Animal Expermenting

[Rosedamai]

I also agree with many of the posters-I see it as a necessary evil, and so condone it for medical reasons. Not for cosmetics though.

 

One of the things I have problems with when people talk about animal testing is-"why can't we test on humans?" Bear in mind that I have incomplete knowledge on the subject, but-

 

1. We don't know the family history/use of drugs/other such variables. We simply cannot make humans mate in front of us, raise their babies in a controlled element, make them have multiple babies, and such because human gestation period-and the time that it takes for them to grow up-takes such a long time.

 

2. We're getting enough trouble using zygotes in science as is, you try talking to the ultra-conservatives about this, I simply don't think it'll work

 

Oh and another thing-I saw some posters talking about how dogs and cats shouldn't be used as test subjects as people use them for pets. We do horrific stuff to the animals we eat and thus have had the longest relationship in history with us. Not to mention that not all cultures view dogs and cats as pets-many cultures (Chinese, Korean, Southeast Asian, Swiss, some parts of Germany if my memory's correct, parts of Latin America) viewed them as food. People also keep rabbits and rats as pets, but we don't seem to have any problem using them. I just don't understand why cats and dogs should be given special treatment.

[shadow_claw]

From what I've heard about Animal testing, it's not pretty. In fact, most of it is sad and gruesome. A question arises in my thoughts whenever I saw this thread: If people Test things in animals, some of which are already known to be harmful, why can't people just kidnapp a random person on the street, put them in a cage, and test harmful things on them? That was the only thing I gathered from the pretzel logic of animal testing.

 

Here's a fact for yas:

 

~most of the animal testing of cosmetics is NOT Required by law to do.

[satyr76]

If it's for medical purposes, I don't like it, but I think it's necessary, and it does seem to do more harm than good in the big picture, to both animals and humans.

 

However, I'm completely against cosmetic testing. I find it very inhumane and needless.

[7Deadly$ins]

From what I've heard about Animal testing, it's not pretty. In fact, most of it is sad and gruesome. A question arises in my thoughts whenever I saw this thread: If people Test things in animals, some of which are already known to be harmful, why can't people just kidnapp a random person on the street, put them in a cage, and test harmful things on them? That was the only thing I gathered from the pretzel logic of animal testing.

 

Here's a fact for yas:

 

~most of the animal testing of cosmetics is NOT Required by law to do.

From what you've heard about animal testing from... who, exactly? PETA?

[Zovesta]

Humans are one of the only animals that kill for pleasure

*coughbottlenosedolphinscough*

 

Most of what I want to say on the subject has already been said. I think a lot of animal testing is vilified way too much. =P I have no problem with animals have relatively harmless experiments performed on them as long as they are provided with a good life beforehand. They shouldn't be used as tools. They *are* helping us out, whether they wanted to or not, and we should be treating the animals for this like it.

 

Buuut yeah it does kind of need to be done, so. =| Do it, just don't be an ass, aight?

 

Same goes with killing animals for meat, but that's an entirely different topic.

 

 

Edit: Also, legal obligations in regards to the whole cosmetic thing. Since people aren't really just throwing lead on their face anymore, it shouldn't be that harmful to the animal they're testing on. >__>

Edited May 17, 2012 by Zovesta

[TikindiDragon]

It's a bit of a grey area issue this one. With the exception of cosmetics testing, anyway, which I'm 100% against.

 

New drugs do need to be tested. And I understand that initial trials cannot feasably be carried out on humans. My mind does go 'huh?' on the results to a certain extent, though, as I know things like Penicillin (wonder drug to humans) can have some very damaging effects on cats. Part of me wonders how useful the results can actually be when the reactions to medicines can be quite different - and indeed I wonder what potentially beneficial things we've missed because an animal reacted poorley to it.

 

That said, certain amounts of medical testing I do understand the need for.

 

There's another level of testing, though, that I baulk from. And that's non-drugs related research that basically boils down to 'what happens if we do this?'. Most of the experiments done by Harry Harlow, if I'm honest, fall into this category. Although I rather hope we've progressed to the stage where those wouldn't be allowed to take place any more.

 

I confess to also being rather worried by some of the legal terms surrounding the practise of vivisection. While from a detatched point of view I can understand that looking at the internal organs of living creatures while still alive can potentially offer benefits to science I do find it concerning that (in the US anyway) the procedure can be performed without any kind of aneasthetic if deemed 'scientifically nescesary', without legally defining what 'scientifically nescesary' is. Now as that could be as simple as pointing out that aneasthetic does slwo down certain systems it potentially allows for animals to be cut open, while alive, without aneasthetic. That does make my stomach turn rather.

