Animal Testing

[Asac]

What are your thoughts on Animal Testing? I recently visited http://www.stopanimaltests.com and got a very graphic education on the subject. I always knew that I didn't vouch for animal testing but this has REALLY opened my eyes. Also, check out http://www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com This is unbelievable. Are there any scientists part of this community that are involved in any way with animal cruelty / testing?

 

This is disgusting, I have no idea how people can do such things. Not only that, the gov't supplies hundreds of millions of dollars annually to have animals slaughtered and abused. 115 million animals (not counting rats,mice, and birds because they are not covered by the Animal Welfare Act and go uncounted which also account for 80-90 percent of all animals tested) are killed in the US alone each year. This is ridiculous.

 

Any thoughts... or comments for that matter?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

A previous (and quite long) thread on this matter:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2941

[ecoli]

First of all, beware of organizational sites with an obvious agenda. They tend to stretch the truth.

 

I agree that animals have the right not to be treated cruelly, but I also believe that animal testing is an important part of biology research.

 

If you think we're going to be able to cure human diseases (be it cancer aids, UTI's, etc.) without animal testing, you are sadly mistaken.

 

If a few mice have to die to save millions of humans, then so be it. As long as those mice (or other animals) are treated properly are aren't allowed to experiance an undue amount of pain.

[AzurePhoenix]

I mostly agree with what ecoli says. It really is necessary to ultimately help people, and even though I'm generally against helping people, I won't stand against somewthing that might eventually help me

 

I do think steps could be taken to make the whole testing environment a tad more comfortable (at least for species that can actually appreciate it), but as long as no undue suffering is inflicted, it's a necessary evil.

 

I do however strongly dislike pontentially harmful testing on more intelligent species such as primates. I would much prefer if we used violent criminals in their place (beings who had actually EARNED potential harm and torment)

 

What I really want though would be some sort of engineered human fetus (I suppose it wouldn' have to LOOK like a fetus,) a brainless meat-sack of human biology, maybe something that develops at a fast enough rate to test effectively. Bah, who knows how many years off we are from being capable of doing that effectively and en masse though, and hell knows how many people would scream even louder about that idea than they do stem-cells, raving on and on about the immorality of it regardless of the reality and benefits of the concept. Plus it wouldn't end all animal testing, especially behavioral stuff and others.

[Dr. Dalek]

This question of animal crulty extends beyond animal testing into outdoor sports and food. As a hunter it is my first priority to kill an animal quickly, so as to make sure it doesn't get away, and to make sure it dosn't suffer.

I agree with ecoli's assertion that you should be warry in trusting organisations like these. For one we hunters have an instinct that tells us to avoid contact with them at all costs.

 

I do however strongly dislike pontentially harmful testing on more intelligent species such as primates. I would much prefer if we used violent criminals in their place (beings who had actually EARNED potential harm and torment)

I like ur thinking! Save the Lab mice! Test OJ!

[AzurePhoenix]

I like ur thinking! Save the Lab mice! Test OJ!

Well, if anyone had ever earned it... good thing for him the American judicial system is so damned effective \o/

 

But I was thinking more along the line of rhesus monkeys, chimp and orangs

 

I agree with ecoli's assertion that you should be warry in trusting organisations like these. For one we hunters have an instinct that tells us to avoid contact with them at all costs.

Wise. Those people can be so hocked up on "morals" it's scary, with no flexiblity for practical objectivity and necessity.

[Sisyphus]

Also be wary of appeals to emotion. Graphic descriptions of disgusting and unsettling things are usually a sign that the person has no real substance to their arguments.

