This is taken from the text The Principles of Learning and Behavior, Fourth Edition by Michael Domjan. It's pretty obvious where he stands, but we have to start from somewhere.

Yeas, it is a bit lengthy, but I would appreciate answers from some people to help me evaluate my role in the treatment of those under my care.

(Liam, if you get a chance to read this, I'd love to hear from you, a fellow psych major.)

quote:

---

Should Human Beings Benefit from the Use of Animals?

The number of animals used in research is a small fraction of the number of animals used in other realms of human activity. Table 1.1 summarizes estimates of the number of animals used each year in all forms of teaching and research as compared to the numbers of unwanted animals killed in animal shelters or sacrificed for food, for clothing, and in hunting.

By far the greatest numbers of animals are used for food and in hunting. The number of animals used in all forms of teaching and research is substantial (about 20 million), but this is just .3% of the totoal usage. Moreover, only about 200,000 animals are used each year in psychological research. This is but .003% of the total number of animals used for various purposes in the United States each year. Studies of animal learning account for less than one-half of all animals used in psychological research. Thus, the number of animals that serve in learning experiments is miniscule compared with other human uses of animals.

...

In a survey of animal rights advocates, 85% agreed with the statement, "If it were up to me, I would eliminate all research using animals" (Plous, 1991). When asked what should be the top priority of the animal rights movement, only 4% said that they should work to eliminate the use of animals in sports and entertainment, 12% said they should work to eliminate the use of animals in clothing or fashion, and 24% considered it important to discourage the use of animals for food (see also Nicoll & Russell, 1990).

Alternatives to Research with Animals

As Gallup and Suarez (1985) pointed out, good research on learning processes cannot be conducted without experiments on live organisms, be they animal or human. Nevertheless, public debate on the pros and cons of animal research has focused interest on possible alternatives to testing animals. Some of these alternatives are considered in the following list:

1. Observational techniques. As I said earlier, learning processes cannot be investigated with unobtrusive observational techniques. Experimental manipulation of past experience are necessary in studies of learning. Field observations of undisturned animals cannot yield information about the mechanisms of learning.

2. Plants. Learning cannot be investigated in plants because they lack a nervous system, which is required for learning.

3. Tissue cultures. Although tissue cultures may reveal operation of cellular processes, how these processes operate in an intact organism can be discovered only by studying the intact organism. Furthermore, a search for cellular mechanisms of learning requires characterizing learning at the behavioral level.

4. Computer simulations Writing a computer program to simulate a natural phenomenon requires a great deal of knowledge about the nature of learning phenomena and the mechanisms and factors that determine learning would be needed before a simulation of learning could be constructed. The absence of such knowledge necessitates experimental research with live organisms. Thus, experimental research with live organisms is a prerequisite for effective simulations. For that reason, computer simulations cannot be used in place of experimental research.

...

Earlier in this chapter, I used the example of a computer simulation to measure the wind resistance of various car designs. Why is it possible to construct a program to study wind resistence, but not to study learning processes? The critical difference is that a lot more is known about wind resistence that about learning....

Designing cars with low wind resistance is an engineering task. It involves application of existing knowledge rather than the discovery of new knowledge and new principles. Research on animal learning involves the discovery of new facts.... It is science, not engineering.

---

Thanks to everyone to contributes.

------------------
"Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the Tao to survivial or extinction. It must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed."

"...attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence."

Vegetarianism is, well, contrary to normal human behaviour. We are literally designed to require meat, as several essential amino acids found in most animals but very few plants cannot be manufactured by our body. Though some vegetarians do go out of their way to find all sorts of exotic, processed plants that can provide these AAs, most don't, and as a result are malnourished. Not Ethiopian style, but I'll take all sorts of meat preservatives over avoiding something I need.

The point will always remain that humans are animals. Watching a cheetah disembowel a gazelle may be pretty gross from the standard cushy human POV, but so is sex and defecation and all sorts of nasty things we as animals naturally do and must do. Killing animals for food that aren't those that we as humans can relate to as friends or companions (ie dogs) or those with very high intelligence (ie whales, apes) shouldn't bother you as being savage any more than taking a crap. After all, though, we as humans have invented toilet paper, so a few more civilized measures should be expected of us... a quick and humane death, as efficient a usage for food as possible and the avoidance of death for sport are reasonable conterbalances.

Now I'm not a teenage girl, but I can tell you that there is considerable pressure on girls today, at least where I am, to go veggie. (I'm sure Tora or Jubes will rebuke me on this, but oh well...). And like it or not, vegetarians are far more likely to smaller portions, and I'd make and educated guess that anorexia is more common in teenage vegetarians than teenage omnivores. I have not stats to back that up, but ultimately I think a vegetarian diet has little positive or a negative effect on one's health.