[elderberrysyrup]

If people Test things in animals, some of which are already known to be harmful, why can't people just kidnapp a random person on the street, put them in a cage, and test harmful things on them?

Even a rudimentary level of how experiments are performed should answer your own question. Experiments to be considered valid must have as little variations as possible and be repeatable. People are extremely varied creatures to experiment with, it's better with lab rats who are significantly less varied than a human you just 'get off the street'.

[NightLovesFantasies]

animal testing? im a bit mixed for what their testing on.

 

makeup is absolute evil. why do we need make up? to look pretty? impress boys? (generally speaking for females). if that boy was really into you/ loved or liked you, then he wouldnt need you to wear makeup so he can look at you. if your not in a realationship but wear makeup, why? so you can cover up your insecurities, to feel better about yourself? i wouldnt feel good if i knew animals were being harmed to make me think i feel better about myself.

 

medicine. it really depends on what its for, but still evil. if its for the common cold, how is testing it on a monkey accurate in any way? sure their our ancestors, but unless we can interbreed with them its not 100% accurate. is it just for fun? to poke them with needles and pump them with drugs to see if you can put what you threw together on store shelves?

 

why is it ok to test on a defensless animal, just because they have fur or different genes? its not accurate, those poor animals dont know whats going on, and just because their lower life forms doesnt mean their little dolls. how would you feel if you were bred just to make humans look or feel better? that wasnt their purpose on earth. it was to eat,drink, hunt/graze, and keep their species thriving. which was our original purpose too.

[7Deadly$ins]

animal testing? im a bit mixed for what their testing on.

 

makeup is absolute evil. why do we need make up? to look pretty? impress boys? (generally speaking for females). if that boy was really into you/ loved or liked you, then he wouldnt need you to wear makeup so he can look at you. if your not in a realationship but wear makeup, why? so you can cover up your insecurities, to feel better about yourself? i wouldnt feel good if i knew animals were being harmed to make me think i feel better about myself.

 

medicine. it really depends on what its for, but still evil. if its for the common cold, how is testing it on a monkey accurate in any way? sure their our ancestors, but unless we can interbreed with them its not 100% accurate. is it just for fun? to poke them with needles and pump them with drugs to see if you can put what you threw together on store shelves?

 

why is it ok to test on a defensless animal, just because they have fur or different genes? its not accurate, those poor animals dont know whats going on, and just because their lower life forms doesnt mean their little dolls. how would you feel if you were bred just to make humans look or feel better? that wasnt their purpose on earth. it was to eat,drink, hunt/graze, and keep their species thriving. which was our original purpose too.

First off, monkeys are not our ancestors. We share a common ancestor with apes, primarily. We share 98% or our DNA with chimpanzees. Many animals show highly similar results to humans. We aren't just throwing science at the wall and seeing what happens. There are, in fact, ethical requirements to meet. For the trial stages of a drug, testing on animals is more practical for so many reasons. Drug testing is more than just shooting something up and seeing the immediate side-effects. Side effects can crop up generations down the line, and you won't see this in humans for hundreds of years. You can also control more variables in an animal population being bred for this purpose than you can with humans.

[NightLovesFantasies]

First off, monkeys are not our ancestors. We share a common ancestor with apes, primarily. We share 98% or our DNA with chimpanzees. Many animals show highly similar results to humans. We aren't just throwing science at the wall and seeing what happens. There are, in fact, ethical requirements to meet. For the trial stages of a drug, testing on animals is more practical for so many reasons. Drug testing is more than just shooting something up and seeing the immediate side-effects. Side effects can crop up generations down the line, and you won't see this in humans for hundreds of years. You can also control more variables in an animal population being bred for this purpose than you can with humans.

i didn't mean like an orangatan (excuse my spelling), the older, ancient monkeys or ape like animals that evolved to cave men that evolved to us (forget the scientfic names).

 

i don't see why animals need to be used for cosmetics, but certian drugs are different. you can't use drugs to save life-threatening diseases all the the time. i don't have a medical dictonary to see diseases that can be saved with medications, so no one complain "OOH DO YUR RESEEARCH BECAUSE (insert sickness here) CAN BE SAVED WITH (insert medication here)" i can't go into all the reasons explaining about the medical stuff but the cosmetics are easy to complain about.

i don't have shelves of books about medical problems and such, so i can't just grab a book and tell everyone i did my research. i understand that much about science, it takes of work to make sure everythings safe to be put on shelves. i just don't support animal testing, i have my opinions and everyone else has theirs. those are just my thoughts.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

I think testing for cosmetic/cigars/etc purposes is awful. Ought to be flat out banned.

