Animal testing justified

[shamo9]

I've got a debate and that's what I have to argue for. So, what are everyone's thoughts on this very emotive topic?

[Mr Loverman]

When I was a dick, I would have said that animal testing was unnecessary & cruel.

With 2 kids, I would like to set the record straight.

If the temporary suffering of animals helps save my kid from going through horrible treatment & eventual death then I say, tough ****.

It is necessary & we all benefit from it in some form nowadays.

Live with it.

[Wembley67]

Testing can be cruel but it depends what they are testing for. Trialing potential life saving drugs on animals then yes I suppose that's ok but when it comes to testing cosmetics that's just down right ridiculous.

Do testing on lifers etc as they aren't worth anything on the outside world anyway. Harsh maybe.

[shamo9]

Testing can be cruel but it depends what they are testing for. Trialing potential life saving drugs on animals then yes I suppose that's ok but when it comes to testing cosmetics that's just down right ridiculous.

Do testing on lifers etc as they aren't worth anything on the outside world anyway. Harsh maybe.

Legislation protects all lab animals from cruelty or mistreatment.

Do you value rats and mice over 'lifers'? They are still human...

[Wembley67]

Legislation protects all lab animals from cruelty or mistreatment.

Do you value rats and mice over 'lifers'? They are still human...

Legislation means absolutely nothing in a secure labratory when no one knows what goes on. Who can decide what is classed as cruelty and mistreatment, it's not like the animals can tell them how they feel after a shot of something.

In some cases I do value an animals life over lifers, in this case the lifers I refer to would be rapists, paedophiles, hertz fans - basically people that do not deserve a place on gods GREEN earth :agree:

[shamo9]

Legislation means absolutely nothing in a secure labratory when no one knows what goes on. Who can decide what is classed as cruelty and mistreatment, it's not like the animals can tell them how they feel after a shot of something.

In some cases I do value an animals life over lifers, in this case the lifers I refer to would be rapists, paedophiles, hertz fans - basically people that do not deserve a place on gods GREEN earth :agree:

Are there not regular inspections to make sure they meet the standard?

[Wembley67]

Are there not regular inspections to make sure they meet the standard?

I don't know how it works but like anything checks may happen on an annual basis, make sure everything is following practice for 4 weeks of the year and do what the hell you want for the rest of it.

What are your feelings on this matter?

[shamo9]

I don't know how it works but like anything checks may happen on an annual basis, make sure everything is following practice for 4 weeks of the year and do what the hell you want for the rest of it.

What are your feelings on this matter?

I'm the one asking the questions:grr::devil::wink:

I think the main reason people have a problem with animal testing is when it revolves around cosmetics. The favorite saying among protesters is 'It's not necessary'. I would argue that killing animals for food isn't necessary either, yet we still do it rather than become vegetarian.

I suppose the immediate reaction a lot of people have when they think about animal testing is 'Oh, you can't hurt the pretty animals'. The majority of animals used are mice and rats... not so pretty. Cats, dogs and horses are 'protected' under legislation. Animals aren't just taken out of their habitat, they are bred for the purpose.

[deek]

Animal testing relating to new cures for human ailments is justified. It is not a quick process and does take years of hard work to get results. Then if you do have something it takes even longer to have it accepted. The animals in the labs are treated with respect but they are there for only one purpose. They are bred for it.

[LeithWalkHibby]

I've got a debate and that's what I have to argue for. So, what are everyone's thoughts on this very emotive topic?

I'm all in favour if it's for testing cosmetics, but not for medical advancements.

[RigRoars]

I used to do animal testing,and found that...

Horses are crap at the 5 times table.

[monkeekat]

Animals are used in various experiments because it is not always possible to study humans, due to moral and ethical reasons. It is stated that studying animals may give us an opportunity to understand human development in more depth. Animals are genetically similar to humans, and they have faster breeding cycles, which makes it easier to research different generations.
However, the use of animals in experiments is very controversial, and many people argue that animals should not be used in psychology experiments. The main argument people use is that animal experiments are ethically wrong. The PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is the largest animal rights organisation in the world. They believe that animals should have the same rights as us, and are not ours to experiment on.

