It all depends...if it is to help us. Like a cure for an illness. Then I think it would be ok. If it is for testing make-up or useless things like that I am against it.

Originally Posted by Yarrian

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.

Someone who agrees with me. Wow thats rare these days. People have become brainwashed by what the media puts out there and doesn't understand that yes the anmals are caged but they are given a comfortable home to suit there needs. Is it cruel to have a pet bunny or rat and keep them in a cage?

Originally Posted by Mimi Lara

Someone who agrees with me. Wow thats rare these days. People have become brainwashed by what the media puts out there and doesn't understand that yes the anmals are caged but they are given a comfortable home to suit there needs. Is it cruel to have a pet bunny or rat and keep them in a cage?

Exactly. It annoys me aswell that people don't seem to understand how essential animal testing is and how much trouble we'd be in without it. Of course, if there was a viable whole-organism model other then animals that was accurate and reliable, we would be all over it, but we don't so animals are all we've got. These animals are treat well. It's not like we're sat cackling in towers torturing puppies for fun.

Originally Posted by Yarrian

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.

I assume as rat in nature not house pets, and voluteers would know, either it's for a breakthrough cancer drug and they might take a chance at it. Normally it's the through the medical profession who would suggest it, it's very rare to do it but it has happened, but i don't think it's fair for an animal to suffer harsh effects if it were meant to be or the consumption of humans, if it is meant to be for a human, then use a human i like how they made skin in france, i was so estatic, if you can't use real humans and avoid harming animals then make your own, if we weren't meant to take the chemicals inside our bodies then that animal suffered cause of money hunger people

Again, when you make artificial parts of humans to test things, it's more prone to problems. When you make skin, you don't account into the absorbency and other things that could poison a person.
Also, sometimes animals aren't used for cosmetics, etc. Sometimes they're used for important discoveries.

yeah. That's true...it's kind of because we're on top of the food chain and we think that we're superior so everything must be submitted to us. Humans are selfish creatures. :/ [/size]

true that there are different kinds of animal testing, i think that putting an experimental dandruff shampoo on bunnies is just stupid. for cosmetics, it's unnecessary but there are some experiments that involve removing a few things from a fish. If you tell me that should be made illegal, go take a walk out on the pier. fishermen fillet sardines live to use their flesh as bait leaving the head and a skeleton flopping around the wood. most people don't care about them right? it's just a common sight. so what difference does it make if the fish is being tested on and if it is being used as bait. i think that filleting a fish alive is much more crueler, but you can't penalized every single fisherman for trying to keep up his hobby at the expense of a 4 inch fish.

[color]=grey] Yeah...some are actually dangerous though...like feeding the animals pills and other drugs. Not very safe. D:

It really isn't that great though.[/color]

Originally Posted by TelstelNSG1

I assume as rat in nature not house pets, and voluteers would know, either it's for a breakthrough cancer drug and they might take a chance at it. Normally it's the through the medical profession who would suggest it, it's very rare to do it but it has happened, but i don't think it's fair for an animal to suffer harsh effects if it were meant to be or the consumption of humans, if it is meant to be for a human, then use a human i like how they made skin in france, i was so estatic, if you can't use real humans and avoid harming animals then make your own, if we weren't meant to take the chemicals inside our bodies then that animal suffered cause of money hunger people

Sorry it too my so long to reply.

Yes, rats in nature. Oddly enough, the vast majority of rats are not house pets.

Maybe, if the person is in the late stage of a terminal cancer, they might be willing to try a drug that we are entirely unsure of. They will already be in extreme pain, it can only kill them faster. However, say we develop a drug that we think might be useful in curing a non-terminal disease that, which it effects the sufferes quality of life, doesn't effect it to such an extent that they are completely unable to live. This drug could do anything. It could kill them. It's not likely, we'll be as sure as possible that it's not likely, but unless we've done every test possible cound you, in good conscinece, ask that person to take the pill. For the sake of 20 lab animals? I couldn't. I think we have a duty to these people to develop drugs to help them, and we also have a duty to make suer these drugs are as safe as we possibly can, and that NEEDS animal testing.

And, again, we can develop models for bit of humans, but there is NO USEFUL MODEL FOR A FULL HUMAN SYSTEM OUTSIDE OF FULL ANIMAL SYSTEMS. Not a patch of skin. Not a liver. But a full organism with all the intricasies and problems that comes with that. We can do cell based assayas, and we do, but there is no way to compare rubbing a drug on a patch of skin to seeing how it will interact in a full system.

From what I read on this topic, I think I'm in the middle fourth of the general view?

