Topic Of The Week: Animal Testing - For or Against?

I agree with you allmaple . Also, I'm not trying to offend anyone but a human life is much more valuable than an animal. Of course, I'm probably the minority because I am NOT a vegetarian. There are thousands of rats, dogs, cats, whatever else they test on. I don't agree with cosmetic testing. That is a waste but to use animal research to cure diseases...I'm all for it. Look at all the animals that are put to sleep each day at animal shelters. How many rabbits died for pregnancy tests before? Animal testing is necessary.

Like allmaple asked, would you turn down a drug that you needed to survive just because it was tested on animals first?
 
well, it is cruel and pointless to do testing for cosmetics and stuff like that...

HOWEVER...

if you study science, especially biology, you will begin to realize the big role these tests have played with the development of science.

we have learned so much from tests, like what part of the brain does what, and especially with genetics, like taking out specific genes and growing the embryo to see what happens (which is somthing that can't really be done by computer simulation). they have identified a lot of the genes this way. these tests have lead to so many new medicines, and advances in science...without the animal testing, we would be so much further back in science, its imperial to the field....

here is an example, to find out what part of the brain does what, they take a small rodent, like a mouse, and create lesions in one section, and then observe the results. this kind of research has helped map the functions of the different sections of the brain
 
I do believe it is ridiculous to test makeup, etc. on animals.
However, I am a scientist and do realize that it is utterly necessary to do animal testing for drugs, etc. Whether you agree or not, the animals used are bred specifically for that purpose. Those that perform animal research must have all their procedures approved by a committee at their institution (at least in the US), and I know some that say that it is harder to get a procedure through that committee than it is to get one through for human testing.
 
pizzapie said:
Those that perform animal research must have all their procedures approved by a committee at their institution (at least in the US), and I know some that say that it is harder to get a procedure through that committee than it is to get one through for human testing.
Click to expand...

yeah, id like to know where people get the idea that test animals live in horrible conditions. i had one prof last year that said he couldnt even have a pet rat in his office without filling out forms, following procedures, making sure it was in a happy enviornment, provided exercies etc. :lol:
 
If anyone wants to check out this link to the Centre for Alterantive to Animal Testing at John Hopkins here is the link .

Here's a brief description.
The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) has worked with scientists since 1981 to find new methods to replace the use of laboratory animals in experiments, reduce the number of animals tested, and refine necessary tests to eliminate pain and distress.
Click to expand...

I certainly hope that there comes a day when technology becomes advanced to the point where animals won't be needed. I don't think we as a species of animals have the right to utilize an animal for however we want.

Having said that, I can't really take a stand because of a medical condition that I have that requires medication of which I'm pretty sure an animal has been used for. But I have to take this medication in order to survive. I don't blame the scientists involved because they probably don't have other options to work with at this point.

So I hope that eventually we can live in a world where vital medical research can done with minimal use of animals.
 
my "friend" always b*tchs about animal testing. i agree with her that animal testing is wrong but in her opion is that we should help animals before people. as much as i would like to help the animals i think we need to put most of our efforts towards people.
 
^It's not so much about putting people before animals or vice versa, that's a simplistic argument. It's about learning to be compassionate towards all creatures.

Now obviously each creature is going to put it's own before another's.

But as humans we seem to have this attitude that we can take the planet and its creatures and do whatever we want with it. That's not been to our advantage. We're nervous about drinking tap water unless we boil or so.

All I'm saying is that I think it would be better to work towards reducing the number of animals used in research. Besides, there a lot of diseases such as SARS that is nonlethal in animals but can kill us. So animals might the closest thing to human bodies, but they are not always conclusive. That's why even after animal testing, drug companies still have to go through mountains of paper work to ensure a new drug is safe to use on humans.
 
I am against animal testing but only 10% of me is in favor of it.

How would you feel if it was you that they're trying stuff and chemicals on? Animals have feelings too. Besides, cruelty to animals is a crime. But I suppose this is for the best since a human life is more important. What I suggest is they only do animal testings if they really need to.

Last year, when I was eating in a hawker stall, this moron comes in with a live chicken, lighted a lighter and put it under the chicken's feet to burn it. Then they laughed. Even though if this isn't related to this topic, still, it makes me mad.
 
I'm for it. I mean, there's a several things where I don't understand animal testing but like medicine. I know people voulenteer. But if we don't test on animals, then what would we do? Test on humans? And then the stuff would have horrible side effects and then people would be even more mad at testing? Or perhaps we should move back to "strongest survives" world. Like animals.

So, as long as they don't suffer, I'm for it. But like needmorecsi said, it's not all up to animal testing. There's still lots to do after that. But if they find another way, then good.

How do we know they suffer? I mean... my bro has a dog, German Hunt Terrier. THey are used to foxhunting, kill foxes in caves. It's a type of a dog who doesn't let go. His friend has same kind of dog. One... I think badger...had scratch the dog so badly that skin was totally off its chin, that you could see bones. Then they got home and owner thought "gosh I have to take it to the vet" dog had only gone to eat... feel no pain.

And Doreen, animal torturing is different.
 
I agree with myfuturecsi.

It's good to know that nowadays there're many scientists who're looking into alternative ways to reduce the use of animals in tests and experiments. However, we all have to admit that there're also scientists who're unethical and couldn't care less about who or what gets sacrificed/hurt, who're overcome by greed/power/etc. This is what I'm against first and foremost. I guess animal testing is not a black/white issue. There's a lot of gray area and always has to do with one's ethics and values. There's a very interesting article I found on the net. Read this.
 
im just gonna say that im a vegitarian so obviously im against it. yea there are great things that come out of some testing like that rat from last week that they got to walk again. but i think animals have feelings just like humans they just cant speak and to me i would rather be a tester then have animals tested
 
it is very difficult for those unethical scientists to be able to do animal testing, especially now. it takes a long process to be able to do these tests, and throughout the testing, it all needs to be closely monitored...

that article is kinda pointless...the person talks about questioning students, but it is done in the 80s, where people's perception of AIDs wasn't the best. if that was done now, the answers would be completely different. besides the fact the study presented in the article is not remotely scientific.....
 
xfcanadian said:
that article is kinda pointless...the person talks about questioning students, but it is done in the 80s, where people's perception of AIDs wasn't the best. if that was done now, the answers would be completely different. besides the fact the study presented in the article is not remotely scientific.....
Click to expand...

Yes, I thought it was pointless too. They're questioning 4th and 5th graders in the 80's no less. AIDS was just starting to get widely known and all we ever heard was that it was drug dealers or homosexuals. How much did those kids know about it? Besides, I thought the person asking the questions was kind of manipulating. He was getting the answers he wanted especially when he brought their parents into it.

No matter if people are for or against it...animal testing will continue. If they've been trying to find an alternative since 1981, I doubt they will find it soon. About people being equal to animals (I don't think that) and being vegetarians...lots of animals are meat eaters so why can't humans be meat eaters too? I personally like a big ole steak every now and then.

Like was stated earlier...how do we know the animals are really in pain? Maybe they don't have the same kind of nervous system as humans. Like hair and nails....there are no nerve endings so there's no pain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top