Sometimes, animals are made to suffer during research, when similar findings could be found using different research with humans.

We must remember that although animals and humans are similar, they are also very different, and there is no guarantee that any research findings regarding animals will be applicable to humans. Animal physiology is not the same as humans, and is not always the same as other animals.
Animal research can cause a lot of suffering, and sometimes there is no benefit to humans.

I am totally against animal testing - it has been shown to be cruel and cause suffering which is totally unnecessary.

[Jack]

There are so many medical procedures out there that are only there following testing on animals and humans, you'd have to look them up to strengthen and evidence your argument.

How many of us would not be here if these tests hadn’t been done?

How many of us would have a lesser quality of life?

Would those who are against it watch / let their child / brother / sister / parents die if the cure had been tested on animals?

[monkeekat]

But at the same time, how many animals have endured terrible cruelty and suffering in experiments that never needed to be carried out, and have ended up being a waste of time anyway?

[shamo9]

But at the same time, how many animals have endured terrible cruelty and suffering in experiments that never needed to be carried out, and have ended up being a waste of time anyway?

If you were having an operation, would you choose a surgeon whose training had been limited to plastic models and computers?

[monkeekat]

I wasn't aware that you could pick and choose which surgeon you wanted to operate on you?

Animals are used for medical and psychological experiments, both of which have been proved to cause unnecessary suffering to the animal, and the end result has not always been the result expected.

Animals organs react in a different way to humans, and at times, in a different way to other species, which shows that there is a huge flaw in animal experimentation.

Louise Pasteur did not need to experiment on animals when he arrived at his findings. Robert Koch tried to find a cure for cholera, and used animals for experiments, but had to admit that "An experiment on an animal gives no certain indication of the result of the same experiment on a human being".
Tests on animals failed completely in the case of the drug Thalidomide.
In 1920 an experiment on a dog was carried out by Macleod and Banting, which was totally unnecessary. They didn't need to use a dog as there was plenty of human tissue available. When dog insulin was given to a boy, he suffered severe side effects.

These are all examples of medical experiments carried out on animals, which have cause unnecessary suffering to the animal, and severe side effects to the humans who have been given the drugs. It shows that you can't possibly rely on animal testing, as they do not react in the same way as humans.

There is no guarantee that any research findings regarding animals will be applicable to humans.

Just my opinion though.

[shamo9]

I wasn't aware that you could pick and choose which surgeon you wanted to operate on you?

Animals are used for medical and psychological experiments, both of which have been proved to cause unnecessary suffering to the animal, and the end result has not always been the result expected.

Animals organs react in a different way to humans, and at times, in a different way to other species, which shows that there is a huge flaw in animal experimentation.

Louise Pasteur did not need to experiment on animals when he arrived at his findings. Robert Koch tried to find a cure for cholera, and used animals for experiments, but had to admit that "An experiment on an animal gives no certain indication of the result of the same experiment on a human being".
Tests on animals failed completely in the case of the drug Thalidomide.
In 1920 an experiment on a dog was carried out by Macleod and Banting, which was totally unnecessary. They didn't need to use a dog as there was plenty of human tissue available. When dog insulin was given to a boy, he suffered severe side effects.

These are all examples of medical experiments carried out on animals, which have cause unnecessary suffering to the animal, and severe side effects to the humans who have been given the drugs. It shows that you can't possibly rely on animal testing, as they do not react in the same way as humans.

There is no guarantee that any research findings regarding animals will be applicable to humans.

Just my opinion though.

It is more accurate than the alternatives...

When a scientist must learn how a new substance or procedure will interact with living systems, there is no effective substitute for animals. No one can measure blood pressure in a test tube or learn to perform heart surgery using bacteria.

The differences are far outweighed by the similarities.

[SlickShoes]

If you were having an operation, would you choose a surgeon whose training had been limited to plastic models and computers?

I wasnt aware that surgeons were trained on animals, that sounds highly unlikely to me.

[Oscar T Grouch]

As our understanding advances there is more and more evidence that animal testing is not useful to human madical advances. But like any emotive subject there are two schools of thought and never the twain shall meet.

