It's nice that this presentation is intellectually honest/not biased & addresses both sides of the argument, it mentions the limitations of both sides and *why* as of now scientists *cannot* replace animals completely *yet.* Her breathing and body language, I can tell she's *secretly nervous* on stage, I'm also like her, so I can relate with/tell that kind of breathing and stiff body. I say the presentation is great, concise/to the point, and she is strong enough to not faint, she tries *hard* to think and say things clearly with that nervous body. Edit: Listen to her breathing, to the pause in words/sentence, the way her body move, the way she can't stand still in an attempt to distract her mind/body to focus on the presentation and not the audience, how she glances away a lot.
This is a very thoughtfully supported talk. I enjoyed listening. After thinking about the information received and my own beliefs related to animal research, I feel there are a lot of concepts that are not taken into consideration regarding an individual's ethical beliefs as well as animal rights. I also think it is okay to have a difference in beliefs and that they should be equally respected. Personally, I do not support animal research. I understand that it is widely used to ensure that pharmaceuticals and cosmetics among many other things are safe for human consumption and use. I think people should also understand that there are people like me who accept that life is full of illness, injury, death, chronic pain, consequences, etc. and would rather find alternative interventions and/or products to use based on individual beliefs surrounding animal research and testing. I am thankful that there seems to be a lot of regulations and care taken to ensure the most humane research testing is done but I am also confident in my own beliefs and I would not wish suffering on any other living creature to reduce the suffering of myself or my family. In the end, it is an individual belief. No one can state that animal testing and research is ethical as a simple fact. It is subjective and that is okay.
There is a way to eliminate animal testing. Dr. Shiva Ayadurai created computer technology that helps eliminate animal testing. Dr. Shiva is the ONLY Presidential candidate who competent enough to explain this kind of science and invent it.
This really shaped my view of animal research, since it's a very grey area on both sides of the debate. Currently writing about this topic for my argumentative essay, thank you.
you must know very little about this issue to say this talk shaped your view.... Aspirine and peniciline either kill lab animals or create birth defects in them.... this lady thinks we owe Aspirine to animal research. with todays requirements in Canada they would not have passed and would not have saved all these lives since WW2... Diabetes drug development was actually hindered by animal research for many years because although autopsy of dianetic people showed that their pancreas was not working properly they could not keep a dog alive but remove its pancreas to see if it will develope diabetes or not!! it took them years to be able to do that.... so not sorry they did not discover diabetes drug from dogs and today's insulin is not coming from animals either.... number of animals in research is greatly increasing year after year in Canada up to 5.5 voiceless animals in 2020.... FDA modernization act was passsed. European Parliment also .... lets stop this and move forward...
@@cannibalitic did you hear on the news that European parliment voted to phase out animals in science? did you hear that US passed the bill to develope drugs without animals? why are you still debating this!? 96% of drugs safe for animals fail during human trials. this is reported by FDA. you can google it.
I love that you know more about science that FDA and European Parilment . They voted againts animal experiments and your little head is still confused.
It is a complex subject -but I have to admit I find animal testing extremely distressing, I personally would rather not have medical intervention if it means that animal testing will continue to be utilised for research. This practice feels like it is just industrialised, and I feel upset that I was not asked if I want animal testing to continue - in fact, I don't think there has ever been a public vote? I believe we are capable of moving forward, and as a society taking responsibility for the other species of earth, rather than exploiting them.
Theres not an opportunity to vote because people like you will make thousands of others suffer with your self righteousness. People would literally die without animal testing all to make you feel better about yourself.
What you taught me is the ends justify the means. You never discussed the level of pain and suffering the animals feel and experience when being used for testing.
What you glossed over is that we are also animals striving to negate pain. You, yourself, are also a mouse in a maze. As am I. We are building blocks for evolution. It doesn't mean to say I care less about other living and breathing creatures on this rock floating in endless space. The sad fact is that for us to shunt forward our potential, sacrifices have to be made. I refer you to any wars that humanity has endured.
@@wizardflaps so you would happily torture a million animals to add another 5 or 10 years to your life? Cancer will NEVER be cured especially by animal testing methods as they don't transfer to humans. Animal testing is a global money maker backed by the drug companies and government. There's a 95% failure rate. Is this a good enough percentage? No, its embarrassing.
One of the solutions is to create genetically modified animals such that they are capable of feeling pain but incapable of suffering, either by removing or replacing genes that make suffering possible while allowing the formation of the central nervous system (relatively straightforward but involves sentient animal), or genetically modify non-sentient animals such that they become a better human analogue (very difficult but does not involve sentient animals). We should consider strive towards either experimenting on volunteers through informed consent, or non-sentient animals.
