Animal testing - right or wrong?

[Mercedes Benzene]

I think animal testing is not only right, but absolutely necessary.

Just think of how many products we would not have if it were not for animal testing. I know that here in the US, the FDA would probably die if animal testing was for some reason made illegal, and PETA would have a field day.

The truth is, animal testing provides a very accurate way of testing products that could save thousands (or even millions) of people's lives... For instance, developing new cancer drugs is big business right now, but without animal testing, it would be many times harder for these miracle drugs to be put on the market...

Now, I hate to be cruel to animals, but seriously, if it is going to benefit us, then we might as well do it.

[Lancaster]

I think animal testing is not only right, but absolutely necessary.

Just think of how many products we would not have if it were not for animal testing. I know that here in the US, the FDA would probably die if animal testing was for some reason made illegal, and PETA would have a field day.

The truth is, animal testing provides a very accurate way of testing products that could save thousands (or even millions) of people's lives... For instance, developing new cancer drugs is big business right now, but without animal testing, it would be many times harder for these miracle drugs to be put on the market...

Now, I hate to be cruel to animals, but seriously, if it is going to benefit us, then we might as well do it.

 

Agreed.

I cannot stand PETA...

[CerebralEcstasy]

I've worked in the Department of Medical Genetics, and I've seen both sides of the coin.

 

I've seen the animals that were inflicted/infected with certain disorders, bare little scabbed and deformed mice that they were. :hihi:

 

While my heart went out to them I couldn't help but also think of the child who sat in the waiting room just a few doors down who was suffering from something similar.

 

Until the day occurs where there will be no illness, and no disease we will find it a necessary process.

 

This isn't to say that we don't have a responsibility to treat these animals with respect and dignity. Afterall, without their sacrifices we would not have been able to progress as far as we have.

 

I for my part though, will continue to refuse to participate in scientific activities that have already been done, where all pertinent information has already been gleaned.

 

For example, while in my first year of university, we were incubating chicks to examine the growth of the neural tube and so forth. Removing them from the incubation hutch, and examining them under the microscope.

 

Essentially, having them come to a state of life and then watch as their lives slipped away. Yet we had plenty of slides and other preserved specimens that showed the exact same thing in all stages of development.

 

After a rather heated discussion with my professor over the issue, we were able to come to a compromise. I would use the slides and specimens, where other students who didn't have the same reservations continued on with their own experiments.

 

There were many others who felt the same way, but had worried that there would be a deduction in marks if they did not do the experiments as instructed.

 

I may not be able to control the actions of those around me, but I can control my own. My conscience is happy, and I'll be able to sleep at night.

[Lancaster]

I find it strange how little I can care for some people to die, and how saddening hearing the story of a puppy being run over is. Maybe it's because people decide their own future, and that puppy didn't know better than to run out into the street. :hihi:

[Vagabond -SC2-]

Most of what i will say has been stated already but hey...

Animal testing is 100% needed in order to develop new drugs and surgical techniques (for humans and for spot and fluffy and even for the Betsy the milk cow).

 

((ok perhaps not but I would not count on any drugs or medical techniques being develop or produced from anyone. How many of you would like to take the first generation chemical compound for X disease. Mind you we have no idea of it toxicology other then some cells in a dish in a hood.)))

 

Here is a very brief and dirty process to take a drug to market:

Initially animals are required to validate a target, system or process of interest. A company can not just rely on other peoples work. So sometimes experiments have to be repeated (not every scientist produced good data nor do they always interpret it properly).

 

Also some times experiments are repeated to confirm the initial results.

With the target confirmed you need to determine if you modify it you will have an effect on a disease.

 

Next one needs to figure out the drug is absolutely the right one (may need to modify it). Now you have to figure out how much we need to inject to create a benefit. This allows a you to determine if it can be produced in enough quantity to make it economical.

 

Ok, now we need to get some sort of idea as to how much of the drug is toxic. (after all animals are not humans and no humans are the same). Then if all goes well off to Phase I clinical trials.

 

Also as a side note if you had a heart problem and some surgeon said hey I bet I can do x (where x is a procedure the surgeon thought of in the shower that morning) and fix that heart. Would you let him try it on you? (think of the law suits).

 

Which brings up take away animal testing would you still want to be able sue companies for making drugs that have adverse effects??

 

 

Animal testing yep we need it. Try making a monoclonal antibody against a disease (i.e. cancer) with out them..

[Lancaster]

Of course we need it. Animal testing is totally necessary to keep us safe. But is it right? I think so.

[InfiniteNow]

The lesser beings will always serve the sentient beings, once they can defend themselves.

Hmmm... Can you please provide a scientific definition for "lesser being?"

 

After reading your post, I'd say that if I were to look up this term in a dictionary, I'd see your picture. :)

[Fatstep]

So, who's going to be the first human to have their eye pulled open and have drain cleaner dropped in for science?

[phoenixbyrd]

Personally I think it's wrong. If we wouldn't do these test's to ourselve's then there's no reason we should do them on another living creature. Animals are smart, intelligent and resourcfull just like our species is. We're no better then them and certainly not above them in any way. Other species aren't the same biologically as us, even those closest to us. Either way, we still eventually have to test on ourselve's anyways.

 

Everything we have that supposedly seperates us from the animals, they have also.

 

Intelligence, languange, tool use, culture, society. We're one and the same.

 

Most of the things we test on animals, such as disease are created by us in the first place. It's because of us that we have all these problems with our own species, so test on us and leave them alone.

[Zythryn]

Personally I think it's wrong. If we wouldn't do these test's to ourselve's then there's no reason we should do them on another living creature.

 

I am all for human testing. However, I don't think that most people will allow for it prior to testing on animals. Computer models are getting better, but not quite good enough yet.

 

Animals are smart, intelligent and resourcfull just like our species is.

Some more so than others:)

 

We're no better then them and certainly not above them in any way.

 

Many would argue that point. I would submit we do have a better ability to produce and use tools. And that because of this, we find ourselves on top of the food chain.

 

Other species aren't the same biologically as us, even those closest to us.

 

While not the same, many are close to us in one aspect or another.

Pigs for example have a pancreas that is amazingly similar to our own. Their insulin can even be used by us for the same purpose.

 

Most of the things we test on animals, such as disease are created by us in the first place.

 

This seems to be pure fantasy. Unless you are claiming that man created polio, diabetes (type 1 specifically), cancer, malaria and many other diseases I would be hard pressed to think of 5 diseases that mankind created that we have used animal testing on to find a cure for.

 

I for one would rather have cures to diseases tested on a pig (even one I knew) than Uncle Frank;)

 

edit- disclaimer, I am alive today because of testing on animals so I may be biased:)

[HydrogenBond]

When I saw the post "animal testing", I thought the discussion was about giving animals pencils and paper and a one hour time limit. That would be humilitating and cruel. Most can't even hold a pencil. All kidding aside, animal testing is necessary because medicune is stuck at empiricsm. If there was a logic to medicine, one could deduce the result before testing and would be able to minimize the number of animals needed. Instead, the blackbox alter of medicine, needs many animal sacrifices to appease the gods of uncertainty.

 

Maybe the animal activists are on to something. I beleive the testing is needed under the circumstances of empiricism, but if the activists could lobby to discontinue this ancient practice, it would force medicine to have to evolve beyond empiricsm by practical necessity. There is already a logical approach, in potentia, that could lead to computer simulations, in place of animal testing. It involves hydrogen bonding.