Jump to content
libby2999

Animal Expermenting

Recommended Posts

I think we can do a bit of both though. As I mentioned, we are over populated and despite the one offspring every nine months, I've seen single families with 3-5 consecutive children (All pretty horrible parents btw) so we are not so bad in terms of reproduction. All that said, testing has to be done with the concent of the person why I mentioned its not about kidnapping them but f a person agrees if the option is made available, all concent has to be given, a runthrough of the procedure, all the risk both minor and serius to be laid out and in the end allowing that person to walk out or sign that contract ad be a test subject.

 

A few humans we loose down the line for the good of the many isn't gonna affect people. Most people don't care about human life as it is. How many news reports, you tube videos, etc, are there of people in serious need of help and others just walking by and not giving two fricks about whether their dying or not. So Suddenly throw testing in there for the good of humanity and everyone flips their lid? They have no right or say.

 

Just like laws can be made so Test animals can be treated as humanely as possible, laws can be made so that human test subjects can be treated as humanely as possible. Having actual tests subjects of varying sizes, sex, medical backgrounds can create a more efficient way to test, drugs can be approved faster because we will have real time effect on humans rather than using something similar, tossing it out there with a sure but we'll see, then having to recall it if it goes wrong. Many side effects can be tested and be brought to light sooner if we test on humans as well. With the 3 billion humans we have to choose from, what would really be the harm of a few sacrificing their lives for the good of human sience. We can expect them to throw themselves into a war, die or become traumatized, then have them come back as if nothing happened but suddenly its wrong to ensure a test that will be distributed for humans actually works on humans by testing on humans before letting out nation/world wide? The logic of the human race is an odd one. We do so many ethically questionable things, really, so whats wrong with one more?

Share this post


Link to post

Just because we're doing bad things to people DOES NOT mean it's okay to do more bad things. War is horrible and bad, and it would be wonderful if it could be stopped, but 'war happens and no one cares' is not sufficient justification for more people dying.

Share this post


Link to post
I think we can do a bit of both though. As I mentioned, we are over populated and despite the one offspring every nine months, I've seen single families with 3-5 consecutive children (All pretty horrible parents btw) so we are not so bad in terms of reproduction. All that said, testing has to be done with the concent of the person why I mentioned its not about kidnapping them but f a person agrees if the option is made available, all concent has to be given, a runthrough of the procedure, all the risk both minor and serius to be laid out and in the end allowing that person to walk out or sign that contract ad be a test subject.

 

A few humans we loose down the line for the good of the many isn't gonna affect people. Most people don't care about human life as it is. How many news reports, you tube videos, etc, are there of people in serious need of help and others just walking by and not giving two fricks about whether their dying or not. So Suddenly throw testing in there for the good of humanity and everyone flips their lid? They have no right or say.

 

Just like laws can be made so Test animals can be treated as humanely as possible, laws can be made so that human test subjects can be treated as humanely as possible. Having actual tests subjects of varying sizes, sex, medical backgrounds can create a more efficient way to test, drugs can be approved faster because we will have real time effect on humans rather than using something similar, tossing it out there with a sure but we'll see, then having to recall it if it goes wrong. Many side effects can be tested and be brought to light sooner if we test on humans as well. With the 3 billion humans we have to choose from, what would really be the harm of a few sacrificing their lives for the good of human sience. We can expect them to throw themselves into a war, die or become traumatized, then have them come back as if nothing happened but suddenly its wrong to ensure a test that will be distributed for humans actually works on humans by testing on humans before letting out nation/world wide? The logic of the human race is an odd one. We do so many ethically questionable things, really, so whats wrong with one more?

You realize drugs DO get tested on humans, right?

Share this post


Link to post

Not all of them. Very few do, why do you think some drugs get recalled after public release?

Share this post


Link to post
Not all of them. Very few do, why do you think some drugs get recalled after public release?

Drugs HAVE to be tested on human populations to be licensed by the FDA.