[Karnage]

hmmm i believe i was having a conversation with azure earlier in the room, and i hope I made clear that i do love animals, especially those baby harp seals (save the seals!). Yet i do think that we may have to use animal testing to further our knowledge and there's nothing we could do about that. one way or another, something has to be sacrificed for the advancement of our society

[Asac]

I should have rethought my post, i understand the reasoning behind animal testing and its beneficial side as well, but when i watched the videos on the PETA site, just the way the animals were treated while they were being tested. They were treated as a commodity rather than animals, even though they were being broken down and whathave you. people should at least have the dignity and heart to treat an animal or make it as comfortable as possible while it is enduring its pain and suffering rather than making them feel even more alone and worthless. did anyone watch the KFC video i linked to or have they seen it before? the way those workers treated the chickens was wrong, an kfc could at least modify their process slightly to follow half moralizing processes being at least kill htme before dipping them in scolding water and or cutting their heads off.. but, i understand and will agree with you to an extent about testing. i have done lots of research and various sources say that testing on animals has a different effect then it would have on humans anyway. one quote was, "Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are not like us." - Professor Charles R. Magel

[Dr. Dalek]

What must be done must be done, if there were any way to do the KFC job with less crulty they would probably do it, but they have to keep a mind for efficency and cost effectiveness.

[bascule]

I adamantly oppose medical testing on simians.

 

Beyond that, it depends on the animal.

 

There are many forms of medical testing, performed on mice, that I see as being justifiable. It depends if there's an overall net good to the research performed (e.g. if killing 100,000 mice allows us to create a vaccine that can save 100 million people, I'm all for it)

[MattC]

As a vegan, I am not opposed to animal experimentation for medical purposes. This is a tradeoff - we sacrifice a number of organisms in order to save, in the long run, a larger number of organisms from pain and suffering.

 

In the food industry, I think it's an entirely different matter - if you can't find a way to raise and kill animals for food that doesn't cause unnecessary suffering, you shouldn't do it. Plenty of small farms manage to kill animals in a way that doesn't lead to enormous suffering - it's only when people try to make a factory and assembly line out of killing and eating animals that unnecessary suffering enters the equation. For the same reason that I would consider it unethical to *not* use animals for research, in order to save more lives in the long run, I consider it unethical to treat animals with any less dignity than is feasible.

 

I think we would all appreciate the same consideration being given to us when some alien race that just loves how humans taste (and to whom humans are quite nutritious) comes along and decides to start a human farm here. If you think it is fine to eat animals (and I'm definitely not saying it isn't, for all that I'm a vegan), you would be a hypocrite to think it would be wrong for some other equally more advanced race to consume us. In that situation, who would argue that humans shouldn't be treated with dignity and compassion, for all that we are merely food for some other species?

 

I do not have evidence for my next argument, but I think most of you will probably agree with me, regardless. Many people eat meat - this is a fact of our culture and world. Most of the people who eat meat would find it very difficult to kill their own meals - and of those who would be able to do it at all, only a small minority would be willing to do so in an unnecessarily cruel manner. If you wanted chicken soup, would you kill the chicken, then cook it, or pluck it (while it is still alive), cook it (letting it die slowly), and then eat it?

 

The only reason we tolerate the mistreatment of animals, in our society, in this context, is the unfortunate fact that the majority of people are completely detached from the production of their own food. I have challenged many defensive meat-eaters to do their own research into how animals are treated. I cannot count the number of times I have heard someone say, "I will never eat *that* again, not after what I learned." This is not because eating meat is wrong - certainly those people don't feel that way, and I don't even really feel that way. Instead, it is because most humans are programmed or hard-wired to show compassion when it is not terribly inconvenient (or completely undeserved). Factory-style production of meat has nothing to do with compassion and everything to do with maximizing the profit of the company preparing the food.

[Sayonara]

Also remeber that generally, when you see a site or programme or book that shows something extremely graphic along with a proposed agenda, you can bet your bottom dollar that they are showing you the absolute worst that things can possibly get, which will assuredly not be representative of the state of affairs as a whole.

 

IOW, just because they show you a puppy with twigs in its brain, doesn't mean that goes on in all cases of "animal testing".

[Rhino]

I'm generally against helping people

 

That statement has made you my favorite poster of all time in any forum! The people who know me will vouch for that. Of course I think you may be ready to move up to the all important self-gratifying next step. Which is called "Kicking people when they are down". There is nothing more satisfying. Unless you also put them in the down position in which they are about to be kicked.