The anti vivisection society has some very compelling evidence to suggest that animal testing as we understand more and more is less and less useful.

The BMA still think animal testing is a useful and practical way of testing new drugs and treatments for humans.

It really comes down to what you feel personally. I am against testing on animals, but if it wasn't for pig pancreas I would be dead. So am I being hypocritical being a anti vivisectionist???? Very difficult subect but hey ho..

[shamo9]

I wasnt aware that surgeons were trained on animals, that sounds highly unlikely to me.

Many surgeons do trials on pigs and other lab animals, it's not a requirement though.

[Darth Hibbie]

I would expect that most "life saving" drugs have been tested on animals and must admit I am OK with that. It is in a sense similar (not the same) as eating meat. Youa are unig the animal to ensure your survival. However absolutly not on consmetics no need for it.

Intresting poit earlier about testing on lifers? What about adding sex offenders to. Neither of those two could still be considered human.

[LeithWalkHibby]

Intresting poit earlier about testing on lifers? What about adding sex offenders to. Neither of those two could still be considered human.

To err is human, to forgive divine.

[Darth Hibbie]

To err is human, to forgive divine.


There is the problem. Is raping and Killint "to err?" or just wrong. I aint doing this again its far to late 9and to many pints) to be having a moral debate :greengrin

[Haymaker]

As long as people think that animals dont feel, they have to feel that people dont think.

[Stokesy]

The bottom line is that even though animal testing is not perfect from a scientific point of view it's a damm sight better than the alternative. If you want medical advancement to carry on at the current rate then animal testing has to continue.

For me the main issue is over what products should be tested on animals. Household chemicals and cosmetics are an obvious no no but I would also add things like obesity drugs to the list. I don't see why an animal should suffer if someone is too lazy to put down the fork and get some exercise.


I would expect that most "life saving" drugs have been tested on animals and must admit I am OK with that. It is in a sense similar (not the same) as eating meat. Youa are unig the animal to ensure your survival. However absolutly not on consmetics no need for it.

Intresting poit earlier about testing on lifers? What about adding sex offenders to. Neither of those two could still be considered human.

I think its more likely that all life saving drugs are tested on animals rather than "most".

[Darth Hibbie]

I think its more likely that all life saving drugs are tested on animals rather than "most".


I thought that would prob have been the case but did not want to make such a bold statement without having the facts:greengrin no doubt some hibby smarter than me would have came up with one drug that had not been animal tested.

[rainman]

I worked for an independent contracting company for pharmaceutical companies to test on animals.

I worked with cynomolgus macaque monkeys for 2 years so have a fair knowledge of how things work and can say that most things stated on here are fairly inaccurate.

We tested toxicity of the product, not necessarily if it worked. Whether animal organs work differently to human's or not (not in most cases) if there were side effects of the drug, there's not a chance it would make it up the food chain to be tested on consenting humans in clinical trials. Similarly, if the drug had made it to the monkey unit, it means there were no toxicity detected in dogs, rabbits, guinea pigs or rats previous to our trials.

Like it or not there is a "food chain" that the drugs work their way up. Whether monkeys and dogs deserve a higher placing than rabbits and rats is another debate but IMO, the risk factor quite rightly decreases as the drug moves up that chain.

As for cosmetics, as far as i know, it is and has been illegal to test cosmetics on animals in the UK for a very long time. The Body Shop have made a living from stating that none of their cosmetics were tested on animals, when in fact, almost all companies can and do claim the same now.

[shamo9]

My debate is tomorrow:worried:

[ChooseLife]

I dont agree with animal testing, for everyone to constantly imply an animals life is less important than a humans shows the attitude towards this kind of thing. Yes a lot of important things have been found out and lifes have probably been saved, but that's all after using animals to test it, why not humans :confused:.

[rainman]

I dont agree with animal testing, for everyone to constantly imply an animals life is less important than a humans shows the attitude towards this kind of thing. Yes a lot of important things have been found out and lifes have probably been saved, but that's all after using animals to test it, why not humans :confused:.