Pushing aside the veggie issue, I must say that personally I am against using animals to test cosmetics and the like, largely because it's a continous torture process rather than a quick and purposeful death and because there's no great drawbacks to use humans instead. Medical testing is slightly different. So long as we're not pasting extra heads on monkeys, I think a humanely done practive of testing drugs on mice is not cruel or overstepping out bounds as humans. The amount of human life saved by animal testing is immense, and considering there is often no alternative (computer testing is not yet good enough, and exclusively human test subjects might have disasterous consequences).

Bullfights are evil too... I can't say I have as big problem with rodeos or circuses, but nevertheless governments should do more to make sure there's no cruelty behind the scenes.

------------------
"Well, I guess we're an Ovaltine family."
"MORE OVALTINE PLEASE!"
-American Radio Ads... *gag*... one more reason I'm glad to be above the 49th.

------------------
"I told you. You're dead. This is the afterlife. And I'm God."
--Q to Picard, "Tapestry".

"Vegetarianism is, well, contrary to normal human behaviour."

I actually recall reading something about the human stomach that it was *not* meant to digest meat. I can't back that up without some research though. That and I saw a timeline in a book about human origins today at the library pointing to approximately when humans began eating meat.

"several essential amino acids found in most animals but very few plants cannot be manufactured by our body."

There's a whole lot of protein in beans (in milk and eggs, too, but I'm not sure if vegetarians eat eggs). Not as good as proteins in animals, but sufficient. My mom (as I mentioned in another thread, she's a nurse) did tell me there's a certain protein in beef that's not replaceable by veggies. Plus, some vegetarians I know eat fish.

"Now I'm not a teenage girl, but I can tell you that there is considerable pressure on girls today, at least where I am, to go veggie."

There IS a lot of pressure to be thin, but not necessarily go veggie. I know two vegetarians from my school (a teacher and a friend) who are (they'll never read it, but forgive me for saying this) anything but thin. Besides, vegetarians can still eat French fries. The biggest reason for girls to go veggie is, in my opinion, their love for animals and the reluctance to see (or think about) them killed.

"I'd make and educated guess that anorexia is more common in teenage vegetarians than teenage omnivores."

I don't know...I've seen a few videos about anorexia and bulimia, but they've never focused on vegetarians.

"but ultimately I think a vegetarian diet has little positive or a negative effect on one's health."

Now I must say I can't agree with that. Veggies may not have some as much proteins, but it also doesn't have much cholesterol and fat. I can safely bet that a vegetarian (okay, one who doesn't eat fried stuff and has no hereditary diseases) will have fewer heart, liver, or blood pressure problems than an omnivore will.

"I am against using animals to test cosmetics and the like"

That I strongly agree with. Cosmetics are a waste of resources, time, and money. And in case anyone's wondering, I don't buy any.

------------------
"I told you. You're dead. This is the afterlife. And I'm God."
--Q to Picard, "Tapestry".

For starters, your standard American omniverous diet may be high in fat and cholesterol, but plenty of extremely lowfat diets have meat as an intrical ingredient. For example, most Mediterranean diets, lamb and all, have recently been proven to be better for the heart than the standard fish and veggies diets the hospitals were prescribing. Just because most Americans and Brits eat far too large portions of meat that aren't lean cuts doesn't mean beef is killer, period. A small steak on the side of a plate of pasta and vegetables cooked in olive oil that you get in some place in Italy is damn healthy, probably better for you than a slab of soy this, soy that.

Indeed, in the news about a month ago they released results of a new, experimental diet with lots of lean red meat and found that the stuff is actually an excellent and healthy foodstuff. The traditional opinions on nutrition that have been around for twenty years are getting overhauled.

I agree with your statement about domestic animals and food... I mean, what do the insanely extremist animal rights folks want us to do? Turn loose millions of pigs onto the world? Domestic animals aren't wild and unfortunately shouldn't seek freedom to frolic on the hills and graze.

As for the girls who avoid eating meat because it's mean and nasty... again my point... animals do nasty things, and they're applying human values to a system embedded in millions of years of evolution. (or, if you prefer, a command from God to give us dominion over the animals 6000 years ago .)

I've heard of that prehumans being veggie argument before... coming from the pen of some veggie crackpot who's name escapes me at the moment. Of course, there is the question of the arrowheads found in mammoth bones. A stealthy cave man hunter snuck up on a soy field, spear in hand, only to have it deflect and embed itself in the side of a grazing mammoth?

------------------
"Well, I guess we're an Ovaltine family."
"MORE OVALTINE PLEASE!"
-American Radio Ads... *gag*... one more reason I'm glad to be above the 49th.

I'm afraid that my reference materials aren't handy, but I just want to say something general. I think we should take the utilitarian concept of greatest good and apply it here. Also, there is a line between necessary pain and simple cruelty. Cruelty is to be avoided.

HEY! For your information, tofu is one of my favorite foods! Then again, of course, it's good in a Chinese dish and I have yet to see an American dish that makes it taste good. Sweet soy milk is a regular item in my refrigerator as well. It's a common Chinese breakfast item instead of milk.

"they're applying human values to a system embedded in millions of years of evolution."

