Of course.
But then consider how many Americans are hypocritical :lol: . It does not state it has to be done by animals. But what are you going to do? Unlike humans, animals can't sue if you mess up. As for cell based models, you're talking about modification on a cellular basis. Except if I know correctly, most side effects effect areas besides the intended location. Added to that, an animal would be much more accurate. Unlike cell-based models, animals have working hearts, livers, bladders, (other organs, etc.) that we can see if it has a profound effect. It's going to be pretty obvious if a 10 rats take it, they get liver failure, it causes liver failure, therefore we don't test on humans. But without that test, it'd be tested on humans, and a lot of lawsuits would be filed.

Originally Posted by Rmarques

Animals are actual living organisms, while cell based models are well... Models. They're limited to human hability to reproduce the real thing, and of course, the fact that they're artificial doesn't help.

"Lemon juice is a deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are safe according to animal tests."
Animals react to things sometimes dramtically different than we do. Ever try giving a dog chocolate? It can be deadly. The point is, sure animals can be similar in many ways, but when it comes down to how the medicine or substance affects humans, its a world of difference.

EDIT:
What about donated organs? Relates to the stem cell issue, if more focused reasearch cotinues, we would have no need for animal testing since we can just grow the organs.

Originally Posted by Moofin

"Lemon juice is a deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and botulin are safe according to animal tests."
Animals react to things sometimes dramtically different than we do. Ever try giving a dog chocolate? It can be deadly. The point is, sure animals can be similar in many ways, but when it comes down to how the medicine or substance affects humans, its a world of difference.

Which is why they usually use animals that have the closest characteristics to a human. Besides, cell models only show the result on that particular tissue, not the intire body. If they tested something on a cell model of the human skin, and it turned out that the product could, say... Cause the blood to coagulate on that area, they'd miss that. Animal testing allows scientists to see that.

Also, let it be noted, that chosmetics only use animal testing when they're using a brand new formula. If they're using an update of an old formula, they can make an educated guess on the consequences and skip the animal testing.

YES. MOOFIN.
(im in her debating group)
good idea!~ *studies like mad*
THANK YEW MENE.
Animal testing is plain sick. Seriously ew..why can't we use our technology? D:

Also, let it be noted, that chosmetics only use animal testing when they're using a brand new formula.

True, but think about exactly how much time companies spend improving products, and how much time they take to create NEW ones. Its all about advertising. "new" sounds much better than "improved" ,no?

Originally Posted by Moofin

True, but think about exactly how much time companies spend improving products, and how much time they take to create NEW ones. Its all about advertising. "new" sounds much better than "improved" ,no?

New products doesn't mean new formula though. Just because they managed to make a shapoo for oily hair work for curly hair, and they advertise it as a new product, does not means that the formula is different to justify testing it again.

Originally Posted by Teeth

YES. MOOFIN.
(im in her debating group)
good idea!~ *studies like mad*
THANK YEW MENE.
Animal testing is plain sick. Seriously ew..why can't we use our technology? D:

Because our techonology does not allows us to determine the product's effect on the intire body (which animal testing allows) nor does it allows us to see the "normal" effects of a medicine through generations (again, animal testing allows that).

(Note: Try not to double-post and instead, edit :])
That`s why we should focus more on getting better technology. If there was a way of growing body systems as Steve mentions earlier, would that not be more accurate AND morally pleasing?

PS: Wouldn't they need to add new ingrediants to the shampoo to make it work for other hairs as well?

Considering the donated organs thought.
They'd have to be linked together in a complicated fashion. So complicated, you'd practically be making a human in the end.

As for using technology. Technology doesn't have living tissue.

Originally Posted by Moofin

(Note: Try not to double-post and instead, edit :])

Sorry DX

That`s why we should focus more on getting better technology. If there was a way of growing body systems as Steve mentions earlier, would that not be more accurate AND morally pleasing?

Maybe, but then, can we really create something that reproces fast enough that we can see how medicines effect future generations as fast as we can see with mice? Never mind not emulating the genetic variations humans have that animal test subjects don't, since they're bred uniformely. And then, wouldn't we be getting into dangerous territory (as in, playing God)?

PS: Wouldn't they need to add new ingrediants to the shampoo to make it work for other hairs as well?

Yes, however, the scientists could consider that the changes to the formula are not significant enough to justify retesting it all over again, and still be quite right about it.

[I'm sorry but I have to go now. It was really fun debating with both of you. Unfortunatly, I have to leave, thanks for the great practice! Our group will have plenty to reasearch against now <3]

Because of animal testing, we have vaccines for:

anthrax, chicken pox, cholera, diphtheria, flu, influenza B, hepatitis A and B, measles, mumps, polio, rabies, rubella, smallpox, tetanus, whooping cough, yellow fever.

We have the medications:

insulin, penicillin, anticoagulants, chemotherapy, cyclosporine.

And devices such as:

Pacemakers, artificial hearts, artificial limbs, joints, and bones.

That's not even scratching the surface.

