Animal Expermenting

[Kestra15]

Unfortunately it's needed for medical research, but I don't agree with cosmetic and other vanity/pointless tests.

[Wolfsong442]

Perhaps what really bothers me are that dogs and cats are animals we have as pets. Now, whether or not you have pets, it's ingrained into us that dogs and cats are pet animals. So it really bothers me that people are ignoring that long enough to torture them for medicine and cosmetics. Now, I don't know how many dogs as opposed to rats are used in genetic tests, but I don't believe that they should be used at all. I see a picture of a dog being experimented on and I just want to take it home/imagine the life that it could have with me.

 

Now, I don't mean to be speciest, and I know that there are people who see rats as equal to dogs and cats on the pet spectrum, but they are separate in my mind. Yes, I want rats. But they are different from dogs. I'm not going to say that dogs have human emotions (even though I believe they have "emotions", whether or not we put human in front as comparison), but they seem to, and that's enough for me. I haven't been around rats enough, but they seem, to me, less emotional. Rat lovers, please don't jump down my throat, I want pet rats too.

 

If we could eliminate dog and cat testing, I could deal.

 

OH, ans to counter an earlier argument. Are you really going to tell me that changing a dog's food, or doing a necessary medical procedure that results in less unwanted and less euthanized animals around the world is akin to deliberately torturing an animal to death are even close to the same things? O_o Changing a dog's food doesn't hurt it. Maybe it'll give them a belly ache, but my dog eats cat food for god's sake. She'll eat whatever I give her. It isn't harmful to an animal to change their food unless you're giving them something with glass in it. Also, while I believe that neutering can be wrong. It doesn't kill the animal in nearly all the cases. It cuts down on stray pets, it can even help keep your pet healthy and cuts down their risk for certain cancers if done responsibly at the right time.

Edited November 13, 2011 by Wolfsong442

[Zipporah]

It's useful, probably a necessary evil, but I don't like it. It's probably saved my life more than once and I'm grateful. At the same time thinking about the suffering involved hurts, and I don't think I could control myself if I saw it happening in front of me.

[Wolfsong442]

It's useful, probably a necessary evil, but I don't like it. It's probably saved my life more than once and I'm grateful. At the same time thinking about the suffering involved hurts, and I don't think I could control myself if I saw it happening in front of me.

I think that's why most people, myself included try not to think about it. Most people aren't unfeeling and if they think about the suffering caused my animal experimentation, it hurts them too, so it's easier just to ignore it. I know this all too well.

 

I agree with you completely

[LadyNightshade]

I think the big problem is people always think animal experimenting equals cruel unusual torture and these filthy dirty cages and horrid conditions and weird science experiments.

 

 

There's actually quite a bit of law in play (for at least the US). My dad works in nutritional petcare and he has to go through all this testing for Animal Safety regulations.

They get federal inspections on a regular basis to make sure that they are following all protocol (keeping it clean and safe). People, even long term employees, have been fired for harming an animal.

 

Albeit he is working in petcare, the animals at his work are more or less treated as pets, better treated than some people keep their own animals.

[BlueSkyy]

Okay, first, some background information:

 

I'm 25, college graduate with a degree in biology. I've been a part of many, many research labs, all of them utilizing animal testing in some form. I've even preformed animal testing, and am certified to humanely euthanize animals up to 35 lbs.

 

That being said, a lot of people condemn it without ever experiencing it first-hand. The animals in all of my labs were incredibly well-cared for. They were treated better than most people's pets, and definitely better than animals in pet stores, especially the lab mice (which is the species I am most experienced with.)

 

I named every mouse in my study, and treated each one with the utmost care, as did every single one of my co-workers. They (the mice) deserve an incredible amount of respect, because even though they were test subjects and probably didn't enjoy getting injections, they never once tried to bite me. I would stroke and calm them before the injection, and then would give them a small treat afterward as an "apology."

 

They lived on dust-free aspen bedding, changed DAILY, with toilet paper tubes and nesting materials to provide entertainment. No mouse was housed alone unless they preferred to be (biters and fighters would be separated immediately.) Mothers were allowed to raise their offspring and were not separated from female pups once they grew up (since it was clear that the mothers bonded with their babies, we tried not to separate them unless they would reproduce with each other.) Mates were generally for life, once a bond had been established.

 

The mice were vet checked weekly, and a vet was on call at all times for any emergency.

