Animal Testing

Every single person in this thread is rather hypocritical if they've said they're against animal testing, because you've all benefited from it.

The Doctor:

It's not so much that but we value our own lives as well.

The consequences of switching entirely to human testing would be awful.

It would target those with a lower income as an incentive is always given for human subjects. They would expose themselves to potentially fatal experiments. This is against the Nuremberg Code.

I know it isn't exactly all wonderful and brilliant but it's the best we can do momenterially until we can find a better solution.

The thing is, animals don't say "Yes, I agree to testing."
Humans can.
So should we test it on organisms that agree to it or organisms that cannot speak for themselves?
And if the medicine is for humans, it would be better to see the affects on humans then on animals.
Sometimes the outcomes have completely different results.

wish_i_was_adie:

I don't know if you've noticed, but EVERY species looks out for their own survival. Do you think if a rat had the choice between saving its life or yours it would pick you? No, it wouldn't

I love animals but right now there's no other way to do biomedical research at the moment. Using computer models only gets us so far and it can't predict the exact way reactions will occur in the body. I can't even think of what could be used for research other than animals because their cells and many of their organ systems are so similar to our own

That isn't to say we have free reign over all animals. But if we want to be able to cure diseases, find treatments and test for various ailments, this is our only choice at the moment.

As "The Doctor" mentioned above me, we can't test unsafe/untested medication on humans. This happened during WW2 and it was disgusting. Also, in the southern United States, doctors observed untreated syphilis in a particular population for 40 years even though a treatment was available. This cannot happen again.

Right now, animal testing is our only choice

Sure, every species looks out for its own.
But not with unnecessary deaths.
A lion will not hunt for more meat then it needs.
A wolf will not attack other animals unless they post an immediate threat.
We, on the other hand, kill animals in a methodic way, one after another.
Sometimes the death can be completely avoided, we just need to make an effort.
Sure, we can't test unsafe medicines on humans, but for animals its okay?
Do we try medicines or vaccinations on humans before giving them to animals?

Lovesick Melody.:

Sure, every species looks out for its own.
But not with unnecessary deaths.
A lion will not hunt for more meat then it needs.
A wolf will not attack other animals unless they post an immediate threat.
We, on the other hand, kill animals in a methodic way, one after another.
Sometimes the death can be completely avoided, we just need to make an effort.
Sure, we can't test unsafe medicines on humans, but for animals its okay?
Do we try medicines or vaccinations on humans before giving them to animals?

What else can we test them on?
And what humans would volunteer to be tested on anyway if there was a chance of them dying or getting ill?

Lovesick Melody.:

The thing is, animals don't say "Yes, I agree to testing."
Humans can.
So should we test it on organisms that agree to it or organisms that cannot speak for themselves?
And if the medicine is for humans, it would be better to see the affects on humans then on animals.
Sometimes the outcomes have completely different results.

But how many humans would give the possibility to end their own lives for a drug that may be deemed later as ineffective?

Experimentally speaking, it can be hard to get the subject into a specific condition for testing. Inducing a heart attack in a human being is a hell of a lot more morally questioning than if you do it to a rat. In order to cover yourself fully in an experimental situation, the experiementers must give informed consent forms. To show the risks, they are bound by law to show what could possibly happen and the procedures used.

And to be fully honest, let's face it. How many of the human race wil partake in something that could cost their lives? Yes, there is human experimentation already which is the last stage of the experiemental stage of drugs etc. I just doubt highly that many of the same people will agree if they know that they are the first real participants in the experiment.

And besides, the numbers that would be required for the experiments would increase rapidly. The numbers of participants required would reach too high a level. The incentives - as I have said before - do target the poorer population.

At this moment in time, it is hard enough for people to give blood, leave their organs for transplantation or signing up to leave their whole body for medical experimentation once they are dead. I do not think that many would sign up for anything like that.

Also, the experiments on animals are valid - much more so for medical experiments than for psychological experiments - as bodily functions and systems are not all that different from animal to animal. Yes, for some there are differences - like the crab who uses copper instead of iron to create chelated complexes in the bloodstream with the haemoglobin and the seahorse where the male gives birth - but much of it is similiar, if not practically the same.

Lovesick Melody.:

And if the medicine is for humans, it would be better to see the affects on humans then on animals.Sometimes the outcomes have completely different results.

Cool, so what's your scientific certification to make that claim? What degree did you spend years in college getting to decide the effectiveness of animal testing?

ChemicallyImbalanced:

What else can we test them on?
And what humans would volunteer to be tested on anyway if there was a chance of them dying or getting ill?

The Doctor:

But how many humans would give the possibility to end their own lives for a drug that may be deemed later as ineffective?

Well what animal would volunteer to be tested on anyway if there was a chance of them dying or getting ill?
And how many animals would give the possibility to end their own lives for a drug that may be deemed later as ineffective?

No.
But they have no choice in the matter.

The Doctor:

Experimentally speaking, it can be hard to get the subject into a specific condition for testing. Inducing a heart attack in a human being is a hell of a lot more morally questioning than if you do it to a rat. In order to cover yourself fully in an experimental situation, the experiementers must give informed consent forms. To show the risks, they are bound by law to show what could possibly happen and the procedures used.

