Animal Testing

[-ty-]

I don't see how there is any other way of testing medicines other than using live organisms to test them on.

I understand the plight of those who advocate against animal testing, but thus far, I do not see any other options, but searching for other options is definitely something to look into. However, we need to continue using animal for research in the mean time in order to study ailments such as cancer, HIV/AIDS, cardiovascular disease, and the list goes on and on.

A "quasi" option could be to reduce the amount of suffering incurred upon animals during research procedures. Ex. Increase sedatives, utilization of anesthesia, more space, higher quality food. A problem with this however is cost. If we increase costs of research, less research will be done or will cost more tax payer or consumer dollars.

I personally believe that a limited amount of procedural requirements should be placed on animal testing practices, to ensure some protection of the animals, without costing too much so that more people can be helped.

As far as cosmetics go...the use of animal testing should be kept to a minimum. Most products like shampoo use a variation of similar chemicals that should require little or no animal testing when the "experimental" factors are limited.

Some other products like hair growth serums, anti-aging serums, etc, are very experimental by nature; they are trying to discover the next break-through compound. These products should have more stringent requirements on animal testing since the only benefits to humans are aesthetic.

The basic priciple is:

Health Benefits to Humans
- should cost less
- less regulation on practices
- More human lives saved. More humans improve health.


Aesthetic Benefits to Humans
- Cost is not an important factor; it's a consumer's choice to improve looks.
(I don't care if J.Lo needs to spend two thousand dollars on her skin creme.)
- The number of aesthetically improving humans is not enough to justify the most cost-effective research practices.
- Therefore, more animal testing regulations should be placed on cosmetics, than on medical research.

That's my two cents...plus a twenty, on this issue.

 

[twocows]

I fully support animal testing and think, if anything, we should step it up. I don't even see it as a necessary evil; it's not evil at all. Animals do not fall under the scope of moral consequence except in the context of people. If animal testing saves the life of one person, it's worth it. If it saves the lives of many people, what are we waiting for? I'd have no problem sacrificing a thousand animal lives if it could save a single human life.

I have always been against any kind of animal testing. I fully support the actions of organisations such as SHAC and the ALF and I would do the exact same things if I had the opportunity.

You support killing people for the sake of animals? Because ALF has killed people in their "cause." They're sick, and if you support that, you're sick as well.

They should test them on murderers and rapists instead of animals or those on death row.

That's horrible and completely immoral. Criminal or not, they're still human and their lives still have value. As a side note, recent studies placing false incarceration rates for class A felonies as high as 12%; you'd be experimenting on a good portion of innocent people.

Luckily, your suggestion is illegal here in the US as per the 8th amendment to the United States Constitution.

I'm gonna jump in with the whole "necessary evil" thing.

Although I'd like to bring something else to the table now, so to speak. What sort of products should be tested on animals? I'm thinking in terms of medicine and cosmetics right now - which is ok, if either?

I have no problem with cosmetic testing on animals, but I understand a lot of people do. I'd be fine with conceding that ground if it made medical testing more palatable. Cosmetics are of little concern to me, human lives are not.

 

[Shiny Celebi]

Im not nessesarily sure it should be "stepped up" I think the suffering that animal testing brings to the animals to be reduced as much as possible, I realize it can't be completely abandoned but should only be used if absolutely nessesary and without as much pain or suffering to the animals as possible. I believe in causing as little harm to animals as possible, being an animal lover, I do agree people's lives need to be saved though. I dont really use cosmetics that are tested on animals, mostly because I dont feel they are needed for me to use and avoid using as many meds as possible because of the whole animal testing thing. That's my beliefs, Id rather animals not be tested on at all.

 

[Livewire]

I dont really use cosmetics that are tested on animals, mostly because I dont feel they are needed for me to use and avoid using as many meds as possible because of the whole animal testing thing. That's my beliefs, Id rather animals not be tested on at all.

The fact is that we kind of have to use them, there's literally no alternative. Either animals or humans. Human experimentation is sickening,but I do also think we should go around purposefully inflicting pain on other life forms if we can't help it.

 

[Charizard★]

Test it on humans, narrowing down further, convicts. There's enough of them on the earth. No need to use an innocent life.


Or even a better idea, let's not use medicine at all! What a perfect world it would be.

In all seriousness, I look down upon those who need to test it on animal, and I view 'side effects' as karma. Test your medicine on an animal, have a side effect! And, yes, I don't take medicine anymore. Haven't for a year, and I'm going strong. And I plan on not taking medicine, exception being shots that I need for job/school/etc.

 

[Oryx]

Test it on humans, narrowing down further, convicts. There's enough of them on the earth. No need to use an innocent life.


