Stem Cell Testing On Animal

Question

Ok I'm a huge animal lover. I've been a flexetarian all my life and became a laco-vegetarian about a year ago. I don't like to use products that were tested on animals so I'm really against the whole animal testing. Well a few days ago I was haveing a conversation with my older sister (she's work at a medical center) and I was telling her how much I disslike those that do animal testing, she then reply by saying that she might have to participate in some animal testing. I guess the center that she works at whats to test for stem cell on animasl, yes I know that this can be beneficial for people that are paralyzed or have no limbs, but I do still think that testing on animals (doesn't matter what kind of testing it is)is still cruel and inhumane. So does anyone else think that stem cell testing on animal in cruel? Please explain why you think it is or isn't. Thanks

Answer 1

I dont think stem cells are any more or less cruel  than the rest of medical testing.

But whats the alternative?  Are you willing to offer yourself as guinia pig to something that has never been tried off the petri dish?

You do know that for the most part it is done as humanly as possible, right?  

Answer 2

What makes you think it is Stem Cell testing on animals? It could be some other research.

But that's besides the point.

Here is a copy of an answer I gave to a similar question on animal testing:

______________________________________...

People only do animal testing because it is the *only* way to get certain results.

As an obvious example, if you are wanting to study how certain parts of the brain are important for (for example) memory, or motor function, you can only do this in animals. Wound healing only happens in live animals - so can only be tested in them. Bone remodelling only happens in live animals. *Many* processes can only be studied by doing animal experiments.

For a more detailed breakdown, let's consider a new cancer cure:

Let's say you have discovered a drug which you think kills lung cancer cells (and therefore has the potential to save the lives of millions of people). You test it on lung cancer cells, and it kills them. Great! But what about *normal* lung cells?

You test it on them, and it doesn't kill them. What about *other* cell types?

There are hundreds of thousands of different cell types in the body, and we cannot isolate and grow all of them. So, you might be able to do toxicity tests on a *lot* of them - but you cannot do it on them *all*. The only way is to test the drug on animals.

And what if it doesn't *kill* the cells, but interferes with their function in a hard-to-test-for way (like stops immune cells producing antibodies, or stops nerve cells firing properly)?

Or maybe it is destroyed by the digestive process, so you'll need to inject it or make it into an inhaler. Again, you only get intact digestive systems to test on in live animals.

Or possibly it isn't toxic by itself, but when it enters the body, your liver tries to "detoxify" it and accidenatlly transforms it into a toxin (which actually happens quite often) - you only get functional livers in live animals.

Nobody enjoys hurting animals - so the animals used in experiments are always treated as humanely as possible. If they have to be killed, they are killed painlessly.

Every institution that does animal testing has an ethics committe that needs to give its approval before any tests can be done. They carefully consider the potential benefits against any suffering before giving their approval. And most countries have very strict laws dictating how animals can be housed and treated: all animal testing institutions must abide by these laws.

Answer 3

You can do one of three things.

You can never introduce any new medical procedures or medicines.

You can try them out on animals first to see what happens.

Or you can use human beings as your first experimental "animals".  Which do you think is the right one to do?

Of course animal testing should be done as humanely as possible, and there are very strict laws about this.  Also, no one does unnecessary animal testing because it takes time and money.

Answer 4

Yes Audri I also find that stem cell testing on animals is a very cruel thing to do but it has to be done in order to find out new cures for people that have any trouble with them.

Answer 5

I think any type of animal testing can be cruel, but when it comes down to it, what happens in vitro (in a dish) and in vivo (in an organism) can be  completely different. If we are to utilize stem cells for treatments of spinal cord lesions etc, there really is only one way to test the way stem cells could help, and that is in animal models. Unless of course someone is willing to donate their body to science whilst they are still alive. That will just cause more ethical problems though...Touchy subject...