Animal Testing - Right or Wrong?

[arielle1995]

ANIMAL testing is disgusting its wrong it shouldnt be done why should animals have to suffer a slow painful experiance and probly end up dead why do people think its okay is there something wrong with you its horrible animals have the same rights as people so everyone who thinks it right can go get stuffed

the end!

 

i personally don't see what's so wrong with animal testing.

whats wrong with you! Its horrible i hate you

[iNow]

You followed some link from some other site here, didn't you? Not only is this an old conversation, but you have only come in to yell at people and spout your own ideology.

 

You are against animal testing. I get that. That's fine. Many people are.

There aren't any people here arguing that animals be harmed or suffer.

However, many of us have benefited from the tests on animals, and respect the work being done, and we also strongly support protections on the animals.

 

We're not talking about spraying hair spray in their eyes or putting cats in mircrowaves, so stop acting like it.

 

It's okay that you think animal testing is wrong. That's a valid opinion.

However, it's also a valid opinion that, if animals are protected in the maximum possible way, that they can serve as a huge benefit to our entire species with what they help us learn.

 

Either way, this animal protection terrorism shit I'm seeing everywhere really needs to stop.

[Sayonara]

Not to mention the factual innaccuracies, such as... oh I don't know... animals having the same rights as humans. They don't.

 

I wish people would read the thread before posting so they at least have some grasp about the basics of the complex issue that they somehow feel outraged about.

[pioneer]

I don't have a problem using animals for testing. Until the science can evolve, we are sort of stuck with this lessor of two evils. The alternative would be like in the olden days. The doctor who was trying to make a new medicine, who believed in doing no harm, would test it on himself first. If you were less confident in your state of the art, you would use other humans. If you are have even less confidence in your state of the art, use animals. If you have even less confidence than that, use a lot of animals. The state of the art is currently somewhere between 3-4. There is not much we can do, until the state of the art improves.

 

The animal activists are trying to shift 3-4 closer to 3 or 2, by placing strict limits on the number of animals. There is a resistance because the state of the art may not be advanced enough and the whole system could come to a screeching halt. That could means far fewer things coming out of the system that can help humans.

 

In the U.S., the numbers of rats and mice used are not reported, but have been estimated at 15-20 million.[1]

I am not sure is that is closer to 3 or 4, but it still generates a lot of good things.

[Phi for All]

ANIMAL testing is disgusting its wrong it shouldnt be done why should animals have to suffer a slow painful experiance and probly end up dead why do people think its okay is there something wrong with you its horrible animals have the same rights as people so everyone who thinks it right can go get stuffed

the end!

We will now be using people who don't punctuate instead of animals for such testing.

[insane_alien]

We will now be using people who don't punctuate instead of animals for such testing.

 

oh crap

[oranphil]

I agree with medical science to use mice to test drugs but it angers me to hear that animals are used for cosmetics it just plain wrong what's the point?

[Sayonara]

Rabbits look much better with blusher and a bit of lippy.

[iNow]

I agree with medical science to use mice to test drugs but it angers me to hear that animals are used for cosmetics it just plain wrong what's the point?

 

It's no where near as common as it used to be, but it does still happen. They are testing for toxicity.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing#Cosmetics_testing

Cosmetics testing on animals is particularly controversial. Such tests, which are still conducted in the U.S., involve general toxicity, eye and skin irritancy, phototoxicity (toxicity triggered by ultraviolet light) and mutagenicity.

 

Cosmetics testing is banned in the Netherlands, Belgium, and the UK, and in 2002, after 13 years of discussion, the European Union (EU) agreed to phase in a near-total ban on the sale of animal-tested cosmetics throughout the EU from 2009, and to ban all cosmetics-related animal testing. France, which is home to the world's largest cosmetics company, L'Oreal, has protested the proposed ban by lodging a case at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, asking that the ban be quashed. The ban is also opposed by the European Federation for Cosmetics Ingredients, which represents 70 companies in Switzerland, Belgium, France, Germany and Italy.

[lucaspa]

If you think animal testing is just " no big deal", then how bout you let me lock you in a cage,and make you puff till you puke.

 

You are arguing "apples" and "oranges". You are saying that the rules we appy within our species -- how we treat members of our own species -- apply to other species. This is a does-not-follow. EVERY species exploits and uses some other species. This is going to result in your starving

 

For instance, you use the argument of "intellect".