Can you imagine how many people would die, if it weren't for animal research? I mean... type A diabetics would be dead, and there are about ten million of them in America alone. There would be no such thing as a "cancer survivor."

To stop animal testing would mean to stop a massive section of biomedical research. It would essentially halt scientific progress in the medical field and it would mean that many people would die from what are potentially curable diseases.

You cannot ignore or trivialize the incredible benefits that animal testing has provided - and is still providing - for society as well as for humanity in general. An alternative would be nice and all, but if the sheer number of saved lives is any indication at all, there is no denying that the current system works.

i totally agree with you. i mean what did animals do to deserve this kind of trements from us??? i don't get why they don't just stick to the alternatives. i guess scientists just prefer to be cruel to animals. which is the sad thing.....cuz watever they test on those animals wouldn't be tested on the pets they own now would they???

Originally Posted by shanzyluvshim

i totally agree with you. i mean what did animals do to deserve this kind of trements from us??? i don't get why they don't just stick to the alternatives. i guess scientists just prefer to be cruel to animals. which is the sad thing.....cuz watever they test on those animals wouldn't be tested on the pets they own now would they???

No, they wouldn't because the animals they use for testing and bred uniformely, so they have as little variation as possible, in order to get the "normal results".

Also, the animals are actually quite well treated, if we're talking about a legitimate lab. Stress and other factors, such as an unintended illness, could tamper with the results, so they have to do their best to avoid that.

And of course, the alternatives are not nearly as good as animal testing-

Everyone pl0x,
don't assume cell-based models, mannequins, and synthetic skins are our ONLY alternatives. At least 450 methods exist which we can replace animal testing.
Also, for small animals like rats and rabbits, the success rate is something 20% or 40% (Can't remember...ask Moofin..), flipping a coin would be more accurate at 50%!!

Despite many Nobel Prize winners being awarded to vivsectors, only 45% of them agree that animal testings were crucial, proving 55% of them disagree.
It's basic knowledge - our systems work differently then theirs. Monkeys, for example, ARE something like 99% alike us in genes, but theres still that ONE percent, which could take a humans life. 88% of stillbirths are caused by drugs which were passed in animal testing, according to a study in Germany. Blood transfusions were delayed 50 years by animal studies, corneal transplants delayed 200 years.
Less that 2% of human ilnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals!!!


And also a pretty darn good fact:
According to the Royal Commission into Vivisection (1912); "the discovery of anaesthetics owes nothing to animal testing." - The great Dr. Hadwean says. "Had animals testing been relied upon...humanity would have been robbed of this great blessing of anaesthesia." He describes the discovery of Fluroxene one of the most dramatic examples of misleading evidence from animal data.

(Ow..my fingers...x__X)

animal testing is cruel, if they want to test stuff on people why not do it on humans. animals have feelings and such too, they don't need to be treated like filth. Anyone who abuses an animal should be abused as well. see how they like it >:(

if you really want to save lives do it on something else other then animals!let the animals have good homes and not have to be subjected to labs and such

Yes, we scientists are evil people sat cackling in our ivory towers torturing your pets for our lolz.

...

There IS no other way then animal testing. Not for medicine. We do, simply put, need whole-organims data. It's not good enough to know what the drug will do to a patch of skin, we need to know how it will effect the entire organism. Will it end up accumulating somewhere we didn't anticipate it would go and cause damage? Will it cause problems in the offspring if given to a pregnant women? Will it have unexpected side-effects that make it too dangerous for use?

Animal testing isn't slap-dash, we don't do it for fun. It is incredibly time consuming and expensive and we will only do it when necessary. All the wonderful alternatives, cell-based assays etc. We do them first. We do every test available on the substance and we become as sure of it as we can but the fact remains that, when it comes down to it, there are things we simply can't know before going to whole-organims level, and for that we need animal testing.

We are also intimatley aware that animal models will only approximate a human system so we pick them carefully. We don't select any old animal, but verious animals have systems with varying smiliarity to humans. If we are testing a drug designed to work on the nervous system, we will pick a model organism with a similar nervous system to us. If we're interested in what happens to our drug in the liver, we will pick organisms with a similar liver to us. We use our intelligence.

Then, once we are as sure as we can be that it is safe, we move to humans, conducting limited, control tests before moving to wider tests, before even thinking about general release.

If there was an alternative system that was viable we would adopt it in a second, but the fact remains that we do not have a model for whole system.

I think it's also impotant to mention that while we do acnowledge that these drugs can cause horrible effects, this is hardly what we expect or the intended outcome. In an ideal world, every animal test would end with a happy, healthy animal. The very fact that they don't highlights the limitations of other models and the need for animal testing.

Okay.
Yarrian:

I have a graph showing the amount of types of animals used in animal experimentations.

First off - as we all know, Mice, rats and other small rodents body systems are only 30% accurately similar to ours. (Plus, the digest differently then we do, not to mention plain body size differences..)
Over 50% of all animals used are mice, almost 25% are rats, where as non-human primates fall in at less that 1%, along with "other mammals" and "carnivores".
I'm not saying we should test on primates starting now, I'm saying, since we don't use much primates - the only animal thats genes are 99% similar to ours - why use it at all? Seriously, 30% accuracy? The lives are thousands of cancer patients, aids patients, or other medically diseased people are relying on 30% ?!
Flipping a coin would even be more accurate!!