 

I would much prefer if we used violent criminals in their place (beings who had actually EARNED potential harm and torment)

 

Yes! I have a feeling violent criminals "experiment" on each other anyway. Might as well get some researchers in there, and take notes.

 

What I really want though would be some sort of brainless meat-sack of human biology

 

Can I offer some people from my work place? I can garantee they will be 100% brainless. They may not be the best test subjects, but they already sit around in a cubicle all day and do nothing. Not a far jump off from a lab full of cages.

 

We have done testing on our military in the US before so why not use criminals?

[AzurePhoenix]

Of course I think you may be ready to move up to the all important self-gratifying next step. Which is called "Kicking people when they are down". There is nothing more satisfying. Unless you also put them in the down position in which they are about to be kicked.

there is one step beyond kicking them while there down, a simple pleasure of mocking them about it for the rest of their lives, drawing out the humiliating sting for years and years for a mild satisfaction that you can take to the grave.

 

We have done testing on our military in the US before so why not use criminals?

people have an innate ability to be sensitive about things that really don't have a damn thing to do with them. Then again, I don't really understand this "sympathy" thing they go on about.

 

If you think it is fine to eat animals (and I'm definitely not saying it isn't, for all that I'm a vegan), you would be a hypocrite to think it would be wrong for some other equally more advanced race to consume us. In that situation, who would argue that humans shouldn't be treated with dignity and compassion, for all that we are merely food for some other species?

I definately agree, especially considering that an alien intelligence might be so alien in thought that they wouldn't even percieve us as the equivalent of conscious or sapient creatures by their standards. But of course, humans would ultimately fault them and label them as evil for the exact same thing we always have done, but we'll never be anything more than self-absorbed and insanely jealous of our own self-defined "specialness," and will continue to treat the things we eat the very same way.

[In My Memory]

Asac,

Any thoughts... or comments for that matter?

If you're interested, here is a small collection of animal experiments I've put together:

http://juliet.php0h.com/rubrique.php?id_rubrique=5

 

 

Animals are feeling beings who have an experiential welfare, and they have all of the same morally relevant characteristics as mentally similar humans, so they are entitled to the same moral consideration. If people believe its wrong to experiment on human infants, then the objection extends to mentally similar animals.

 

However, people continue to experiment on animals because they breed quickly, theres no legal consequence, and the animals cant defend themselves. There isnt anything morally consistent about animal experimentation:

- on the one hand, animals are so similar to humans that they can reveal medical insights useful to humans. But on the other hand, they are so dissimilar that killing them has no comparable moral consequence.

 

- on the one hand, it is perfectly acceptable to kill millions and millions of animals to save a single human life. On the other hand, it would be murder if someone to kill other people to harvest their blood and organs for their own purposes.

 

- on the one hand, its perfectly fine to breed animals with the intent to kill them. On the other hand, treating humans in a similar way would be the plot of a horror movie.

 

- on the one hand, the US congress unanimously votes against a bill that would have allowed researchers to culture human blastocysts for use in stem cell research. On the other hand, Us congress votes to exempt researchers who breed mice, birds, and rabbits from animal cruelty regulations.

 

- on the one hand, no medical journal on the plant will publish data collected from the the nazi holocaust experiments due to the unethical way the data was collected. On the other hand, almost all of tha nazi experiments have been reproduced using animal subjects (there are thousands of animal equivalents to the freezing experiments, turbuculosis vaccine experiments, decompression experiments), and the results of those experiments are readily accessible in almost any medical journal on the planet.

 

- on the one hand, animals are pratically martyrs for being sacrificed so that other people can live. On the other hand, not a single researcher or beneficient on animal experimentation is willing to be sacrificed or sacrifice their children for the same ends.

