Animal Testing - Right or Wrong?

[tejaswini]

hey why not animals are like us they fell the pain.more over who gives us the right to test animals. and we don't even pay them. so sad.

[tejaswini]

and talking on the pro side it necessary that we test animals . because if we want to mimic the effects that the pathogen will have on human cells. then it becomes a esssential act.

[TayJamie]

hey why not animals are like us they fell the pain.more over who gives us the right to test animals. and we don't even pay them. so sad.

 

Are you kidding? Animals (obviously) have NO concept of money, and I doubt if they had a choice they would choose money for reward.

 

Who gives us the right? Who gave animals the right to kill eachother for food? IN that case, who gave us the right to kill animals for food.

[thief75]

I do not think people realize how many lab mice a sacrificed atthe alter of science on a daily basis. All most any hospital or clinic that has a decent research lab may even keep thier own mice. Thousand of mice are used daily just for harvesting antibodies from them. And when I say harvesting I mean killing. Mainly mice are used but rat, pig, dog, and rabbit are used as well but not as common. If this was forbidden medical science as we know it today would cease to exist. Check out any biomedical catalog that supplies reagents.

[staceisace]

I think Animal testing is dreadfull! and WELL WRONG! when it comes to testing things for humans!

 

WHY should they have to suffer? half the tests done aren`t acurate anyway as their physiology is different!

 

we have a load of a$$holes on death row that have been proven guilty and yet they get to die with no data gained' date=' it`s a total complete and utter waste of potential, I say we use these rapists and child molesters and murderers/terrorists etc... and exploit their physiology, ok, maybe they`re a little less humane than animals with the behaviour that got them there, but the results should be alot more compatible, and who cares if they die??? they`re gunna get fried anyway!?

 

NO! to animal testing![/quote']

 

I'm sorry, but you are an absolute fool.

firstly, when you or your kids get ill, do you turn down treatment? i didn't think so.

we have a real problem here with animal rights campaigners, not just because of some grave robbing and sending threatening letters to elderly shareholders (god they are tough) but because of the misinformation and blatant lies they tell.

if peole bothered to do proper research they would see that very few animals are used in ratio to humans, its not all cute rabbits and endangered monkeys.

secondly, humans are used to test drugs after and this has been common practise since the 60s after the thalidamide disaster.

i'm sorry, but unless you refuse drug treatment, do not use cosmetics and only shop for organic foods then you have no moral high ground whatsoever.

[GutZ]

YT2095 has a point.

 

Human testing at its finest.

 

Those hardcore bunch. If they die early, more room in prisons, less of their kind. more accurate data.

 

That and republicians. lol jk.

 

Humans are so cruel though.

 

I bet you though if the roles were reversed they'd do it to us! Still doesn't make it right. What can ya do though. The whole time nothing changes and its the same two sides fighting about one being a hypocrite and one being an animal killer.

 

No one is going to spend the money or look for new ways, and only the presence of high pressure from extremist groups will push the other extremists to stay in check. So inefficient we are.

[Dr. Dalek]

Ok I'll throw this out to you guys and I'll see how you respond:

When a new drug is put on the market it has to pass a particular process;

1. It is made and chemical analysis is preformed and the potential treatments are isolated.

2. The drug is tested on animals, the tests are documented and submitted to the FDA.

3. Human volunteers take the drug for a few months to test safety and possible side effects.

4.Human volunteers with a disease take the drug for two years to test the drugs effectiveness.

5. A larger group of humans takes the drug for up to four years.

6. Data is reviewed and dosages are established based on data.

7. Information is given to the public, as is the drug.

Often rare side effects aren’t detected until the drug reaches the market.

Now many people opposed to Animal testing for drugs point out that

using human cell cultures, and "simulated" organs such as Micro-brain (used to study cancer), pose no means of harming animals and are cheaper than using animals.

However one has to ask the question, if these systems are cheaper than why aren’t the greedy, money grubbing corporations using them? Its because despite the use of said cell cultures one cannot get an accurate picture of what happens to a whole organism with many interacting parts from a cell culture, or a simulated organs. An organism is many interacting cells, tissues, and chemicals, not all of which are present in cultures.

Now, I don't exactly like the idea of animals suffering, however I'd say that when introducing a new drug, some animal testing may be needed. Granted animals don't always react exactly as a human would to a drug, it would be good to know before using Human subjects if all the pigs, and rabbits died a month after the drug was administered.

After all the effects of the drug might not be apparent or even existent for a long time, it might have a slight effect on the endocrine system, for example, and slowly cause a chain reaction within the body over a series of months. If that was found in even one of the types of animals used it would make people think twice about administering it to volunteers.

Now the world may be better off without testing frills like cosmetic products, and other such things on animals, and I often wonder how much vivisecting is needed, however when it comes to a new drug, that peoples lives may be depending on, your better off safe than sorry.