Share this post


Link to post

Cosmetics? No. Medicine? Ok. I don't see the point of dripping shampoo into rabbit's eyes and watching them scream is getting us any closer to good shampoos.

Share this post


Link to post

First let me preface this by saying that I'm a biologist. I study a pest species of fly. I do not, not have I ever, done any research on vertebrates. However, as a biologist, I am qualified to speak about the truth behind the necessity (and sometimes the needlessness) of animal research.

 

As a scientist, I can definitely see the real use for animal testing. A lot of the arguments people use about rats not being the same as humans are both correct and incorrect at the same time. It really depends on what is being tested. There are some basic things in any level of life (all life, all animals, all mammals, all primates, and so on) that work exactly the same way in all members of that group. For example, basic cellular machinery needed to keep the cell alive is essentially the same in all life forms. We share an incredible amount of DNA with BACTERIA! All of those genes are necessary for life. That is why we can use something as different from humans as bacteria to test certain things and to learn about certain processes that are applicable to humans, as well. Furthermore, humans have a rich community of beneficial bacteria in our bodies, and science is discovering more and more how crucial these are to our health. So understanding how things affect bacteria is very important.

 

Now scale that up a bit. Rats are much more closely related to use than are bacteria. The data gained from lab tests is invaluable for human health and wellbeing. Many animals that aren't terribly similar to us (such as rats) still have similar genetic diseases because the a mutation in a gene we share causes the disease. Even fruit flies can get mutations that cause similar diseases to that of humans, and no one will argue that flies are our close relatives. By studying the disease in these animals, we can find ways to prevent and cure them in humans. For example, germ-free rats (lacking even the internal bacteria communities that animals, including humans, have) can tell us a lot about ways in which normal vs abnormal bacteria affect our health.

 

With as much paperwork and hassle as it is to work with vertebrates, believe you me, scientists look for other options before turning to vertebrate studies! Even when the research doesn't actually harm the animal and is if the good of the species, the amount of paperwork and loops one had to jump through is insane, and for good reason.

 

There are a lot of gut reactionary misconceptions about animal testing. Sometimes it IS necessary. It provides a baseline safety level before human trials can proceed. Think about it this way: if a new medication kills rats, monkeys, and rabbits, it's likely to kill humans, too. It PROBABLY shouldn't go to human trials.

 

Now, on the other hand, there are cases in which I do feel it's not necessary. Companies have already proven than cosmetic testing in animals is not needed. There are plenty of safe, high quality cosmetics that were not tested on animals. Any time it is not directly necessary, I feel a different route should be taken.

 

As far as why drugs still get recalled after human trials, it's because [A] pharmaceutical companies can use biased researchers/data, the effects of a drug might not become apparent during the relatively short trial phase, [C] the trial didn't take some environmental combination into consideration, and only in a real setting did the negative effect come to light.

Share this post


Link to post

I mean, when its something like makeup? No. Medicine? Yes. 'Nuf said. I'll have unhappy rats vs humans dying of disease.

Not going to go into my opinion on animal testing at the present time, and I don't want to be asked, I'm not in the mood right now, but I just have to reply to this post. I've said it already anyway, I just don't want to bring it up...

 

Sometimes the rats do die, they're not always just 'unhappy'. Not saying that will change your opinion, but I think it is worth mentioning.

Edited by sparkle10184

Share this post


Link to post
First let me preface this by saying that I'm a biologist. I study a pest species of fly. I do not, not have I ever, done any research on vertebrates. However, as a biologist, I am qualified to speak about the truth behind the necessity (and sometimes the needlessness) of animal research.

 

As a scientist, I can definitely see the real use for animal testing. A lot of the arguments people use about rats not being the same as humans are both correct and incorrect at the same time. It really depends on what is being tested. There are some basic things in any level of life (all life, all animals, all mammals, all primates, and so on) that work exactly the same way in all members of that group. For example, basic cellular machinery needed to keep the cell alive is essentially the same in all life forms. We share an incredible amount of DNA with BACTERIA! All of those genes are necessary for life. That is why we can use something as different from humans as bacteria to test certain things and to learn about certain processes that are applicable to humans, as well. Furthermore, humans have a rich community of beneficial bacteria in our bodies, and science is discovering more and more how crucial these are to our health. So understanding how things affect bacteria is very important.