 

 

Animal experimentation is a product of the mindset that says "humans are the center of the universe", which is a superstitious and ignorant belief that should have died when geocentricism fell out of fashion. Animals are entitled to a right to life in exactly the same way as mentally similar humans for exactly the same reasons, and I defend animals rights not to be killed just like I'd defend humans if they were in the same position. If I had my way, I would categorically abolish animal experimentation altogether. We need to take all the money that goes into experimentation and fund cruelty-free alternatives.

[Rhino]

there is one step beyond kicking them while there down, a simple pleasure of mocking them about it for the rest of their lives, drawing out the humiliating sting for years and years for a mild satisfaction that you can take to the grave.

 

That's the reason I get up in the morning.

 

people have an innate ability to be sensitive about things that really don't have a damn thing to do with them. Then again, I don't really understand this "sympathy" thing they go on about.

 

As long as you associate "sympathy" with weakness you will not stray far from your chosen path.

 

continue to treat the things we eat the very same way.

 

I always figured when the animals got tired of being mistreated they will rise up and rebel.

 

The most efficient, and practical way to feed the vast amounts of people is through a slaughter house method. The only way around this is for everyone to raise there own animals to sustain their own families or communities. Then you can treat the animals as nicely as you want too. Dress them in with bows, and tell that chicken how much you love it as you tighten your grip as you prepare to wring it's neck. As long as you feel better.

 

As warm and fuzzy as that sound everyone knows that ain't gonna happen, and it if did there would be some farmers forum with people complaining about how early they have to get up to feed everything, and how much work there is to raising and caring for animals. Then people would be asking for another solution. Can't someone else do it?

 

This also goes hand in hand with experimenting. Let the people who are against animal testing live in a seperate community without all of the things in science that were discovered through animal testing and experimentation. They can come up with thier own solutions to problems with out the help of our furry and feathered friends. It could be a new reality TV show for the rest of us to watch while we eat our KFC.

[Dr. Dalek]

Animal experimentation is a product of the mindset that says "humans are the center of the universe",

Most animals think that, . . . . .

Wolves don't think about the wellbeing of the deer, rabbits, squirles, and mice that they eat.

 

We need to take all the money that goes into experimentation and fund cruelty-free alternatives.

Then you doom the industry the reason that the crulty free methods are not used (especialy in medical feild) is because they can not gain the same level of detail or accuracy unless they use real animals.

Without proper experimentation they may not have a complete picture of potential detrimental effects or side effects and the companies will get sued, a lot.

[iglak]

i agree with brutally torturing and murdering animals for testing and food if they were born for that purpose, or if they are going to be euthanized anyway (PETA euthanizes more than half of the animals it saves, btw).

 

i agree with brutally torturing and murdering HUMANS, if they are specifically born for the same purpose, or donate their bodies as they are about to die (such as chosing a new experimental medicine over unlikely current medicines).

however, i believe it's morally wrong to put someone in a position where they would give birth for testing. artificial wombs growing donated sperm and eggs, however, are acceptable.

 

i also think it's ethically wrong to NOT publish the nazi experiments, simply as a very useful memorial.

[In My Memory]

Dr Dalek,

Most animals think that' date=' . . . . .

Wolves don't think about the wellbeing of the deer, rabbits, squirles, and mice that they eat.[/quote']

Whats the point? What does that fact that wolves cant make moral decisions about their diet have to do with anything? Do you mean to say we should emulate them for moral guidance?

 

Then you doom the industry the reason that the crulty free methods are not used (especialy in medical feild) is because they can not gain the same level of detail or accuracy unless they use real animals.

Without proper experimentation they may not have a complete picture of potential detrimental effects or side effects and the companies will get sued' date=' a lot.[/quote']

Maybe a lot less companies would be sued if we just used human subjects, and probably a lot less money would be spent in the process of testing, given the fact that 92% of drugs that enter the human market after successful testing are pulled because they are unsafe for humans; and given the fact that so many human-safe drugs produce akward effects in animals (i.e. penicillan causes birth deformities in rabbits, aspirin kills cats, morpine acts as a stimulant horses, are you glad we didnt test those drugs on animals when they were discovered? We might be more fortunate not testing on animals, does that adequately justify experimenting on humans?