I love animals, I think it's awful they're used in testing. However, I can't overlook that very significant advances in medicine and other areas were made through animal testing. Also I understand that humans are the top-ranking species. It is also my view that God put animals on the earth to be used by humans i.e., killing them for food, shelter, etc. And though it's sad to say, I think the same applies to the idea of advancing technology and discoveries.

Then again, I have to look on the flipside, and think, what if humans weren't the most superior, and if there was another species that ruled over us? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't enjoy being tested on. x_X Especially for cosmetic products...

On that same side, you have to look at the early prison camps where scientists would open up skulls of living prisoners to view their brains and then chuck their bodies outside. Unethical and inhumane, but this also further significant understanding of how the human brain worked. So is this also alright, for the sake of scienece? Or because the subject has a superior mind it's no longer applicable? This I can't begin to agree with.

So, I guess my final opinion is, even though it's unplesant and unfair to innocent creatures, I can understand why it's done.

Well, if you completely protest against animal-testing, then you just have to ask yourself who "Who will do the testing then?" Are you gonna go volunteer to be tested on? I've been told that animals have a similar make-up to ours, so it's probably the second closest thing that they, or the scientists can experiment on for better results. I'm not saying I'm for it, but I'm not completely against it. Actually, you could say I don't have an opinion, because you really can't have one on something like this, from my point of view. It's a loose loose situation, again from my view.

Maybe I'm being obvilous to a solution to all this? I'd sure like to hear a well thought out one.

Please don't see what I'm about to say as me agreeing to animal abuse or animal testing itself, so please read to the bottom of my post.

It's just many of the stuff we have today are archived because our ancestors tested them on animals....and back then it was allowed to prevent and lower the rate of subjecting humans as the test subjects.

Human's life was considered cheap at one time, and they did the test on human, to stop that but to keep the testing to continue on, they moved and changed the test subject into animal.

Nowadays people are already already giving their attention to protect and save the animals, which is the resaon on the rise against animals-testing.

But then, if not on human and not animal, what else can the scientist use as the test subjects for all stuff that will be useful for humans, be used by and to humans, which also means they have to look for -something- that are close to a human without using animals anymore.

If we can find that -something-, that will be the ultimate solution to the old and long debates about human/animal testing.

What other stupid thing will humans do next? That's the real question. Animal testing is so cruel, I despise anybody involved. Nobody understands that humans are not as superior as they say they are, so why even pretend it? I think everybody in the world should leave each other alone, animals and humans. Everything would be better that way.

How is it stupid?
I really doubt all the animal lovers in here are vegetarians. Do you all scream out at how the beef, pork, and fish products you eat were once living?
No, because it's food.
But by some reason, testing is a horrible atrophy to society that must be eradicated?
The logic behind that is flawed.
Animal testing isn't always cruel, it finds new discoveries, and... in fact, humans are superior. If we have the ability to control the others, it's that what gives us the advantage. Sure, if we were not superior, we'd be the test subjects, and it would suck, but the superior manipulate the inferior, even within species.

Originally Posted by CoCaptain_DV

What other stupid thing will humans do next? That's the real question. Animal testing is so cruel, I despise anybody involved. Nobody understands that humans are not as superior as they say they are, so why even pretend it? I think everybody in the world should leave each other alone, animals and humans. Everything would be better that way.

So wanting to cure fatal and debilitating diseases and aleviate the sufering of our fellow men and animals because, least we forget, this research does help the animals too as the entire point is it has the same job in their system as ours, is stupid? Well, I must be a raving idiot then. Let's just leave the terminally ill and those for whom diease makes their lives unlivable alone, I'm sure it's for the best. It's not about superiority, people aren't sat around in labs cackling going "fufufu, I'll show you lab mice who's boss", it's about helping people in desperate need, people for who life is unlivable.



Just a note that just hit me about model systems. I've seen people in this thread saying that we can't draw knowledge from animals cells because they're different from us, we should use cell based assays. Now, I don't know about yet guys, but I'm not a layer of cells in a dish. It's not that we can't draw useful information from these assays, we can't, but they are not magically more valid then whole-organism assays. The fact that the cells are in abody has an effect on the cells and you just can't replicate that in a petri dish, not yet. Not only that but we don't apply medicine directly into our cells. You don't rub drugs into your liver, they have to go through the circulatory system and we can only pray they'll end up where we want, and sometimes they don't and the end result is damaging. We can't tell that from a cell assay. These things are why it's vital to use a range of models, including both cell assays and whole animals and, as a final stage, human. Just as we do it now.

