Opinions on animal testing
Scroll to see replies
For those who are interested, here's a link to the UK's legal stance on animal testing:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/265691/Animals__Scientific_Procedures__Act_1986.pdf
It outlines the requirements that must be fulfilled before animal testing can take place. Also worth noting that it is illegal to test final cosmetic products on animals in the EU, however new constituent chemicals can still be tested in order to ascertain any potential dangers.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/265691/Animals__Scientific_Procedures__Act_1986.pdf
It outlines the requirements that must be fulfilled before animal testing can take place. Also worth noting that it is illegal to test final cosmetic products on animals in the EU, however new constituent chemicals can still be tested in order to ascertain any potential dangers.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by HumanCitizen
Animal testing is wrong. As long as people continue to justify it, no alternatives will be found or the ones available now like stems cells will be ignored. I don't think humanity should benefit from the suffering of fury, tiny, beautiful, helpless and vulnerable creatures like cuddly rats. I mean how is infecting a dog with cancer for 5 years and watching the disease progress and weaken it, morally justifiable. I think in the Bible it also says something about things being created equal,correct me if I'm wrong.
Sure, let's all listen to the Bible because we all know it isn't bull****.
How about my suggestion, we farm clones specifically for testing? No family, no knowledge of any other kind of life. No-one would grieve for them. No-one would get upset that some cute animal was drugged.
Of course, you'll probably hate that idea. Which is why animal testing is the only viable option.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Miel Purple
If we don't test on animals who are a much more reliable source of information and discoveries then what are we gonna test on? Computer models? 
I'm for animal testing but I don't like seeing animals suffer for too long.
I'm for animal testing but I don't like seeing animals suffer for too long.
I think all those who are against animal testing for medical/science research are anti-people and anti-people's rights.If animal experimentation, however long it goes on for or whatever it involves, helps a baby or a boy, a girl, a man, or a woman anywhere in the world -in ANY way at all- then it should continue 24/7, 365 days a year!
As the OP rightly said, Scientific labs are professional places and scientific research staff are qualified, clever people who shouldn't be swayed by sentiment/emotion.
Original post by nexttime
You pick paracetamol as your example of a drug not worth testing on animals? Quite possibly the drug that has alleviated the most suffering of all time?
Medicine is not about prolonging life without qualification. It is about improving life. A cure for the common cold would be of incredible benefit to humanity.
How about this: what is worth more to you a) a cancer treatment that prolongs life by 1 month for about 100 humans per year with quality of life being poor, in pain etc or b) a cure for the common cold that alleviates suffering for billions worldwide.
Medicine is not about prolonging life without qualification. It is about improving life. A cure for the common cold would be of incredible benefit to humanity.
How about this: what is worth more to you a) a cancer treatment that prolongs life by 1 month for about 100 humans per year with quality of life being poor, in pain etc or b) a cure for the common cold that alleviates suffering for billions worldwide.
We've got paracetamol! As is probably fairly obvious, I'm not a pharmacist but I'm pretty certain that we don't need any more development on paracetamol because we've got it. Yet corporations spends billions a year remarketing paracetamol products because they rake in cash.
Secondly, your argument in your second paragraph is a ridiculous false dichotomy. There choice is not between finding a cure to the common cold and curing a ridiculously rare strain of cancer. The choice is between (generally) mild seasonal illnesses that are nothing more than a nuisance, and investing money in the main societal killers. Most of the money in cancer research is going into the 'big' ones like prostate and breast cancer and leukemia and hardly anything is going into the more minor ones. A close member of my family just died from a very rare form of lung cancer.
Human Disease Cures>Animals being tested on>Cosmetics
(edited 10 years ago)
Oh and as for animal testing for cosmetics- maybe the hamster is a noble hamster and would rather suffer for science. How callous not to make this consideration.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Chlorophile
We've got paracetamol! As is probably fairly obvious, I'm not a pharmacist but I'm pretty certain that we don't need any more development on paracetamol because we've got it. Yet corporations spends billions a year remarketing paracetamol products because they rake in cash.
but without further testing on animals.
although finding compounds similar to paracetamol would be useful. individuals vary in their response to any medication, having a range of similar drugs provides options. plus, we'd get more information on how paracetamol works, other potential drug targets, understanding of pain physiology, et c.
from where did we learn the fundamentals of cancer biology?
through studying viruses. a guy called peyton rous in the early 1900s discovered that viruses could induce cancers in chicken. he investigated (using animals). the ensuing scientific leaps essentially founded what we know about the molecular processes of cancer.
you can't separate research avenues as neatly as you seem to think. so many areas enmesh and provide insight in to other disciplines. it's not a matter of discrete, isolated discoveries. research into the process of ageing is likely to yield novel understanding of cancer biology, dementia, immunology, et c., as another example.
Original post by Obiejess
Human Disease Cures>Animals being tested on>Cosmetics
????? Unclear if you are FOR or against animal testing for medical cures/science and, or cosmetics safety????? .....do tell!!
Original post by Chlorophile
I'm not sure the extent to which you need to retest say a paracetamol codeine mix - it'd certainly be less than usual, possibly quite minimally. If its literally just branded paracetamol with no changes then why would you need any new testing at all?