If you think animals have no "intellect", then how about we test your ****ing intellect, swank.

 

You think because they don't speak, they don't have intellect?

 

Would you say that plants have no "intellect"? You can't, using your own arguments! Yet you kill -- painfully -- plants for food. You rip them apart. Using your own arguments, you should not be engaging in this behavior. But if you don't, you starve.

 

You think something with basic ****ing survival skills should be used for our ****ing pleasure.

 

None of us are talking about "pleasure". We are talking about health and survival. All of the people arguing for using animals in research pretty much agree that painful testing without analgesics on animals for such things as a new shampoo or makeup is unethical. Instead, we have been pointing out that animal tests have been replaced by tests on cultured human cells.

 

What we are talking about is more fundamental: drugs to prevent heart attacks, relieve rheumatoid arthritis, treatments for heart attacks, cancer, etc. For instance, my current research project is using an animal model of bone fractures where a large amount of bone is missing to test the ability of adult stem cells to regenerate that bone. The use in humans would be to prevent amputation and loss of mobility to people suffering trauma where there is massive bone loss. This isn't "makeup" but rather their very lives and the ability to walk again. The animals are given all the appropriate analgesics (like humans would be given) to combat pain.

 

Now, are you just as angry at this research as you are about animals being used as test subjects in the cosmetic industry?

 

ANIMAL testing is disgusting its wrong it shouldnt be done why should animals have to suffer a slow painful experiance and probly end up dead

 

You seem to have some misconceptions.

First, in scientific research the animals receive appropriate pain medication so they are not suffering. No more than a human in the same situation.

 

Second, we all end up dead. However, in scientific research the rules are such that the experiment can't kill the animal. The methods allowed for euthanasia are very specific and are all painless.

 

why do people think its okay is there something wrong with you its horrible animals have the same rights as people

 

That's the faulty premise. Animals do not have the same "rights" as people. "Rights" are things humans allow to other humans. They are not independent entities that can apply to other species.

[profescher]

May i offer a calm unbiased opinion?

 

Animal testing is not nice, but sometimes it is necessary, mainly in the medical arena but sometimes others.

 

You cannot treat a person not knowing the full effects of of the medicine, especially where it relates to children, pregnant women and vulnerable people. Nor can one compare the mental effects and physical pain an untested drug can cause a patient and thier family, with the suffering of an animal drugs have been tested on and say it is okay to do it to a human and not an animal. Very often animals do not suffer pain during drug testing. And where animals are used stringent conditions must be met before licenses are granted and said license is a legal agreement to minimise unnecessary suffering.

 

Did you know all animal medicine is derived from human medicine? So the testing benefits many animals as well as humans.

 

None of this excuses unnecessary animal testing, I personally disagree with cosmetic testing and do what i can by ensuring i purchase items not tested on animals, consumer demand is a powerful tool.

 

Canary's used to be used in coal mines as an early waring sign of toxic gas that could kill or even explode, it saved many miners lives and thier families, poor people who struggled to put food on the table. It cost the canary it's life, but saved the miner and in those days if the miner had died his family would usually starve to death. It was animal testing, can you say it was wrong??

[liposuction]

Hello..

 

I think its wrong..

If we doing the testing on animal then it should be an a wrong because if we test on a person then person always says no so that the animal is also dont agree to doing the testing..

[iNow]

IMO... This thread needs locking... What can be said has been said already, and there's no reason to continue letting random noobs who followed a link from somewhere come in to repeat the same tired stuff which has already been addressed.

[Mokele]

On the other hand, it does provide a sort of catchment, a place where newbs can just add their opinion to the pile, rather than creating new threads.

[codificado]

Hello

 

My name is Vanesa, from Barcelone (Spain). I am biologist and I have been working in a research laboratory for 9 years.

During this time, I have had the opportunity to be in close contact with the work developed on different Animal Care Centers with a great variety of animal models from mice to monkey, including rat, dog, rabbit, etc., which made me realize the importance of laboratory animal care and welfare.

Personally, I am agree with the use of animals on scientific research, but not as it is understood 20 years ago, but as it is conceived at present.

