugs, but at some point in history and the future one of your family members will need to. Think about it.

Well that's the question though, right? Will they need to? The world and its society at the time was always functioning even when there were no drugs around. Maybe even better, who can say. I personally think when it's time to leave, it's time to leave. I wouldn't want to drag it out by being on drugs for years. No use.

flashmdg wrote:

To all the people here against animal testing - I would love to see you if you still held your views if in the future you contracted a life threatening disease (that would make your life agony for years before finally killing you) that was untreatable because animal testing had been made illegal.

Dude, we already have a lot of painkillers for basically anything to numb you down while dying and make it easier on you. It's enough, at same point mankind will have to come to its senses. I don't believe in a God, but I believe in a natural course of life, and playing God will never end well.

[Redd_dymond]

Ah heck, why does ultimate guitar post stuff like this? Aren't they aware that like 99% of their users are teenage metalheads with below average IQ? This sort of topic is best avoided, because the arguments in the comments section are so ****ing stupid it makes me despair. Give us some music news.

And Brian May, it's about time you retired. Queen were fantastic, but what you've been up to recently is just embarrassing.

[DarkfnTemplar1]

Ah, idiots. Love em! Why did I bring up my Ph.D. training? Because it establishes that I have a certain expertise that the majority of people don't have. Not to brag, just to support credibility. If this offends you or makes me seem less credible, then I guess there's no point in trying to make an argument because you have already fell off the side of logic. Countless therapeutics have been developed directly from sacrificing animals. Unfortunately, this includes purebred dogs. Many of them very cute. Sorry. Animals are private property and again not human. Yes, lots of organisms have gone extinct. You know why? Because they were too ****ing stupid to avoid it. A dolphin isnt going to do shit if an asteroid is coming at earth. Humans will actually know about it and make an effort to avoid catastrophe. Flipper on the other hand will be nose deep in some fish or laughing its ass off right before it gets incinerated by a mammoth fiery rock of death (shotgun song name). What if it was my dog? Well I know he only "loves" me because I feed the thing every day and give him social attention. Dogs don't have meta cognition nor can they manipulate group dynamics on a human level. Dogs will never be able to better the world compared to a human counterpart. Even the cuteness of a little puppy won't win hearts like a little baby orphan.
Reports that humans can't go higher? Please, show me these. The reasons why humans will never be intellectually supplanted on earth is due to our exponential learning capabilities. But hey, guess I'm just a Nazi for telling the truth?
And really, you guys don't realize Africa as a whole is getting screwed because they can't afford big pharma products... sheesh!
How is killing 1000 puppies now to save the lives of countless individuals through further research and current therapeutics unbalanced?
But you know what? It really doesn't matter what you haters think. You won't change anything and you won't affect how drugs are made. This is the way things are because IT WORKS. You can be grateful or you can be ignorant. Your choice. Call me a Nazi, idiot, boastful, w/e. Doesn't matter. You're objectively wrong. That's what my Ph.D. training has taught me. Not how to regurgitate facts, but how to ask the right questions, be an independent thinker, and know whats objectively bullshit. Metalmullet(really, lol?) Blagaha, and Eifler121, you guys are without a doubt ignorant troglodytes. Here's a squeaky toy. Go have fun.

[DarkfnTemplar1]

Srry, meant slaphappy not Blagaha.

[phelpsey64]

this man is a legend.

[MetalMullet]

Just to clear things up. I didn't compare PhD's to nazism, but expressed my deep disappointment that someone with a PhD could utter such banal statements wich is comparable to the nazi ideology. What's that called? Oh yeah, supremacy, fascism etc. Don't even think that killing animals for the sake of humanity makes you friendly philanthropists. It makes self-righteous fascists. Because you have to bare in mind, humans are animals too. You guys with PhDs should know that. Not that if there were no connections what so ever between humans and animals it would be okey to kill another species. But just to point out the fallacy in your argument.

"Animals are not people" someone said. That's true, but people are animals.

And just to make a short input on the supremacy of the human intelligence. Is it really intelligent to systematically kill each other with the potentials we have? If today's society represents the human intelligence, then no one with a bit of common sense could argue that we are the dumbest goddamn evolutionary creation that ever existed. You don't need a PhD to figure that out, just some empathy, which the upper class tend to lack.

[MetalMullet]

Darkfkftemplarfs: I make this one short. I just want to point out the inconsistencies in your pathetic tries to prove human supremacy above:

1: Dolphins would be eating dinner while mankind are busy saving planet earth.

Have you heard about the tsunami in Thailand 2004? More than 200 000 people died there if I remember correctly. While the fat tourists were still sucking on a pina colada, animals were desperatly seeking shelter or warning their, what you would refer to as, owners. The octopus' fled the risky zones days ahead. Days ahead! That's scientifically proved. What does that say about our intelligence? While we still try to alter mother nature, which we'll never succeed with, animals have learned to co-exist with it and understand it.

2. Africa is screwed because they can'y afford big pharma products?

Jesus f*kin christ. Yes, you suddenly converted me to a religious person, I just lost my faith in education, I hope there is something else out there. To be honest, this topic is just too big to debate it here. And kind of hopeless too. Don't even think you'll read this.

To keep it simple: What Africa needs is not money to buy drugs, but a decent living and the blood-sucking West off their back. Oh yeah, and education. When you have a decent life, you wouldn't spread your diseases through fu*king, simply because there would be other ways to reach psuedo hapiness. Or at least methods to bare with a life without sex.

[DarkfnTemplar1]

See definition of straw argument. Also, see definition of short.

[MetalMullet]

When somebody is complainig about your arguing skills you know they can't come up with new arguments. Please, I'm really curious, what did I do wrong? Keep in mind, I don't have a PhD so we are not on the same intelligence level, be more specific please so I understand.