Animal Expermenting

[libby2999]

Everything from testing for makeups to to anything else you find.

 

Links and videos need to be appropriate - no excessive gore or cursing. If in doubt either don't post it or break the link so that people don't just reflex click the link and see something they didn't want to. Warnings of what your links are on are good.

(Breaking a link means to get rid of the "http://www." stuff, so a youtube link, for example, would be: youtube.com/blahblahblah.)

 

What are your views on it? Necessary evil? Just fine? Absolutely not fine?

Edited November 12, 2011 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Obscure_Trash]

http://forums.dragcave.net/index.php?showtopic=126657

 

~This topic has been cleaned~

 

Please do not post disturbing videos or pictures.

[Wolfsong442]

I'm going to post in this once to avoid getting into an argument with anyone, and I'll try not to look at the topic again. (But I probably will look and maybe post again, lol )

 

My opinion is that animal experimentation is not okay in any circumstance unless said experimentation is completely harmless to the animal.

 

I understand animal experimentation when it comes to life saving medications for humans, but not really. There isn't any animal whose reactions to drugs and experimenting 100% fully mimic the reactions of humans. Even apes are a little bit different, and rats and dogs aren't even close. So why experiment if the drug you've deemed safe for a rat or dog when there's a possibility it could harm or even kill a human?

 

Just because animals can't talk doesn't give us the right to cause them intentional and deliberate harm. Sure, I'm not saying that an animal's life is equal to a human's (I'm NOT opening that can of worms), but an animal's life is just as much a miracle as a human's life and ought to be respected similarly.

 

Experimenting on an animal for cosmetics, vanity purposes, or purely aesthetic reasons is completely wrong, no matter which way you slice it. I abhor people who think it's perfectly fine to cause undue suffering or kill anything so some woman can look better. There are better ways to make makeup.

 

Feel free to comment but please do not attack me or my opinions. I've avoided attacking anyone.

[Gsea]

I don't think animal experimenting is as accurate as it should/could be...I watched 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes' yesterday (which, by the way, was very good and not at all like the old one- gag) and essentially it explained how ineffective animal testing could be- they tested a drug on apes that enhanced their mental capability but killed humans. Yes, it was just a movie, 100% hollywood drama, but it brought up a good point.

 

Please don't kill me.

[Tiffashy]

Animal Expermenting, its just cruel. Animals have more rights then us to exist. They are sitting in cold, dark, small cages just wanting to escape to have a happy, warm life. About more then 6 million animals are getting poisoned, blinded, and tested in Australila and New Zealand. I don't like talking about this stuff cause this is horrible. They get needles, chemical food and run for hours and still, they die anyway. About 95% of them die.

Even some of the animal experimenting run without permission. I believe that animal experiments should be more friendly to animals and most of them should shut down. This is animal cruetly, this is disgusting and horriable.

I spoke by heart, this was what I thought about these slaughters...

[Obscure_Trash]

Just curious as to why they have more rights. :3

[Gsea]

Just curious as to why they have more rights. :3

Same here....

[UmbreWulf]

I see both sides to this, but like mentioned above, lab rats aren't nearly the same as humans so something that works on them might kill a person. Also, there's no reason to needlessly kill or harm animals for various products. I understand that we can't release items that would harm people but there's no reason to hurt them to find out if it works!

 

Please don't attack me or my opinions, you are entitled to your own. Some people think differently.

[Gsea]

I see both sides to this, but like mentioned above, lab rats aren't nearly the same as humans so something that works on them might kill a person. Also, there's no reason to needlessly kill or harm animals for various products. I understand that we can't release items that would harm people but there's no reason to hurt them to find out if it works!

 

Please don't attack me or my opinions, you are entitled to your own. Some people think differently.

No, I absolutely agree with you. And I think it's sad that we have to post a "don't attack me" notice at the end of our posts :/

[Nectaris]

Personally, I think that it is a necessary evil. If we don't, nothing will ever be produced, including medicines that might help animals as well. I think that is an often overlooked aspect of animal testing, the benefit not just to mankind, but to other animals as well.