Or even a better idea, let's not use medicine at all! What a perfect world it would be.

In all seriousness, I look down upon those who need to test it on animal, and I view 'side effects' as karma. Test your medicine on an animal, have a side effect! And, yes, I don't take medicine anymore. Haven't for a year, and I'm going strong. And I plan on not taking medicine, exception being shots that I need for job/school/etc.

Not using medicine when you're healthy is not a sacrifice at all. Go tell some people that are only alive today because of modern medicine that you look down on them for choosing their own lives over the lives of animals.

If your only alternative to animal testing is human testing or refusing to take medication at all, then you don't have any reasonable alternatives to animal testing, so it's the equivalent of raging against the sun for being too hot when you need it to live, lol.

 

[Charizard★]

Not using medicine when you're healthy is not a sacrifice at all. Go tell some people that are only alive today because of modern medicine that you look down on them for choosing their own lives over the lives of animals.

If your only alternative to animal testing is human testing or refusing to take medication at all, then you don't have any reasonable alternatives to animal testing, so it's the equivalent of raging against the sun for being too hot when you need it to live, lol.

Whoever said I was healthy? I wish my friend, I wish. My cousin took the same stance as me when he was alive, and that's where I actually got it from. And I do voice my opinion at times. Coming from a large medical family, they do say it's harsh and such. Still doesn't waiver my point much.

There's many other ways you can test medicine, but, they're lengthy and don't provide 100% accurate results. One of them being, test it on various cells of the body and see how it fairs out. If you want to be much more accurate to a point test it on humans, then you'll figure out the side effects and such. (Yes, I know everyone fairs differently with each specific medicine, but, there's a wide variety of convicts out there too) No need to test it on an animal, which you won't get an accurate reading.

No ill feelings, stating my opinions and views.

Edit:
I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn't. ... The pain which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further. ―Mark Twain

I believe this will explain the alternatives better than I could, and as much as I hate the PETA, I have to admit on this point, they're right:

Thanks to this new understanding, many non-animal research methods are now being used around the globe. Here are just a few examples:

• Pioneering contract research laboratory CeeTox uses human cell-based in vitro (test tube) toxicity screening to test drugs, chemicals, cosmetics, and consumer products. These humane tests replace cruel tests that involve pumping substances into animals' stomachs and lungs and dripping chemicals into animals' eyes or onto their raw, shaved skin. In a landmark 2007 report, the National Academy of Sciences confirmed that scientific advances can "transform toxicity testing from a system based on whole-animal testing to one founded primarily on in vitro (non-animal) methods."
• Innovative biotechnology firm Hµrel has developed a 3-D in vitro (test tube) human "liver" that scientists can use to study the breakdown of chemicals in the human body. This technology effectively mimics human organs and can be used to test cosmetics, drugs, and chemicals.
• VaxDesign's groundbreaking Modular IMmune In vitro Construct (MIMIC) system uses human cells to create a working dime-sized human immune system for testing the safety and effectiveness of HIV/AIDS vaccines. This in vitro method is faster than animal tests, can be used to test vaccines on the immune systems of many different human populations at once, and can replace cruel, ineffective tests on animals in which monkeys are infected with HIV-like diseases and forced to endure acute weight loss, major organ failure, breathing problems, and neurological disorders before they die excruciating deaths or are killed.
• Researchers with the National Cancer Institute, the U.S military, private companies, and universities across the country have shown that MatTek's in vitro 3-D human skin tissue equivalent is an excellent substitute for animals when it comes to conducting burn research and cosmetics testing and doing research related to radiation exposure and chemical weapons attacks, etc.
• Instead of cutting into and damaging the brains of rats, cats, and monkeys, progressive researchers who are interested in studying the human brain are using advanced human-based brain-imaging and -recording techniques such as MRI, fMRI, EEG, PET, and CT. These modern techniques allow the human brain to be safely studied down to the level of a single neuron (as in the case of intracranial EEG), and researchers can even temporarily and reversibly induce brain disorders using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Not only do these techniques eliminate the use of animals and the obstacle of interspecies extrapolation, they also provide rich data about the human brain that could not be ascertained through the use of animals.
• Antibodies—which are used to research, diagnose, and fight diseases and have traditionally been created by injecting cancer cells into mice—can now be produced using DNA that's made in a laboratory or taken from human cells.
• A research method called microdosing can provide vital information on the safety of an experimental drug and how it is metabolized in humans. Volunteers are given an extremely small one-time drug dose that is well below the threshold necessary for any potential pharmacologic effect to take place, and advanced imaging techniques are used to monitor how the drug is broken down in the body.
• Ninety-five percent of medical schools across the U.S. have completely replaced the use of animal laboratories in medical training with sophisticated human-patient simulators, virtual-reality systems, computer simulators, and supervised clinical experience. The American Medical Student Association now states that it "strongly encourages the replacement of animal laboratories with non-animal alternatives in undergraduate medical education."