As i said above, there are clinical trials on humans once they've made it up the chain. said chain may be wrong in some people's eyes. Some people think all beings are equal. I personally think that view changes when an individual or a member of their family require drugs for a disease. i know if it was me or a member of my family who needed medication, I'd be more than happy for that to be tested on a rat before I spray it up my nose or inject it into a vein.

[ChooseLife]

As i said above, there are clinical trials on humans once they've made it up the chain. said chain may be wrong in some people's eyes. Some people think all beings are equal. I personally think that view changes when an individual or a member of their family require drugs for a disease. i know if it was me or a member of my family who needed medication, I'd be more than happy for that to be tested on a rat before I spray it up my nose or inject it into a vein.
Why not get a more accurate test by testing it on a willing human?

[rainman]

Why not get a more accurate test by testing it on a willing human?

Willing humans may not be as easy to come by if the drug hasn't been screened already through animals.

If the drug has made it past the different levels and makes it to the clinical trials, the final test gives an accurate result as it is tested on humans.

[Haymaker]

Strangely... does anyone remember the "Elephant man" drug trials a while back? bunch of willing humans took some drugs in a trial and it nearly killed them? their bodies swelled (hence elephant man)...

That drug...


...Tested and passed on animals.

As Long As People Think That Animals Dont Feel
They Have To Think That People Dont Think

[hibsdaft]

not something i have ever thought too much about as i suspect it will do my head in, but i can say that animal testing for makeup and nonsense like that is out of line , ie torturing an animal just so someone can wear a new shade of lipstick, that cannie be right. when it comes to life saving medicine, well ultimately i suppose personally i put human beings above animals, simple as that

[rainman]

Strangely... does anyone remember the "Elephant man" drug trials a while back? bunch of willing humans took some drugs in a trial and it nearly killed them? their bodies swelled (hence elephant man)...

That drug...


...Tested and passed on animals.

As Long As People Think That Animals Dont Feel
They Have To Think That People Dont Think

I worked with that drug soon after those trials were reported. There is no way that drug should've made it to clinical trials. The toxicity detected in our studies suggested it should've been sent back to the lab immediately. Can't remember the labs the drug passed through down south but somebody is out of a job now because of it.

[HibsMax]

This is a massive topic and one I feel both strongly about BUT I concede that's it's not one I am best informed to talk about i.e., I don't have research and facts to back up my feelings. All I have are feelings.

Animal testing for things such as cosmetics is ridiculous. We make animals potentially suffer so that we can look good? How entitled do we think we are?

Who cares it if it's "only" a rat? Where do you draw the line? It's only a mouse, it's only a rat, it's only a rabbit, it's only a cat, it's only a dog, it's only a monkey, it's only.....you see where this is going? There HAS to be a line drawn somewhere because we sure as hell aren't testing on involuntary humans (also animals btw) locked up in cages. The Nazis tried that and, well, we all know how that turned out.

Now as for experimenting on animals for the better good of mankind. That's a trickier subject for me. Would we not be better off testing products for humans ON humans? I do appreciate the benefits associated with testing on animals but it doesn't mean I agree with it. I tend to look at all life being equal. Yeah, if I see an ant running across my floor I will kill it. I have mousetraps in my basement. I do what I can to keep my house safe but that's it. I don't go out of my way to harm or kill other animals.

Except when I eat them of course and, believe me, I have issues with that too (a separate debate I think).

If it's humane testing then why don't we do it on voluntary humans? Actually we do. I see adverts in the paper all the time asking for people to participate in medical studies for $$$. That seems like a better approach to me. However I assume that by the time the clinical studies have reached that stage, animals have already been used in an earlier phase. That's just my speculation.

Everything seems to be about us. About humans. And it doesn't seem to matter if prolonging or bettering our own lives has a negative impact on something else. It's just "tough". Hey, we've got opposable thumbs, we rule! ;)

On the whole I would say that I am against animal testing even though I probably use products on a daily basis that have involved some level of animal testing (not my washing products though :wink:). Remember, I am saying I am against it, I'm not saying I'm not a hypocrite.

[HibsMax]

Animals aren't just taken out of their habitat, they are bred for the purpose.
Let's breed humans for that purpose instead then? We can raise them in laboratories, no contact with other humans so they will never know that they are being "mistreated".

No, I am not being serious.