 

As to the harm to companies for switching to cruelty-free drug testing, companies get sued all the time even with animal testing (my mom was part of the class action lawsuit against Vioxx recently). However, I'm afraid that humans are not the center of the univeres, and that the harm of companies getting sued is absolutely trivial next to the harm of millions and millions of animals being the victims the science.

[GutZ]

I would like to see human testing being done more...maybe on untreatable/reoffending criminals.

 

Personally I am not against it but I think if we gain the benefits we should be part of the negative aspects as well.

[Dr. Dalek]

Whats the point? What does that fact that wolves cant make moral decisions about their diet have to do with anything? Do you mean to say we should emulate them for moral guidance?

Why not they seem to have things figured out, what do wolves do with there day? They wake up, they hunt, they eat, the fight, they play. Unlike humans they don't stand over the deer carcass arguing over trivial moral questions.

Besides if animals are so moraly inferior then why shouldn't we do tests on them?

 

Maybe a lot less companies would be sued if we just used human subjects,

They do use human subjects, after the animal testing.

and probably a lot less money would be spent in the process of testing, given the fact that 92% of drugs that enter the human market after successful testing are pulled because they are unsafe for humans;

I'd like to see some sources on that statistic.

and given the fact that so many human-safe drugs produce akward effects in animals (i.e. penicillan causes birth deformities in rabbits, aspirin kills cats, morpine acts as a stimulant horses, are you glad we didnt test those drugs on animals when they were discovered? We might be more fortunate not testing on animals, does that adequately justify experimenting on humans?

When they do reasearch on animals it is not supposed to be the end of the track when they find a side effect in the animals. They do that so they have data to look back at when they use human subjects in later testing.

They test a group of humans, they can never get enough volunteers therefore not enough data. If they observe a side effect in humans it is better to go back and see if a similar side effect was observed in animals.

Also if there were a great number of animal deaths with a number of subjects then they would quite possibly save lives by taking the drug back to development and possibly save the lives of human test subjects. The results from animals are not supposed to be difinitive or 100% reliable.

Maybe a better morphine or asprin would have been developed if they had teasted them on animals and gone back to deveolopment.

(I think thats how it works . . I'll look it up just in case.)

As to the harm to companies for switching to cruelty-free drug testing, companies get sued all the time even with animal testing (my mom was part of the class action lawsuit against Vioxx recently).

I wouldn't be surprised if without animal testing there would be far more sueing.

However, I'm afraid that humans are not the center of the univeres, and that the harm of companies getting sued is absolutely trivial next to the harm of millions and millions of animals being the victims the science.

How does the fact that humans are not the center of the Universe effect anything? Animals aren't either . . . .

 

 

Victims of Science would be a good name for a rock group.

 

I would like to see human testing being done more...maybe on untreatable/reoffending criminals.

I agree.

[In My Memory]

Dr Dalek,

Why not they seem to have things figured out, what do wolves do with there day? They wake up, they hunt, they eat, the fight, they play. Unlike humans they don't stand over the deer carcass arguing over trivial moral questions.

I call red herring. What wolves do is irrelevant and has nothing to do with our behavior.

 

Besides if animals are so moraly inferior then why shouldn't we do tests on them?

They arent inferior in the least. They are the mental and feeling equivalents to certain groups of humans and share many of the most important morally relevant characteristics with them, so they are out moral equals.

 

I'd like to see some sources on that statistic.

