Would a uni's animal testing record affect your decision to apply?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by viddy9
Philosophically, I'm against experimentation on nonhuman animals but no, it wouldn't affect my decision to apply: the fact that I'm not applying will not change their practices.
And, no, animal experiments are not necessary: 92% of drugs tested on animals fail in human trials, and some drugs which don't appear to be safe or effective in animals are actually safe and effective in humans. We have different biochemical pathways, so this is unsurprising. This means that millions of animals are being experimented on with no gain coming as a result of it. Where do we draw the line? Would it still be justifiable to conduct these torturous experiments on 1 billion animals even if it was just to alleviate the suffering of 1 human? The costs clearly outweigh the benefits if people abandon their irrational speciesist attitudes and equally consider the interests of all sentient beings.
There are many alternatives to animal experimentation, up to and including experimentation on humans, which would yield much more useful results and save many more lives. If we can experiment on animals for the greater good (and, again, this greater good is dubious), I see no reason why we can't experiment on humans (many more lives would be saved as a result).
Actually, experimentation on humans would yield far more useful results than experimentation on nonhuman animals. 92% of drugs tested on animals fail in humans, and, as Dr. Andrew Knight's review of 20 systematic reviews of the evidence found, only 2 of these reviews found that animal experimentation produced useful results for human clinical practice.
If nonhuman animals can be experimented on for the greater good, why not save even more lives by experimenting on humans? Obviously, such a proposal would be extremely controversial, even if the experiments were conducted on prisoners, but, logically, the case for the proposal is watertight.
And, no, animal experiments are not necessary: 92% of drugs tested on animals fail in human trials, and some drugs which don't appear to be safe or effective in animals are actually safe and effective in humans. We have different biochemical pathways, so this is unsurprising. This means that millions of animals are being experimented on with no gain coming as a result of it. Where do we draw the line? Would it still be justifiable to conduct these torturous experiments on 1 billion animals even if it was just to alleviate the suffering of 1 human? The costs clearly outweigh the benefits if people abandon their irrational speciesist attitudes and equally consider the interests of all sentient beings.
There are many alternatives to animal experimentation, up to and including experimentation on humans, which would yield much more useful results and save many more lives. If we can experiment on animals for the greater good (and, again, this greater good is dubious), I see no reason why we can't experiment on humans (many more lives would be saved as a result).
Actually, experimentation on humans would yield far more useful results than experimentation on nonhuman animals. 92% of drugs tested on animals fail in humans, and, as Dr. Andrew Knight's review of 20 systematic reviews of the evidence found, only 2 of these reviews found that animal experimentation produced useful results for human clinical practice.
If nonhuman animals can be experimented on for the greater good, why not save even more lives by experimenting on humans? Obviously, such a proposal would be extremely controversial, even if the experiments were conducted on prisoners, but, logically, the case for the proposal is watertight.
I see your logic for sure, if we could experiment on humans that would be great. But that would raise a whole new set of ethical concerns.
First off, where are you going to get healthy volunteers? Well you are probably going to compensate them right? Who's going to volunteer, clearly not the well off who are not short of money. Now you have what is essentially the rich using the poor to test drugs.
Second off, now you move on to sick people who need this drug. What happens if a drug is a disaster and everyone dies, who would ever volunteer for this? The question will arise, are we just preying upon dying people's desperation?
And if you ever decided to even out the "testing" i.e. pick people randomly out of the entire population well you have a hunger games like scenario with "loss of freedom" and "totalitarian government" written all over it.
You didn't think this through, others way smarter than either of us have. There is no easy answer but we do animal testing because the alternatives are worse.
If you can list the alternatives to animal experimentation then do so. But the way biology works is that there are many drugs that work in the lab under controlled conditions that don't work in a living animals body. The animal's body contain so much humans have absolutely no idea about and we don't know what factors truly influence the efficacy of a drug. This is why after u do in-vitro testing you move onto in-vivo testing. At that point you have a choice, animals or humans.
(edited 8 years ago)
Universities are a place for learning and shouldn't be a place where animals are needlessly tested on.
If it's medical research, I don't have much of an issue with it. As long as the animals are kept in suitable conditions, with enough space, company of the same species and things to provide stimulation, I think it's ok. I'm an animal lover, and I wish animal testing wasn't necessary, but at this point in time it is. The only thing I have a big issue with is vivisection. I can't think of anything that a vivisection could show us that a necropsy couldn't. Cosmetics testing, I definitely take issue with. There are certainly non-animal alternatives to testing cosmetics, especially with today's technology and science.