 

As for real, valid medical tests-ugh, I don't know. I feel like science is increasingly done more for the sake of science itself than as anything that'll actually benefit anyone. But if there really and truly is some nasty disease that a couple experiments that can absolutely only be done with living organisms can find a cure for, than it has to be animals. Even paying people to do trials isn't going to work, because the only people willing to be poked and prodded with potentially disastrous drugs tend to be those people who pretty much have no other means of getting income to survive. As much as it makes me miserable to think of what might be inflicted on rats or mice, the idea of some poor third world peasant doing it just so they can gain enough money to feed their family is even worse.

 

'Course, I could be totally wrong and that might not be how the system works, but eh, that is my logical guess as to how it does.

[NobleOwl]

you can't use drugs to save life-threatening diseases all the the time.

 

We can't if we never learn how to develop the drugs either.

 

I'm a scientist. I do animal testing. I work in cancer research. We need animal testing, because without it, there is no way we can find new therapies or potential cures without it.

 

Animals used for experimentation are treated well -- they have to be. They are kept to the highest standard of living and monitored around the clock.

 

We cannot go straight from the drawing board to human testing -- the population is not big enough, and we live too long. There are also too many variables in humans to start off with human testing.

[kittygrl]

im not sure how i stand on this. i mean animal testing makes sure we are safe but we are testing things on them and thats bad too..

[NightLovesFantasies]

We can't if we never learn how to develop the drugs either.

 

I'm a scientist. I do animal testing. I work in cancer research. We need animal testing, because without it, there is no way we can find new therapies or potential cures without it.

 

Animals used for experimentation are treated well -- they have to be. They are kept to the highest standard of living and monitored around the clock.

 

We cannot go straight from the drawing board to human testing -- the population is not big enough, and we live too long. There are also too many variables in humans to start off with human testing.

i understand everything but one.

the population isnt big enough? are you kidding?

 

the population is in the billions. you cant risk one to save hundreds? mabye thousands? if you have reasons for this, please tell me otherwise i have no idea why anyone would think the population isnt big enough.

 

the human population isnt big enough, but the animals population is?

mabye my infos a little outdated but i dont see this working..

[brairtrainer]

i understand everything but one.

the population isnt big enough? are you kidding?

 

the population is in the billions. you cant risk one to save hundreds? mabye thousands? if you have reasons for this, please tell me otherwise i have no idea why anyone would think the population isnt big enough.

 

the human population isnt big enough, but the animals population is?

mabye my infos a little outdated but i dont see this working..

What Noble Owl means that there is not a large enough amount of humans willing to enter a lifestyle that goes along with testing. Also humans live so long that it can take decades or longer to get any sort of meaningful data.

 

Animals however like rats, rabbits, cavies(guiena pigs) live for a few years, breed porlifically and a larger population can be sustained in a smaller area and you get data much much faster.

 

Now I only agree to animal testing if its medical, honestly I think the big cosmetic companies should pay people to test out their products rather than using animals.

[NightLovesFantasies]

What Noble Owl means that there is not a large enough amount of humans willing to enter a lifestyle that goes along with testing. Also humans live so long that it can take decades or longer to get any sort of meaningful data.

 

Animals however like rats, rabbits, cavies(guiena pigs) live for a few years, breed porlifically and a larger population can be sustained in a smaller area and you get data much much faster.

 

Now I only agree to animal testing if its medical, honestly I think the big cosmetic companies should pay people to test out their products rather than using animals.

oh, that makes sense. i thought Noble Owl meant that there wasn't enough humans alive.

 

as for the rabbits and rats, that's an understandable large population. but as for dogs and cats, which ive seen tested on, are very different.

 

completley agree. cosmetics aren't useful in any way. they can't save lives, if people really want make up then they would let themselves be tested on without being paid. otherwise, makeup could stop being sold or tested on animals.

[sparkle10184]

We can't if we never learn how to develop the drugs either.

 

I'm a scientist. I do animal testing. I work in cancer research. We need animal testing, because without it, there is no way we can find new therapies or potential cures without it.

 

Animals used for experimentation are treated well -- they have to be. They are kept to the highest standard of living and monitored around the clock.

 

We cannot go straight from the drawing board to human testing -- the population is not big enough, and we live too long. There are also too many variables in humans to start off with human testing.

Treated well? That doesn't sound very true. Animals who are used for testing are put through a lot of pain and agony. What if the drug doesn't work right? The animal might die because the medicine is made wrong.

 

Also, aren't the cages the animals are kept in very small?

[NightLovesFantasies]

Treated well? That doesn't sound very true. Animals who are used for testing are put through a lot of pain and agony. What if the drug doesn't work right? The animal might die because the medicine is made wrong.

