Is animal testing bad?

[ennui]

As I've delved further into science, I've realised how much research depends on animal testing. Lots of experiments in genetics and medicine are based on knock-out mice, rabbit-developed antibodies, and many more besides.

 

Personally I'm a vegetarian. However, I ultimately believe that human life (and happiness) is more important than other animals. I'd probably do animal testing if it was necessary for medical research.

 

What are your thoughts on this in vivo stuff? Do you think animal testing is good, bad, or something else? Are animal models required for biological and medical advancements?

[mrburns2012]

As I've delved further into science, I've realised how much research depends on animal testing. Lots of experiments in genetics and medicine are based on knock-out mice, rabbit-developed antibodies, and many more besides.

 

Personally I'm a vegetarian. However, I ultimately believe that human life (and happiness) is more important than other animals. I'd probably do animal testing if it was necessary for medical research.

 

What are your thoughts on this in vivo stuff? Do you think animal testing is good, bad, or something else? Are animal models required for biological and medical advancements?

 

To study human physiology, pathology, etc..., animal models are absolutely not required since we could always perform in vivo experiments directly on humans. Unfortunately, I think you would run into problems looking for volunteers . On the other hand, in vivo experiments are very important because we simply don't know enough to predict everything from in vitro experiments.

[iNow]

Required for what?

 

Sometimes these experiments ARE required, sometimes they are not. Depends on the goal, what is being studied, and whether or not ALL other alternatives have proven unhelpful.

 

The simple fact is that we DO need to use animals in tests, and that we exercise extreme caution to minimize the negative impact to them, and extreme oversight to ensure we only test on them when it's really necessary to do so.

[CharonY]

Sounds like an ethics questions to me. Depending how the thread goes I am inclined to move it into the Bioethics section.

[GDG]

If you are talking about animal testing for new drugs, it is required by law. Before you administer a drug to a human, you are required to file an Investigational New Drug application ("IND"). To have the IND allowed, you are required to submit toxicology and activity data, using several representative species of animals. Metabolism is too complex to simply calculate: there is no substitute for actual experiment.

[ennui]

Sounds like an ethics questions to me. Depending how the thread goes I am inclined to move it into the Bioethics section.

 

Is there one? I didn't notice. Yes please, that would be good.

[Mokele]

To study human physiology, pathology, etc..., animal models are absolutely not required since we could always perform in vivo experiments directly on humans.

 

The last person to skip the animal model was Dr. Josef Mengele, of Auschwitz death camp.

 

There is absolutely no ethical justification for skipping the animal model - it would result in the massive sacrifice of human lives in exchange for a few mice.

 

What are your thoughts on this in vivo stuff? Do you think animal testing is good, bad, or something else? Are animal models required for biological and medical advancements?

 

I've thought about this extensively, and debated it several times. Not only is there absolutely no way around animal models, I have *never* found an objection to it which wasn't superficial, purely emotion, ultimately contradictory or rooted in deeply flawed philosophy.

 

Mokele

[ignora]

Animals feel pain too, but we have no other options. Drugs need to be tested before they are given to humans. I am against it though.

[GDG]

Animals feel pain too, but we have no other options. Drugs need to be tested before they are given to humans. I am against it though.

 

Just out of curiosity, what is it that you are against? Testing drugs on animals first, or developing new drugs altogether? There are still many diseases and disorders that do not have effective treatments.

[visceral]

Yes it is bad.

 

Animals owe us nothing.

 

Yes, yes, I know...a few should suffer for the good of all...well if you believe that, you volunteer to be tested on yourself.

[Mokele]

That's probably the most superficial, poorly-reasoned point of view yet posted in this thread.

 

Fail.

[the tree]

That's probably the most superficial, poorly-reasoned point of view yet posted in this thread.

Just to expand upon this point:

 

Animals owe us nothing.

1. That is irrelevent, the justification for animal testing has got nothing to do with barterd favours.
   
2. Bearing in mind that animals for testing are usually bred for that purpose - there is thier whole damn existance.
   

 

Yes, yes, I know...a few should suffer for the good of all...

An obvious strawman. If anyone severely in favour of animal testing were to use that argument then they'd be running on the assumption that the inherent worth of sentient beings can be compared to that of non sentient beings - not an inherently flawed assumption, at all, but it's ludicrous to suggest that everyone thinks that.

 

well if you believe that, you volunteer to be tested on yourself.

People do, all the time. Some accept money for it. Others do it because existing medicine isn't going to help. But in case it had somehow averted your attention the human life cycle is too long for development testing. Why do you think mice are tested on more than turtles?

 

Before searching for evidence, before ensuring continuity in logic, before checking for spelling and grammar errors - look at your post and think "is this not incredibly stupid".

[SkepticLance]

The simple answer is that there is no simple answer.