Even though I'm not exactly fond of the idea of animal testing, I wouldn't describe it as torture. I'm talking purely about medical research, which is the only type I've had firsthand experience with. All the procedures I've seen, the animals were dosed with whatever drug, then put back into their pen/cage and observed. As the animals get used to being dosed, they stop being distressed. It's part of their routine. They're not scared or in pain. Just a few seconds of discomfort and it's done. They're not getting hacked at or 'experimented on', really. For the most part they're left alone.
When they can, most animal testing places use the 3 Rs anway. Reduction, refinement, replacement. Nobody wants to test on animals. But since it has to be done(for now) people are constantly seeking to use fewer animals in studies, to improve techniques so the animals suffer as little as possible, and to use alternatives to animals wherever possible.
Even though I'm not exactly fond of the idea of animal testing, I wouldn't describe it as torture. I'm talking purely about medical research, which is the only type I've had firsthand experience with. All the procedures I've seen, the animals were dosed with whatever drug, then put back into their pen/cage and observed. As the animals get used to being dosed, they stop being distressed. It's part of their routine. They're not scared or in pain. Just a few seconds of discomfort and it's done. They're not getting hacked at or 'experimented on', really. For the most part they're left alone.
When they can, most animal testing places use the 3 Rs anway. Reduction, refinement, replacement. Nobody wants to test on animals. But since it has to be done(for now) people are constantly seeking to use fewer animals in studies, to improve techniques so the animals suffer as little as possible, and to use alternatives to animals wherever possible.
Original post by King's Regent
Universities are a place for learning and shouldn't be a place where animals are needlessly tested on.
They're also far more importantly a place of research, the teaching just gives them extra funding and helps them train up new researchers for when current ones retire, last I checked isle generally supported animal medical testing, having human only causes all sorts of issues as somebody explained a few posts up
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jammy Duel
They're also far more importantly a place of research, the teaching just gives them extra funding and helps them train up new researchers for when current ones retire, last I checked isle generally supported animal medical testing, having human only causes all sorts of issues as somebody explained a few posts up
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I get what you are saying and animal testing is a necessary evil in many cases but what I am referring to is cases when animals suffer for no good reason or excessively redoing tests to check for anomalies.
Original post by King's Regent
I get what you are saying and animal testing is a necessary evil in many cases but what I am referring to is cases when animals suffer for no good reason or excessively redoing tests to check for anomalies.
At what point does it become excessive? When is it for no good reason? For instance, would it be no good reason if the testing suggests failure?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jammy Duel
At what point does it become excessive? When is it for no good reason? For instance, would it be no good reason if the testing suggests failure?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
It is for no good reason when animals are in bad conditions and are mistreated.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2653095/Sheep-used-Cambridge-University-animal-testing-labs-suffered-distressing-mistreatment.html
Original post by King's Regent
It is for no good reason when animals are in bad conditions and are mistreated.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2653095/Sheep-used-Cambridge-University-animal-testing-labs-suffered-distressing-mistreatment.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2653095/Sheep-used-Cambridge-University-animal-testing-labs-suffered-distressing-mistreatment.html
That's an interesting hypothesis, so if it's for cosmetic research, but the animals live a life of luxury otherwise, it is for good reason, but if it is to test drugs that could save billions of lives it is for no good reason if they are in bad conditions?
Well I definitely won't be going to Edinburgh if I get in now..
Original post by Jammy Duel
That's an interesting hypothesis, so if it's for cosmetic research, but the animals live a life of luxury otherwise, it is for good reason, but if it is to test drugs that could save billions of lives it is for no good reason if they are in bad conditions?
No.
There are two factors that are at play here: the condition of the animals being tested and the overall benefit the testing has on humanity. Only if the animals are kept in a good condition and there is a benefit to humanity does it make it right in my opinion. If the conditions are bad but the need to humanity for the testing is great then that makes it a necessary evil. However if the animas are treated well but the benefit to humanity is superficial (cosmetics and beauty products) then it is pointless. Obviously if the animals are treated poorly and there is no benefit to humanity then it is wrong.
That is my opinion.
I couldn't care less about it.
Original post by Kyx
Same.
Without the animals, what else are they going to test the drugs on? Rocks?
You try injecting a rock with painkiller, then hitting it, and measuring its pulse...
Without the animals, what else are they going to test the drugs on? Rocks?
You try injecting a rock with painkiller, then hitting it, and measuring its pulse...
If you hit the rock hard enough you could measure your own pulse lol!
I absolutely love animals yet I still don't care about animal testing.