 

At the end of the study, the mice were euthanized humanely. We did not gas our mice, each one received an injection individually and then was returned to its cage to die in peace with its cage-mates so it wouldn't feel alone and scared during its last moments. Their bodies were treated with respect, because without them, our work would be in vain.

 

If an animal was ever too stressed because of the injections, the testing was halted. Animals that are extremely stressed provide conflicting variables and are not good candidates for study; therefore, it's not good for the scientist's credibility if he allows his animals to become stressed.

 

And some of the animals even came home with me as pets after study.

 

Most research labs are required by law to give public tours, so if you guys want to see for yourselves, find a university lab and ask for a tour! I think you'll be pleasantly surprised, if the lab is of any good standing. We scientists aren't all evil, nor do we enjoy torturing animals.

 

I hope this provided some insight into "the other side" - If you have any questions about my experiences feel free to ask.

[amerylis]

I am completly and 100% against animal testing for cosmetic and household uses, however I 100% support medical testing in animals.

 

They are kept in huamne conditions one group of people play with them, feed them, brush them and walk them. One group give them the experimental drug and do the testing side of it. The cages are of a proper size for the animals and are clean/well maintained and there is a legal duty to give the animals good care and attention.

 

The minimum testing is done and special permits have to be applied for you have to prove that it is necessary to use animal testing in your medical research and the steps you have taken to minimse the amount of testing needed. The animals are treated with kindness and once testing is finished they are not left alive to suffer any ill effects.

 

With medication animal testing is unavoidable becuase while a drug may work perfectly in a petri dish, when put in the blood it may cause teratogenic effects or horrendous side effects. This is a whole body effect and can not be picked up unless it is in a body system, and at the end of the day no one is going to allow an untested medicine to be used on their mum/son/husband is we don't even know if it will kill them but not help their condition.

 

Testing on deathrow type inmates is not an option because they tend not to be "clean" systems, they may have illnesses, drug abuse, other medications so we could not be 100% sure if they were giving a true reflection of the drugs abilities or not. Also the amount of horrendous deaths there would be would not be justifiable. We have used animals like mice, certain types of dogs and monkeys enough in the past that we know how they react in certain situations and how they compare to human systems. this is sadly the best way to do medical research

[Aingeal]

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.

 

I wasn't upset! And I wasn't trying to "tear your argument apart." I was merely addressing some of what you said, and some inaccurate information you had.

 

Are you really going to tell me that changing a dog's food, or doing a necessary medical procedure that results in less unwanted and less euthanized animals around the world is akin to deliberately torturing an animal to death are even close to the same things? O_o Changing a dog's food doesn't hurt it.

 

It can. That's the thing. I love animals, I live in an area that half my friends consider my house a farm. We've had half-a-dozen dogs, chickens, a goat, ducks, you name it.

 

In that experience, we also switched a beagle's food and he went off his feed, refusing to eat for days. We changed the goat's food and she got deathly sick. It is possible to change something's food and cause it severe harm.

 

You're talking about torture, and how anything with any risk to the animal shouldn't happen, when something as simple as giving your animal a vaccine or changing it's food can cause harm.

 

I am all for minimising he risks. Honest, but to say "unless there's no risk" makes half of pet-parenting out of the question as well.

[JaziandCo]

Perhaps what really bothers me are that dogs and cats are animals we have as pets. Now, whether or not you have pets, it's ingrained into us that dogs and cats are pet animals. So it really bothers me that people are ignoring that long enough to torture them for medicine and cosmetics. Now, I don't know how many dogs as opposed to rats are used in genetic tests, but I don't believe that they should be used at all. I see a picture of a dog being experimented on and I just want to take it home/imagine the life that it could have with me.

 

Now, I don't mean to be speciest, and I know that there are people who see rats as equal to dogs and cats on the pet spectrum, but they are separate in my mind. Yes, I want rats. But they are different from dogs. I'm not going to say that dogs have human emotions (even though I believe they have "emotions", whether or not we put human in front as comparison), but they seem to, and that's enough for me. I haven't been around rats enough, but they seem, to me, less emotional. Rat lovers, please don't jump down my throat, I want pet rats too.

 

If we could eliminate dog and cat testing, I could deal.

Rodents are good and all, but what about for medical testing? Surgeries and the like? Without testing done on dogs, we wouldn't have the Blalock–Taussig shunt, which has helped dozens if not hundreds or thousands of cases of "blue babies". Once the surgery/medicine/whatever is deemed "safe enough" to test on a human, it moves to humans.