But as with cosmetics, if people want it then safety dictates it has to be tested first. The solution: stop people buying it.
Secondly, your argument in your second paragraph is a ridiculous false dichotomy.
It was not a false dichotomy, it was an extreme example meant to illustrate that quality of life is important. If nothing else you could sell it to the general population, make a few hundred billion pounds and push that into cancer research...
The point being, research funding is broadly based on market values of cures, which correlates with how much people want something, and the scientific value of the research for other areas. Arbitrarily banning something because you don't personally feel its important seems a bit silly: if it wasn't important, a company/funding group won't be putting their money into it.
As it happens, cancer is by far the most lucrative research area to be in at the moment in both the private and public sectors: Because a cure for all cancer could rake in literally trillions of pounds.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by ResidentSocio
Sure, let's all listen to the Bible because we all know it isn't bull****.
How about my suggestion, we farm clones specifically for testing? No family, no knowledge of any other kind of life. No-one would grieve for them. No-one would get upset that some cute animal was drugged.
Of course, you'll probably hate that idea. Which is why animal testing is the only viable option.
Posted from TSR Mobile
How about my suggestion, we farm clones specifically for testing? No family, no knowledge of any other kind of life. No-one would grieve for them. No-one would get upset that some cute animal was drugged.
Of course, you'll probably hate that idea. Which is why animal testing is the only viable option.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Your logic is different from mine. Just because I will be against cloning and testing on cloned living creatures, does not mean I will support animal testing as an alternative.
Original post by Heather11 I think all those who are against animal testing for medical/science research are anti-people and anti-people's rights.
If animal experimentation, however long it goes on for or whatever it involves, helps a baby or a boy, a girl, a man, or a woman anywhere in the world -in ANY way at all- then it should continue 24/7, 365 days a year!
As the OP rightly said, Scientific labs are professional places and scientific research staff are qualified, clever people who shouldn't be swayed by sentiment/emotion.
I think all those who are against animal testing for medical/science research are anti-people and anti-people's rights.If animal experimentation, however long it goes on for or whatever it involves, helps a baby or a boy, a girl, a man, or a woman anywhere in the world -in ANY way at all- then it should continue 24/7, 365 days a year!
As the OP rightly said, Scientific labs are professional places and scientific research staff are qualified, clever people who shouldn't be swayed by sentiment/emotion.
You can interpret however you wish? Anti-people or anti-science. What about anti-animals? Those that feel pain because their CNS is well developed and those that feel emotional pain because their conscious. I’m just advocating that we move on now from an unnecessary evil or even if it’s necessary, encourage other alternatives when laws to ban testing are implemented. They is already promising signs with cell culture and tissue engineering and you can use human volunteers. We might be in a race to cure cancer but we should’t forget that cancer is a human problem, some of which we have brought on ourselves. Any successful costly expensive drugs created will only be shared among the human population.
Original post by ResidentSocio
Oh and as for animal testing for cosmetics- maybe the hamster is a noble hamster and would rather suffer for science. How callous not to make this consideration.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
How would the hamster rather suffer for science. Does it benefit the hamster or its family. I’m sure even if it had the level of reasoning to consider this issue, it would rather spend its short lifespan eating,playing and reproducing to make more cute little irresistible baby hamsters!
Original post by HumanCitizen
Your logic is different from mine. Just because I will be against cloning and testing on cloned living creatures, does not mean I will support animal testing as an alternative.
Present to me a viable alternative to animal testing.
Original post by HumanCitizen
How would the hamster rather suffer for science. Does it benefit the hamster or its family. I’m sure even if it had the level of reasoning to consider this issue, it would rather spend its short lifespan eating,playing and reproducing to make more cute little irresistible baby hamsters!
How would the hamster rather suffer for science. Does it benefit the hamster or its family. I’m sure even if it had the level of reasoning to consider this issue, it would rather spend its short lifespan eating,playing and reproducing to make more cute little irresistible baby hamsters!
I see sarcasm is lost on you.
Original post by ResidentSocio
Present to me a viable alternative to animal testing.
I see sarcasm is lost on you.
I see sarcasm is lost on you.
Hehe! Was that meant to be sarcastic? Anyways, just because something has no alternatives in your eyes, does it make it morally justifiable.
Original post by HumanCitizen
Hehe! Was that meant to be sarcastic? Anyways, just because something has no alternatives in your eyes, does it make it morally justifiable.
How can you morally justify unnecessary deaths of people? Surely the survival of the human race is more important to you than the suffering of rats. The reason you have empathy is so you can care about fellow humans so humans will survive. Not other animals.
Original post by ResidentSocio
How can you morally justify unnecessary deaths of people? Surely the survival of the human race is more important to you than the suffering of rats. The reason you have empathy is so you can care about fellow humans so humans will survive. Not other animals.
I don't want people to die either. But how long can animals be subjected to this type of maltreatment in the name of science and cures. They will always be disease and ageing. It's a natural though saddening process that accompanies life. Already, I keep telling that they are viable alternatives, such as using living human cells and if science is as clever as it seems to imply then it can come up with other solutions. I don't only care about human beings, I also care about animals and fell to see how having less conciousness and intelligence justifies their harassment.