Nope, most anti-animal research types are a bunch of hypocrites anyway. It's all fine and dandy when no one they know is sick, but suddenly when mum has cancer, and you remind them that they need to stop her going to hospital and getting those evil animal tested cancer treatment, "oh but erm...this is different". Yeah okay.....lol.
It''s test on animals or test on humans. Morality aside, the problem of scale is more pressing, you cannot breed the numbers nor do generational studies on humans like you can rats. A poster earlier said drugs tested on animals often fail, fair enough, but what of the ones which don't? Also some research is not just medical treatments, but testing of potential toxicity, especially teratogens, most substances toxic to use would also be to another mammal. If thalidomide had been tested first. we wouldn't have had that crisis.
In an ideal world we'd have a computer model advanced enough that the virtual rat, or human for that matter, can respond realistically to any chemical, but that's far flung.
It''s test on animals or test on humans. Morality aside, the problem of scale is more pressing, you cannot breed the numbers nor do generational studies on humans like you can rats. A poster earlier said drugs tested on animals often fail, fair enough, but what of the ones which don't? Also some research is not just medical treatments, but testing of potential toxicity, especially teratogens, most substances toxic to use would also be to another mammal. If thalidomide had been tested first. we wouldn't have had that crisis.
In an ideal world we'd have a computer model advanced enough that the virtual rat, or human for that matter, can respond realistically to any chemical, but that's far flung.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by jjsimpson
If you hit the rock hard enough you could measure your own pulse lol!
I absolutely love animals yet I still don't care about animal testing.
I absolutely love animals yet I still don't care about animal testing.
lol
Original post by Okorange
First off, where are you going to get healthy volunteers? Well you are probably going to compensate them right? Who's going to volunteer, clearly not the well off who are not short of money. Now you have what is essentially the rich using the poor to test drugs.
First off, where are you going to get healthy volunteers? Well you are probably going to compensate them right? Who's going to volunteer, clearly not the well off who are not short of money. Now you have what is essentially the rich using the poor to test drugs.
More lives will still be saved overall, first of all. And, secondly, we can also test on prisoners.
Original post by Okorange
Second off, now you move on to sick people who need this drug. What happens if a drug is a disaster and everyone dies, who would ever volunteer for this? The question will arise, are we just preying upon dying people's desperation?
Drugs are more likely to be disasters when they've been tested on nonhuman animals.
Original post by Okorange
And if you ever decided to even out the "testing" i.e. pick people randomly out of the entire population well you have a hunger games like scenario with "loss of freedom" and "totalitarian government" written all over it.
We also deny freedom to the animals being tested on. I'm not saying that my scenario will ever be implemented, but I am saying that, if people had thought through it logically and equally considered the interests of all sentient beings, then they would be in favour of human, and not animal, experimentation.
Original post by King's Regent
No.
There are two factors that are at play here: the condition of the animals being tested and the overall benefit the testing has on humanity. Only if the animals are kept in a good condition and there is a benefit to humanity does it make it right in my opinion. If the conditions are bad but the need to humanity for the testing is great then that makes it a necessary evil. However if the animas are treated well but the benefit to humanity is superficial (cosmetics and beauty products) then it is pointless. Obviously if the animals are treated poorly and there is no benefit to humanity then it is wrong.
That is my opinion.
There are two factors that are at play here: the condition of the animals being tested and the overall benefit the testing has on humanity. Only if the animals are kept in a good condition and there is a benefit to humanity does it make it right in my opinion. If the conditions are bad but the need to humanity for the testing is great then that makes it a necessary evil. However if the animas are treated well but the benefit to humanity is superficial (cosmetics and beauty products) then it is pointless. Obviously if the animals are treated poorly and there is no benefit to humanity then it is wrong.
That is my opinion.
Which is very different from what you said
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jammy Duel
Original post by King's Regent
Universities are a place for learning and shouldn't be a place where animals are needlessly tested on.
They should be mainly used for learning, specialist research centres are the only place I think that animal testing should happen at.
Original post by King's Regent
I get what you are saying and animal testing is a necessary evil in many cases but what I am referring to is cases when animals suffer for no good reason or excessively redoing tests to check for anomalies.
As I later said, when conditions are bad but the need to humanity is great then it is a necessary evil. However I was initially making the point that in no cases should animals be experimented on in bad conditions, when conditions are bad but the need to humanity is great then it is a necessary evil however this doesn't make it right and it should still not happen in my personal opinion.