 

Also remember that animal testing helps animals too. =X Vaccinations, surgeries, and the like for pets had to come from somewhere. Something that needs to work on a dog isn't able to be completely testable on something that doesn't respond the same. Rats are highly prone to dying while under anestesia. You can't really perfect a surgery if 30% (note: this number came out my ass. Someone who knows more about rats and anestesia can give a more accurate statistic) of your experiments are pretty much guaranteed to die with or without cutting them open. Gastric torsion (think Marley and Me) also doesn't happen nearly as often in rats as it does in deep chested dogs, cows, and horses, which is why a lot of the corrective surgeries for it are still in the experimental stage and there are still dogs dying from it. The statistics my vet gave me were pretty ridiculous; 50% survive the surgery (if it comes to that, sometimes it's fixable without), another 50% survive the first year after, and every year after that the surviving dogs are again cut by 50%. Sadly, because gastric torsion is incredibly painful for the animal, I don't think we're ethically able to reproduce it, and that's a major stopping block for corrective surgeries for dogs that need it.

 

Perhaps it's just because I see animals as animals, no more or less important than the other. Cats, dogs, rats, cows, horses, birds. Some I dislike but they're all animals that have their own uses in the medical field. I also see them all as meat, though I don't think I could eat my personal pets =P

Edited November 14, 2011 by JaziandCo

[AlternateMew]

Wow, BlueSkyy. That's wonderful. And I'm not being sarcastic, I swear.

 

Anyone hera against animal testing that eats meat? Two words: factory farming. From what I know, many will bend the rules any way they can just to get the most meat the fastest. Compared to that, and in light of what BlueSkyy said, lab animals have the good life.

 

Also, I'm not exactly a tester myself, but I am working towards a psychology degree. So I do understand the benefits (and whys) of non-human testing. I also know that some scientists think up scenarios that could be tested on humans, but we're not allowed to. Ethics and all.

 

For cosmetics... why would that even be needed? /is uneducated there

[kaagia]

Animal experimenting is absolutely and no matter the circumstances an inexcusable crime against nature. Nobody benefits from it, the results these 'scientists' get are not only very lackluster, but in most, if not all cases do not apply to humans at all.

If anything needs to get tested, they might as well use human volunteers. No big surprise that nobody would be willing to deliberately put himself in the position of a lab rodent.

[Completely Different]

For me, animal testing is unfortunately the only choice- although I only condone it for medical testing, and not cosmetics.

 

As a biologist, I know about the alternatives- and also know those alternatives just aren't feasible. Its illegal and unsafe to give untested treatments to humans. Computer models are too simplified at this point to give anywhere near certain results. Tissue samples don't show the effects of the vast, interconnecting systems bodies have, and therefore misses out key variables and possible effects.

 

Animals might not always be perfect models, but they are the best alternative we have. Medical researchers are always acutely aware of any possible differences between us, and continually factor that into their results. As for the allegation that it helps no one....ridiculous. Billions of lives have been saved due to animal testing, many of whom were animals themselves.

 

And like BlueSkyy said, most countries have very strict protocol and guidelines. There's still a very heavily ingrained concept that science is composed of people sticking things into creatures, breaking ethical laws left and right, just because we can. That's really a too simplified view; remember, researchers and scientists are humans too, and most don't want to harm animals any more than you would.

 

I do wish it wasn't necessary, but really, is the only feasible choice we have.

[kaagia]

So just because the animal has no way to show their understandable disapproval of the situation, it makes it legal to use them, but the sacred humans who are so high and migthy can do whatever they want to 'lower lifeforms' without any remorse?

 

Ethics only seem to apply when there's humans involved. Who cares about the suffering of these lab animals? Who cares about unsafe products if they can get tested on someone who cannot protest? The animals might get treated well, but they're still getting tortured and most of the time they don't benefit from it in any way whatsoever.

 

Seriously, just the thought of this makes me sick.

[Alpha Gryph]

Okay, first, some background information:

 

I'm 25, college graduate with a degree in biology. I've been a part of many, many research labs, all of them utilizing animal testing in some form. I've even preformed animal testing, and am certified to humanely euthanize animals up to 35 lbs.

 

That being said, a lot of people condemn it without ever experiencing it first-hand. The animals in all of my labs were incredibly well-cared for. They were treated better than most people's pets, and definitely better than animals in pet stores, especially the lab mice (which is the species I am most experienced with.)

