Is it okay to test on animals IF...?

Question

It's going to save 1,000's of lives.....Like Koch's posulates...Where to figure out a spicific disease, you must inject a healthy animal to see if it also becomes sick?

Does that sound reasonable? What do you think?

Answer 1

A big problem, as detailed in Karen Dawn's "Thanking the Monkey" is many tests are repetitive and serve only to allow a company to tweak the formula enough to extend the patent.  Animals shouldn't be tortured and killed for that.

They should not be tortured and killed in tests on chemicals where toxicity or danger has already been shown.

Another big problem is some drugs that are shown to be safe in animal tests have had disastrous results when given to humans.  See: Thalidomide, Celebrex, and Vioxx, not to mention other drugs that got FDA approval and were subsequently recalled.  And we'll never know how many drugs were shown to be dangerous in animal tests that might have saved human lives.  Something that is perfectly safe for a human can be toxic to another animal, and something that is safe for a nonhuman can be toxic to humans.

I'd like to see all non-medical testing stopped; there's no need to test cleansers and cosmetics on animals.  And I'd like to see scientists work on non-animal testing for medicines and refine it so testing on living animals can someday become a thing of the past.

Answer 2

no we should test on convicted felons instead. i'm only joking

Answer 3

ok people how would you like 2 put makeup on and get some in your eyes and lose your eye??? how would you like 2 put on mascara on and get some in your eye and end up loossing your eye??? how would you like getting some shampoo in your eye and lose your eye????

yeah my point... all you people dont think of that.. well sorry but when i use somthin i want 2 know that its safe

EDIT: you can test it on anything why animals????

r you serous???? ok what the h**l else r we gona test the stuff on??, oh yeah i'm gona test that shampoo on that cardbord box to see if it has any effects on its eyes. GET 4 REAL

EDIT:---->I'd like to see all non-medical testing stopped; there's no need to test cleansers and cosmetics on animals. And I'd like to see scientists work on non-animal testing for medicines and refine it so testing on living animals can someday become a thing of the past.<--------

yeah and i'd like to see how many people get f*cked up by it

EDIT: a pair of rats can produce up to 1500 offspring a year, and its not like already theres not lots of rats, cause there is

Answer 4

No, it is ok too test on consenting human beings though! If the animal cannot consent to being tested on then it is wrong. It is nice to save all these lives but in reality we are quite overpopulated and overmedicated and we are just going to get other diseases when we become immune to the one we just cured. I think some people wish we could cure everything and live forever. We cannot be superhumans and deal with every disease but if consenting human beings want to be tested on to stop whatever then fine that is their choice. Non human -animals should be kept out of it.  

Answer 5

Although medical breakthroughs have occurred in the past from the use of animal experiments, they are no longer needed.  There is new technology where human tissue grown in a lab can be tested to see an effect of a drug, chemical, or disease.  However, most companies still go turn to vivisection because their facilities are not set up for this new technology.

Animal testing isn't necessarily an accurate way to get results for human illness either.  I can't remember where I read this, but, more than half of all animal trials that pass into human trials and human usage are either ineffective or can actually cause harm.  There have been a lot of drug recalls lately, where the animal tests were successful but it caused many human deaths.

Answer 6

Oh yes definitely.  

I've seen other posters mentioning things like prisoners.  Whilst I can understand the thinking behind this, unfortunately it's not practical.  Here in the UK about 3.2 million animals are used in scientific research per year.  The total prison population of the UK is 87,000, so there simply isn't enough of them.  Secondly prisoners are more likely to have taken narcotics or have a disease that could interfere with the test.  Laboratory animals are specially bred so this can be controlled.

Also in the UK, to conduct an animal test you have to show that the potential benefit of your research outweighs any distress to the animal.  Scientists also have to follow the "3 Rs" (Reduction, Refinement and Replacement - see link), so no animal test is unnecessary.

Peter Singer is a philosopher who wrote the book "Animal Liberation" - the touchstone of the animal liberation and anti-vivisection movement.  In an interview he was asked by Professor Tipu Aziz (an Alzheimer's researcher) whether he thought the use of a dozen monkeys in developing a treatment for Alzheimer's that could potentially help millions was OK.  Singer's response was that it was "morally justifiable".

So is it OK to test on animals if there is a chance it's going to save thousands of lives?  I certainly think so, and until we have developed alternatives to replace the use of animals in medical laboratories they will be continued to be used.

Answer 7

not really. i mean you can test it on tons of things. why animals?

Answer 8

Yes I think it is.

I wish drugs weren't tested on animals, but I'm not convinced that  there are other effective ways to do it. I am completely opposed to animal testing for frivolous or unnecessary things and to unnecessary animal experimentation.

I'm a vegan in order to minimise my personal contribution to animal suffering and exploitation, but I value human life way over animal life.

And I owe my life to animal tested drugs. Recently I read of a drug currently  at 'the mouse stage' that may eventually prevent metastasis of the type of cancer I had. As I said, I wish drugs were not tested on animals, but if that drug is ever proven in clinical trials anyone who wants first place in line for it will have to fight me for it.

And I find it chilling that there are people here suggesting enforced testing on human beings

Answer 9

Yes, some is ok.

The problem with the current system is that they do too much speculative testing on animals.

Computer modelling could be used for much of thier current testing, testing only a drug that you EXPECT to work in a final test phase - i'd approve of that, but not the current level of expoiltation.

Answer 10

Testing medicines and procedures on animals is fine by me. While there have been some failures using that method, there have been way more successes and the lives of humans and animals have been saved because of it.

Answer 11

No, I thoroughly disagree and unless you are aware of the procedures, methods and results of these laboratory labs then I cannot have a debate with you about it. All these research companies offer the public is a placebo. Physiologically we are far different to that of a mouse (which they use for sunscreen testing) rats, rabbits etc.

A certain hay fever product called Triludan was taken off the pharmacy shelves a couple of years ago because it had fatal side effects to humans. This drug was tested on animals and passed safety standards for human use.

Phenformin is another drug that had to be taken off the shelves because it caused about 1,000 deaths per year.  Why? because we differ from the animals on which the drug was tested.

I could on and on and on because there are many.

WE are 'lab rats' and yet we allow millions of animals to die needlessly every year.

Answer 12

I think it's entirely reasonable.  I definitely would like to find a cure for cancer, and we need living tissues in order to make the testing process even remotely valid.  If it's ever possible to test things in a petri dish, as opposed to a living creature, I would encourage that, as the most humane option.

To address some of the other answers:

Rats are like humans in that they have living cells.

We can't test on criminals, because they are still humans, and have human rights.  And I doubt most of you would be so eager to test on criminals, if your brother was one of the inmates in line for the test labs!

Answer 13

first of all how is a rat like a human?

even after all these years, it's proven the medical society is so far behind in any advances.. that one problem is..

we're pretending animals are a good reflection of the human element.

why not test on criminals.. if they take from society then they should give back and this is a case.