 

i agree completely. but naturally, the next questionh would be ok, 1000 animals is acceptable for one human life, what about 2000? 3000, 4000? where do you draw the line? once this question is asked, you revert to the original problem.

Not trying to sound condesending, however your not putting enough thought into this question. Surely the number of animals tested depends from senario to senario. Say your testing a Mary-Kay product. I would say idealy you should use no animals at all because, it's makeup. However if your testing a potential treatment for a particular type of cancer, it takes precedence over makeup, so you would use as many animals as you needed to get a clear idea about the drugs effects on them.

 

we have a load of a$$holes on death row that have been proven guilty and yet they get to die with no data gained, it`s a total complete and utter waste of potential, I say we use these rapists and child molesters and murderers/terrorists etc... and exploit their physiology, ok, maybe they`re a little less humane than animals with the behaviour that got them there, but the results should be alot more compatible, and who cares if they die??? they`re gunna get fried anyway!?

This would be a good idea, getting something useful out of people who deserve what they get, but impossible to implement. The reason people are kept on death row for sometimes more than a decade is because despite the efficiency of the justice system it isn't perfect. Also there are too many powerful humans rights groups.

 

(Note) I'm almost certain that I will stir up controversy with this.

[zyncod]

Now many people opposed to Animal testing for drugs point out that

using human cell cultures, and "simulated" organs such as Micro-brain (used to study cancer), pose no means of harming animals and are cheaper than using animals.

However one has to ask the question, if these systems are cheaper than why aren’t the greedy, money grubbing corporations using them? Its because despite the use of said cell cultures one cannot get an accurate picture of what happens to a whole organism with many interacting parts from a cell culture, or a simulated organs.

 

Actually, such cell cultures are far from cruelty-free. I'll be decorous for once and not say how exactly they get the fetal calf serum that is an integral part of mammalian culture systems, but it's pretty disgusting.

[herpguy]

In response to the OP:

I am undecided with my view on animal testing. I mean, the animals can feel pain, like us [humans]. Also, I think it's wrong to kill anything.

 

However, it may be just a bit better that an animal gets hurt than a human.

[Dr. Dalek]

Actually, such cell cultures are far from cruelty-free. I'll be decorous for once and not say how exactly they get the fetal calf serum that is an integral part of mammalian culture systems, but it's pretty disgusting.

 

I couldn't help but look it up, your right it is disgusting.

[Steph]

Heck yeah man. Who is more entertaining: Human or mouse?

 

Mouse.

 

Which costs more to feed? Human.

So what should we do? Kill the humans.

 

I think that mice are actually becoming more intelligent than humans. I have has this one mouse in my kitchen for the past few month and I swear that sucker has gymnastic skills. Do humans have gymnastic skills? No.

 

I mean mice have more potential to pull off skillful moves' date=' they are more cunning. They have more sense.

 

Unlike people who can't figure out that their girlfriend is goona cheat on them, mice are pimp.

 

Don't kill mice. Kill humans.[/quote']

 

exactly... mice have found a way to eat reproduce tremendously with no effort at all... research!

 

really though... is there an alternative that provides no suffering... to anything? (i mean, if you stop experiments on animal to have humans dying left and right, you just shifted the burden)

[bosun]

I would just like to say that animal testing is WRONG! we shouldn't sacrifice an animals life for humans it is selfish and inhumane. People are saying that you can't prove that animals suffer pain but why risnk it? im sure none of you would like to be caged up and only let out to be tested on. If humans want to live then it is them who should be sacrificed. Why dont we test our products on rapists and murderers and pedofiles then there not just rotting away in a prison there being made use of. It is not fair because animals have no vioce and no way of defending it self it is slavery. Humans have took over everything and now they think they own the world when there are ceatures on this earth who have lived longer then us! Humans weakness is greed and everthing just seems to be about money.

 

Any way be sides the piont animal testing is wrong and should be band and especially for produncts like shampoo and body spray because that is even more pethetic!!

[Sayonara]

I would just like to say that animal testing is WRONG! we shouldn't sacrifice an animals life for humans it is selfish and inhumane.

These are called "conclusions". They come after the reasoning, not before it.

 

People are saying that you can't prove that animals suffer pain but why risnk it?

Because the current alternatives suck even more.

 

im sure none of you would like to be caged up and only let out to be tested on.

No, probably not, but that doesn't really mean anything does it?

 

If humans want to live then it is them who should be sacrificed.

Do you not see the fatal flaw in this approach? (pun intentional)

 

Why dont we test our products on rapists and murderers and pedofiles then there not just rotting away in a prison there being made use of.

Because (a) that would be a severe breach of human rights, and (b) it would be worse than the "inhumane" behaviour you are currently decrying.

 

It is not fair because animals have no vioce and no way of defending it self it is slavery.

The responses to this have already been made in the thread. Refute those replies instead of stating the same position again.