In Spain, every scientific how wants to work with animals have to get an special accreditation from the University ( the FELASA accreditation board training and education in laboratory animal science). To get this accreditation, you have to carry out a 60 hours course were specialist on animal research talk about one main idea: animal welfare, developing the three Rs theory:

Replacement of experimental animals by alternatives.

Refinement of housing, handling and experimental procedures to reduce discomfort, pain, fear, stress and suffering.

Reduction of numbers of animals used.

 

Even if you are correctly authorized, you have to write every assay based on animal and wait for the OK of an special ethical committee in order to start the assay.

 

So I think (or I want to think) that for present science based on animal models, the animal welfare is the first, and the results the second.

 

Vane

[lucaspa]

Hello..

 

I think its wrong..

If we doing the testing on animal then it should be an a wrong because if we test on a person then person always says no so that the animal is also dont agree to doing the testing..

 

That is an ethical problem with animal research as compared to human research: animals cannot give informed consent. It is an ethical problem that has been extensively discussed in the scientific and medical communities.

 

The consensus is that the reduced cognitive abilities of other species compared to humans is one reason why research using them is justified. IOW, the very inability to understand and give informed consent places animals outside the ethical principles we are required to use for members of our own species.

 

All species exploit other species, especially animal species. In order to survive, animals must cause the death and dismemberment of other species -- either plants or animals. We don't hesitate to rip a corn plant out of the ground (killing it) because the corn plant is unable to give "informed consent" to its use as food for us.

 

Bottom line: the idea of informed consent is an ethic that applies only within our own species, not between species.

[abluvsmonkeys]

There are things wrong with animal testing! The following is how I feel. I strongly disagree with the fact that animals are tested on.

Why should we risk the animal's lives for the benefit of us humans?

Why are we more valuable than animals?

We test on

Rodents 84% of the time

Fish, amphibians, reptiles 12% of the time

Large mammals 2.1% of the time

Small mammals 1.4% of the time

Dogs and cats 0.3% of the time

Primates 0.1% of the time

This is not right! Why should we waste a living creature's life

to test out makeup

or shampoo products! Sometimes it is medicines to help humans, but it

isn't doing ANYTHING for the animals, now is it!? It is totally not fair.

Research reveals that only 5 to 25% of the animal tests and human

results are agreeable! Most of the drugs passed by animal tests are

now discarded as useless to humans – then why test in the first place?

Think about it. Living creatures are now our supplies for an experiment,

basically saying they are as useless as a piece of pipecleaner, or glitter

glue.

 

There are actually more than 400 different ways that people can

effectively replace animal experiments.

It is important to consider the options because AT LEAST thirty-three

animals die in laboratories each second worldwide. There is no doubt

that medical progress can be achieved without abusing animals.

 

I think I have proved my point.

[Mokele]

I think I have proved my point.

 

No, you haven't, and you haven't said anything that hasn't been thoroughly addressed.

 

Here's a quarter, go buy an informed opinion.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Most of the drugs passed by animal tests are

now discarded as useless to humans – then why test in the first place?

To see if the drugs might be useful in humans.

 

[GDG]

There are actually more than 400 different ways that people can

effectively replace animal experiments.

It is important to consider the options because AT LEAST thirty-three

animals die in laboratories each second worldwide. There is no doubt

that medical progress can be achieved without abusing animals.

 

I think I have proved my point.

 

Sorry, this is completely untrue. With regard to drug development, animal testing is required by law in every country of which I am aware, and there is no effective substitute. Even though you can model some biological systems by computer, biological systems are too complicated to completely model. Even with animal testing, one sometimes finds unexpected side effects. There are zero effective ways to replace animal experiments for development of drugs, or even new cosmetics.

 

With regard to cosmetics, you can boycott new products (old products don't need more testing), or boycott cosmetics altogether. If it is a question between developing a new drug that might save the health of one of my children sometime in the future, or the lives of 100 lab rats (bred specifically for medical research, BTW), I'll pick my children every time.

 

So, are you a vegan as well?

[SH3RL0CK]

There is no doubt

that medical progress can be achieved without abusing animals.

 

But how much slower would this progress be? And how many additional people would die as the progress slows down? How much additional pain and suffering would people have as they do not have access to miracle drugs that otherwise would be available?

 

I think I have proved my point.

