That, and scientists use mice for a set of reasons. They're mammals, they reproduce fast, and they give birth to a crapload at a time.
Personally, I can't help but find the idea of injecting a human with a deadly virus, then with a potential cure to save an animal a bit weird, to say the least.

Oh dear. Now I'm on the moral high ground.
I'm advocating using animals as part of researching cures to diseases. You've just wished death on me.
I'm saying that human life is worth more because they're able to benefit humanity more. You've basically said that animals shouldn't be tested on because they're cute.
I've conceded that while animal testing is good, it does have ethical issues and if a more effective alternative is found it should be used. You "don't care what humans die when people test on animals".
One of us is coming across as a teensy bit hysterical.

Sorry. I have very strong opinions. I'm just saying, it's wrong, and I believe that very strongly. Sorry for being kind of *cough*beyond kind of*cough* rude.

Just as a little note for people saying you shouldnt use products tested on animals i would go check every product in you house and then every chemical in that product. In the uk at least (well last time i checked) companies only have to say if they have teasted the product as a whole on animals not individual combinations of things or individual chemicals. Just because it says not tested on aminals, dont not always completly mean this.

The whole thing about using death row inmates (I'm pretty sure I said this earlier in this thread): not every country has the death penalty. Not even all US states have the death penalty. Even if a person has been sentenced to death, they still have basic human rights, including the right not to have medical testing forced on them. Obviously death row inmates have done something awful, but I don't know how people can think it's not ok to murder but it IS ok to forcibly test drugs on someone. (But then I don't think the death penalty should be used at all: "because killing is wrong we're going to kill you." There's logic missing there, not to mention wrongful convictions and financial issues, but that's off topic.) We live in a civilised society, we've progressed from the days of beheading and stoning criminals to death.

willwrightfan - I would say there is a pretty high probability that you have used a product that was tested on animals at some point in your life.

el flel-I don't really know. I don't use make up or anything so I don't really think I've used much of something that was tested on animals if I have at all.

I've used meds. However, I'm trying to get off of them when I get better with my mental illness since 1) they're tested on animals and 2) you have the shorter life expectancy than those who use other forms of healing.

It would be nearly impossible to live in any civilized society without finding yourself benefiting from some sort of animal testing. Unless you're posting with your psychic powers from the uncivilized, unindustrialized heart of Africa or something you've used some product that's had to undergo some sort of "animal testing" as a process. Hell, if you're bouncing your messages off of a satellite at some point? Early space travel was all about launching animals into space so that if something horrible happened with humans stressed to extreme G's it would happen to a chimp first.

If you've drawing this particular line in the sand and you think you haven't already crossed it, you're not thinking hard enough.

Ever used any form of medication ever? Most of them have been tested on animals.

As this debate has been resurrected, I'm going to copy/paste a few of my more pertinent posts from earlier in the debate rather than retype the same information all over again.

The way I see it, the use of animals in drug testing and medical research is something of a necessary evil. In many cases, it would be very difficult if not impossible to use humans as primary test subjects, even if you leave ethical implications aside. If you consider genetic manipulation for example, it is vital to explore what happens through generations- imagine how long that would take if humans were used. If you consider initial testing of new drugs, again it is far more practical to use animals. Large numbers of animals can be easily housed within a small space, and in controlled conditions. These sorts of numbers are necessary for results to have any sort of statistical significance. In many cases also, animal subjects are bred under strict conditions as 'specified pathogen free' so that potential confounding factors can be limited.

There are a lot of standards in place to ensure good welfare is maintained. All research involving animals (or people for that matter) has to be passed by an ethical standards committee- usually including medical & legal professionals, veterinarians and lay people.

Almost anybody who stands against the use of animals in medical testing is a hypocrite. I'm sure every single one of us has taken medications, had vaccinations, etc. A large number of these have been developed, at least initially, using an animal model. Something else that a lot of people also forget is that animals benefit from this as well- a huge number of drugs used in people are also used to treat animals. We use various prostheses in animals- bone plates & pins, right through to things like artificial hips and cardiac pacemakers.

Cosmetic testing is a different matter entirely. I don't believe that animals should suffer just to cater to human vanity.


You need to go through all the research and all those initial efficacy and safety trials before you begin clinical trials. You need strictly controlled conditions and a large population in order to have reliable, statistically significant results. Using animals such as rats or mice means that some conditions (e.g. tumours) can be induced across a population. Theoretically it would be possible to do the same in humans, but practically it is impossible.

It is after all this that human clinical trials can be started. And yes, it's important to know how a drug is tolerated and what it's pharmacological properties are. You can't just test on people with the disease to begin with either -

Say I have what appears, theoretically, to be a great new chemotherapy agent - I've never tested it. I pick a random terminal cancer patient, give them the drug, and a week later they're dead. How do I know whether the cancer killed them, or the drug killed them? A less dramatic hypothetical - the same patient develops new symptoms a week later. Does this mean that the cancer is progressing? That the drug is having adverse effects that need to be addressed? Is it coincidence?

Of course, clinical trials are extremely important in addressing efficacy and safety (they are trials, afterall) but as we keep saying, you cannot leap straight to this stage. Until we can develop an alternative, animal experimentation remains a necessary evil...


And a couple of questions for those of you who feel that animal testing is wrong no matter what the circumstances.

What do you see as a viable alternative? It is all very well to say 'test on inmates' or 'get people to volunteer', but these are not viable options. As I said earlier, the practicalities of using human beings for early stages of testing render the idea impossible - even if you had more than enough people volunteering. At this stage, really there are none. In vitro testing has its uses, but ultimately most things will need an in vivo model well before they reach human trial stage. Until such time as we can create an 'artificial' model, we are left with animals.

Also, a hypothetical situation for you - a new chemotherapy drug ('X') has been developed using an animal model through the early stages of development and testing. The drug has been shown to be highly effective and unlike most chemo agents, it has almost no adverse effects. You've just been diagnosed with a highly aggressive cancer - without treatment it will kill you, but it just so happens that it is highly responsive to treatment with X. I would bet that every single one of you would take the drug, yet how can you justify doing so given your stance on animal testing?