 

Humans have took over everything and now they think they own the world

Yes, you generally do own something when you take it over. It might not be top draw for all the fluffy bunnies but that's the way the trophic web crumbles and if they don't like it, they had better just go and evolve faster.

 

when there are ceatures on this earth who have lived longer then us!

Meaningless. Rate of adaptation is key to survival.

 

Humans weakness is greed and everthing just seems to be about money.

This is true, but it doesn't relate very well to any of your blanket statements about animal testing.

 

Any way be sides the piont animal testing is wrong and should be band and especially for produncts like shampoo and body spray because that is even more pethetic!!

Yes, let's ignore pharmaceuticals and life saving drugs. That will work.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

As a sidenote, you shouldn't need large-point custom fonts to make your point.

[Dak]

reguardless of wether it's justified or not, i dont think there's any doubt that its ethically undesireable.

 

I wonder: if x% of the research from labs that utilise animal research were to be focused on developing animal-test-substitutes -- cultures, plant tumours, in-vitro grown organs, etc -- how many experiments that currently would use animals could be done in other ways after just a few years?

 

i know that some experiments need a fully alive organism, but i suspect that many could be avoided if only we'd make the effort to develop other experimental techniques.

[reyam200]

People are saying that you can't prove that animals suffer pain[/size']

 

umm, they do feel pain. if you kick a dog, it will yelp. if you step on a cats paw, it will yauwll and hiss.

[Mokele]

reguardless of wether it's justified or not, i dont think there's any doubt that its ethically undesireable.

 

I strongly disagree. Ethics are totally arbitrary; my ethics are not necessarily yours. Frankly, is pure, non-applied knowledge worth some death? In my view, yes.

 

i know that some experiments need a fully alive organism, but i suspect that many could be avoided if only we'd make the effort to develop other experimental techniques.

 

It's a systems problem. You can test a drug on in-vitro stomachs and find that it cures indigestion without any side-effects, but without organism-scale testing, your company won't know that it also causes birth defects until the lawsuits start rolling in and thousands of lives have been ruined.

 

Mokele

[Dr. Dalek]

I strongly disagree. Ethics are totally arbitrary; my ethics are not necessarily yours. Frankly' date=' is pure, non-applied knowledge worth some death? In my view, yes.

Mokele[/quote']

I find it interesting that animals don't bother themselves with ethical questions, and yet we spend so much time on the ethics of something involving animals.

[Mokele]

The human brain is the most elaborate device for wasting time ever, to the point where it generates means of wasting time (golf, the internet) while wasting time.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

umm, they do feel pain. if you kick a dog, it will yelp. if you step on a cats paw, it will yauwll[/i'] and hiss.

But does it feel pain the same way a human does, or is that a reflex reaction to excess pressure?

[Mokele]

But does it feel pain the same way a human does, or is that a reflex reaction to excess pressure?

 

We actually had a seminar speaker on the subject of animal pain a while back. One of the key points was to distinguish between nociception (detection of noxious or damaging stimuli) and pain. Essentially, even decapitated animals can respond automatically to noxious stimuli, as to humans (touching a hot stove). He then noted that apparently there's a special dose level of morphine that, for humans and mammals, results in the patient not feeling pain, but being concious and aware of damaging stimuli. They know it *should* hurt, and know what's happening, but it doesn't hurt. When mice are dosed at this level, they respond to classical conditioning, but not operant conditioning via painful reinforcement. So essentially, his theory goes that pain exists so our brain can learn from it. It's therefore likely (not proven, but likely) that an animal which can learn operantly from negative stimuli can feel pain, or something analagous to pain.

 

Of course, that's just his perspective, but it's actually got some experimental data to back it up, which puts it far ahead of most opinions on the matter.

 

Mokele

[sami17]

I personally think it’s sick that people would put animals at the same level as humans. Even if they can suffer' date=' they are ANIMALS. How could you possibly choose an animals life over a humans. I wouldn't mind slaughtering a thousand animals to save one human life.

 

Sometimes it seems like people think humans should be running through fields naked being chased by lions. Kill or be killed.

 

If a rabbit has to suffer puffy eyes so I don’t have to then so be it.

 

Animal testing has saved millions of lives and I think the people who would try to change that are sicker than the people doing the testing.

 

Of course I'm not talking about the useless testing, but you guys are making generalizations that animal testing is bad.[/quote']

 

how can u treat an animal with no respect like that

[Sayonara]

how can u treat an animal with no respect like that

Please try to add something to the discussion next time.

[JaKiri]

how can u treat an animal with no respect like that

 

Animals don't respect me. I give those guinea pigs food and water all the time, and when I ask them, nicely, to be quiet while Doctor Who is on, what do they do?

 

Bloody freeloaders.

[Mokele]

how can u treat an animal with no respect like that

 

Treating things with respect does not mean treating them with equal levels of respect. I treat my animals and my friends with respect, but not equal levels. I don't even treat all people with equal levels of respect (or any respect, depending on the person).

 

Mokele