[HibsMax]

We must remember that although animals and humans are similar, they are also very different, and there is no guarantee that any research findings regarding animals will be applicable to humans. Animal physiology is not the same as humans, and is not always the same as other animals.
Animal research can cause a lot of suffering, and sometimes there is no benefit to humans.

That is one of my concerns too. I have heard / read that sharks don't get cancer and perhaps studying them will help us find a cure. That would be good if we could perform this testing in a non-lethal, humane way.

The fact is that humans are raping this planet, destroying or consuming all the resources at an alarming rate with no thought about the future and an air of entitlement which is quite frankly nauseating.

Don't worry, it will all be over soon enough and Planet Earth will, eventually, recover.

Then the sun will die and earth with it.

And then the universe will freeze.

Dunno what happens after that though and sorry for the off-topicness.

[Mulvaney]

That is one of my concerns too. I have heard / read that sharks don't get cancer and perhaps studying them will help us find a cure. That would be good if we could perform this testing in a non-lethal, humane way.

The fact is that humans are raping this planet, destroying or consuming all the resources at an alarming rate with no thought about the future and an air of entitlement which is quite frankly nauseating.

Don't worry, it will all be over soon enough and Planet Earth will, eventually, recover.

Then the sun will die and earth with it.

And then the universe will freeze.

Dunno what happens after that though and sorry for the off-topicness.


FFS :brickwall
Quite the daftest post I've read on here :confused:

[shamo9]

This is a massive topic and one I feel both strongly about BUT I concede that's it's not one I am best informed to talk about i.e., I don't have research and facts to back up my feelings. All I have are feelings.

Animal testing for things such as cosmetics is ridiculous. We make animals potentially suffer so that we can look good? How entitled do we think we are?

Who cares it if it's "only" a rat? Where do you draw the line? It's only a mouse, it's only a rat, it's only a rabbit, it's only a cat, it's only a dog, it's only a monkey, it's only.....you see where this is going? There HAS to be a line drawn somewhere because we sure as hell aren't testing on involuntary humans (also animals btw) locked up in cages. The Nazis tried that and, well, we all know how that turned out.

Now as for experimenting on animals for the better good of mankind. That's a trickier subject for me. Would we not be better off testing products for humans ON humans? I do appreciate the benefits associated with testing on animals but it doesn't mean I agree with it. I tend to look at all life being equal. Yeah, if I see an ant running across my floor I will kill it. I have mousetraps in my basement. I do what I can to keep my house safe but that's it. I don't go out of my way to harm or kill other animals.

Except when I eat them of course and, believe me, I have issues with that too (a separate debate I think).

If it's humane testing then why don't we do it on voluntary humans? Actually we do. I see adverts in the paper all the time asking for people to participate in medical studies for $$$. That seems like a better approach to me. However I assume that by the time the clinical studies have reached that stage, animals have already been used in an earlier phase. That's just my speculation.

Everything seems to be about us. About humans. And it doesn't seem to matter if prolonging or bettering our own lives has a negative impact on something else. It's just "tough". Hey, we've got opposable thumbs, we rule! ;)

On the whole I would say that I am against animal testing even though I probably use products on a daily basis that have involved some level of animal testing (not my washing products though :wink:). Remember, I am saying I am against it, I'm not saying I'm not a hypocrite.

1. Neither do animal testers. They are just trying to cure diseases.

2. But that's the thing. It isn't really voluntary. The vast majority of people that 'volunteer' are in desperate need of money and have no other choice. I'm sure most prostitutes don't 'volunteer', they had/have no other option.

3. That bothers me. You are quick to condemn animal testing but still happy to reap the rewards. When you say you are against it, would you go as far as to ban it?

My next debate is on Halloween. The argument we were set... Animal testing should be banned:greengrin

Quite ironic.

[HibsMax]

FFS :brickwall
Quite the daftest post I've read on here :confused:
Care to explain? Or you just going to tell me I'm daft without any justification?