 

Now, I do think all care should be taken to keep the animals comfortable, and to provide a future for them when the testing is done.

Edited November 13, 2011 by Nectaris

[LadyNightshade]

What about normal "experimenting"?

 

I mean, pet food companies keep animals and their testing just involves giving pets food and doing non-invasive non-hurtful analysis.

 

Some of them keep their animals in better conditions and environments than what people keep as pets.

[Wolfsong442]

I don't think animal experimenting is as accurate as it should/could be...I watched 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes' yesterday (which, by the way, was very good and not at all like the old one- gag) and essentially it explained how ineffective animal testing could be- they tested a drug on apes that enhanced their mental capability but killed humans. Yes, it was just a movie, 100% hollywood drama, but it brought up a good point.

 

Please don't kill me.

Here I am, posting.

 

And you've just inspired me to go watch that movie!

 

I wouldn't say they have more rights than us. Saying that would get people breathing down my neck so fast. I just believe that they should be respected for what they are. Humans are one of the only animals that kill for pleasure, or kill "for the greater good". Housecats do, but this is another matter entirely stemmed from being human pets. I don't believe that animals deserve more rights, but they definitely should be respected as creatures that only kill for sustenance or self defense/protection.Which, I think, puts them slightly above murderers (of any animal, human included), child molesters/abuses, sociopaths on the scale of "right to exist". I'd value the life a dog or cat living in my neighborhood over some deranged kidnapper/child molester.

 

Also, I know you weren't talking to me when you said that, Sock. Just stating an opinion on the matter.

 

Also, dunno if that made sense?

[Silence2]

 

I understand animal experimentation when it comes to life saving medications for humans, but not really. There isn't any animal whose reactions to drugs and experimenting 100% fully mimic the reactions of humans. Even apes are a little bit different, and rats and dogs aren't even close. So why experiment if the drug you've deemed safe for a rat or dog when there's a possibility it could harm or even kill a human?

What if the medication could potentially be used in animals as well as humans? What about medications meant for animal use? Many medications we take are used in animals as well, but it still has to be tested prior to use in them. How would you devise medications for them then? Or, should we just let nature take over when it comes to pets and let them die if they get an infection or heartworms or hypoadrenocorticism?

[Nine]

I think animals deserve more rights than humans when it comes to scientific experimentation. Why not? They can't stop half way through the procedure and rightfully leave as part of their contract, they can't excuse themselves based on morals or values, and they certainly can't voice opposition to the procedure like we can. Most humans put the welfare of their species before a different animal's, so the likelihood of researchers and scientists treating human subjects properly is more likely than if it were a rat. Humans are also capable of pressing charges, making a media storm, and generally making life hell for experimenters and their companies, which by itself would be a reason to treat humans better than animals.

 

So sure, I'll be the one person to say "why not?" when it comes to animal experimenting and their rights. Make things a bit more diverse interesting.

Edited November 13, 2011 by Nine

[Wolfsong442]

What if the medication could potentially be used in animals as well as humans?  What about medications meant for animal use?  Many medications we take are used in animals as well, but it still has to be tested prior to use in them.   How would you devise medications for them then?  Or, should we just let nature take over when it comes to pets and let them die if they get an infection or heartworms or hypoadrenocorticism?

My point is not that I believe that animals are any more important than humans. I am not more likely to say that I agree with animal experimentation when the medicine devised from the experimenting benefits animals and humans alike, or just non-human animals. Saying that it's okay to torture and kill innocent animals for the sake of other animals would just shoot a hole in my whole argument.

 

What I am saying is that I can see why people insist on experimenting on animals for medical reasons that could save the lives of any animal, human or not. It doesn't mean that I agree with it. With modern technology, I honestly believe that we can come up with alternatives to testing these chemicals and medicines on anything living (sans bacteria, but if we get into that, we might as well say that vegetarians are eating meat). It's just that most of the world doesn't care enough to try.

 

Soooo, I guess I'm saying that I will never agree or think that animal experimentation is right or just because I think that we can come up with alternative ways to test things, what with today's technology.

