Home | Download | Discussion | Help | Site Map | New Posts | Sign in
Replies: 252 (Who?), Viewed: 19584 times.
Page 1 of 11
Mad Poster
Original Poster
#1 Old 13th Jan 2009 at 10:06 PM
Default Animal Experimentation: Right or Wrong?
For many centuries people have experimented on animals. There are two main reasons for doing this: first, to find out more about the animals themselves, and, secondly, to test substances and procedures to see if they are harmful (with a view to deciding whether or not they can be used on human beings). In the second category fall cosmetic products as well as medicines and surgical techniques. There is a growing consensus that it is not acceptable to test cosmetic products on animals. This debate is about whether we should experiment on animals for scientific and medical purposes. Summed up Is it morally acceptable to experiment on non-human animals to develop products and medicines that benefit human beings?

"Going to the chapel of Love"

the girls club . statistics . yearbook .
Advertisement
Scholar
#2 Old 13th Jan 2009 at 10:08 PM
For medical purposes, definitely right. In the case of Thalidomide, if they'd tested it on more animals, the tragedy could have been prevented.
In the case of cosmetics, definitely not justifiable.

"Life is just a chance to grow a soul" - A. Powell Davies
Field Researcher
#3 Old 13th Jan 2009 at 10:10 PM
I did multiple essays on this subject! All for it as long as it's for medical purposes.
Top Secret Researcher
#4 Old 13th Jan 2009 at 10:11 PM
WRONG. WRONG. WORNG. WRONG. WRONG.
Animals don't even have the same insides and what-not as human so what's the point testing all new drugs and such on them 'cause what could be safe to them could be like dangerous for humans. :/


Poor animals :[

Previously known as 'simcharley1990'
Alchemist
#5 Old 13th Jan 2009 at 10:11 PM
I think that it is wrong in all aspects. After reading about the horrors of IAMS i decided to do a petition and 200 people in the school signed it.

I could understand Medicines slightly but Cosmetics is just wrong, They are not even nessecary.

I had to do multiple school projects on this also.. The picture of a rabbit with its ribs showing shall haunt me forever.
Alchemist
#6 Old 13th Jan 2009 at 10:13 PM
Yes. I am a vegetarian, an animal welfare activist (not animal rights, animal welfare. There is a difference), and I studyed Animal Behaviour at university as I hope to spend the rest of my life researching animal behaviour (in a way that won't harm them, obviously - mainly just by observing them, which they won't even know is happening). But I still feel that, as long as humans can be helped by animal testing, it should continue.

Companies and governments ARE working hard to come up with alternatives to animal testing for medicines etc, but it takes a while to approve processes. And testing products is a legal requirement pretty much worldwide (at least EU-wide). I do however feel that tests should only be done on animals if a) they can't be done any other way, b) they NEED to be done, and c) the results aren't already known.

Apparently in the EU chemicals companies are legally obliged to test chemicals on animals, even if they already know that they will harm the animals. They still have to test them before they can sell/use the chemicals. So for example known eye irritants have to be applied to rabbits' eyes for the tests, even though they know it'll harm them. Not the decision of the chemicals companies, but decided by the EU law making up people. Daft or what?

A lot of animal testing has helped develop medicines/vaccines etc. Blood transfusions, polio vaccinations, diabetes medication, cancer treatments - none of this and more would've been made (at least not until later on in time, when other scientific advances were made, so more people would've suffered).
Mad Poster
Original Poster
#7 Old 13th Jan 2009 at 10:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kustirider2
I think that it is wrong in all aspects. After reading about the horrors of IAMS i decided to do a petition and 200 people in the school signed it.

I could understand Medicines slightly but Cosmetics is just wrong, They are not even nessecary.


agreed. It's only acceptable to test human medicines on human beings if they give their consent. Non-human animals are never able to give such consent. It is therefore never acceptable to test medicines on perfectly healthy animals, even if the treatments are for use on other animals.

"Going to the chapel of Love"

the girls club . statistics . yearbook .
Scholar
#8 Old 13th Jan 2009 at 10:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simcharley1990
WRONG. WRONG. WORNG. WRONG. WRONG.
Animals don't even have the same insides and what-not as human so what's the point testing all new drugs and such on them 'cause what could be safe to them could be like dangerous for humans. :/

Poor animals :[


That's not actually true. We have several cellular mechanisms that are highly common in many animals.