Because there are federal laws that prevent researchers to impose any pain more than momentary and also other laws that prevent unnecessary or un-sedated procedures. And most importantly if you can do in vitro or virtual research is also an option. Animal testing is rare and only used when necessary and there is no other choice but that is what she’s saying.
I'm a former employee at two different research facilities that used animals. Research using animals is like terrorism in that terrorists hide psychotic urges behind religious and political beliefs, while researchers who inflict pain and death on animals hide their psychotic urges behind scientific beliefs and career status. Torturing animals is also an early symptom exhibited by serial killers and school shooters - the difference being that the research scientists remain frozen in the animal torture phase and don't progress to preying on humans.
What kind of employee? You need to specify before you make such claims if you’re a janitor your views may be very different from an assistant or a researcher. Plus, if that’s how you feel why did you work in not one but two research facilities that use animals. Are you one of the psychopaths you referred to?
If its not okay to do it to a human, its not okay to do it to an animal. We are by no means more important than any other creatures that inhabit our universe, let alone our planet.
@@jonathanvelez4182 It's not because we invented alot of medication based on animal testing that we aren't able to get to the same point with alternatives to animal testing.
I am a biologh student, and I have to decide on my specialty for mext year. I want to go in biomedical sciences, but I would be required to experiment on animals. I don't really know how I feel about that, I love animals but I also want to help people get cured. I don't know if I am strong enough
It would be neat to see greater initiative to pursue minimally invasive approaches to animal research (I doubt that numerical tissue modeling will completely replace lab studies in the next 100 years, but in tandem with machine learning and more sensitive biometrics it could probably help avoid wasting resources on studies that ultimately prove irrelevant.)
If I'm not gonna eat it, I'm not gonna kill it ( but that's just me). I dont agree with using critters but I understand that science isn't always pretty
Unnecessary pain inflicted upon sentient beings are, in my terms, immoral. We humans, can live a healthy life without animal products. Even healthier, with a balanced plant-based diet that is. Maybe consider veganism if my first sentence makes sense?
I’m very interested in hearing more about your rationale. My view is the opposite. As I understand it, using animals for food is unethical when sufficient alternatives are accessible. Using them for research to prevent/treat human suffering can be justified by utilitarianism.
I was hoping this talk would address WHY is it ethical to value human life over other animals...especially regarding testing on mammals that are more similar to humans than they are different. This should have been titled differently or presented by someone with a background in philosophy or bioethics
We are the most complicated being there is. We explore the universe, our research, potentially, can save more animals that it can kill during these tests.
@@TheFaveteLinguis oh great! So if another creature that is smarter than us, comes to the earth, it is justifiable for them to torture us because they are more complicated and advanced specie!
In their eyes yes, as it is the same (with same I am talking about the hierarchical structure, call it food chain if you want) Animals are the heroes we need in regards to testing of diseases, cures for ageing and anything that will help develop a "better" future giving us more time to advance in other aspects of technology. Think about this when a loved one is getting a treatment that is only possible due to animal testing. Most people will trade 1000 mouse lives for the life of a loved one any time of the day. Period
It's fairly common knowledge: "95% of drugs tested to be safe and effective in animals fail in human clinical trials. Similarly, for evaluating the safety of chemicals, the legacy animal-based methods are not sufficiently reliable to accurately predict adverse outcomes on human health and the environment." CCAAM Canada's first non-animal testing facility. You threaten and harm animals constantly. The harm or threats that you talk about being given to animal testing supporters is a drop in the ocean of suffering compared to the unnecessary suffering the animals go through. ..
So beagles aren't force fed chemicals!? Or don't mention the fact they have no rights !? They're legally allowed to be bled out whilst still alive, shot, stabbed, drowned ....won't mention that either
its funny how we obtain consent when doing human trials from the volunteers but don't do the same when it comes to animals... non-human animals have the same capacity to suffer and feel pain just like us humans.
@@sarahben9743 Exactly. So why do we think it's fine in that case? Don't think most would be cool with us using disabled people or babies simply because they couldn't say no.
Imagine how much more quickly and accurately studies could have been carried out if we had only chosen to use human models for studies on how to help humans? Ethics and morals are relative; We all know that. And, I would wager that science and technology would have much more quickly evolved to eliminate the need for a living human model to boot.