Edited November 13, 2011 by Wolfsong442

[Silence2]

 

My point is not that I believe that animals are any more important than humans. I am not more likely to say that I agree with animal experimentation when the medicine devised from the experimenting benefits animals and humans alike, or just non-human animals. Saying that it's okay to torture and kill innocent animals for the sake of other animals would just shoot a hole in my whole argument.

 

What I am saying is that I can see why people insist on experimenting on animals for medical reasons that could save the lives of any animal, human or not. It doesn't mean that I agree with it. With modern technology, I honestly believe that we can come up with alternatives to testing these chemicals and medicines on anything living (sans bacteria, but if we get into that, we might as well say that vegetarians are eating meat). It's just that most of the world doesn't care enough to try.

 

Soooo, I guess I'm saying that I will never agree or think that animal experimentation is right or just because I think that we can come up with alternative ways to test things, what with today's technology.

 

Thank you. Some have said to me "no" to experimenting on animals for human drugs, but it is okay for medications for animals.

 

But, what about side effects? You can test a medication on liver cells and see that it works, but what will it do to heart? How is it excreted? Will it hurt a newborn? Can someone of advanced age use it without a problem? Do you know about some technology that can accurately predict how bodies as a whole will respond to different drugs? Or, even about two or more drugs in a whole body situation?

 

Do I like animal experimentation? No. Is it flawed? Yes. But, until technology can accurately predict how a drug will interact in the body of any animal it could be used in, what the side effects will potentially be, and what the LD 50 and LD 100 are, I don't see how the experimenting can be abandoned. But, again, if someone can tell me about some computer program or robot that can do these things, I would like to know more.

 

Sorry for all the questions. Your stance just really affects aspects of my job. I really do have to consider things about side effects and doses and toxicity, so those concerns of mine just have to be addressed.

[Obscure_Trash]

I think animals deserve more rights than humans when it comes to scientific experimentation. Why not? They can't stop half way through the procedure and rightfully leave as part of their contract, they can't excuse themselves based on morals or values, and they certainly can't voice opposition to the procedure like we can. Most humans put the welfare of their species before a different animal's, so the likelihood of researchers and scientists treating human subjects properly is more likely than if it were a rat. Humans are also capable of pressing charges, making a media storm, and generally making life hell for experimenters and their companies, which by itself would be a reason to treat humans better than animals.

 

So sure, I'll be the one person to say "why not?" when it comes to animal experimenting and their rights. Make things a bit more diverse interesting.

Ah, now that's interesting, and not something I had considered in asking for clarification on what was said. I was just thinking a general animals deserve more rights in life. But this is an interesting take. Thanks. :3

[PlutoIsHades]

I believe that animal experimenting is wrong. So they experiment on animals just because they're unable to speak out? And they don't use humans because they believe humans "deserve better than that"? So animals don't?

[NobleOwl]

Here's the problem I have.

 

Animals deserve respect and care, and rights such as they are able. Yes, they cannot consent to testing, but neither can they consent to being bred by humans, being vaccinated, being put down, being neutered, or having life-saving surgery.

 

We have no real way to create any medical treatments without animal testing, for humans or for animals. Yes, no animal and human is exactly alike -- but we do share the majority of our DNA.

 

A treatment goes through multiple phases before ever being administered to animals, to make it as safe as possible for them. This was not always the case, and you will get some of the old guard who still care less than they should, but there are regulations for animal testing in place for that reason.

 

And despite what you see in Planet of the Apes, there are also regulations regarding care of lab creatures -- often better than what you'll find at a kennel or shelter. With lab animals there are strict cleaning rules, strict rules of how many can be in any given size, because believe it or not, things like keeping them in "cramped" or "dirty" cages would not only harm the animal, but also completely be beside the point.

 

Have I done animal testing? Yes. Did I discover the cure for cancer? No. But through the animal testing, we've got serious progress in finding a treatment for feline leukemia.

 

Most people hold a very dim view of animal testing -- living in California, I've been harassed by PETA members more times than I can count, but, the truth is that reputable labs with serious oversight aren't the big bad monster that people like to make them out to be. We have no other way to do testing. If another way existed, believe me, I'd jump at it, but we don't.