 

To quote Mokele (since I can't say it any better): No, you haven't.

[lucaspa]

Why should we risk the animal's lives for the benefit of us humans?

 

Because every animal species kills other species for their benefit.

 

Why are we more valuable than animals?

 

Why aren't we?

We test on

 

Rodents 84% of the time

Fish, amphibians, reptiles 12% of the time

Large mammals 2.1% of the time

Small mammals 1.4% of the time

Dogs and cats 0.3% of the time

Primates 0.1% of the time

 

Have you considered why the proportions are like this? We use rodents the most because 1) they are mammals and 2) they are relatively inexpensive.

 

I think you have overrepresented the fish, amphibians, and reptiles. I notice there are no insects listed, but they are also animals. In fact, this list is only vertebrate animals. So it seems like you care only about vertebrates, not all animals.

 

As we get to dogs, cats, rabbits (small mammals), large mammals, and primates, the cost to use those animals (purchase and housing costs) increases a lot. Notice that, if we really did this based only on closeness to us, we would use primates 99% of the time.

 

Why should we waste a living creature's life to test out makeup

or shampoo products!

 

Because, until recently, we had no other way to determine if those products were safe for humans. Now, however, cultured human fibroblasts are used.

 

Sometimes it is medicines to help humans, but it isn't doing ANYTHING for the animals, now is it!? It is totally not fair.

 

Irrelevant. However, I do call your attention to the drugs and surgical prodecures used by vets. Those animals did benefit from animal research, didn't they?

 

Research reveals that only 5 to 25% of the animal tests and human

results are agreeable! Most of the drugs passed by animal tests are

now discarded as useless to humans – then why test in the first place?

 

To eliminate all the possible drugs that are harmful to humans. You forget that a lot of the animal testing is for safety. If the drug is harmful to a rat, then it is probably harmful to a person, also.

 

Think about it. Living creatures are now our supplies for an experiment, basically saying they are as useless as a piece of pipecleaner, or glitter

 

That's a bad non-sequitor. Also apples and oranges. Yes, living creatures are part of the "supplies" for an experiment, but are far more useful than a pipecleaner or glitter. Rather, they are as useful as a pipet, pipet aid, cell culture media, cell culture plates, electrophoresis plates, etc. You've got to compare animals with the other supplies used in experiments, not with things that are not used in experiments.

 

There are actually more than 400 different ways that people can

effectively replace animal experiments.

 

Please document them. In particular, please document the way I can replace animal experiments in looking at new treatments for non-union fractures or degenerative disc disease. That is my current research, and I'm required to list any possible alternatives to animals in the IACUC forms. If you have such an alternative and really want to stop animal research, then you need to tell me which of those "400 ways" will replace animal experiments in my area.

 

There is no doubt that medical progress can be achieved without abusing animals.

 

Now you raised another point -- abuse. If you mean that any use of animals = abuse, then history shows that medical progress cannot be achieved without using animals. If abuse = inflicting pain without without the appropriate pain medication, then yes, most medical progress (except neurobiology) can be achieved without abuse.

 

I think I have proved my point.

 

Think again.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

My lab technician brought up an interesting point (he was commenting on my doing IACUC forms):

 

People will allow the most inhumane killing of mice and rats in their homes, but want lots of restrictions on how to treat them in research.

 

I wonder if any of the people advocating "animal rights" allows mice and rats to live in and freely roam in their houses or whether they set out traps and poisons to kill them. If animals have "rights" in regard to research and can't be killed in the course of research, then how can animal rights advocates allow the killing of mice and rats that set up housekeeping in the homes of people?

[Klumm]

im new here and this is my first reply and im think a compromise can be made between the right and wrong of animal testing. I belive only naughty animals should be tested on. Like the dogs that bite and instead of being put to sleepy byes for ever should be tested on to teach them a real lessonxx P.S guys im singlexxx

[Mokele]

You also sound like you're about 7 years old, at least mentally.

[Sayonara]

im new here and this is my first reply and im think a compromise can be made between the right and wrong of animal testing. I belive only naughty animals should be tested on. Like the dogs that bite and instead of being put to sleepy byes for ever should be tested on to teach them a real lessonxx P.S guys im singlexxx

What about testing on the owner who failed to teach their pet how to behave around humans. Would that be better or worse?