Animal testing: Right or wrong

[Nahotnoj]

Ok, What does everyone think about testing products on animals? Is it wrong, or does it depend on the situation?

I personally think that it is wrong. Animals have jsut as many rights as humans do, and I dont think we would like it that much if some alien race came and captured us, then said "all right were going to test some new eyedrops on you, they might make you blind or kill you, but that'sm all right because its not hapopening to us!".

[overdramatic]

I disagree, i think that animal testing is okay, sure i wouldn't want tests done on my dog, but as long as its going to a good cause, like cancer or something, then i think its okay. I mean, Nahotno, if you used those eye drops without them being tested and you went blind, you'd be really mad and sue the company. sure eyedrops may not be that important, but if we didn't have them, we would have a lot of eye problems. but that's besides the point.

[EdvardMunch]

I'm not an animal testing proponent. Animal testing is, as I recall, the kidnapping of animals and the experimentation of chemicals on them. It is expected that the animals will suffer some kind of side effect. Hmmmmmmmmm... they are unwillingly enduring pain. Sounds a lot like torture to me. Furthermore, since the animals can't be informed of the probable side effects beforehand, it's not like they even know what to expect.

There are plenty of alternatives to animal testing, like people testing.

Specifically, I mean clinical trials, which pay nicely and have plenty of demand.

Prisoners are another option. I'm not talking about forcing prisoners into clinical trials, but offering participation in them in exchange for some kind of reward (like a sentence reduction).

I am aware that it would cost quite a bit of money to drop animal testing, but economic feasibility is hardly a counterbalance to immorality. Slavery is also economically feasible.


There is, I think, a trickier moral web when it comes to chemicals which are to be used on other animals, like vacines, and are animal specific. Is it morally okay to kidnap and experiment on animals when your experiments are intended to benefit other animals of their kind? It's not like you'll find any willing animals. Are there any possible alternatives to experimenting on animals in this case? It's sort of like an animal version of the film Extreme Measures.

[ArU23-1]

I believe that animals don't have as many rights as humans but animal testing is wrong.

[Carnage]

Yes. Perhaps the greatest trick the morning star pulled was convincing man that the animals were his equal...

[overdramatic]

okay, i like the way that you came up with another opition, but if you were trying to find a cure for cancer, you wouldn't want to go and inject people with cancer just to find a cure, sure it would help the world, but a lot of people would die in the experiment..



so i guess it depends on the sit...

[Nahotnoj]

okay, i like the way that you came up with another opition, but if you were trying to find a cure for cancer, you wouldn't want to go and inject people with cancer just to find a cure, sure it would help the world, but a lot of people would die in the experiment..



so i guess it depends on the sit...
Well he meant volontarily choosing to be a part of the study, so it would be there own conscious chjoice to be injected with cancer, they'd know the risk of dying.

Prisoners are another option. I'm not talking about forcing prisoners into clinical trials, but offering participation in them in exchange for some kind of reward (like a sentence reduction).

[ArU23-1]

I'm not sure, but I don't think you can be injected w/ cancer (and get terminal cancer for study from it.)

[overdramatic]

The medical benefits of animal research are a good starting point for the public debate about the use of animals in research and testing. RDS is the UK organisation which represents doctors and scientists in this debate. The information in RDS Online is based on very thorough research and understanding of the facts, historical and scientific. In this debate there are many single issue pressure groups seeking to abolish animal research completely and immediately. But it would be extremely difficult to develop new medical treatments and cures without the use of animals. So animal research must continue if we are to solve serious medical problems like cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, AIDS, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, and malaria.



im not saying its right, but we gotta ..... if you're serious about finding cures for the all of the bad sicknesses

btw http://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/home.asp?i_ToolbarID=8&i_PageID=94 that's the website i got that whole big par. off of

[ArU23-1]

But the lives of animals are in our hands.

[overdramatic]

yeah, so are the lives of people who have aids, and cancer and all that sorta stuff.... well not ours, but the doctors

[ArU23-1]

Very true but the least we can do is save the endangered.

[overdramatic]

yeah, but they aren't doing tests on like bald eagles

[ArU23-1]

I know.

[Grom_Icecream]

I'm not sure, but I don't think you can be injected w/ cancer (and get terminal cancer for study from it.)
Yeah, you can but its tricky.

Anyway, you must remeber that products tested on animals are on there last stages of production, this means that all the research has been done and no ill effects are suspected. If there are negative side effects than they are generally minor, and they are quickly dealt with, it is not like scientists intend to hurt them then prolong the pain. Most testing animals are bred for the purpose anyway, its like psychology experiments with mice. No one whinges that every year billions of mice are being raised and killed in captivity in various ways. A friend of mine is doing a PHD on effects of alcohol on mouse fetus, which involves killing pregnent mice and taking out the fetus to check morphology. Do people know how many flies are killed every day in experiments (billions every day), yet no one complains about this... yet they complain about mice and rabbits enduring small amounts of pain.