EDIT : just because you haven't heard about sharks and cancer doesn't make it any less true. I googled shark and cancer and came up with this link:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/08/0820_030820_sharkcancer.html

I didn't read the story so I don't know what it proves one way or the other. The purpose of including the link is to show that my post was not quite as ridiculous as you first thought. Do yourself a favour and read a book now and then. ;)

[HibsMax]

1. Neither do animal testers. They are just trying to cure diseases.
Two points. (1) I was just stating my position. There are other people out there, trophy hunters for example, who are quite happy to kill other animals. (2) I am sure that SOME of the testing is to find cures for diseases but not all of them.


2. But that's the thing. It isn't really voluntary. The vast majority of people that 'volunteer' are in desperate need of money and have no other choice. I'm sure most prostitutes don't 'volunteer', they had/have no other option.
Nobody is forcing them into doing it. That makes it voluntary. They may be desperate but that doesn't change the facts.


3. That bothers me. You are quick to condemn animal testing but still happy to reap the rewards. When you say you are against it, would you go as far as to ban it?
Hmmmmm, what makes you say I am "quick" to condemn? Perhaps I've thought about issues like this for the majority of my adult life. Maybe? I also did say in my original post that I was a hypocrite so I don't really see what additional point you are trying to make? Like eating meat. I abhor the way that many animals are treated (processed) but I still eat meat and I would never think of banning eating meat. We're humans. We're omnivores. Sure, we don't NEED to eat meat but our bodies have adapted to do so. Different discussion though. Would I ban animal testing? Let me say that I would be very happy if there was alternative found. But let me jump back to my original post again. I did say that this is not a subject matter that I am an expert in. I just happen to be against animal testing in principal because I think we already take too much for granted. We act like "God" (another debate :wink:).

Anyway, I have to run and get me dinner. :) (no meat)

[Mulvaney]

Care to explain? Or you just going to tell me I'm daft without any justification?

EDIT : just because you haven't heard about sharks and cancer doesn't make it any less true. I googled shark and cancer and came up with this link:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/08/0820_030820_sharkcancer.html

I didn't read the story so I don't know what it proves one way or the other. The purpose of including the link is to show that my post was not quite as ridiculous as you first thought. Do yourself a favour and read a book now and then. ;)

I rest my case :agree:

Didn't even freekin read the article :brickwall

What about this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/703082.stm)

It has also been shown that sharks do not get AIDS. But this is probably because they don't **** junkies :agree:

[rainman]

I rest my case :agree:

Didn't even freekin read the article :brickwall

What about this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/703082.stm)

It has also been shown that sharks do not get AIDS. But this is probably because they don't **** junkies :agree:

:tee hee:

Funny and also true!

[Stokesy]

As for cosmetics, as far as i know, it is and has been illegal to test cosmetics on animals in the UK for a very long time. The Body Shop have made a living from stating that none of their cosmetics were tested on animals, when in fact, almost all companies can and do claim the same now.

It is illegal to test cosmetics on animals in this country. However, it is perfectly legal to sell cosmetics that have been tested on animals in other countries. A hell of a lot of the main high street brands, such as L'oreal and Laboratoire Garnier, are tested on animals. For anyone that cares The Body Shop was sold to L'oreal. Talk about selling out:brickwall

[HibsMax]

I rest my case :agree:

Didn't even freekin read the article :brickwall

What about this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/703082.stm)

It has also been shown that sharks do not get AIDS. But this is probably because they don't **** junkies :agree:

You rest your case? What case is that exactly? I was up front about not reading the article. I simply ran a search and took the first link that came up. My motivation? To prove to you that what I was talking about was not simply "ridiculous" but was in fact something that has been discussed in the past.

Your arguments are pretty ridiculous and, at best, niave. Sharks and AIDS and junkies? I know you think you are being funny but you're not lending much to this debate. There is a strain of HIV / AIDS found in monkeys. Does that mean that they ARE ****ging junkies?

EDIT : for the record, I was not under the impression that taking shark cartilage pills was a cure to cancer. Just wanted to clear that up before I am accused of being ridiculous again. LOL.

[Onceinawhile]

im for animal testing as long as its of a psychological/medical type.

At the end of the day the world is based on survival of the fittest and as the most evolved and advanced creatures we have to attempt to continue our survival. If this involves lower ranking animals then thats the nature of life and the food chain.