 

[Illuminaughty]

^ If these alternative testing techniques were at the same level or more proficient level as animal testing in the following areas, then I would be on-board:

- Economical
- Accurate Results
- Abundance of results
- Time efficiency

I am not saying they are better or worse in any of the areas since I do not know much about these alternative techniques, but if these were widely-accepted as being overall more efficient by the medical/scientific communities, I would be all for it. Until so, I will maintain the position that we need animal testing.

Can anyone find any comparative data in the effectiveness of these alternatives in comparison to animal testing?

 

[Livewire]

Test it on humans, narrowing down further, convicts. There's enough of them on the earth. No need to use an innocent life.


Or even a better idea, let's not use medicine at all! What a perfect world it would be.

In all seriousness, I look down upon those who need to test it on animal, and I view 'side effects' as karma. Test your medicine on an animal, have a side effect! And, yes, I don't take medicine anymore. Haven't for a year, and I'm going strong. And I plan on not taking medicine, exception being shots that I need for job/school/etc.

Testing on human beings at all is disgusting and shameful. The Nazis did that sort of thing. And to suggest that people deserve to get sick is pretty inappropriate and low of you.

And most medicines have next to nothing to do with animals, so I'm not sure where you're getting that idea from. Many medicines are derives from plants and plant matter anyways.

 

[SD.]

alternatives should be found and discovered soon!!!
i just wish people would also care more for this
not just for trying to discover a cure for a disease

... i mean yes thats important
but so are animals!...<3

i seriously HATE the whole thing of animal testing

my mom on this subject once; they should replace innocent animals with those bad people that are in jail... the ones who murdered somebody and have no life... those people don't deserve anything anymore so they might as well get used for that testing stuff​

 

[droomph]

My dad tested his new equipment on a pig, and a dog.

The pig died, sadly, but the dog is healthy (or as I am told) and has her own puppies!

So obviously there is good and bad to everything, and we have to sacrifice the bad so we can milk out the good.

But honestly rn using healthy life sentence convicts/death row inmates is a good idea. Not only do you get to see the exact effect (or a great deal more accurate) but you're not hurting anything undeserving of treatment like that.

Though using temporary convicts is not a good idea IMO because they got families (and such) to tend to and such, and killing him/her would be rude to all of them. But if they got life sentence then go ahead, they obv won't be able to take care of them anymore.

 

[Zet]

I don't see the problem with animal testing. If animals had a problem with it, they would have done something about it now.

Any animal right groups that tell you animal testing is wrong, I'd suggest avoiding them like the bubonic plague. PETA kills thousands(literally) of animals a year because they're deemed them un-adoptable, and a lot of their celebrity members actually use animal products.

 

[Shiny Celebi]

I don't see the problem with animal testing. If animals had a problem with it, they would have done something about it now.

That's the thing, they can't they are defenceless and it is forced upon them. They cannot say yes or no.

 

[Zet]

That's the thing, they can't they are defenceless and it is forced upon them. They cannot say yes or no.

My sides. Animals can fight back, nothing is forced on them.

 

[Shiny Celebi]

It is forced on them, even though animals can try fighting back they are restrained by humans. They are given no choice whether they want to be tested on or not. I really doubt any animal wants to have drugs and such tested on them or that if they understood and could decide that they would want to.

 

[Oryx]

My sides. Animals can fight back, nothing is forced on them.

With our superior technology, animals are not our match. Maybe a bear is a match for an average human being, but that doesn't mean that a scientist that wants to experiment on that bear can't hide, hit it with a tranquilizer dart, remove its teeth and claws, and put it in a cage so it can't escape. That bear doesn't want to be experimented on, but we overpowered it so it has no choice in the matter.

If your belief is that if we can overpower it we should be able to do what we want with it, why does this not apply to weak people then?

 

[Livewire]

It is forced on them, even though animals can try fighting back they are restrained by humans. They are given no choice whether they want to be tested on or not. I really doubt any animal wants to have drugs and such tested on them or that if they understood and could decide that they would want to.

Err, well they can't object becuase they're animals. Not really capable of complex decision making and such.

Personally, I'd rather we make animal testing as humane as possible and avoid it if need be. However, at the end of the day, animal lives < human lives. If there was a cancer or HIV cure that needed animal testing on say, horses, dogs, cats, etc, you better believe that I'd back up that testing 100%.