Original post by HumanCitizen
I don't want people to die either. But how long can animals be subjected to this type of maltreatment in the name of science and cures. They will always be disease and ageing. It's a natural though saddening process that accompanies life. Already, I keep telling that they are viable alternatives, such as using living human cells and if science is as clever as it seems to imply then it can come up with other solutions. I don't only care about human beings, I also care about animals and fell to see how having less conciousness and intelligence justifies their harassment.
I'm afraid people will constantly try to find cures for things. It's beyond me why they go to such lengths, but that's how it is. Even with the ageing population we want to cure people and make them feel better. It may even be for the money - and if it is it will never stop. People just don't want to see their relatives die. When it comes to the pinch, people will choose people over other species.
Original post by HumanCitizen
I don't want people to die either. But how long can animals be subjected to this type of maltreatment in the name of science and cures. They will always be disease and ageing. It's a natural though saddening process that accompanies life. Already, I keep telling that they are viable alternatives, such as using living human cells and if science is as clever as it seems to imply then it can come up with other solutions. I don't only care about human beings, I also care about animals and fell to see how having less conciousness and intelligence justifies their harassment.
using animals is a painstaking, expensive process that requires lots of bureaucracy and time. it is not something that is done lightly.
these viable alternatives you keep talking about aren't yet viable. at least not in the majority of circumstances. they're areas of investigation and some promising things are on the horizon, but you clearly underestimate how difficult and complex these things are (which is understandable, you clearly have v. little scientific literacy).
I love Animals.
However if they can make a feasible case that testing on a Animal could potentially save millions of humans life then it's worth doing. We are the Gods on this planet and as a race we can make or break Animals in any habitat. I believe if a couple are used for testing we must make sure these animals are protected in the wild and have a environment where they can thrive and not be interfered with by humans. I believe mother nature has afforded us everything we need to progress and further ourselves to anything we want to achieve. We just need the science and persistence behind it.
While animals are being tested on it needs to be stringently monitored. Not like Japan who simply catch whales in the sea and in blood right animal testing when helicopters are flying above. It needs to be controlled. We farm millions of animals to eat in labs all over the world, everything we enjoy in the supermarkets are the result of dead animals. I think if this can improve society and peoples health it's not something you can say NO to. If you say No then you need to accept that this is it we won't find cures for cancer and other terrible conditions.
However if they can make a feasible case that testing on a Animal could potentially save millions of humans life then it's worth doing. We are the Gods on this planet and as a race we can make or break Animals in any habitat. I believe if a couple are used for testing we must make sure these animals are protected in the wild and have a environment where they can thrive and not be interfered with by humans. I believe mother nature has afforded us everything we need to progress and further ourselves to anything we want to achieve. We just need the science and persistence behind it.
While animals are being tested on it needs to be stringently monitored. Not like Japan who simply catch whales in the sea and in blood right animal testing when helicopters are flying above. It needs to be controlled. We farm millions of animals to eat in labs all over the world, everything we enjoy in the supermarkets are the result of dead animals. I think if this can improve society and peoples health it's not something you can say NO to. If you say No then you need to accept that this is it we won't find cures for cancer and other terrible conditions.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Kallisto
I'm against, if the trials lead to diseases or even to death. Animals feels pains as well as humans and they suffer like humans.
If you have ever used a topical cream, an analgesic, an antibiotic or even sun block you are giant hypocrite.
Original post by Slazenger
using animals is a painstaking, expensive process that requires lots of bureaucracy and time. it is not something that is done lightly.
these viable alternatives you keep talking about aren't yet viable. at least not in the majority of circumstances. they're areas of investigation and some promising things are on the horizon, but you clearly underestimate how difficult and complex these things are (which is understandable, you clearly have v. little scientific literacy).
these viable alternatives you keep talking about aren't yet viable. at least not in the majority of circumstances. they're areas of investigation and some promising things are on the horizon, but you clearly underestimate how difficult and complex these things are (which is understandable, you clearly have v. little scientific literacy).
I'm glad you agree that promising things are on the horizon... I just believe the scientific community should try to put more effort into reducing the use of animals in research instead of saying no alternatives all the time.
Original post by HumanCitizen
I'm glad you agree that promising things are on the horizon... I just believe the scientific community should try to put more effort into reducing the use of animals in research instead of saying no alternatives all the time.
they say no alternatives because there are, at present, no good alternatives.
even the use of stem cells/organ-on-a-chip technology, it's difficult, because you don't get a whole-organism effect. to try and explain simply: if you give a drug intended to work on the heart to a mouse, it might have side effects that occur in the liver, kidney, brain, et c., et c. so if you're using a stem cell culture or organ-on-a-chip to test this drug, you won't be aware of these side effects because invariably you'll be using cells or tissue that is relevant to the drug you're working with (in this case, the heart). when you have a whole-organism model - as in a mouse - you get a broader appreciation of what the drug does, which means you get a better safety profile for when you have to test it on humans.
it's more difficult than people think.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