Except no one volunteered so historically they had to uses animals to get anywhere. No volunteers no knowlege (unless you use death row inmates or were the one in a million scientist who tests on yourself and got it right the first time) there for had to use animals. No animals no knowledge.
The basic fact is you cant put animals life above a human life, i agree tat this method is cruel but we have no choice until we develop an advanced technology
@@leounk3858 if scientists are fine abusing animals then humans wil be abused eventually at some point in the future as well. just because someone is labeled a "scientist" doesnt mean they are different from a spoiled entitled brat. humans have no free will and sadistic behavior is common in humans.
Imagine animal testing not working so the world opted to take all the disabled people of the world and use them as test subjects. Then trying to make the claim the ends justify the means. (Obviously i dont think disabled people and animals are the same just food for thought)
Yes and didn't they in the past In mental hospital and try cover those researchs up. So scary but real thought to think about. Gives me the hibby jeebes.
Most of our understanding of chemotherapy is from injecting random chemicals into dying children. When "death" is your only other option, sometimes people would prefer to be experimented on.
Ethical...is our concern???....not that it works perfectly because ya know it will save lives (no matter what your age, gender, race or creed is at that)???...now, if by ethical you mean we will prevent the hijackings and monopoly for profit of the process so ALL can afford it and get the benefit of it's service and not turn it to another "insulin" story...by all means let's make it ethical...(>.>)
It's nice that this presentation is intellectually honest/not biased & addresses both sides of the argument, it mentions the limitations of both sides and *why* as of now scientists *cannot* replace animals completely *yet.* Her breathing and body language, I can tell she's *secretly nervous* on stage, I'm also like her, so I can relate with/tell that kind of breathing and stiff body. I say the presentation is great, concise/to the point, and she is strong enough to not faint, she tries *hard* to think and say things clearly with that nervous body.
Edit: Listen to her breathing, to the pause in words/sentence, the way her body move, the way she can't stand still in an attempt to distract her mind/body to focus on the presentation and not the audience, how she glances away a lot.
This is a very thoughtfully supported talk. I enjoyed listening. After thinking about the information received and my own beliefs related to animal research, I feel there are a lot of concepts that are not taken into consideration regarding an individual's ethical beliefs as well as animal rights. I also think it is okay to have a difference in beliefs and that they should be equally respected. Personally, I do not support animal research. I understand that it is widely used to ensure that pharmaceuticals and cosmetics among many other things are safe for human consumption and use. I think people should also understand that there are people like me who accept that life is full of illness, injury, death, chronic pain, consequences, etc. and would rather find alternative interventions and/or products to use based on individual beliefs surrounding animal research and testing. I am thankful that there seems to be a lot of regulations and care taken to ensure the most humane research testing is done but I am also confident in my own beliefs and I would not wish suffering on any other living creature to reduce the suffering of myself or my family. In the end, it is an individual belief. No one can state that animal testing and research is ethical as a simple fact. It is subjective and that is okay.
There is a way to eliminate animal testing. Dr. Shiva Ayadurai created computer technology that helps eliminate animal testing. Dr. Shiva is the ONLY Presidential candidate who competent enough to explain this kind of science and invent it.
This really shaped my view of animal research, since it's a very grey area on both sides of the debate. Currently writing about this topic for my argumentative essay, thank you.
you must know very little about this issue to say this talk shaped your view.... Aspirine and peniciline either kill lab animals or create birth defects in them.... this lady thinks we owe Aspirine to animal research. with todays requirements in Canada they would not have passed and would not have saved all these lives since WW2... Diabetes drug development was actually hindered by animal research for many years because although autopsy of dianetic people showed that their pancreas was not working properly they could not keep a dog alive but remove its pancreas to see if it will develope diabetes or not!! it took them years to be able to do that.... so not sorry they did not discover diabetes drug from dogs and today's insulin is not coming from animals either.... number of animals in research is greatly increasing year after year in Canada up to 5.5 voiceless animals in 2020.... FDA modernization act was passsed. European Parliment also .... lets stop this and move forward...
what side were you on if you dont mind me asking? im teetering on both sides.
@@mizstinkie Im on the pros of animal research for biomedical advances. You?
@@cannibalitic did you hear on the news that European parliment voted to phase out animals in science? did you hear that US passed the bill to develope drugs without animals? why are you still debating this!? 96% of drugs safe for animals fail during human trials. this is reported by FDA. you can google it.
I love that you know more about science that FDA and European Parilment . They voted againts animal experiments and your little head is still confused.