 

I named every mouse in my study, and treated each one with the utmost care, as did every single one of my co-workers. They (the mice) deserve an incredible amount of respect, because even though they were test subjects and probably didn't enjoy getting injections, they never once tried to bite me. I would stroke and calm them before the injection, and then would give them a small treat afterward as an "apology."

 

They lived on dust-free aspen bedding, changed DAILY, with toilet paper tubes and nesting materials to provide entertainment. No mouse was housed alone unless they preferred to be (biters and fighters would be separated immediately.) Mothers were allowed to raise their offspring and were not separated from female pups once they grew up (since it was clear that the mothers bonded with their babies, we tried not to separate them unless they would reproduce with each other.) Mates were generally for life, once a bond had been established.

 

The mice were vet checked weekly, and a vet was on call at all times for any emergency.

 

At the end of the study, the mice were euthanized humanely. We did not gas our mice, each one received an injection individually and then was returned to its cage to die in peace with its cage-mates so it wouldn't feel alone and scared during its last moments. Their bodies were treated with respect, because without them, our work would be in vain.

 

If an animal was ever too stressed because of the injections, the testing was halted. Animals that are extremely stressed provide conflicting variables and are not good candidates for study; therefore, it's not good for the scientist's credibility if he allows his animals to become stressed.

 

And some of the animals even came home with me as pets after study.

 

Most research labs are required by law to give public tours, so if you guys want to see for yourselves, find a university lab and ask for a tour! I think you'll be pleasantly surprised, if the lab is of any good standing. We scientists aren't all evil, nor do we enjoy torturing animals.

 

I hope this provided some insight into "the other side" - If you have any questions about my experiences feel free to ask.

This.

 

I won't pretend to be learned in the methods of animal testing and lab animal care, I'm an Entertainment Art major, heh. However, an old friend of mine is nearly graduated with a degree in biology herself. She has been inside the labs where animal testing was performed and said nearly the same thing. The animals used for testing, in the lab she visited at least, were treated with great care and kindness. Some of the scientists bonded very closely with those animals, giving them names and such, as BlueSkyy also mentioned.

 

I'm not going to get into the debate on whether humans have a right to decide to test on animals in the first place. Lord knows arguments on human/animal equality gets heated. I just think that people have a very distorted view on the treatment of animals for experimentation. They're always viewed as being shoved in these cold, dark cages without proper care and strapped to lab tables while the scientists laugh manically as they begin torturing.

 

I guess I obviously can't say that for all animal testing labs, since only the ones she's been to are the ones I've been told about. However, if what BlueSkyy said about labs being required to give tours is true, I think a lot of the 'poor side treatment' aspect of animal experimentation can at least be put to rest.

 

(Your post was very pleasing to read, Skyy could I ask what kind of experimentation you've had experience with? Where you experimenting with medicines?)

Edited February 8, 2012 by Alpha Gryph

[TheDarkCynder]

Animal testing benefits both humans and animals. Where did the vet get his vaccines, do you think?

 

Animal testing is not injecting random needles into animals. It's done carefully, and are not kept in abusive conditions. You can even get retired lab rats as pets from some labs, and they generally live double the lifespan of a rat from a pet store.

 

Also, medical testing is not only done on animals. Don't you see those advertisements on TV asking people to sign up?

[Kestra15]

So just because the animal has no way to show their understandable disapproval of the situation, it makes it legal to use them, but the sacred humans who are so high and migthy can do whatever they want to 'lower lifeforms' without any remorse?

 

Ethics only seem to apply when there's humans involved. Who cares about the suffering of these lab animals? Who cares about unsafe products if they can get tested on someone who cannot protest? The animals might get treated well, but they're still getting tortured and most of the time they don't benefit from it in any way whatsoever.

 

Seriously, just the thought of this makes me sick.

So you will be signing up for the next Stage II drug trials then?

[Stunningfire]

Completely against animal experimentation unless it's harmless to the animal. :/

[Kestra15]

Completely against animal experimentation unless it's harmless to the animal. :/

So will we be trying our new, untrialed drugs on you then?

[sir_horsey_XIX]

I view animal testing as a necessary evil. While it does bring harm to animals, I trust the what the biologists say, in that when testing is done legally, it treats the animals with more dignity than most house pets.