Nevertheless, that is a big reason for it.

"(or, if you prefer, a command from God to give us dominion over the animals 6000 years ago .)"

Please, don't go there.

"I've heard of that prehumans being veggie argument before... coming from the pen of some veggie crackpot who's name escapes me at the moment."

Er...I said I've heard it, but I don't think the author specified whether he's a vegetarian or not. In fact, I can't even remember if I read it or saw it on TV.

"Of course, there is the question of the arrowheads found in mammoth bones."

I'm not really denying the fact that prehistoric humans did eat meat, merely emphasizing that they started somewhere and we know when that somewhere is. I've also read that although prehistoric guys might have killed mammoths for food, it's a rare event that's probably talked about for a long time to come. I can't remember the percentage, but probably more than half of the food had to be veggies or rice/wheat and stuff. Or else those guys would've died of protein poisoning.

------------------
"I told you. You're dead. This is the afterlife. And I'm God."
--Q to Picard, "Tapestry".

As for food... when they can make a soyburger that tastes just like a double whopper with cheese, I'm there, dude (assuming Burger King would sell it). Till then, make mine cow. And pig, and chicken.

But I won't eat seafood.

There is actually a strong environmental argument for vegeterianism. The land and resources required to produce X amount of meat is much more than that to produce the equivalent amount of grains or vegetables. The reason is straightforward, since only a portion of the food eaten goes toward biomass in the animal, the rest is burned for energy or excreted as waste. The result is more land and energy is required to produce meats such as beef and poultry (beef is the worst), and in an environment already suffering from deforestation and greenhouse effect (cattle, by the way, put out a significant amount of methane, a potent greenhouse gas) vegeterian diets are seen as more environmentally friendly. There are drawbacks to this argument, and I certainly am not going to quit eating meat because of it, but there it is for your consideration.

On Animal Testing: Although I entirely agree that animal testing for cosmetic purposes is wrong, I'm also dismayed by the fact that many animal rights activists don't understand the scale of the benefit to human society that medical testing brings. There is experimentation done in the development of medications of all types, testing done during the approval stages, and testing done in other forms of medical research. In addition, animal testing is done for a variety of industrial chemicals to determine their toxicity levels, whether they are carcinogens etc. Animal testing has in the past, and will continue in the future, to provide enormous benefits to human society, and has saved millions of humans. To say that we want to throw all of this away because we feel sorry for the rats, or mice, or whatever is absurd. The position implies that you value the animals life over a humans. It's like running into a burning house and pulling out the dog but leaving the people to burn.

Although I must aggree that improvements can be made to make the experiments more humane. In the past, conditions in the labs, especially for animals like chimpanzees, have been abysmal. Many labs have made improvements though. Primates are often necessary in animal experiments because their genome and metabolism is so close to ours (their importance to AIDS research is especially important), but if you're going to spend millions on research I think you can afford a few thousand extra to make the conditions better.

One final note on using humans for experimentation: It was done in the US, using humans to test the effects of radiation. And others, African Americans as I recall, were purposefully infected with syphilis. The public uproar and controversy was substantial, I really doubt any government could get away with sanctioned experimentation on humans. Well, democractic governments anyway.

------------------
"But, it was so artistically done."
-Grand Admiral Thrawn

There have been instances where inmates have volunteered for certain specific experiments in the hope that their time would be shortened for "good behavior."

Of course, since there are some people who will NEVER get out, why not at least make them be useful? Get some value out of the money that we spend on their housing and entertainment?

(Then maybe we can convince them to start recycling death-penalty cases for spare parts...)

Bloodthirsty, ain't I?
I ain't. Just practical.

As for using death penalty cases for donor organs, some people claim the Chinese government is already doing it. It does sound rather bloodthirsty. But the Chinese shoot their prisoners, as far as I know, while the most common forms of execution in the US are lethal injection and electrocution. These methods do not leave much when it comes to usable organs. I'd feel rather uncomfortable with a government doing it, since it provides at least a small encouragement to expand executions when the donor organ supply is short. Although I suppose some people wouldn't be bothered by this.

------------------
"But, it was so artistically done."
-Grand Admiral Thrawn

Larry Niven wrote a series of stories set in a future when organ transplants are needed more frequently (everybody's trying to stay alive as long as possible), and cloning organs hasn't been perfected. So, they start "breaking up" people who get the death penalty for crimes... but the demand for organs becomes so strong, that they keep expanding the death penalty to cover almost every criminal activity (although in the books, this DOES cut crime rates tremendously, so there might be a silver lining).

Worse, "organlegging" becomes a new criminal activity, in which crooks kidnap someone, kill them, and sell the spare parts on the black market.

In the end though, if it comes down to Bongo or me, I'm picking me.

Tora said "Please, don't go there."

Actually Tora you would be surprised what the bible says about eating meat. As I recall in the bible said that humans didn't eat meat until at Noah's Ark survived the flood (actually it was concidered a fall back to there more animalitic nature).

------------------
HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos:-) )