It is a complex subject -but I have to admit I find animal testing extremely distressing, I personally would rather not have medical intervention if it means that animal testing will continue to be utilised for research. This practice feels like it is just industrialised, and I feel upset that I was not asked if I want animal testing to continue - in fact, I don't think there has ever been a public vote? I believe we are capable of moving forward, and as a society taking responsibility for the other species of earth, rather than exploiting them.
Theres not an opportunity to vote because people like you will make thousands of others suffer with your self righteousness. People would literally die without animal testing all to make you feel better about yourself.
What you taught me is the ends justify the means. You never discussed the level of pain and suffering the animals feel and experience when being used for testing.
What you glossed over is that we are also animals striving to negate pain. You, yourself, are also a mouse in a maze. As am I. We are building blocks for evolution. It doesn't mean to say I care less about other living and breathing creatures on this rock floating in endless space. The sad fact is that for us to shunt forward our potential,
sacrifices have to be made. I refer you to any wars that humanity has endured.
@@wizardflaps so you would happily torture a million animals to add another 5 or 10 years to your life?
Cancer will NEVER be cured especially by animal testing methods as they don't transfer to humans.
Animal testing is a global money maker backed by the drug companies and government.
There's a 95% failure rate. Is this a good enough percentage? No, its embarrassing.
One of the solutions is to create genetically modified animals such that they are capable of feeling pain but incapable of suffering, either by removing or replacing genes that make suffering possible while allowing the formation of the central nervous system (relatively straightforward but involves sentient animal), or genetically modify non-sentient animals such that they become a better human analogue (very difficult but does not involve sentient animals). We should consider strive towards either experimenting on volunteers through informed consent, or non-sentient animals.
Because there are federal laws that prevent researchers to impose any pain more than momentary and also other laws that prevent unnecessary or un-sedated procedures.
And most importantly if you can do in vitro or virtual research is also an option. Animal testing is rare and only used when necessary and there is no other choice but that is what she’s saying.
I'm a former employee at two different research facilities that used animals. Research using animals is like terrorism in that terrorists hide psychotic urges behind religious and political beliefs, while researchers who inflict pain and death on animals hide their psychotic urges behind scientific beliefs and career status. Torturing animals is also an early symptom exhibited by serial killers and school shooters - the difference being that the research scientists remain frozen in the animal torture phase and don't progress to preying on humans.
Could u pass me some of those drugs pls?
Beautifully stated sir
What kind of employee? You need to specify before you make such claims if you’re a janitor your views may be very different from an assistant or a researcher. Plus, if that’s how you feel why did you work in not one but two research facilities that use animals. Are you one of the psychopaths you referred to?
This is truly enlightening
If its not okay to do it to a human, its not okay to do it to an animal. We are by no means more important than any other creatures that inhabit our universe, let alone our planet.
Okay, never take any medication or antibiotics in your life.
@@jonathanvelez4182 you are selfish and self-entitled
As someone deeply invested in animal ethics, this view sounds and feels right, but I don’t think it’s practicable.
@@jonathanvelez4182 It's not because we invented alot of medication based on animal testing that we aren't able to get to the same point with alternatives to animal testing.
I am a biologh student, and I have to decide on my specialty for mext year. I want to go in biomedical sciences, but I would be required to experiment on animals. I don't really know how I feel about that, I love animals but I also want to help people get cured. I don't know if I am strong enough
It would be neat to see greater initiative to pursue minimally invasive approaches to animal research (I doubt that numerical tissue modeling will completely replace lab studies in the next 100 years, but in tandem with machine learning and more sensitive biometrics it could probably help avoid wasting resources on studies that ultimately prove irrelevant.)
There is no minimally invasive approaches to animal research. The best minimally invasive approach is NOT to use animals.
I want to hear both sides of the argument
If I'm not gonna eat it, I'm not gonna kill it ( but that's just me). I dont agree with using critters but I understand that science isn't always pretty
Unnecessary pain inflicted upon sentient beings are, in my terms, immoral. We humans, can live a healthy life without animal products. Even healthier, with a balanced plant-based diet that is. Maybe consider veganism if my first sentence makes sense?
I’m very interested in hearing more about your rationale. My view is the opposite. As I understand it, using animals for food is unethical when sufficient alternatives are accessible. Using them for research to prevent/treat human suffering can be justified by utilitarianism.
I was hoping this talk would address WHY is it ethical to value human life over other animals...especially regarding testing on mammals that are more similar to humans than they are different. This should have been titled differently or presented by someone with a background in philosophy or bioethics
We are the most complicated being there is. We explore the universe, our research, potentially, can save more animals that it can kill during these tests.