"Life is just a chance to grow a soul" - A. Powell Davies
Top Secret Researcher
#9 Old 13th Jan 2009 at 10:18 PM
Sorry, Well my school sucks then - I got told today in science- that we have no simular inside to animals that they test it on. Sorry.




Still think it's wrong though.

Previously known as 'simcharley1990'
Alchemist
#10 Old 13th Jan 2009 at 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alissa888
That's not actually true. We have several cellular mechanisms that are highly common in many animals.


Exactly. I think that the testing that a lot of people have heard about is things like the testing of AIDS treatments on chimpanzees. many years (and, unfortunately, many chimpanzees) later, they discovered that chimpanzees get a different kind of HIV to humans, so they can't be used to develop treatments for it. So now they have loads of HIV infected chimpanzees that need life-long care (and can't be housed in zoos etc because they could still transmit HIV to humans).

That's the kind of thing that gives medical testing a bad name. But if they actually do their research right, it can have incredible benefits for people.

Out of interest, how do people think that, say, medication for diseases in dogs and other animals should be tested then?

Charley, we were taught that in school too, pretty much. And that animal testing was pointless and only done by complete cretins. But at university we were shown a lot of articles etc that show otherwise as far as usefulness of testing is concerned. Testing medical stuff on animals really can be useful, and with the current legal systems for production of medication, required by law.
Scholar
#11 Old 13th Jan 2009 at 10:20 PM
No, no, they're right, our inside anatomy isn't very similar to other animals - in fact, I think the only animals (apart from apes, possibly) that are anatomically similar to us in viscera are pigs. But, the thing is, drugs affect the cellular biochemical pathways and some of those are usually quite conserved between species

Quote:
Originally Posted by lauratje86
Out of interest, how do people think that, say, medication for diseases in dogs and other animals should be tested then?


I know it's cruel, but... animals. Though, quite a few human drugs work on animals too, I think?

"Life is just a chance to grow a soul" - A. Powell Davies
Inventor
#12 Old 13th Jan 2009 at 10:24 PM
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.

Please call me Laura
"The gene pool needs more chlorine."
My Site
Alchemist
#13 Old 13th Jan 2009 at 10:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alissa888
I know it's cruel, but... animals. Though, quite a few human drugs work on animals too, I think?


Yup. My mum and my dog take the same medication for arthritis (sp?) Just different doses (and packaging, in the hope nobody will notice!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by longears15
Cosmetic testing is a different matter entirely. I don't believe that animals should suffer just to cater to human vanity.


I agree. And since places started passing laws against it, so many other methods for testing cosmetics have been developed that it is now unnecessary anyway, as well as nasty.
Lab Assistant
#14 Old 13th Jan 2009 at 10:32 PM
For medical purposes, yes. However, I refuse to buy cosmetics that are tested on animals and Iams food.
Instructor
#15 Old 13th Jan 2009 at 10:34 PM
The only time I think Animal testing could ever be concievably right is when testing drugs for animals. I mean, it wouldn't really be fair to test them on humans if they aren't going to be used on them! However, I think that cosmetic animal testing is totally cruel and unesseccery and that there are plenty of criminals around to test human medicene on! I mean, the animals haven't done anything, buth the criminals have! ;D
Instructor
#16 Old 13th Jan 2009 at 10:43 PM
I am against animal testing for both medical and cosmetic purposes, it's just cruel, there are alternatives and aparently it's not so relaible anyway.

“When you're taught to love everyone, to love your enemies, then what value does that place on love?”-Marilyn Manson
Top Secret Researcher
#17 Old 13th Jan 2009 at 11:03 PM
W-R-O-N-G period.
For people that say it's okay for any reason:
Would you be ok with your (future) sons/daughters to be experimented on (if humans were animals, and animals were human)?

Stuff people are testing on animals shouldn't be made.
If anything has a possiblity harming anything hamans or animals just shouldn't be made.

So long, my luckless romance
My back is turned on you
I should've known you'd bring me heartache
Almost lovers always do

Alchemist
#18 Old 13th Jan 2009 at 11:04 PM
Do people who are against animal testing try to avoid products tested on animals at all, because no one I know does!? That includes cosmetics, medicines & medical treatments, chemicals, pet food, animal medication etc? Nobody I know who is against animal testing does (at least not fully, I know a few people who avoid cosmetics tested on animals - including me, in fact).

***EDIT***

Quote:
Originally Posted by PuX- 80's
W-R-O-N-G period.
For people that say it's okay for any reason:
Would you be ok with your (future) sons/daughters to be experimented on (if humans were animals, and animals were human)?

