If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
oh, no, well, there we disagree! I am completely against animal testing!
to me no experiment with animals is truly acceptable. though I can see why some are done (of course I want cure for diseases and right now animal experimentation is the only way we have for making progress in those), and obviously I am not going to go around burning buildings or anything like that, but I have strived in my scientific career to minimize my use of animals so much that I did my PhD with an in vitro system and I am now working with yeast.. Julia in MN wrote: Dr. Quilter wrote: of course, I agree with you, but it is just a selling gimmick, like the 'low fat' stuff! you might even be more subtle and think of whether things that are 'organic' (in the sense that they are found in living beings) are better to put inside/on top of your body than inorganic stuff, but I am not even sure that is right.... I feel the same way about hair care products (and other stuff) that is marketed as "not tested on animals". Does that mean I'll be the "guinea pig"? I realize that animal testing may not always give an accurate indication of how humans will react, but it seems to me that it is reasonable to do some animal testing before testing in humans. Julia in MN -- Dr. Quilter Ambassador of Extraordinary Aliens http://community.webshots.com/user/mvignali (take the dog out before replying) |
Ads |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
a bad thing....
Heather wrote: Ok..I'm a dunce..is that a good or a bad thing? "Dr. Quilter" wrote in message ... DH said when I mentioned this thread that the issue is that when they purify things like the essential oils from a plant, other things come along, such as the plant alkaloids.... -- Dr. Quilter Ambassador of Extraordinary Aliens http://community.webshots.com/user/mvignali (take the dog out before replying) |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
It may make you both happy to know that animal testing is still done
_but_ in a minimalized form. We had a discussion on this in another group when some lasses were flipping out because PETA included a company, whose products many people use a lot, on their "does animal testing do not buy from them" list. They company in question has not done any animal testing for over 15 years, BUT some of the companies they buy ingredients from do do animal testing. As I recall, if the ingredients to whatever they are making have been tested, then (within reasonable parameters) the final product does not have to be as extensive tested. The FDA _does_ require testing to be done. And while they can get all tearful and righteous and claim that _they_ do not require animal testing, they absolutely do require testing for certain things for which as of yet no other testing protocol (besides animal testing) exists. This is one of my pet peeves, that the FDA keeps saying that they do not require animal testing when in fact they do, just not specificly. NightMist loves fuzzy little animals, but if it comes down to me or a rat, guess who wins? On Sat, 15 May 2004 07:49:39 -0700, "Dr. Quilter" wrote: oh, no, well, there we disagree! I am completely against animal testing! to me no experiment with animals is truly acceptable. though I can see why some are done (of course I want cure for diseases and right now animal experimentation is the only way we have for making progress in those), and obviously I am not going to go around burning buildings or anything like that, but I have strived in my scientific career to minimize my use of animals so much that I did my PhD with an in vitro system and I am now working with yeast.. Julia in MN wrote: Dr. Quilter wrote: of course, I agree with you, but it is just a selling gimmick, like the 'low fat' stuff! you might even be more subtle and think of whether things that are 'organic' (in the sense that they are found in living beings) are better to put inside/on top of your body than inorganic stuff, but I am not even sure that is right.... I feel the same way about hair care products (and other stuff) that is marketed as "not tested on animals". Does that mean I'll be the "guinea pig"? I realize that animal testing may not always give an accurate indication of how humans will react, but it seems to me that it is reasonable to do some animal testing before testing in humans. Julia in MN -- Dr. Quilter Ambassador of Extraordinary Aliens http://community.webshots.com/user/mvignali (take the dog out before replying) -- "It's such a gamble when you get a face" - Richard Hell |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
I think the key to all this is contained in this sentence:
NightMist wrote: The FDA _does_ require testing to be done. And while they can get all tearful and righteous and claim that _they_ do not require animal testing, they absolutely do require testing for certain things for which as of yet no other testing protocol (besides animal testing) exists. it would be wonderful if we could spend more time and be able to develop artificial systems to test drugs on that did not involve living beings! -- Dr. Quilter Ambassador of Extraordinary Aliens http://community.webshots.com/user/mvignali (take the dog out before replying) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Horse Hair (Pottery) Source? | Tina P | Pottery | 13 | December 1st 04 07:36 PM |
From Butterfly, Herself this time: LONG | Butterfly | Quilting | 18 | May 3rd 04 02:26 PM |
Walking Foot To Give Away "long". | Dixie | Quilting | 4 | April 24th 04 03:41 PM |
What I did to my hair today (Pretty much OT) | BeckiBead | Beads | 21 | February 26th 04 07:12 AM |
OT Long knitted headgear | Janine | Needlework | 5 | September 10th 03 11:29 PM |