Animal Testing

gerontophobia.:

I use tested-on-animal products. I just truly hate the procedures. Bu as I said before, testing on animals isin't ever going to stop, and while i'm still living with my parents (which will be for another 4 years or more) I really don't have a choice in what I use, unless I pay for it myself.

And what i'm asking is why don't we test on humans? You keep telling me that we need animal testing to help the world and deseases, but you never answer why we can't use humans instead.

I'm not talking about products, not something like shampoo.
I'm talking about life saving medicine. When you're old enough, will you seriously deny life saving medicine 'cause it's animal tested?

I've answered that.

kurea-desu:

gerontophobia.:

Then why not test on HUMANS?
I don't get it.

Um... they do test on humans.
The amount of adverts I've seen for people to volunteer for medical research is ridiculous.
But with human test subjects it's more risky. There was a thing a while back where a bunch of people died from medical research tests, and the lab got sued.Plus, like I said, people [usually] value human lives higher than animals, and would prefer to kill an animal accidentally than a human.

gerontophobia.:

So it's alright for animals to die, and not human? Why is that right? They feel pain like us, they suffer like us, and they know that they are dying, like us. So why do they deserve to die any more than we do? It's OUR tests, OUR cures they're trying to find. Not animal cures. So why use animals?

Well, I believe it's alright for animals to die and not humans, because I value human life higher than animals. I've said this thousands of times, but it's true. I'm a human, so I'd save human's over animals. I don't want to hurt animals, but I think my species is more important.
I mean, that's a completely natural way to look at it.
If I had a choice between shooting a dog, and shooting a person. I'd shoot the dog. It's the same thing, it's to save human lives.

gerontophobia.:

And yeah, if I ever get a desease, i'll use something tested on animals. I said that animal testing was wrong, not that i'm some crazy vegan PETA activist who'd rather die then use something tested on animals. (no offence to anyone.)
I'd just prefer if whatever i'm using (wheather it be household or a cure to something) be tested on humans.

Haha, PETA are silly!
Although I have to point out that's extremely hypocritical of you. You have nothing against using the benefits that animal testing has brought you, but you want to prevent further animal testing which could produce vaccines for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's?

It is tested on humans. I think the way it works is that the drug is developed, tested on animals, tested on humans, and then available to the public.
No pharmaceutical company in their right minds would sell something that had only been tested on animals. That's why there are experimental trials open to patients of certain diseases, trials that have been tested on animals, but not yet on humans. As well as the drug trails that need volunteers.
Animals aren't the only things the drug/treatment is tested on, they're just used a lot for the research.

gerontophobia.:

But what if the reason you had to shoot the dog in the first place was because of a problem that HUMANS made? Why would it be fair to shoot the dog? It isin't. The dog did nothing to deserve it, and if humans were the ones who created the problem in the first place, then i'd rather shoot the human.
It really depends on the situation.

So you'll let people with AIDs, alzheimer's or parkinson's die from that disease because it's their fault that they have it?
I suppose then we should just stop practicing veterinary... and medicine... altogether. I mean, it's not the doctor's fault their patients get sick, why spend money on treating them?

I value human life higher than animal life. I just do. In that instance you have to choose whether the dog's life is worth more than a humans. You say that it is, I disagree.
In the words of penn and teller, I'd personally kill every chimp in the world, with my bare hands, to save one street junkie with AIDs.
Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but you get my point. I want to save humans, more than I want to save animals.

gerontophobia.:

I do have something against animal testings, whether or not it's for me, or for someone else. I'm saying that it's morally wrong, but that's not going to stop anyone.
Almost everything we do these days is morally wrong, yet we do them anyways.

Yes, if it's to save people's lives, then it's much more acceptable to use animals. BUT I still don't believe it's right to inflict pain on defensless little creatures, that don;t have a choice whether they want to or not.

Okay. It's 'morally wrong'? It's morally right.
Morals are a grey area. They are something that the individual person has to decide on themselves. Your morals are different from my morals. According to my morals, animal testing is right, according to yours, it's wrong.

Everyone wants to treat animals humanely, but it's about the amount of lives we can save by using animals in research. The benefits outweigh the costs.

builtforsin:

There are other ways in which to save a human life that doesn't involve animal testing.

Are you a medical engineer? Until you are, I don't think you have any authority to tell scientists which methods work best and which don't. Of course other options exist, but that doesn't mean they can be used all the time for all situations.

What about animal testing for the purpose of pet medications?

Kurtni Monroe:

builtforsin:

There are other ways in which to save a human life that doesn't involve animal testing.

Are you a medical engineer? Until you are, I don't think you have any authority to tell scientists which methods work best and which don't. Of course other options exist, but that doesn't mean they can be used all the time for all situations.

What about animal testing for the purpose of pet medications?

I think it's ok to test things on animals that are meant for animals. It makes sense to test something for what it's meant for. As long as the animals are treated humanely.

I disagree with testing on animals for medicine for humans. They have to test it on humans anyways after they test it on animals. Tests on animals can be misleading, they're different from us. There are alternatives, like test tube studies on human tissues cultures, statistics, and computer models that have been successful.

Pestilence.:

Kurtni Monroe:

builtforsin:

There are other ways in which to save a human life that doesn't involve animal testing.

Are you a medical engineer? Until you are, I don't think you have any authority to tell scientists which methods work best and which don't. Of course other options exist, but that doesn't mean they can be used all the time for all situations.

What about animal testing for the purpose of pet medications?

I think it's ok to test things on animals that are meant for animals. It makes sense to test something for what it's meant for. As long as the animals are treated humanely.

I disagree with testing on animals for medicine for humans. They have to test it on humans anyways after they test it on animals. Tests on animals can be misleading, they're different from us. There are alternatives, like test tube studies on human tissues cultures, statistics, and computer models that have been successful.