 

Now scale that up a bit. Rats are much more closely related to use than are bacteria. The data gained from lab tests is invaluable for human health and wellbeing. Many animals that aren't terribly similar to us (such as rats) still have similar genetic diseases because the a mutation in a gene we share causes the disease. Even fruit flies can get mutations that cause similar diseases to that of humans, and no one will argue that flies are our close relatives. By studying the disease in these animals, we can find ways to prevent and cure them in humans. For example, germ-free rats (lacking even the internal bacteria communities that animals, including humans, have) can tell us a lot about ways in which normal vs abnormal bacteria affect our health.

 

With as much paperwork and hassle as it is to work with vertebrates, believe you me, scientists look for other options before turning to vertebrate studies! Even when the research doesn't actually harm the animal and is if the good of the species, the amount of paperwork and loops one had to jump through is insane, and for good reason.

 

There are a lot of gut reactionary misconceptions about animal testing. Sometimes it IS necessary. It provides a baseline safety level before human trials can proceed. Think about it this way: if a new medication kills rats, monkeys, and rabbits, it's likely to kill humans, too. It PROBABLY shouldn't go to human trials.

 

Now, on the other hand, there are cases in which I do feel it's not necessary. Companies have already proven than cosmetic testing in animals is not needed. There are plenty of safe, high quality cosmetics that were not tested on animals. Any time it is not directly necessary, I feel a different route should be taken.

 

As far as why drugs still get recalled after human trials, it's because [A] pharmaceutical companies can use biased researchers/data, the effects of a drug might not become apparent during the relatively short trial phase, [C] the trial didn't take some environmental combination into consideration, and only in a real setting did the negative effect come to light.

I just wanted to thank you for that long post about the expiramenting, while I'm not a biologist (yet!) I fully appreciate your contribution to this discussion and seeing you note how difficult it is to even test on animals and why its required.

 

I do agree that makeup shouldn't be tested on animals though, unless the make up or cosmetic product is made to hide or treat a symptom of another medication or medical problem.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm often so annoyed how people say animals get treated poorly with animal testing. A pig used for testing has a much better life than a pig bred for consumption. Test animals have more space, get fed regularly and they get attention.

Without test animals, we wouldn't be able to release new drugs. There's a strict testing process so that a drug gets tested on an animal before they test on humans. Because if it does happen to have deadly side effects, it's better to have 10 dead mice than 10 dead humans. Test animals are still bred, while humans can't be bred for obvious ethical reasons.

Also, my study (biomedical sciences) would be pretty useless if we weren't allowed to test on animals..

Share this post


Link to post

I just read today in the news that the main university in my country (Brasil) developed an artificial skin to end all tests in animal for cosmetics in the country. The article also said that such tests in animals are already forbidden in Europe so I think we are getting somewhere. What is important is never give up and keep fighting against all tests in animals and to spread the idea that people can live a perfectly healthy life as vegetarians. I'll keep fighting.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't mind animal testing when it's necessary. Usually there's a testing order, at least here. If some things just don't need to be tested on animals, they won't be. If it's absolutely unnecessary, then I do have a problem with it, because it's just not necessary.

 

But otherwise I really don't care. Personally I actually wish there was a bit more freedom to test on people...

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with the post above.

 

Not to be offensive or anything, but agree with the second part of the above post as well. I mean, humans are able to consent to experimentation and make a logical decision about it, while other animals cannot, so I dislike the thought of animal experimentation.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry but just who will agree to being tested on. And you cant just pull people out of prison for testing. Sorry but that is a big big no no.

Share this post


Link to post

You act like no one in the world would want to be, when there are probably several people who wouldn't mind.