If the testing involves capture of wild animals and anything even close to endangered it should be abolished, but the use of test type animals is alright.

[singo]

But the lives of animals are in our hands.

better that than the lives of people

we are the dominant species on this planet, we can therefore do what is best for us and to hell with the consequences.


If another species rose to dominance, do you think they would hesitate even 5 mins before exploiting us in the same way?


Animal testing is the only way to develop new medicines, at least, if you value human rights (which in my opinion are overrated)

[xjudicator]

I don't agree w/ most animal testing, but if it does not hurt or kill the animals, then I suppose it is okay.

Going way back, animals don't have as many rights as humans. Duh!!!:D They don't have the right to an education or anything mentioned in the constitution. They do have rights. (Animal rights and protection, etc...)

[Battlecruiser]

I'm not an animal testing proponent. Animal testing is, as I recall, the kidnapping of animals and the experimentation of chemicals on them. It is expected that the animals will suffer some kind of side effect. Hmmmmmmmmm... they are unwillingly enduring pain. Sounds a lot like torture to me. Furthermore, since the animals can't be informed of the probable side effects beforehand, it's not like they even know what to expect.

There are plenty of alternatives to animal testing, like people testing.

Specifically, I mean clinical trials, which pay nicely and have plenty of demand.

Prisoners are another option. I'm not talking about forcing prisoners into clinical trials, but offering participation in them in exchange for some kind of reward (like a sentence reduction).

I am aware that it would cost quite a bit of money to drop animal testing, but economic feasibility is hardly a counterbalance to immorality. Slavery is also economically feasible.


There is, I think, a trickier moral web when it comes to chemicals which are to be used on other animals, like vacines, and are animal specific. Is it morally okay to kidnap and experiment on animals when your experiments are intended to benefit other animals of their kind? It's not like you'll find any willing animals. Are there any possible alternatives to experimenting on animals in this case? It's sort of like an animal version of the film Extreme Measures.
Yes, I agree. Animal testing isn't right, but there are a few cases when it isn't bad.

[Black.Ice]

I am ok with animal testing. Here's why:

In my opinion, there are several types of animal testing. The two main ones that I was able to categorize them into was:

1.) Testing of products (i.e. Eyedrops, Styling Gel, etc.)
2.) Testing of theories and medical practices.

In a generalized way, I think animal testing os ok. Yes, I agree with you on points that it isn't fair, but if you look at the bigger picture, I believe that it is necessary to try things on animals, before they are used on humans.

The 1st category, the teting of products, is ok because of the following reasons:

a.) The item is formulated beforehand.
b.) USUALLY the item tested is not fatal (This is a usual thing. There are some tests which will hurt the animals. Keep in mind that I am not putting medicinal uses in this category, such as chemicals, pills, etc.)

Regarding the above statements, the item tested is formulated beforehand. For example, the eyedrops. They are not intended to kill, and they are usually pain-free. I mean, the people who are researching / making these eyedrops aren't going to be putting sulfiric acid in them. It's usually water based, and it shouldn't hurt. Animal testing is used just to catch most errors that they overlooked, and to see any side effects which they did not expect. They see how often they may be able to put it on, how well it lubricates, etc.

1.) The item that is tested is usually not fatal. Take the eyedrop example again. Usually not fatal. Granted, the animal may undergo some inconvenience and pain. Sometimes, it may even be fatal - but looking at it in general, the majority of the times the items tested in this category are not fatal.

I'll move onto the second category. This one is a little strange, where they test medical practices and theories. The majority of these are fatal. For example, the alchohol testing of mice fetuses. This was an experiment which was designed to kill the mouse. Another example, for those of you who have read the Hot Zone, By Richard Preston, know that they were testing Ebola Zaire, a fatal virus on monkeys.

The virus has an extremely high mortality rate, and to come up with a cure in case of an outbreak, they infected the monkeys with the virus. Nearly every time, the monkey would die.

The reason I approve of this kind of testing comes down to a simple decision. Which one is more important, human life or animal life?

Yes, I know. You can counter this statement by saying, "Why is animal life not important, etc. etc," but it is my opinion that Human life is more important then animal life.

Take this classic example of choice: There was a human hanging at the edge of the cliff, and a dog hanging at the edge of the cliff. Who would you save?

I perosnally, would save the human.

Overall, I based my decision on two things.

One, I decided that human life was more important that animal life. Two, the advances and tests done on these animals is not for pleasure or fun; it is done to test medical theories and products to better humanity in general.

[Volcar]

lol??

[singo]

Hey, that book "The hot zone" scared the living shit out of me.

shows very well just why we have quarintine laws though.

and id MUCH rather they test Ebola on monkeys than me.

[Carnage]

Of course animals should be tested! How else would we know how smart they are? How dare you limit them to a life spent wondering about their IQ! O_<

[riBd]

Yeah! My mommy always says "At least he's smarter then most cows", when daddy hits her for not getting an "aborting", but I want to make sure!