Stuff people are testing on animals shouldn't be made.
If anything has a possiblity harming anything hamans or animals just shouldn't be made.


Well, if I was an animal I wouldn't understand the concept of testing, and I wouldn't be able to consider possible future occurences like that. I would rather not see animal testing, but I care more about humans than animals.

But almost anything has the potential to harm people/animals, they (usually) don't know until they test it. So that'd mean no medication or medical treatments, no chemicals - so no rubber, plastic etc, limited types of fuel...... Not a sacrifice I'm willing to make, I'm afraid.
Alchemist
DELETED POST
13th Jan 2009 at 11:09 PM
This message has been deleted by lauratje86. Reason: Double post, sorry!
Field Researcher
#19 Old 13th Jan 2009 at 11:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by slipknot93
I am against animal testing for both medical and cosmetic purposes, it's just cruel, there are alternatives and aparently it's not so relaible anyway.

I agree that alternatives should be placed into consideration. It would be in everyone's best intrests that testing is not applied on humans or animals.
However, as someone stated earlier, it is a necessary evil to test on animals. Sometimes ethics need to be pushed aside when it comes to certain situations. It's not always productive to use alternative methods, which is why animal testing still occurs. When these alternative methods imporve, eventually the need for animal's in testing will diminish.Until then, the animals also need to be treated without abuse and at least with proper care.
(I do not support testing on animals for cosmetic purposes, only medicinal purposes.)
Inventor
#20 Old 13th Jan 2009 at 11:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lauratje86
Do people who are against animal testing try to avoid products tested on animals at all, because no one I know does!? That includes cosmetics, medicines & medical treatments, chemicals, pet food, animal medication etc? Nobody I know who is against animal testing does (at least not fully, I know a few people who avoid cosmetics tested on animals - including me, in fact).
Exactly. As I said before, most drugs (and many other medical & surgical techniques besides) were developed using an animal model.

To everyone who says that testing for medical purposes is wrong - have you never willingly taken medicine, or been vaccinated against contagious disease? 'Cause you've got animal testing to thank for their availability. Do any of you eat meat or wear leather? If so, how is it different? You're still reaping the benefits of 'animal suffering'.

Please call me Laura
"The gene pool needs more chlorine."
My Site
Top Secret Researcher
#21 Old 13th Jan 2009 at 11:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lauratje86
Well, if I was an animal I wouldn't understand the concept of testing, and I wouldn't be able to consider possible future occurences like that.

It's just like a cow getting shot. They don't comprehend, Man holding Gun=I Die.
PETA has probably a lot of info about how wrong Animal testing is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lauratje86
But almost anything has the potential to harm people/animals, they (usually) don't know until they test it. So that'd mean no medication or medical treatments, no chemicals - so no rubber, plastic etc, limited types of fuel...... Not a sacrifice I'm willing to make, I'm afraid.

I knew someone would find the hole in the last part :P
Why can't they test possibly deadly things on humans that are on Death Row or have 79 years years in prison when they are 32?

So long, my luckless romance
My back is turned on you
I should've known you'd bring me heartache
Almost lovers always do

Field Researcher
#22 Old 13th Jan 2009 at 11:31 PM
Just to clear this up! My grandmother's company Johnson & Johnson, which if you buy band-aids you'll know who I'm talking about but they test their instruments on pigs, goats, other animals although they are almost always pigs. But these animals are treated just like a human being would be treated if they were going under the knife. They get anesthesia and they are almost always fine after surgery. They are basically kings while they are being tested on and healing. I know that can't be said for all companies but at least these animals are being taken care of.
Mad Poster
Original Poster
#23 Old 13th Jan 2009 at 11:34 PM
Forum Resident
#24 Old 13th Jan 2009 at 11:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PuX- 80's
PETA has probably a lot of info about how wrong Animal testing is.
Only, half of the time, PETA sound like complete nutjobs (see also: sea kittens).
Top Secret Researcher
#25 Old 13th Jan 2009 at 11:41 PM
I couldn't even watch past 25 seconds.
Vegetarian life never killed an animal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_French_Sim
Only, half of the time, PETA sound like complete nutjobs (see also: sea kittens).

I see very few things I'm not too fond of PETA for, but other wise I believe in them.

So long, my luckless romance
My back is turned on you
I should've known you'd bring me heartache
Almost lovers always do

Page 1 of 11
Back to top

Section jump