***must Read!***

[catmandu]

The Sad Thing Is That Theses Tests Have Been Done For Years And They Keep Doing These Incredibly Cruel Tests On Animals Not Because They Need The Data, But Because The Labratories Make A Lot Of Money From Government Grants And Busuries From Different Companies.
I Have Raed That Almost All Of This Can Be Done On Computers Down With Virtual Animals, Yet Every Year Thousand Of Animals Are Killed Needlessly.
I Pray These Scientists And Foundation Ceos Rot In Hell.

[Catty1]

BTW - just to clarify - these particular cats were not 'hurt'; the genetic change was made in the egg. One out of the three kittens was born dead, which can happen in non-scientific births.

Not taking sides - there are some good points made - and to see them all, use the link below.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourview/2007...scent_fel.html

Bruce A. Head

Let's put this in perspective: medical/genetic testing on cats is a tiny drop in the bucket of cruelty to animals in "service" to humanity.

According to the December 2007 issue of Harper's magazine ("Of Mice and Men", Greg Critser), in the U.S. alone, 80 million rats and mice -- one for every four Americans -- are used in lab testing each year (this compares to 40,000 lab monkeys per year and surely many fewer cats or dogs).

And that 80 million doesn't include the 70% of all male newborn mice that are euthanized because, unlike female mice, they are too aggressive to use for testing.

One specific breed of the most common lab mouse called the "APP" mouse (named because it has a genetically implanted human Alzheimer's gene) sells for over $236 a piece, creating a multi-billion dollar mouse industry.

Due to lobbying by pharmecutical companies, protection of mice (along with other rodents and birds) was specifically omitted from the 2002 U.S. Animal Welfare Act.

Animal rights groups including PETA are silent on this issue (they only seem to care about cuddly cats, dogs and human-like monkeys). This despite the fact that there is ample clinical evidence that mice feel pain and emotions (including empathy for other suffering mice).

Posted December 14, 2007 04:58 PM


Cody

Victoria

Being in the field of microbiology/biochemistry, using animal models for experimentation is second nature. While some may consider these acts sinister, I must remind them that these animals were created soley for the purpose of experimentation (and are patented), and they are treated with the utmost respect. Scientists realize that these animals are indeed sacrificed for the good of mankind.

While some of you question the usefulness of "glow in the dark" kittens, it is actually an excellent step forward in our understanding of genetic manipulation that one day in the future can cure a plethora of disorders. And to be quite honest, this is nothing new; we've had "glow in the dark" monkeys for a good 7 years.

What is most annoying about all this, is the negativity from non-scientific people. I am not trying to be insensitive, but those of you who have been blessed with a friend or family member that has survived cancer, for example, have this exact type of research to thank.

As someone mentioned, if you prefer to live in a world of disease, then that is your perogative, I suppose. But do not be so quick as to paint us as sinister people.

Posted December 15, 2007 03:02 AM

Standing by your morals is admirable. So, in order to adjust to differing morals equitably, I offer this simple solution. I will keep using the scientific and medical advancements I find morally acceptable.

Those whose morals differ, and those who will actually stand by their morals, will NOT avail themselves of the benefits of scientific and medical research carried out through vivisection. No therapies for cancer, AIDS, infections, blood pressure, cholesterol, and all other ailments common to humans. Eat only food that you personally grow in the ground - no animal-based food - and of course no commercial fertilizer.

This would naturally apply to and your children until the age of 18. The list goes on - right back to the dark ages.

Morals are very nice until reality sets in and you realize how empty the sanctimony really is!

[Medusa]

Thanx for bringing both sides to our attention, Candace. This goes along w/my "people first" belief, although I still find it difficult to justify such research. However, should I ever be in the position where I would need medical treatment that came about due to just this type of research, I probably would sing a different tune. I try not to allow my emotions to take over but sometimes, such as when I see a glow in the dark cat, it ain't easy.

[Catty1]

There were some light posts there too - like the guy who said we could save on electricity by having these glow cats around...and reading by 'cat-light'.

He forgot that you need a blacklight to see this to begin with.

What struck me is that because of the money invested in this research - and you have to jump through a ton of hoops and prove your project is worth supporting, and THEN spend whatever you get on animals, which are EXPENSIVE - that is reason enough to treat the animals as well as possible, even if it is only from an investment standpoint, as well as needing healthy animals to begin with.

It's a hard line...I love my cats. I hope there is research going on that will ELIMINATE the use of animal research forever.

[smokey the elder]

*bangs head against desk* I wish people would quit making out the biologists as the bad guys. A company who wants to do animal testing has to jump through hoops. I don't want to get into another debate about it, though; we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[catmandu]

THATS A VERY GOD OINT, BUT I HAVE RAED THAT A LOT OF THESE TESTS ARE DUPLICATES OF TESTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN DONE, AND THAT THEY ARE DONE JUST FOR THE MONEY.
AND MICE DO HAVE FEELINGS AS WELL, ITS A SHAME THAT ANY CREATURE OF GOD IS CONSIDERED EXPENDABLE AND WITHOUT WORTH.

[moosmom]

I just don't understand why people f%$# with nature like that, when there are SOOOO many unwanted animals out there. Pisses me off.