 

Also, aren't the cages the animals are kept in very small?

even though i don't support animal testing, i have to be fair.

 

there's more than one animal testing lab. one could be completley different from the other. the scientists who work at the terrible one, say the animals like it and their happy to do it. that's how you know their treated badly because we have no idea what their saying.

 

even if the animals are living in great standards doesnt mean their happy. and it depends on the drug their being tested on.

[NightLovesFantasies]

The animals might be happy at the beginning.... But later they are tested on and realize how painful their life is now.

 

Some labs are pretty cruel. I have seen TV shows where they show testing labs. Sometimes they put five rats in a one foot by one foot cage.

the drugs don't last forever...not all of them.

 

and those are cruel labs that should be shut down for animal cruelty. just because their scientists doesn't mean it excuses them from laws (not applying that to every lab)

[brairtrainer]

Treated well? That doesn't sound very true. Animals who are used for testing are put through a lot of pain and agony. What if the drug doesn't work right? The animal might die because the medicine is made wrong.

 

Also, aren't the cages the animals are kept in very small?

Now I don't test animals but I can offer this with your "aren't the cages kept very small?" argument.

 

Pet Rabbit owners are known to buy very big cages if their rabbit is going to spend most of its time in there and very small (sleeping cage; dog crate for a rabbit) if the rabbit is litter box trained. However most rabbits can live quite comfortably in a 24x24x24 cage, which is what most cages are (and cages for shows longer than a day that are supplied to the animals). Giant breeds need more, dwarf breeds need less, but I keep my 6-8 pound rabbits in 24x24x24 cages mostly (breeding mothers have more space). So the cages may look small but actually are very comfortable for the animal. In fact for a rabbit a cage that is too big can be just as bad as one that is too small.

 

Most people I've met say to put a piece of plastic (a rest) on the bottom of wire cages to prevent sore hocks, but if the cage is too big and it is not made of coated wire(amazing cages just super expensive) then the rabbit gets sore hocks from hopping on the rest of the wire all day.

 

Edit: Also I knew people who kept rats who learned that rats are so sociable that they need or want contact with other rats. I highly doubt that unless they were pygmies that they could fit five in a 1 foot by 1 foot cage. rats are big.

Edited July 6, 2012 by brairtrainer

[7Deadly$ins]

The animals might be happy at the beginning.... But later they are tested on and realize how painful their life is now.

 

Some labs are pretty cruel. I have seen TV shows where they show testing labs. Sometimes they put five rats in a one foot by one foot cage.

There are ethical requirements for animal testing. These HAVE to be followed. The labs you saw on TV were highly likely propaganda from organizations like PETA. Unless you can cite a valid source.

[NobleOwl]

the population isnt big enough? are you kidding?

 

No, I'm not. You're talking about tens of thousands of subjects for every single different experiment. We have millions of different treatments being tested at any given time. There are not enough people for that.

 

For example, a rat lives a much shorter life, so their population is smaller at any given time, but more have existed.

 

Treated well? That doesn't sound very true. Animals who are used for testing are put through a lot of pain and agony. What if the drug doesn't work right? The animal might die because the medicine is made wrong.

 

It doesn't sound true because you don't understand how it works. Is there a possibility that the animal might die? Yes. But we don't go straight from the drawing board to animals, either. Might it hurt them? Maybe, but it's not that high of a risk.

 

Animals who are used for testing are put through a lot of pain and agony.

 

You're basing this on what? There are multiple tests prior to prevent that from happening.

 

Also, aren't the cages the animals are kept in very small?

 

No. There are size requirements for cages.

 

 

[Obscure_Trash]

I would rather kill a human to save 100 animals,than kill an animal to save 100 humans.

Source: PETA, HSUS,etc. Yes I eat ,meat btw

Just a tad ironic to list PETA considering how many animals they kill. =o

[grimace]

Ever heard of a simulator? I would rather kill a human to save 100 animals,than kill an animal to save 100 humans.

Source: PETA, HSUS,etc. Yes I eat ,meat btw

Peta and HSUS are both absolutely awful organizations who work pretty hard to greatly hurt animals.

[Omen]

Considering that I have benefited from treatments found viable through animal testing, I cannot say I am against it without sounding like a hypocrite. Without those treatments I'd be dead, so you could say that my opinion is biased. Nonetheless, I do believe it is something that is required to further medical research.

 

Without it, medical science would likely be decades or even centuries below the grade it is at now. For that reason, it is something I consider necessary. There are regulations to protect the animals being used in testing now, although I cannot say the same for those animals used hundreds, and even thousands of years ago.