Should animals be tested with new medication before they are given to patients in clinical trials?

Question

should new medication be tested on animals at all?

Answer 1

Modern medicine as we know it wouldn't be possible without animal trials, yes.

If you believe that animals and humans have equal rights, or that animals should only be able to participate in studies if they were able to give informed consent, I understand your moral position.  I disagree with it, but I try not to eat animals.

I think the existing kerjillion rules and regulations for animal safety and comfort and to ensure that experiments with them are necessary, use the minimal number of animals needed for statistical signifcance, and are not redundant, along with the kerjillions of committees formed to make sure those rules are enforced are enough.  As a scientist, I do not do animal work myself, but I have watched the rules and regulations grow to be extraordinarily strict over the last 30 years.  I think they're extremely reasonable - IF you believe animal research can be ethical.

I do.  There aren't enough humans to do all the tests on, and as cute as they are, I'd rather have a lab mouse experience toxic effects of a new drug being developed to cure cancer than have my daughter experience them.  And humans are all someone's sons and daughters.

I won't run through the list of vaccines and drugs we have only because of animal testing; I'm sure someone else will post one.  And to those who think animals should never be exploited for human benefit, the list won't matter.

Answer 2

Uh. Yes. Absolutely. Would you take a drug that hadn't been tested?

Answer 3

No. I say test prisoners. At least they can understand what's going on. They just sit there all day anyway.

Answer 4

I work in drug safety for companies that make new medicines. I love animals. However, sometimes animal testing is necessary. This is because animals can serve has human analog models in determining how a new compound is metabolized and excreted by the human body, and whether or not it can be teratogenic (cause birth defects).

There are ethical considerations in both animal and human testing. An animal cannot give consent, but it can be treated in a comfortable and humane manner. If they are required to be sacrificed, then they should be killed in a manner that is as painless and quick as possible.

You cannot, for ethical reasons, test medicines in pregnant women and on children before they are approved for human subjects.

Once a drug is approved for human testing, each volunteer signs a consent form that lists the possible risks and benefits from the medication (or device). Most of that risk data comes from animal models.

Cellular models (in vitro) can be helpful to a point, but a living organism is a better bet to pick up unexpected reactions. That said, one should keep in mind that a mouse is not man, and some things don't translate across species, which is why all medications are eventually human tested, only if they pass the initial animal toxicity screens.

Answer 5

I love the theory of use prisoners, but if everything started with human trials, we would kill everyone on death row in a week.  Beyond that, if you think animals should have the choice, shouldnt prisoners?  I mean, they are human?

Do you really think killing off most of the population because animals are too good to test on is better?

Answer 6

NO---do testing on people like that little #$##$% that keeps getting on planes and stealing cars and robbing houses--and anyone like him..not animals.