[PlutoIsHades]

Here's the problem I have.

 

Animals deserve respect and care, and rights such as they are able. Yes, they cannot consent to testing, but neither can they consent to being bred by humans, being vaccinated, being put down, being neutered, or having life-saving surgery.

 

We have no real way to create any medical treatments without animal testing, for humans or for animals. Yes, no animal and human is exactly alike -- but we do share the majority of our DNA.

 

A treatment goes through multiple phases before ever being administered to animals, to make it as safe as possible for them. This was not always the case, and you will get some of the old guard who still care less than they should, but there are regulations for animal testing in place for that reason.

 

And despite what you see in Planet of the Apes, there are also regulations regarding care of lab creatures -- often better than what you'll find at a kennel or shelter. With lab animals there are strict cleaning rules, strict rules of how many can be in any given size, because believe it or not, things like keeping them in "cramped" or "dirty" cages would not only harm the animal, but also completely be beside the point.

 

Have I done animal testing? Yes. Did I discover the cure for cancer? No. But through the animal testing, we've got serious progress in finding a treatment for feline leukemia.

 

Most people hold a very dim view of animal testing -- living in California, I've been harassed by PETA members more times than I can count, but, the truth is that reputable labs with serious oversight aren't the big bad monster that people like to make them out to be. We have no other way to do testing. If another way existed, believe me, I'd jump at it, but we don't.

I agree with you on the respect and care thing, but why can't they test on humans instead? Because humans "don't deserve to be treated like that"?

Keeping animals in dirty cages would be beside the point? But the animal could get sick from it, and thus alter the way the product in question affects them.

[Aingeal]

My opinion is that animal experimentation is not okay in any circumstance unless said experimentation is completely harmless to the animal.

 

Then even experimenting with an animal's feed, ie, changing the formula or brand, is wrong. Not to mention neutering or spaying, which can cause animals to actually pine away.

 

rats and dogs aren't even close

 

On what are you basing this, out of curiosity? Yes, there are differences, but how much do you judge"not even close?"

 

I understand that we can't release items that would harm people but there's no reason to hurt them to find out if it works!

 

But oftentimes, that's the only way to do it.

 

Humans are one of the only animals that kill for pleasure, or kill "for the greater good"

 

This isn't even close to true. Chickens have "pecking order" where they will literally peck another chicken to death for the good of the flock. I've seen it. I've also got the scars from wading into it to save said chickens. (I now have severe phobia of chickens, but). Female wolves, foxes, and chimps will induce abortion, and alpha wolvess will kill an omega wolf if they feel it is weakening the pack. Mother horses will literally crush a foal's skull in if it doesn't wean soon enough, and dogs and cats, wild and domestic, will kill for pleasure.

 

 

[NobleOwl]

I agree with you on the respect and care thing, but why can't they test on humans instead? Because humans "don't deserve to be treated like that"?

 

No, because it's not possible.

Animals react differently than humans in captivity.

Animals also respond differently in isolation. A

And animals can be monitored continually and treated quickly.

You can also map out generations of family history, which you are unable to do with humans. You can account for the variables with animals, you cannot with humans.

There's also just not a big enough population of humans to sustain the human testing your suggesting -- there aren't enough people.

 

Further, it also saves lives, because then the scientific community then cannot be bought by the highest bidder, which instituting widespread human testing would do. It would create a massive black market -- look at what the first autopsies did.

 

Keeping animals in dirty cages would be beside the point? But the animal could get sick from it, and thus alter the way the product in question affects them.

 

That's what I meant -- it would invalidate the results, and no scientist worth their salt would do it. That's why, as I said, animal care in labs is generally so much better than places like kennels or humane shelters.

 

[Excuse the lack of clarity please. It's 3:15 in the morning, and I've been up for 72 hours straight.]

Edited November 13, 2011 by NobleOwl

[PlutoIsHades]

No, because it's not possible.

Animals react differently than humans in captivity.

Animals also respond differently in isolation. A

And animals can be monitored continually and treated quickly.