Animals are different, but they're similar.
Mice are actually considered the best model of inherited human diseases. This is because they share 99% of all the genes with humans! Their genomes are also easy to manipulate to replicate the human form making them even more similar to humans

I think animals are used more in research than the actual testing of the drug. All the potentially damaging, lethal experiments, or at least the high risk ones are carried out on the animals, and just to make sure there are no unforeseen reactions they test it on humans.
Animals are used in developing the drug, humans are used to test it during the end stages.

Oh, and as for the computer model, that's a lie.

Living organisms are incredibly complex and scientists still only understand a very small fraction of the structures, chemicals, interactions and metabolic pathways in humans and animals. The only way for scientists to learn more about them is through organisms that possess these traits. That's why animal research is so important for the future of medicine and the ability to treat and cure diseases.

Anti-vivisectionists sometimes claim that a computer programme has been invented which correctly simulates an entire human body, and that this could be used instead of animals. This is totally false - no such programme exists, and no computer powerful enough to create such a model exists either. Computer models of simple proteins are used in the early stages of medical research but, like all alternatives to full organisms, are strictly limited in their applications. We simply do not have the technological sophistication to replicate the incredibly intricate and sensitive machinery of even the simplest animal organisms, let alone the much more complex human body.

Pestilence.:

^ Really? That's too bad. I just read it on some website. I didn't think it made much sense. I understand why we do animal testing, and I don't support it for medicine, but I don't dislike it as much as I dislike testing for cosmetics. Because I understand that there really is no substitute, whereas for cosmetics there is.

Haha, I wish that it existed!

Cosmetic animal testing is wrong. I mean, saving lives is one thing, but vanity is another.

Pestilence.:

As long as the animals are treated humanely.

How exactly do you test humanely?

Kurtni Monroe:

Pestilence.:

As long as the animals are treated humanely.

How exactly do you test humanely?

Not putting them through unnecessary pain or doing unnecessary tests. Also, making sure they are kept pain free when doing experiments that may cause them to feel pain and making sure they are taken care of properly.

Pestilence.:

Not putting them through unnecessary pain or doing unnecessary tests. Also, making sure they are kept pain free when doing experiments that may cause them to feel pain and making sure they are taken care of properly.

What do you mean "pain free"? Animals die during animal testing, it can't be avoided. That's how medications are perfected. They can't always be given anesthetics because that compromises the test results.

I don't think there is such a thing as humane animal testing. You're exposing animals to drugs/chemicals knowing that it may very well cause them harm. Lab animals are often bred and mass produced with their only purpose being to die in experiments.The animals are kept in unnatural conditions. There isn't anything humane about it, but humility towards people comes before animals in my opinion.

I think animal testing is wrong but it's one of those things where I can't really just be either for or against. If there had never been any animal testing then there would be barely any medicine or other products. But there are some things that really don't need animal testing, I mean that fake sugar Splenda was tested on animals, apparently all of which died or got sick and it's still be sold (Although my friend told me this so it could be wrong)

But Vivisection is just wrong and it should be stopped!

The only way anyone can make a difference with animal testing is to only buy products not tested on animals and hope that eventually things will change.

It's simply inhumane to force brain damage onto an animal to test out drugs on brain damage and yet it still happens. The problem is humanity's unwillingness to experiment on it's own species. And the viewpoint that most scientists share, that it's okay if hundreds of animals die in one experiment, as long as it saves one human.

If humans are so intelligent and superior then why can't they figure out a way to experiment without using animals, like with computer simulations (which are actually available with quite a lot of accuracy, according to the head of science at my school).

Want to just point out something.

You can't use human subjects wily-nily. I suggest that people should read this.

Kurtni Monroe:

Pestilence.:

Not putting them through unnecessary pain or doing unnecessary tests. Also, making sure they are kept pain free when doing experiments that may cause them to feel pain and making sure they are taken care of properly.

What do you mean "pain free"? Animals die during animal testing, it can't be avoided. That's how medications are perfected. They can't always be given anesthetics because that compromises the test results.

I don't think there is such a thing as humane animal testing. You're exposing animals to drugs/chemicals knowing that it may very well cause them harm. Lab animals are often bred and mass produced with their only purpose being to die in experiments.The animals are kept in unnatural conditions. There isn't anything humane about it, but humility towards people comes before animals in my opinion.

I don't think it's humane, but they should try to keep it as humane as possible until we find a substitute for it. How do anesthetics compromise the tests?

Pestilence.:

How do anesthetics compromise the tests?

You can't really ask that question generally... it depends on what is being tested. If you're testing a medication, you would want to know if it causes pain. When you test anything, you need to use a controlled experiment with one variable. If you're testing medication a, you couldn't give them an anesthetic,l because then you wouldn't be able to distinguish between the effects of medication a and the anesthetic.

Against.

If humans need to see if products are safe on humans then they should test them on humans, then people would argue that you can't just put some one in the line of danger. And I say, scientists and other people souldn't be creating products that are dangerous to humans even if they are just experiments, also animals are more important then humans.
That is my point of view.

Rust;:

Against.

If humans need to see if products are safe on humans then they should test them on humans, then people would argue that you can't just put some one in the line of danger. And I say, scientists and other people souldn't be creating products that are dangerous to humans even if they are just experiments, also animals are more important then humans.
That is my point of view.

You can't.

Nuremberg Code says you can't.

The way I see it is, you're testing a new drug (let's call it Crappitan). It's meant to help stroke victims recover. Unfortunately, the drug has an adverse effect and accidentally causes a heart attack. Would you prefer to find this out on a test rat - born and bred for this - or Mr Keith Jones. 66. Wife, family, job, stroke victim?