Edit: Also..like I said...not only do we have JUST synthetic patches of skin or cell-based models, theres a wide variety - of 450 other methods!

It depends on how you look at it. :/ if you are a sane person...or insane...or both....or reasonable...the world is on a dependent axis. So in short, there really is no answer. If you give a scenerio I might be able to answer that, but if you give a contradicting scenerio, I'm stuck. ^ ^

Originally Posted by Teeth

Okay.
Yarrian:

I have a graph showing the amount of types of animals used in animal experimentations.

First off - as we all know, Mice, rats and other small rodents body systems are only 30% accurately similar to ours. (Plus, the digest differently then we do, not to mention plain body size differences..)
Over 50% of all animals used are mice, almost 25% are rats, where as non-human primates fall in at less that 1%, along with "other mammals" and "carnivores".
I'm not saying we should test on primates starting now, I'm saying, since we don't use much primates - the only animal thats genes are 99% similar to ours - why use it at all? Seriously, 30% accuracy? The lives are thousands of cancer patients, aids patients, or other medically diseased people are relying on 30% ?!
Flipping a coin would even be more accurate!!

Edit: Also..like I said...not only do we have JUST synthetic patches of skin or cell-based models, theres a wide variety - of 450 other methods!

And those 450 other methods include a reliable model of all organisms and are all robust and proven to give usable results.

No reliable medical test will take place in only one animal. We generally start in mice and rats for issues of cost, time and space. They also provide benefits other species don't like we can observe them over their entire lifespan in a lab in the course of an experiment. If tests are succesful in mice and rats we will then move on to a different model. If all out rats die or develop cancers or have heart failure, we scrap the drug and we've killed 10 rats instead of 10 people.

Of course, we will get some unreliable results in that drugs which could cure humans are dismissed becasue they kill rats and mice, but we do make an attempt to understand the drug and why it's killing the mice.

And you're surprised that only 1% is in higher apes? I'm not. The cost of experimentation in higher apes, both in aquiring the animals, carring for them, and the legal barriers you have to jump, are entirely prohibitive.

I'm not claiming animal tests to be perfect. If there was a vaible and reliable full-model system out there that didn't used animals then the scientific commnuity would be all over it, but there isn't. And, given going straight from non-whole-organism level testing to humans as the alternative option, I believe that animal testing is vital.

Where my little lady did you get you're information? There are laws set which make the testers be human to the animals. The give them food and water and treat them as they would there own pets. Cruelty to animals is now no longer permitted so unless they have a very good, ver valid reason to kill the animal (and I am talking majorly good, cause its rare that they are given permission anymore) then they can not cause any harm to the test subjects. We studied this concept very very thuroughly in our psychology class and even had to do a 20 page paper on the subject. They have to follow the same laws they do for people.

People can be tested on and Are tested on but they must sign a written consent and there are laws set in place to say that no cruel expiriments can be performed on the the person.

i love animals so animal testing is cruel, how would you feel if you were used as a test and and the chances of you surviving are very slim??? i get upset thinking about it

Originally Posted by TelstelNSG1

i love animals so animal testing is cruel, how would you feel if you were used as a test and and the chances of you surviving are very slim??? i get upset thinking about it

But then in the past this was true....but its not anymore. THey have a very high chance of survival.

Originally Posted by Mimi Lara

But then in the past this was true....but its not anymore. THey have a very high chance of survival.

yeah well they don't get a good quality of life, stuck in those boxes when their only freedom is when they are being handled and even that is no freedom cause when they are being held is when they are used to test something, it's just wrong if it was made for human consumption, use a human volunteer that way you avoid ethical issues and the person is willing to be tested on!!!

Originally Posted by TelstelNSG1

yeah well they don't get a good quality of life, stuck in those boxes when their only freedom is when they are being handled and even that is no freedom cause when they are being held is when they are used to test something, it's just wrong if it was made for human consumption, use a human volunteer that way you avoid ethical issues and the person is willing to be tested on!!!

You presume a rat has your standard for quality of life. A rat sat in a cage with a few other rats and a plentiful supply of food and water is essentially getting all it could ask for. In the sewers it would starve and die in no time at all, so lab rats have a nicer, easier life. Not to mention, these rats are born and bread in the lab so they know no other way.

There are a LOT of problems with human volunteers that are simple insurmountable. The first is that no ethical commitee in the world would EVER authourise primary whole-organism testing in humans as we simply don't know what the drug will do. It would be ridiculously expensive because of that. Also, humans are far from an ideal model. We live too long so you can't study the effect of the drug over a lifetime. You can't intentionally give a human a disease and see how the drug reacts with it. You can't give a pregnant human a drug to see if it crosses the placenta into her baby and what it does to the baby. You can't kill a human and take out their organs to see where the drug has ended up and in what form. Humans are simply not a paractical system for whole-organism work.