In other words, it all depends....

 

If a test is important enough, and if the experimenters do all they can to prevent unnecessary suffering, then the testing can be justified - at least to me.

 

Sadly, there are still a lot of trivial and unnecessary tests carried out on animals, in which much suffering is inflicted. It is hard to justify those tests.

[GDG]

Sadly, there are still a lot of trivial and unnecessary tests carried out on animals, in which much suffering is inflicted. It is hard to justify those tests.

 

This is a common misconception. Animal testing is fairly heavily regulated by the USDA. Research facilities that conduct animal testing are required to have an animal welfare ethics board ("Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee" or "IACUC"), and all experiments and protocols must be approved. The board must include at least one veterinarian, and members who are not affiliated with the research facility. The researcher must certify in writing that the proposed experiment is not an unnecessary duplication of other work.

 

You can find the full text of the regulations at the USDA website. Grab a cup of coffee before you start reading In all respects, animals must be treated humanely.

[Sayonara]

Can the OP please show how this thread is going to be different from the epic mammoth discussion we have previously had on this very topic?

 

(Because if not, -50 redundant.)

[Xittenn]

On the other hand, in vivo experiments are very important because we simply don't know enough to predict everything from in vitro experiments.

 

Work in progress...............

http://www.organogenesis.com/products/bioaesthetics/testskin.html

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/msad05Oct99_1.htm

 

Moke:

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.

 

A few mentions of two many combinations to be tested...mammoth thread not much more that I could find.....................

 

I'm not seeing the justification for the disreguard of this form of research; or at least not enough!

 

I'm sure with enough effort a more complete in-vitro testing system could prove effective in at least reducing drug trials on animals to a small fraction of what is current.

Edited March 11, 2009 by buttacup

[Mr Skeptic]

Do you think animal testing is good, bad, or something else?

 

A necessary evil.

 

Are animal models required for biological and medical advancements?

 

Yes, but hopefully we will eventually have less crude (and far cheaper) methods. We already do have some alternatives to reduce the amount of animal testing, such as testing on human cell lines. However, eventually most drugs will need testing in a living creature or simulation thereof -- and we don't have good enough simulations, so this means testing in animals and later humans. It is imperfect, slow, expensive, and pisses off animal rights groups, but for now it is the best we have.

[MM6]

On philosophical-religious grounds using animals in research is saying that animals have less intrinsic value than humans. I don't share that philosophy.

 

Scientifically speaking I don't see the distinction in value between a bat a tree a bacterium and human. They are all valuable parts of their ecological niche. In fact, one could make the argument that fungi and bacteria (decomposers) are ecologically more valuable than humans.

 

Personally, animal research disgusts me on the grounds noted above, especially to conduct it first-hand. But I have less of problem doing research on yeast or bacteria. That's a glitch in my ethical code. Also, given the choice between a young girl being hit by a car or a squirrel, I would choose the girl to live. There is another inconsistency in my ethical code. It's not purely black and white. I'm not sure why that is--maybe I am just looking out for my own "kind" first.

 

As others have pointed out animal models are necessary to medical research.

[Mr Skeptic]

So animals and bacteria and people all have equal value, except that people have more value? Doesn't seem all that consistent to me. I think a human is more valuable than several animals. What can I say, I'm biased in favor of my species. I might see sacrificing a human or two for an entire species though. Not that I could see any circumstances where that would happen.

 

On that note, what if the "car" you mentioned were replaced with "potentially fatal medicinal research"?

[MM6]

So animals and bacteria and people all have equal value, except that people have more value? Doesn't seem all that consistent to me.

 

No shit Einstein, I said that myself.

 

Where I draw my line of value for humans vs other organisms gives more value to other organisms relative to what most other people would give, it seems. But I'm not a loon. I disinfect my bathroom weekly killing millions of bacteria and fungi. I would not as easily dispatch a million human beings. I would have to be a loon for my ethical code to be airtight.

 

I think a human is more valuable than several animals. What can I say, I'm biased in favor of my species. I might see sacrificing a human or two for an entire species though. Not that I could see any circumstances where that would happen.

 

Those are curiously arbitrary quantities, several animals and one or two humans. And that's why I dislike ethical discussions. They are fuzzy and squashy and completely arbitrary at the end of the day. We might as well argue about our favorite color.

 

What about saving an endangered tree, or the spotted owl? This puts people out of jobs (for some extent of time). During that time period an individual or two so unemployed may lack the medical insurance needed to treat their daughter's acute lymphoblastic leukemia. There are numerous realistic scenarios we can imagine.

 

On that note, what if the "car" you mentioned were replaced with "potentially fatal medicinal research"?

 

The difference in the analogy is obvious. People don't accidentally conduct medical research, and vice-versa people don't aim their cars at squirrels or young girls (usually). One is a premeditated act, the other is not. The comparison is invalid.