BBC News - Animal Drug Testing:

Several published studies assessing the prediction of drug side effects by animals have found them to be very poor predictors; correct only 5-25% of the time.[3]

92% of drugs fail in clinical trials, having successfully passed through animal studies.[4]

 

Citations

:

[3] eg. Clin Pharmacol 1962;3:665-72

Zbinden, G (1991) Predictive value of animal studies in toxicology. Regul. Tox. Pharm. 14: 167-177

CMR Workshop – Animal Toxicity Studies: Their Relevance for Man Quay 1990 p 49-56 and p57-67

Spriet-Pourra, C and Auriche, M (Eds) 1994 SCRIP Reports PJB, New York

Garratini, S (1985) Toxic effects of chemicals: difficulties in extrapolating data from animals to man. Annu. Rev. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 16: 1-29

Zbinden, G (1993) Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 17: 85-94

Calabrese (1984) Suitability of animal models for predictive toxicology: Drug Metab Rev 15: 505-523

Oser, BL (1981) J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 8: 521-642

Calabrese, EJ (1987) Principles of Animal Extrapolation. Wiley, New York

Olson, H., Betton, G., Stritar, J., and Robinson, D. (1998). The predictivity of the toxicity of pharmaceuticals in humans from animal data-An interim assessment. Toxicol. Lett. 102-103, 535-538

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 2000;32:56-67

Drug Metabolism and Drug Interactions 2000;16:143-155

 

Dr Ralph Heywood, former director of Huntingdon Research Centre, said, “… the best guess for the correlation of adverse reactions in man and animal toxicity data is somewhere between 5 and 25%.”

 

[4] Lester Crawford, FDA Commissioner, in The Scientist 6.8.04 “More compounds failing Phase I”

 

I wouldn't be surprised if without animal testing there would be far more[/b'] sueing.

On the contrary, probably fewer drugs would be developed, or they would be more rigorously tested on human subjects.

 

How does the fact that humans are not the center of the Universe effect anything?

Well, it systematically undermines all of the common justifications for animal experimentation, such as:

"if we didnt test on animals, we'd have to test on people"

"animal testing is necessary to cure human diseases"

"animal experimentation is save so many human lives"

Those kinds of justications wouldnt have any meaning outside of an ethic that says "humans are the center of the universe", because they dont weight the benefit of humans against the harm caused to animals.

 

On rejecting anthropocentricism, we're bound to consider the interests of animals and how we affect them just as seriously as we consider humans interests; and because many animals who are subjects of experimentation are the mental and feeling equivalent of human infants, and a beings morally relevant characteristics are intrinsically tied with its mental and feeling capacities, then animals and human infants are moral equals and entitled to the same consideration. If people object to using human infants as unwilling experimental participants to prolong animal lives, then the objections logically extend to animal experimentation so that animal vivisection is morally indistinguishable from human vivisection.

 

We we reject anthropocentricism, yet still insist that human have basic rights to live and to be free from torture, then we can say animals have the same rights, and their rights would be based on nothing more than a logical extension of the humanistic principles that people already hold. So rejecting anthropocentric ethics leads very naturally and easily toward rejecting the permissibility of animal experimentation.

[Dr. Dalek]

BBC News - Animal Drug Testing:

Several published studies assessing the prediction of drug side effects by animals have found them to be very poor predictors; correct only 5-25% of the time.[3]

92% of drugs fail in clinical trials' date=' having successfully passed through animal studies.[4']

But we still need to test it on something . . Humans must be tested eventualy, however have you ever considered what might happen if an untested drug were used on a human without knowing what the potential side effects were? After all animals may not always react exactly the same way as a human would but usualy what kills us will kill them. For example:

In the early 1930s, an untested eyelash dye called "Lash Lure" was introduced to the market in the United States. The product contained a substance called p-phenylenediamine, which sensitized ocular structures, leading to corneal ulceration resulting in a loss of vision and at least one fatality.

In 1937, an antibacterial medicine was sold in the U.S. as a liquid dissolved in diethylene glycol (antifreeze). Because antifreeze is toxic, this resulted in the death of 107 people.

As recently as the 1980s, a teflon-coated disk, which was implanted into the jaws of thousands of patients with TMJ (temporomandibular joint syndrome) had to be removed. This device was breaking into microscopic fragments, causing a biochemical reaction in patients that eroded the jaw bone. Animal studies were not done until after reports of the failures began in 1984.

http://www.ncabr.org/biomed/FAQ_animal/faq_animal_8.html

So do you think we should use only human test subjects?