And to be fully honest, let's face it. How many of the human race wil partake in something that could cost their lives? Yes, there is human experimentation already which is the last stage of the experiemental stage of drugs etc. I just doubt highly that many of the same people will agree if they know that they are the first real participants in the experiment.

And besides, the numbers that would be required for the experiments would increase rapidly. The numbers of participants required would reach too high a level. The incentives - as I have said before - do target the poorer population.

At this moment in time, it is hard enough for people to give blood, leave their organs for transplantation or signing up to leave their whole body for medical experimentation once they are dead. I do not think that many would sign up for anything like that.

Also, the experiments on animals are valid - much more so for medical experiments than for psychological experiments - as bodily functions and systems are not all that different from animal to animal. Yes, for some there are differences - like the crab who uses copper instead of iron to create chelated complexes in the bloodstream with the haemoglobin and the seahorse where the male gives birth - but much of it is similiar, if not practically the same.

I do not think it is morally questioning. Like, it may sound stupid, and I get your point, but I believe that no life is superior, and that includes us.
Should we really have to flaunt our power and superiority by subjecting animals to cruel testing?
I have to agree, a lot of what you said is very hard to argue with.
But maybe with some support from the government, funding perhaps, we can change the testing procedures perhaps?

Kurtni Page:

Cool, so what's your scientific certification to make that claim? What degree did you spend years in college getting to decide the effectiveness of animal testing?

Hang on a minute, I claimed no such thing.
I am doing this purely off what I know already.
But why would the results off a rat be entirely the same to humans?
Yes, we may have similar body functions, but the DNA is not exact, therefore it would not have a 100% claim.

Lovesick Melody.:

Hang on a minute, I claimed no such thing.
I am doing this purely off what I know already.
But why would the results off a rat be entirely the same to humans?
Yes, we may have similar body functions, but the DNA is not exact, therefore it would not have a 100% claim.

Oh sorry, I just assumed that since you were telling scientists who spent years and years in school how to do their jobs and stating that their methods are faulty, that you must have some sort of certification to do so, clearly you don't, so I don't see how what you're saying is valid.

DNA is not even the same between humans so I don't see where you're going with that, or what you mean by "100%". At any rate, animals used in testing have very similar genomes to humans. In addition, animals that function similarly on a cellular level are typically used in testing, and that's what's important.

Lovesick Melody.:

ChemicallyImbalanced:

What else can we test them on?
And what humans would volunteer to be tested on anyway if there was a chance of them dying or getting ill?

The Doctor:

But how many humans would give the possibility to end their own lives for a drug that may be deemed later as ineffective?

Well what animal would volunteer to be tested on anyway if there was a chance of them dying or getting ill?
And how many animals would give the possibility to end their own lives for a drug that may be deemed later as ineffective?

No.
But they have no choice in the matter.

Alright, so we don't test on animals and we don't test on humans.
What do we do? The entire medical industry would crash. We wouldn't know what worked and what didn't.

Kurtni Page:

Oh sorry, I just assumed that since you were telling scientists who spent years and years in school how to do their jobs and stating that their methods are faulty, that you must have some sort of certification to do so, clearly you don't, so I don't see how what you're saying is valid.

DNA is not even the same between humans so I don't see where you're going with that, or what you mean by "100%". At any rate, animals used in testing have very similar genomes to humans. In addition, animals that function similarly on a cellular level are typically used in testing, and that's what's important.

Okay, let me state where I stand.
I have no degree in anything. But I have done a little bit of studying in the matter.
Human and animal DNA is not 100% the same, correct?
Therefore the testing cannot be 100% guaranteed that the medicine will react the same on humans then it does on animals.

ChemicallyImbalanced:

Alright, so we don't test on animals and we don't test on humans.
What do we do? The entire medical industry would crash. We wouldn't know what worked and what didn't.

Giving people the choice would be the way to go.
Unlike animals, humans can give consent to the testing, therefore making it more humane.
I personally think that this is a better alternative to some of the cruelty that happens in some labs.

Lovesick Melody.:

I do not think it is morally questioning. Like, it may sound stupid, and I get your point, but I believe that no life is superior, and that includes us.
Should we really have to flaunt our power and superiority by subjecting animals to cruel testing?
I have to agree, a lot of what you said is very hard to argue with.
But maybe with some support from the government, funding perhaps, we can change the testing procedures perhaps?

Why do we need to change the tesing procedures? No, that's a rubbish question...what part of the testing procedure do we change? What? Do we get get some other animal that no one actually really likes and test them? We get them to sign insurance forms? We exploit human weaknesses?

And, economically speaking, it ain't gonna happen right now. We are on the brink of a so-called recession. We can barely afford to give the needier people out there a break or at least a bit more money so they can afford a satsuma or six. There are nations starving in the world - either due to famine or corruption in high places. There are animals going extinct. Big companies like Wal-Mart and Avon and all of that are funding research into alternatives. I agree that nore should be done but it is not on the top ten things to do right now. What more can be done at this very moment in time that is viably and legally possible?