This topic would be the only one that I'm not really taking sides. On one side, if you don't test on animals, then who are you going to test it on? how will you know if it's harmful to humans or not? But then if we test it on them animals, how about their rights? If we consider us as a more superior being, and that we humans rules all, then animals are below us, and testing on animals would be only natural. They wouldn't test it on humans that's for sure. We humans are of an higher intellictual being than animals, it's only natural in society that we rule. But those animal rights activist out there would have a say in the animal rights department, but i bet if you ask them if they're superior than animals, and our right to rule, that'll keep them silence. It's true I love animals and wouldn't want to see my pet in harm. But seriously, dont' expect me to test those cosmetics ever.

Testing pharmaceuticals on animals does not mean it will be safe for humans.

Humans and even our closest primate relatives have COMPLETE different physiology. Even if you take a rat and a mouse. There are many substances that are completely toxic to mice that are not to rats, and vice versa. That is just some basic biology that I think people saying, "If you can't test it on them, how will we know it's safe?"

We don't know that it is safe. Drugs that were tested on animals and deemed safe have killed scores of people before being recalled by the FDA. This has happened numerous times in history.

The average animal tester not even a licensed medical professional, they commit acts of fraud, plagiarism and fabrication in publishing studies to extend their funding. Animal testers are the foremost in the scientific community for committing these crimes because the results of animal testing are much less reliable as they would like us to believe.

For those people who say that we have accumulated medical knowledge that benefits us because of all the animal testing we have done, that is a complete lie.

The biggest strides that have advanced our medical knowledge have been field related testing on human subjects. And if there aren't any willing humans to test the drug on then DON'T MAKE THE DRUG. It is that simple.

We have never needed any cures as much as we have needed prevention. We shovel billions in the lap of pharmaceutical companies but we will not exercise twenty minutes a day to prevent our slow deaths.

The number one killer in America is heart disease. How many lives could we save if we improved the American education system to inoculate young people against junk advertising and improve their physical education programs, thus slashing childhood obesity? That would save so many more lives than pouring money into developing drugs that thin the blood of fat adults who have spent their entire lives eating McDonalds and not exercising.

Animals are other creatures that have life. They have the right to be protected. But if it is necessary to test things on animals, I think we can do nothing about it. Cruel as I may sound, but it’s better than having it done on people.

I wonder what “alternative� means are you pointing to. Having no idea what means have some scientists resort to in testing food or medicines. Mostly, animals are used to find out whether or not humans will die when given a certain stimulus. So it is first given to animals and if it works then it is tried out with humans.

I know it’s cruel. I even see it that way. But with this, it can save the lives of human beings. What will you choose? Your life or theirs? Yes, I know humans are but selfish brats. But as much as I see compassionate people who love animals, I can’t help but to rationalize the situation and say it is okay. For in the end it will save the lives of a lot of men.

Animals are but part of nature. We are wardens of nature. So we can use the earth but also has the responsibility to take care of it. This also applies to the other living things in it. But as much as we want people to stop doing things as these. We can’t label it as wrong. For we may not be living our long life spans if it were not for dozens of animals who died in animal testing.

I think that in general, animal testing is a cruel, and unusual way to make an animal suffer for no reason, or just because we want to know how something may, or may not work with a nervous system.

I read an article not too long ago, about how a major company was testing something to do with abortion, on pregnant monkeys somewhere. They had them hooked up to some sort of machines, and were giving them medications and such, and then when the baby monkey was eventually lost, they would force the female monkey to get pregnant again...

It was terrible... :'(

Think of the animal being tested, they can't just walk up to you like a human would and say "I don't want to be tested on it's not fair to me." But you should know by now that's how they feel to be pulled from a comfort zone to be messed around with. If you don't want to be tested on do you think they do? If so then force the testing on humans and see how they feel and maybe there might just be an understanding on feelings here.
*agrees with simple on the pregnancy thing*

I'm willing to see a few thousand animals die if it cures AIDS. We're working for the greater good here, no? And really, when it comes down to it, if it's between my family or some animals, I'm GOING to pick my family. So would you. So would anyone. If we don't use animals, who are we going to use? Until you are willing to go volunteer yourself to be tested on, I don't think you really hate animal testing. That's the only viable solution I can think of, because like Yarrian said a little scrap of flesh is not nearly the same as a living being. Just my two cents on it...

For pharmaseuticals and cosmetics, I think it is wrong to test animals. Their bodies will react differently than our's so the testing is useless. think it is little more acceptible with procedures. If the veins in the heart work the same way in an animal than a human that animal might be used to test procedures. That is the way scientists found a way to work around blue-bay syndrome, by working on the heart of a dog. For medicine and cosmetics, human voluteers should be used or sythetic cells.