Thank you same. Such a Shame .
@@TheFaveteLinguis oh great! So if another creature that is smarter than us, comes to the earth, it is justifiable for them to torture us because they are more complicated and advanced specie!
In their eyes yes, as it is the same (with same I am talking about the hierarchical structure, call it food chain if you want) Animals are the heroes we need in regards to testing of diseases, cures for ageing and anything that will help develop a "better" future giving us more time to advance in other aspects of technology. Think about this when a loved one is getting a treatment that is only possible due to animal testing. Most people will trade 1000 mouse lives for the life of a loved one any time of the day. Period
@@alexanderdisput6822 have you heard of anthropocentrism?
It's fairly common knowledge:
"95% of drugs tested to be safe and effective in animals fail in human clinical trials. Similarly, for evaluating the safety of chemicals, the legacy animal-based methods are not sufficiently reliable to accurately predict adverse outcomes on human health and the environment." CCAAM Canada's first non-animal testing facility. You threaten and harm animals constantly. The harm or threats that you talk about being given to animal testing supporters is a drop in the ocean of suffering compared to the unnecessary suffering the animals go through. ..
So beagles aren't force fed chemicals!? Or don't mention the fact they have no rights !? They're legally allowed to be bled out whilst still alive, shot, stabbed, drowned ....won't mention that either
It's really not fair to these creatures
DO NOT DO ANIMAL TESTING DONT SAY ITS FOR BACK PAIN CHRONIC PAIN THINK ABOUT THE MOUSE
Using animals for research is the lowest human behavior possible. Nobody should make that kind of decision for anyone else- not even for an animal.
its funny how we obtain consent when doing human trials from the volunteers but don't do the same when it comes to animals... non-human animals have the same capacity to suffer and feel pain just like us humans.
How would you get consent from animals?
@@sarahben9743 Exactly. So why do we think it's fine in that case? Don't think most would be cool with us using disabled people or babies simply because they couldn't say no.
@@cecex4545 Because they are humans. You cannot research on them
@@ShlongMaster5000 what’s the difference why does species matter?
@@SSS208-s A human life is valuable. We cannot risk Human lives just for that.
Any ethics in the use of animals. Use yourself
Wdym?
Hats off. Great presentation.
Imagine how much more quickly and accurately studies could have been carried out if we had only chosen to use human models for studies on how to help humans? Ethics and morals are relative; We all know that. And, I would wager that science and technology would have much more quickly evolved to eliminate the need for a living human model to boot.
Except no one volunteered so historically they had to uses animals to get anywhere. No volunteers no knowlege (unless you use death row inmates or were the one in a million scientist who tests on yourself and got it right the first time) there for had to use animals. No animals no knowledge.
Very well done presentation!
DO NOT USE SCIENCE AS BECAUSE YOU DONT BELIEVE IN THE TORTURE OF ANIMAL TESTING DONT PRAY BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE BEEN JUDGED
-Written on an ipad.
The basic fact is you cant put animals life above a human life, i agree tat this method is cruel but we have no choice until we develop an advanced technology
you are so self-entitled
@@leounk3858 if scientists are fine abusing animals then humans wil be abused eventually at some point in the future as well. just because someone is labeled a "scientist" doesnt mean they are different from a spoiled entitled brat. humans have no free will and sadistic behavior is common in humans.
Thank you animals for progressing the well being of humanity!
Imagine animal testing not working so the world opted to take all the disabled people of the world and use them as test subjects. Then trying to make the claim the ends justify the means. (Obviously i dont think disabled people and animals are the same just food for thought)
Yes and didn't they in the past In mental hospital and try cover those researchs up. So scary but real thought to think about. Gives me the hibby jeebes.
Literally
Imagine how many disabled people we would have if we never discovered the polio vaccine through animal testing.
Most of our understanding of chemotherapy is from injecting random chemicals into dying children. When "death" is your only other option, sometimes people would prefer to be experimented on.
@@johnsmith2797 So be it. That's life.
I must say in my class we would bend the dog or cat in half to break their backs.. then do our research on them ..
Absurd
These vedios are better than performances of bts and bp though 😊
Ethical...is our concern???....not that it works perfectly because ya know it will save lives (no matter what your age, gender, race or creed is at that)???...now, if by ethical you mean we will prevent the hijackings and monopoly for profit of the process so ALL can afford it and get the benefit of it's service and not turn it to another "insulin" story...by all means let's make it ethical...(>.>)