You can also map out generations of family history, which you are unable to do with humans. You can account for the variables with animals, you cannot with humans.

There's also just not a big enough population of humans to sustain the human testing your suggesting -- there aren't enough people.

 

Further, it also saves lives, because then the scientific community then cannot be bought by the highest bidder, which instituting widespread human testing would do. It would create a massive black market -- look at what the first autopsies did.

 

 

 

That's what I meant -- it would invalidate the results, and no scientist worth their salt would do it. That's why, as I said, animal care in labs is generally so much better than places like kennels or humane shelters.

 

[Excuse the lack of clarity please. It's 3:15 in the morning, and I've been up for 72 hours straight.]

Understood. Now go to sleep.

[Packgoater]

Animal testing is bad. No way around that. However, for some things it's pretty necessary.

 

What isn't necessary is the testing for cosmetics, especially when we already know what ingredients work and won't hurt a human. We already know what will work in shampoo. We already know what won't hurt you in makeup. We already know, and yet we continue our testing? Horrible. Disgusting, even.

 

And I 100% agree with Nine. Although I understand we might need to do it for drugs, I think we should take human volunteers. Seriously. Perhaps I just don't care about people enough. Maybe that's it. But honestly, I think that animals, especially apes like chimps, should not be tested on, especially when they have feelings. Female chimps have emotions and care for their children. Apes have complex thoughts, much more so than most other animals. And yet we do this to them?

 

It's almost, if not equal to, blood dolphins. Yes, it's for a 'good' cause. I don't care. Humans can be used for a 'good' cause, too.

[Wolfsong442]

Thank you.  Some have said to me "no" to experimenting on animals for human drugs, but it is okay for medications for animals.

 

But, what about side effects?  You can test a medication on liver cells and see that it works, but what will it do to heart?  How is it excreted?  Will it hurt a newborn?  Can someone of advanced age use it without a problem?  Do you know about some technology that can accurately predict how bodies as a whole will respond to different drugs?  Or, even about two or more drugs in a whole body situation? 

 

Do I like animal experimentation?  No.  Is it flawed?  Yes.   But, until technology can accurately predict how a drug will interact in the body of any animal it could be used in, what the side effects will potentially be, and what the LD 50 and LD 100 are, I don't see how the experimenting can be abandoned.  But, again, if someone can tell me about some computer program or robot that can do these things, I would like to know more. 

 

Sorry for all the questions.  Your stance just really affects aspects of my job.  I really do have to consider things about side effects and doses and toxicity, so those concerns of mine just have to be addressed.

Here's where I show my ignorance and I prove that my opinion, while existing, isn't quite a valid one.

 

I don't know. I'm not going to pretend to know anatomy or science, because quite frankly I nearly flunked out. So I don't know what alternatives are out there. All I'm saying, and feel free to ignore me because I'm an idiot, is that if someone really tried (and I don't know if anyone have or is trying), that we can come up with an alternative to animal testing. OR at the very least make animal testing cause less suffering on the animal. From what I've seen online, if that is what real animal testing is like, it's miserable for the poor animal.

 

Now, I'm not against animal testing. I don't know if I've ever said that. What I'm against is animal testing that causes suffering and misery for the animal. If you can assure me that the animals you test on aren't being hurt or suffer, then I could deal. I could even deal with the animals' deaths, as long as they aren't suffering.

 

I saw a video on youtube where some people kept a dog's head alive with no body through artificial means. Now that was sad.

 

And I agree with people in front of me. Human volunteers would be nice. People will do almost anything for money, especially now a days. If there are people who will volunteer, why not try? Especially if like some people claim, the animals aren't being harmed too much. People can deal with a little bit of pain if they want money. A human volunteer will solve almost any problems we might have, and they also might make some people less likely to try things that the know are terribly harmful. If people agree, then why not accept?

 

Also, sorry Aingeal if I didn't respond to you and sorry if my comments upset you. I'm not going to argue with you. I have my opinion and you have yours. Why do you feel the need to tear mine apart? I was merely stating it.

Edited November 13, 2011 by Wolfsong442