 

But to those who are totally against it under all circumstances:

Most of our medical technology stems from research on live animals. If you really think it is evil in all respects, don't fuel the fire. Most of us live in capitalistic societies, right? If everyone stops funding the medical companies, they'll stop experimenting on animals because they have no money. Giving them your money only adds to their ability to experiment on animals. Don't take any non-herbal pills. Don't take any medication. Don't give your pets medicine if they get sick. If you or your pet requires surgery, refuse to have that, too, because modern knowledge of surgery was learned via autopsies on people and animals as well as explorative surgery on living animals, whether or not it was done humanely.

[grimace]

Animal testing helps animals than it hurts them, in the big picture.

[lizardtail]

in the long run, if it saves more lives than it takes, fine by me.

[loudwhitenoise]

As with anything else, my knowlegde on this subject is incomplete. However, my understanding of it is they use animal tests first and often it shows them that it is too harmful to use on humans, so many of these things never actually get to human testing.

 

In the case of rats which are bred specifically for testing, the rats are very genetically similar to each other which reduces variables - because rodents have litters you can test one thing on siblings and get more consistent results, because where are you going to find identical octuplets or whatever that are all volunteering? And humans have so many more variables like diet and sleep pattern and stress.

 

I get that the animal has no say in it but at least they are looked after, and the industry is regulated heaps so they need to be looked after or else.

 

I disagree with cosmetic testing, because that isn't anything life-saving or w/e like medicines or vaccines.

But for medicines, I reckon you should give life-sentence prisoners (particularly multiple-life-sentenced ones) the option to be a test subject. Or even conscript them for it, but then people go on about human rights and stuff. Even with that I doubt you would get anywhere near enough to make up the numbers needed for the vast amounts of testing that happens.

 

tl;dr My overall opinion though is pretty much 'blind eye'.

I get more irked about people who are mean to their pets (look up the rspca or spca or w/e it is in your country, its scary and sad what people do).

[elderberrysyrup]

But for medicines, I reckon you should give life-sentence prisoners (particularly multiple-life-sentenced ones) the option to be a test subject.

AFAIK, the concept behind that would be somewhat problematic, it's hard to perform proper experiments when your experimentation pool is as varied as your prison system.

[Zaxian]

As with most of the responses to this thread, I see animal testing for medicine as a necessary evil.

 

You simply could not achieve the same results with human volunteer testing. If you offered monetary recompense, you'd get the poor and disadvantaged applying far more than others - a skewed subset of the population far more likely to have experienced hardship, malnutrition or prior illness (potentially invalidating your results). If you didn't offer any recompense, then people simply wouldn't volunteer - it's all very well and good talking about altruism but it's hard enough to get people to give up a little time and effort for a good cause, let alone trying to persuade sufficient numbers to give up time as well as risking their own health, or life! Not to mention that it would be impossible to control genetic variances in a self-selected group of people, or to account for factors introduced by self-selection bias.

 

Basically, to get anything like the same results you would literally have to breed people for said testing. Or have some sort of medical testing conscription. Neither of which is going to happen any time soon.

 

As to alternatives to live testing? The human body alone is far too complex to model completely with current computing technology in any meaningful way, not to mention all the additional external factors you'd need to include. Cell cultures are inadequate again because they don't show anything like the full story.

 

Certainly in the future, computer modeling is likely to become a viable alternative. And it may be that advances in technology and stem cell research allow us to reconstruct fully functioning organs in the lab. But it's all a long way off and for now, in many cases, animal testing is the only viable route.

[TPishek]

Most of what I have to say about animal testing has already been stated. Labs are very careful with their test subjects. They are treated with care and there is honestly little to no suffering-- pain is a variable that can interfere with tests, so it is minimized. All labs have a veterinarian on staff to help with treatments, management, and euthanasia. And there are tons of regulations about lab animal treatment.

 

There is no viable alternative to animal testing at this time. Computer models can only get you so far-- I mean think about it, you're experimenting because you don't know how things work, so how can you program a computer to predict reactions? When you study something like cell/molec biology you begin to understand how very little we really know about the human body. Tissue samples and in vitro testing can give you some data, but they lack the complexity of interacting organ systems. Human test subjects are simply impractical-- too many interfering variables, long gestation and generation periods, tiny litter sizes, you can't euthanize them to look at histology, etc. It already takes almost a decade to bring a new drug to market; if we used exclusively human test subjects it would take a heck of a lot longer.

 

My understanding about cosmetic testing is that in some places, it is still legally required and that's the only reason it's still performed. But, since we already know what cosmetics are safe, it's not like the animals are suffering from it. The painful tests of the past are long gone.

Edited May 16, 2012 by TPishek