Animal Testing: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
m (clean up) |
Derivative (talk | contribs) m (→top: Fixing links to disambiguation pages) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
The actual term can cover a number of things, which raise different dilemmas...and different levels of controversy. Behavioral experiments, like that of rats in mazes or [[wikipedia:Pavlovchr(27)s dogs|Pavlov's dog]] don't tend to raise too many hackles unless physical or psychological trauma is involved (i.e. raising a baby animal in total isolation to see how its development is affected). Cutting animals open while still alive (vivisection) usually turns up in [[Free the Frogs]] plots and sci-fi/horror films, usually involving a degree of moral dilemma. Medical testing (using animals to test new drugs and procedures in order to benefit human patients) is probably the most contested minefield, with both staunch supporters and equally determined detractors. Cosmetic testing (using animals to test lipstick, shampoo, mascara etc.) rarely turns up in the media, unless the scientist is a villain in an animal-centric show. If it does show up, it is almost always exaggerated, especially since using animals for cosmetics testing is falling out of favor—cultured human cell lines are turning out to be much more useful, and better for PR. |
The actual term can cover a number of things, which raise different dilemmas...and different levels of controversy. Behavioral experiments, like that of rats in mazes or [[wikipedia:Pavlovchr(27)s dogs|Pavlov's dog]] don't tend to raise too many hackles unless physical or psychological trauma is involved (i.e. raising a baby animal in total isolation to see how its development is affected). Cutting animals open while still alive (vivisection) usually turns up in [[Free the Frogs]] plots and sci-fi/horror films, usually involving a degree of moral dilemma. Medical testing (using animals to test new drugs and procedures in order to benefit human patients) is probably the most contested minefield, with both staunch supporters and equally determined detractors. Cosmetic testing (using animals to test lipstick, shampoo, mascara etc.) rarely turns up in the media, unless the scientist is a villain in an animal-centric show. If it does show up, it is almost always exaggerated, especially since using animals for cosmetics testing is falling out of favor—cultured human cell lines are turning out to be much more useful, and better for PR. |
||
The portrayal of animal testing in fiction strongly depends on a number of factors: [[Humans Are |
The portrayal of animal testing in fiction strongly depends on a number of factors: [[Humans Are the Real Monsters]] vs. [[Humans Are Special]], Science Is Good vs. [[Science Is Bad]], and the show's place in the [[Sliding Scale of Idealism Versus Cynicism]]. |
||
Shows that are pro-animal testing, usually because of an adult/pragmatic/scientific slant to the story, will feature hard-working and crusading scientists on the search for a cure for cancer, hampered by the [[Animal Wrongs Group]]. Usually turns up in crime shows, science fiction and occasionally drama. |
Shows that are pro-animal testing, usually because of an adult/pragmatic/scientific slant to the story, will feature hard-working and crusading scientists on the search for a cure for cancer, hampered by the [[Animal Wrongs Group]]. Usually turns up in crime shows, science fiction and occasionally drama. |
||