 

You'll notice I didn't say that I'm against animal research, only that it disgusts me, but not to the point where I'm going to wage a campaign against it. My training is as a biomedical scientist. I understand as well as anyone the need for animal research in the progression of human health.

 

I think a human is more valuable than several animals. What can I say, I'm biased in favor of my species. I might see sacrificing a human or two for an entire species though. Not that I could see any circumstances where that would happen.

 

I'm curious if your bias ends with your species. Would you choose a person with the same background (likes/dislikes, politics, nationality, ethnicity) as you to live over someone more "different" to you? What about someone closely related to you? Do they have more value than others?

[jake.com]

No shit Einstein, I said that myself.

 

Where I draw my line of value for humans vs other organisms gives more value to other organisms relative to what most other people would give, it seems. But I'm not a loon. I disinfect my bathroom weekly killing millions of bacteria and fungi. I would not as easily dispatch a million human beings. I would have to be a loon for my ethical code to be airtight.

 

 

 

Those are curiously arbitrary quantities, several animals and one or two humans. And that's why I dislike ethical discussions. They are fuzzy and squashy and completely arbitrary at the end of the day. We might as well argue about our favorite color.

 

What about saving an endangered tree, or the spotted owl? This puts people out of jobs (for some extent of time). During that time period an individual or two so unemployed may lack the medical insurance needed to treat their daughter's acute lymphoblastic leukemia. There are numerous realistic scenarios we can imagine.

 

 

 

The difference in the analogy is obvious. People don't accidentally conduct medical research, and vice-versa people don't aim their cars at squirrels or young girls (usually). One is a premeditated act, the other is not. The comparison is invalid.

 

You'll notice I didn't say that I'm against animal research, only that it disgusts me, but not to the point where I'm going to wage a campaign against it. My training is as a biomedical scientist. I understand as well as anyone the need for animal research in the progression of human health.

 

 

 

I'm curious if your bias ends with your species. Would you choose a person with the same background (likes/dislikes, politics, nationality, ethnicity) as you to live over someone more "different" to you? What about someone closely related to you? Do they have more value than others?

 

Hey, my trick knee's actin' up... I feel a hatecrime lawsuit abroilin'.

[Tsuyoiko]

I have *never* found an objection to it which wasn't superficial, purely emotion, ultimately contradictory or rooted in deeply flawed philosophy

 

How about this one?

 

My personal view is that any attempt to draw an arbitrary distinction between humans and other animals is just speciesism, which in my opinion is no better than other forms of discrimination, such as racism, sexism or homophobia. I have reached this conclusion not through sentimentality, but by logical consideration. Bonobos pass the mirror test for self-awareness; they communicate with each other through vocalisation and can communicate with us using lexigrams; they can use tools; an adult bonobo is more intelligent than a human baby. Given these facts, under what criteria is it unacceptable to experiment on a human baby, but acceptable to experiment on an adult bonobo? Pure chauvinism, in my opinion.

 

Better men than me have expressed moral discomfiture about speciesism; Richard Dawkins makes a good case in this essay.

 

I'm not suggesting we ban animal experiments or start experimenting on babies! Organisations like USDA and CAAT work to ensure that animal experiments take place only when there is no alternative, and that those experiments that do take place are done in such a way as to minimise suffering. At the same time, I think we should openly acknowledge that we are committing speciesism, which, although morally wrong, is sometimes necessary.

[Mokele]

I don't think anyone really doubts that we're biased towards our own species, but it's not really a good argument against it, since all morality is nothing but ancient behavioral protocols from our origins as a troop primate. And as you note yourself, it's still necessary, and we have no alternative.

 

Plus, IME, we deal with the speciesism issue pretty well - primates are rarely experimented on, and great apes almost never, in part due to their known intelligence, and when they are, it's because the benefits are so enormous that they swamp everything else. For work with smaller impacts, we use much stupider animals, such as mice.

[Lan(r)12]

MM6 totally owned MrSkeptic on post #20

 

As long as the animals are treated humanely like some people claim they are (and my bio prof has stories about her grad studies that would beg to differ), and they are only tested when absolutely needed, then I would have no problem with it.

[Mokele]

As long as the animals are treated humanely like some people claim they are (and my bio prof has stories about her grad studies that would beg to differ), and they are only tested when absolutely needed, then I would have no problem with it.

 

Honestly, infractions are pretty rare, IME, and are heavily punished by the authorities if discovered. Lab animal use is regulated by over half a dozen groups, governmental and non-governmental, and even minor infractions can cost the lab $10,000 per day until the situation is rectified. Major infractions can result in a faculty member and/or student losing the ability to work with animals ever, which is basically the end of their scientific career.