Original post by King's Regent
It is for no good reason when animals are in bad conditions and are mistreated.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2653095/Sheep-used-Cambridge-University-animal-testing-labs-suffered-distressing-mistreatment.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2653095/Sheep-used-Cambridge-University-animal-testing-labs-suffered-distressing-mistreatment.html
Again, as I later said when conditions are bad but the need to humanity is great then it is a necessary evil and if there is no benefit to humanity then it is no longer a necessary evil and is solely wrong.
Original post by King's Regent
No.
There are two factors that are at play here: the condition of the animals being tested and the overall benefit the testing has on humanity. Only if the animals are kept in a good condition and there is a benefit to humanity does it make it right in my opinion. If the conditions are bad but the need to humanity for the testing is great then that makes it a necessary evil. However if the animas are treated well but the benefit to humanity is superficial (cosmetics and beauty products) then it is pointless. Obviously if the animals are treated poorly and there is no benefit to humanity then it is wrong.
That is my opinion.
There are two factors that are at play here: the condition of the animals being tested and the overall benefit the testing has on humanity. Only if the animals are kept in a good condition and there is a benefit to humanity does it make it right in my opinion. If the conditions are bad but the need to humanity for the testing is great then that makes it a necessary evil. However if the animas are treated well but the benefit to humanity is superficial (cosmetics and beauty products) then it is pointless. Obviously if the animals are treated poorly and there is no benefit to humanity then it is wrong.
That is my opinion.
The bottom line is that all animal testing is wrong in my eyes but if there is a benefit to humanity then it is a necessary evil but that still doesn't make it right.
I don't see how anything I said was different or conflicted.
And your views on animal testing are ...
Original post by viddy9
More lives will still be saved overall, first of all. And, secondly, we can also test on prisoners.
Drugs are more likely to be disasters when they've been tested on nonhuman animals.
We also deny freedom to the animals being tested on. I'm not saying that my scenario will ever be implemented, but I am saying that, if people had thought through it logically and equally considered the interests of all sentient beings, then they would be in favour of human, and not animal, experimentation.
Drugs are more likely to be disasters when they've been tested on nonhuman animals.
We also deny freedom to the animals being tested on. I'm not saying that my scenario will ever be implemented, but I am saying that, if people had thought through it logically and equally considered the interests of all sentient beings, then they would be in favour of human, and not animal, experimentation.
Wow, testing on prisoners? Didn't think you'd even mention that, do you have no humanity?
"Drugs are more likely to be disasters when they've been tested on nonhuman animals." - That is just not correct, they always test on non human animals then on humans. They are less disasters than if you were to directly go from lab to humans.
We also deny freedom to the animals being tested on. I'm not saying that my scenario will ever be implemented, but I am saying that, if people had thought through it logically and equally considered the interests of all sentient beings, then they would be in favour of human, and not animal, experimentation.
I can agree with that, if we viewed the interests of animals as equal to humans then it would make sense to test on humans but the reality is that if we did we would cause a lot of human deaths and I don't think that is really acceptable.
Original post by Okorange
Wow, testing on prisoners? Didn't think you'd even mention that, do you have no humanity?
I don't know what that phrase means. Humans aren't the centre of the universe.
Original post by Okorange
"Drugs are more likely to be disasters when they've been tested on nonhuman animals." - That is just not correct, they always test on non human animals then on humans. They are less disasters than if you were to directly go from lab to humans.
They're disasters for the animals.
Original post by Okorange
I can agree with that, if we viewed the interests of animals as equal to humans then it would make sense to test on humans but the reality is that if we did we would cause a lot of human deaths and I don't think that is really acceptable.
It would, overall, save many more human lives, though.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Applying for Computer Science
- Changing Mind about Subject to Study at UNI
- AUB or ARU
- UCL Theoretical Physics offer without GCSE
- RAF medical failed - Appeal advice required please.
- Animation at BU or MMU?
- Wondering if Pharmacology degree will involve testing on live animals?
- my year 13 gyg (‘24) ⋆.˚ ᡣ𐭩 .𖥔˚
- MSc Physician Associate January 2024
- Wolverhampton or Roehampton for Psychology Conversion Msc?
- 2024 Entries - I'm not sure which offer to accept (BA Animation)
- Lnat essay feedback
- Why do I have to rent a place at university?
- Can i change my mind after accepting masters degree offer?
- Oxford University says it will not base admissions on botched online tests
- Bank of England Degree Apprenticeship Programme 2021
- GCSEs for Ivy Leagues?
- EO DWP June 2023
- N/A
- I scored poorly in AS Level.. will I automatically get rejected?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