 

Also, it might be more likely that people would want to be tested on if they got some sort of compensation or something, which does happen even now IIRC. Usually they get paid.

Share this post


Link to post
You act like no one in the world would want to be, when there are probably several people who wouldn't mind.

 

Also, it might be more likely that people would want to be tested on if they got some sort of compensation or something, which does happen even now IIRC. Usually they get paid.

Ooh, but then you run into a big situation where people aren't really doing it consensually, but because their economic situation makes them feel that one of their only options is to be a guinea pig. There's troublesome economic issues, and you need a wide sample range too, so this sort of thing can cause skewing.

 

Still, it isn't as if we DON'T test drugs on humans. They just clear animal trials first.

Share this post


Link to post

There is also the issue of needing to control their environment, and the effects upon the next generation, like the effects of a drug while pregnant. Can you imagine the implications of testing a drug and it causes horrible birth defects upon a person who did NOT have a choice in participating? Also, there is simply the issue of how long people live, as well as the cost of such compensation would likely drive drug costs even higher than they are now.

Share this post


Link to post
Ooh, but then you run into a big situation where people aren't really doing it consensually, but because their economic situation makes them feel that one of their only options is to be a guinea pig. There's troublesome economic issues, and you need a wide sample range too, so this sort of thing can cause skewing.

 

Still, it isn't as if we DON'T test drugs on humans. They just clear animal trials first.

As many permissions are needed, including signatures from the participants giving their consent, they are legally giving consent at that point. So, whether they really felt they gave consent or not is moot because they signed a document saying they did. But yes, economics can be an issue. I don't think it's too bad, though, especially if those performing the experiments asked for certain groups of people/had some sort of eligibility test for whatever they were doing.

 

I know people are used for certain tests. My point was that I wish there was more freedom in doing it. The biggest problem now is moral things, but sometimes the only way to get certain types of data is through immoral actions. :\ Not that I don't want experiments to be humane, but some of the greatest experiments that really shed light on many subjects are now considered inhumane.

There is also the issue of needing to control their environment, and the effects upon the next generation, like the effects of a drug while pregnant.  Can you imagine the implications of testing a drug and it causes horrible birth defects upon a person who did NOT have a choice in participating?  Also, there is simply the issue of how long people live, as well as the cost of such compensation would likely drive drug costs even higher than they are now.

Well, I believe scientists are legally bound to perform experiments on people with their consent, so there wouldn't be any forcing? Actually there's a lot more than just written consent that's needed, even more permissions than animal testing IIRC.

 

These people would be volunteering or at least asked (and they could turn it down...) before such experiments are done.

 

Just like with animals, if a test isn't necessary, then it's just not. If it's not really needed to test certain drugs on people, then they won't be. I don't think it would make drugs cost too much more?

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I believe scientists are legally bound to perform experiments on people with their consent, so there wouldn't be any forcing? Actually there's a lot more than just written consent that's needed, even more permissions than animal testing IIRC.

 

These people would be volunteering or at least asked (and they could turn it down...) before such experiments are done.

 

Just like with animals, if a test isn't necessary, then it's just not. If it's not really needed to test certain drugs on people, then they won't be. I don't think it would make drugs cost too much more?

If you tested solely on humans, then that would mean that testing while pregnant would be necessary, and a child born to that mother could be born with defects that cause them pain throughout their life, or otherwise shorten their lives. What I had meant was that the child is inevitably part of the test, but the child did not and cannot consent.

Edited by Nectaris

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think we'll ever get to the point where we're solely testing on people, mostly because humans just live too long for certain experiments to be effective. :P

 

But I see what you're saying now. That would be a problem in some ways, yeah. :\ That's the risk, though. Maybe it's cruel to say, but I think it's a small price to pay, especially when the discoveries are groundbreaking and the research is necessary. Also, if the child is noticeably going to have birth defects and/or cause harm to the mother, I think it would be aborted in some cases.

Share this post


Link to post


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.