Animal testing Yes or No

Question

Testing from drugs to cosmetics what are your opinions.

Answer 1

Cosmetics, No. But pharmaceuticals and medical purposes i think it is definitely necessary.  Personally I want to know that the tylenol I take for a headache is safe, or any other drug for that matter.  I worked in a pharmaceutical testing lab for a year, and I can tell you that it is not nearly as crewel as many people think.  The animals are very happy and there are extreme measures taken to make sure they are never in pain or suffering.  There are vets that care more for than animals than anyone I have ever seen.  Anyway the process is necessary and it is amazing how many miricles are in the process of being created as we speak in different drug testing facilities across the world.  

Answer 2

no. use humans for testing, at least they have a choice.

Answer 3

Drugs, yes.  Animals used in drug trials are treated under very specific guidelines that must be pre-approved by committee.  Every effort is made to alleviate their discomfort and suffering.  Most importantly, though, it is vital to medical research.  There are many drugs that looked good on paper, and performed well in cell culture experiments, but were deadly in a live organism.  To proceed directly from cell culture experiments to human testing would be risky and unethical.  The bottom line is that medical research would grind to a halt without animal testing, since there really are no viable alternatives.

I've done experiments on animals myself in an effort to understand a life-threatening condition that is common in diabetics.  The mice were given anesthetics, and I treated them as gently as possible.  I didn't enjoy it - the mice certainly did go through some pain and discomfort, though we minimized it as much as possible.  I asked myself, could I meet a diabetic person suffering from this condition, look them in the eyes, and say "we could find a cure for your condition, but our lab animals are more important."  My answer (I won't speak for anyone else) was a resounding "No," so I continued with the research.  Had I been working with other animals, such as dogs or primates, or a disease other than diabetic neuropathy, perhaps my answer would have been different.  In my mind, though, finding a treatment for the leading cause of extremity amputation in diabetic patients outweighed minor pain and discomfort in a limited number of mice.

Cosmetic testing is a different matter entirely.  It seems to center around the question of how much damage can cosmetics do to a living creature. When you combine this with the fact that cosmetics do not save lives (or significantly improve their quality), it's obvious that cosmetics testing is exceedingly unethical and frivolous.

Answer 4

The fact of the matter is that if a new pharmacitual drug is to receive approval from the FDA, it is a requirement. Research for a drug or medical device entering the human body (heart stents, plates, ect) includes these phases:

- Animal Research

          If "passes" then it can go into Human Research before being perscribed to the general population

- Human Research (3 seperate phases)

Would you want to have a surgical procedure and be given an anesthetic where the effectiveness, adverse reactions ect are not known? How about on a family member or a friend? The concept applies all the way to asprin

Answer 5

no way its cruel to do animal testing just so we can make ourselves look better with cosmetics,  now if its for medical reasons thas a bit harder to answer

Answer 6

no no no it's not fair on the poor animals!

Answer 7

This really isn't a yes or no question for me - there are too many variables, moral, ethical and practical.

I do not believe there is justification any more for testing things like cosmetics or cigarettes on animals. We already know what will and will not burn human skin and eyes and we already know what smoking does to people. That said, I remain prepared to at least consider cogent arguments to the contrary.

In respect of medical research, I do believe that scientists should retain the right to utilise properly regulated animal testing. However, that is not to say I am unequivocally comfortable with the fact of this type of scientific methodology.

For me, it comes down to rational self-interest. I want science to discover better treatments and cures. If animal testing will accelerate this process or, indeed, is the only way for medicine to progress, then the pain, misery and death of some animals is a consequence which, in the final analysis, I am prepared to live with.

I realise that some people hold diametrically opposed opinions and do not countenance the infliction of any harm, for any reason on animals. However, were I or someone dear to me to develop a painful, wasting and/or fatal illness which could be cured if animal experiments were conducted, I am certain that I would feel little if any altruism towards whatever creature may have to be sacrificed to cure the ailment.  

Answer 8

A big YES from me. Call that selfish or arrogant if you like, but humans matter more than animals. We possess intellect, self-awareness, desire to live and desire to care for our own kind. Animals don't have any of that, they are driven by instincts. We gotta try and stop giving animals human attributes. Animals are part of nature, much like plants are. Is it morally wrong to chop a tree down for wood? Does the tree suffer? How can you tell, if the tree can't move and can't speak? You see where I'm going with this.

Answer 9

for something like cosmetic products then no, but for something worthwhile like actual medicine then if it has to be done it has to be done. the way i see it is that if a few animals are effected or suffer testing a drug that goes on to save human lives then its worth it.