 

On the contrary, probably fewer drugs would be developed, or they would be more rigorously tested on human subjects.

And potentialy kill the humans, in addition you have repeated that the rate at which drugs are pulled from the market is about 92% have you ever considered how many drugs never make it pass the testing phase? In order to find a drug that works properly they need to amke many drugs, and many variations and test them over and over.

 

On rejecting anthropocentricism' date=' we're bound to consider the interests of animals and how we affect them just as seriously as we consider humans interests; and because many animals who are subjects of experimentation are the mental and feeling equivalent of human infants, and a beings morally relevant characteristics are intrinsically tied with its mental and feeling capacities, then animals and human infants are moral equals and entitled to the same consideration. If people object to using human infants as unwilling experimental participants to prolong animal lives, then the objections logically extend to animal experimentation so that animal vivisection is morally indistinguishable from human vivisection.

 

We we reject anthropocentricism, yet still insist that human have basic rights to live and to be free from torture, then we can say animals have the same rights, and their rights would be based on nothing more than a logical extension of the humanistic principles that people already hold. So rejecting anthropocentric ethics leads very naturally and easily toward rejecting the permissibility of animal experimentation.[/quote']

Self is the center of the universe, we humans care about human well being over that of other animals because we are human. All animals (including

homo sapiens sapiens

) look out for #1 it is basic survival.

You seem to have so much compassion for creatures that probably don't care if you live or die. If the position were reversed the animals would not hesitate to test their drugs on you.

 

I'm a dog lover, well thats a lie. I don't care about your dog I only care about my dog.

[iglak]

I would like to see human testing being done more...maybe on untreatable/reoffending criminals.

 

Personally I am not against it but I think if we gain the benefits we should be part of the negative aspects as well.

 

more human testing and less animal testing means less knowledge of effects before human testing.

this means potential for harm is much greater than if animal testing is allowed.

by forcing untreatable/reoffending criminals to become test subjects, you subject them to the possibility of death or permanent mental or physical damage. just the possibility of death, no matter how small the chance, should be treated as a guaruntee. the reason being that out of however many criminals you test, some will die, and you have absolutely no idea who; it could be any one of them, or all of them.

 

so my question is: are you saying that we should give all untreatable/reoffending criminals the death penalty?

 

i suggest instead giving them a choice of being tested on to reduce their sentance.

 

 

 

 

Several published studies assessing the prediction of drug side effects by animals have found them to be very poor predictors; correct only 5-25% of the time.[3]

92% of drugs fail in clinical trials' date=' having successfully passed through animal studies.[4']

you're forgetting that most drugs are never even given clinical trials, because they are too dangerous.

 

think about this, if there are less tests on animals, more drugs can potentially reach the clinical trial stage, with less information.

more drugs means more potential for harm, including much more potential for life-threatening harm.

less information means that the doctors conducting the clinical trials will have a much harder time saving the patient from damage if a problem occurs.

this means much more danger overall.

more danger means less volunteers. for something like clinical trials, where volunteers are already very afraid of danger, increasing danger by so much would be detrimental to the process. it would become nearly impossible to convince someone to volunteer.

 

you could certainly force criminals to become involved in clinical trials, but that would be morally the same as enforcing the death penalty on all of them (if not killing them, then you are destroying their humanity, dehumanizing them into nothing (although it's not as if prisons don't already do that)).

 

 

 

more animal testing means safer clinical trials.

safer clinical trials means more clinical trials.

more clinical trials means more drugs will be deteremined unsafe for the general population (and thus not allowed on shelves).

 

 

humans remain the center of our universe in this regard simply because animals are currently a renewable resource. no animal will ever impact human society the way any human can (besides through animal testing).

humans are not a renewable resource, not until we farm and harvest human clones.