Lovesick Melody.:

Okay, let me state where I stand.
I have no degree in anything. But I have done a little bit of studying in the matter.
Human and animal DNA is not 100% the same, correct?
Therefore the testing cannot be 100% guaranteed that the medicine will react the same on humans then it does on animals.

You and I are both humans and our DNA is not 100% the same. Yet we have both probably received the same standard vaccinations and taken similar medications. What is your point?

No method of testing guarantees the results will be concrete in human trials, but animal testing has been used in the past and it's worked. As I stated before, and you completely ignored my point, most animal testing is done on a cellular level, not a chromosomal, making DNA irrelevant, but cell function what is important. You're ignoring the fact that we HAVE medicines and medical technologies that we obtained through animal testing. Clearly, it's useful.

Do you have any pets? If they were ill, would you give them medicine?

Valo Ink.:

I don't know if you've noticed, but EVERY species looks out for their own survival. Do you think if a rat had the choice between saving its life or yours it would pick you? No, it wouldn't

Obviously that isn't true because humans put their lives on the line every day to save animals.
Get the facts straight before you accuse.[/quote]

True, what do you think animal rescue center's etc are for?[/quote]

I'm NOT saying that humans don't look out for other species, I'm saying that we test medications and conduct research to help make our lives better and last longer and that's why we conduct animal testing - it's about utilitarianism, finding the maximum good for the maximum amount of people. So scientists may decide that curing cancer is worth testing a new drug on a population of mice because the possible outcome outweighs the risk. Don't forget, these drugs are tested on people too.

I'm also trying to say that trying to figure out what a rat would do if it was in our position is besides the point, I was trying to illustrate something. Animal testing isn't performed because scientists are sadistic people. If you bothered to read the other things I said maybe you would have understood that.

Kurtni Page:

Every single person in this thread is rather hypocritical if they've said they're against animal testing, because you've all benefited from it.

I completely agree with you.... I don't like it and would love for a better way to test products but it has helped us from not dying... Duh

Lies for a Liar:

because the way the body works is completely different.

No. If it was "completely different" they wouldn't be using that animal to test the medication.

Lies for a Liar:

I'm completely against animal testing for cosmetics and unnecessary things, but for medical purposes it can be a bit different. However, it can also be pointless because you treat an animal for a disease and it works, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to work on humans because the way the body works is completely different.

Scientists choose animals where the system of interest (Example, respiratory system) is similar enough to that of humans so any discoveries can be applied to human systems

CaliginousXReality:

Animals shouldn't even have to be tested on. Why?
About medications, our sickness can easily be prevented. Something as simple as washing our hands can prevent us from getting sick. We DON'T need to kill/harm innocent animals for things we could've easily prevented on our own. And the whole cancer/other severe disease issue, there's a such thing as survival of the fittest. It sounds harsh, but mother nature is going to do what she pleases. People die. We don't have the right to choose their time of death.

And, cosmetics? Another thing we don't need. If something burns us, we have the ability to wash it off. Animals don't have that luxury while they're getting tested on.

Why do animals have rights? Simple. They were here first.

Animal testing is sick. For all those who are for it, I'm all for putting YOU in that lab so YOU can be tested on. See how you like it.

How about we put you in the labs to be tested. They have to test these things on something, and although I am against it for a few reasons, would you rather humans do it? Those are the only things we've got. I'm not saying it's good to test, but someone has to do it.

I think that it's a little stupid also. Animals are not humans and humans will probably react differently to it.

Mikeysno1fan:

CaliginousXReality:

Animals shouldn't even have to be tested on. Why?
About medications, our sickness can easily be prevented. Something as simple as washing our hands can prevent us from getting sick. We DON'T need to kill/harm innocent animals for things we could've easily prevented on our own. And the whole cancer/other severe disease issue, there's a such thing as survival of the fittest. It sounds harsh, but mother nature is going to do what she pleases. People die. We don't have the right to choose their time of death.

And, cosmetics? Another thing we don't need. If something burns us, we have the ability to wash it off. Animals don't have that luxury while they're getting tested on.

Why do animals have rights? Simple. They were here first.

Animal testing is sick. For all those who are for it, I'm all for putting YOU in that lab so YOU can be tested on. See how you like it.

How about we put you in the labs to be tested. They have to test these things on something, and although I am against it for a few reasons, would you rather humans do it? Those are the only things we've got. I'm not saying it's good to test, but someone has to do it.

I think that it's a little stupid also. Animals are not humans and humans will probably react differently to it.

If humans were to react differently from animals, then they wouldn't have used animal testing for so many years. For all the cosmetic you use and get no allergic reaction there was an animal that it was first tested on before putting it out to the public.

I don't support it and would love for a better way to develop products, but if it saves lives and benefits the public we can't argue with it. Find a new way and it would end.

I really don't know....... I mean, I guess it depends on the experiment. Honestly, we have all benefitted from it. If it's humane and not destructive, then I'm for it, but you have all these horror stories out there....