Animal testing debate, for or against?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Kindred
Against. It's not even relevant to humans half the time cos... well we aren't mice.
https://www.livescience.com/46147-animal-data-unreliable-for-humans.html
http://www.pcrm.org/research/animaltestalt/animaltesting/dangerous-medicine-examples-of-animal-based-tests
If anything animal testing is just a waste of resources. Not to mention the whole inhumane aspect. That whole system needs to be looked at and changed to something A more humane and B actually freaking useful. Like using samples of human cells (not connected to a person) for example.
https://www.neavs.org/alternatives/in-testing
https://www.livescience.com/46147-animal-data-unreliable-for-humans.html
http://www.pcrm.org/research/animaltestalt/animaltesting/dangerous-medicine-examples-of-animal-based-tests
If anything animal testing is just a waste of resources. Not to mention the whole inhumane aspect. That whole system needs to be looked at and changed to something A more humane and B actually freaking useful. Like using samples of human cells (not connected to a person) for example.
https://www.neavs.org/alternatives/in-testing
Yes! These scientists who are experts in their fields and get paid per amount of useful research they produce need us to tell them how to do their jobs! They can thank us later!
Human testing?
Original post by nexttime
Aside from being a horrific infringement on human rights...
Aside from being a horrific infringement on human rights...
Do you forget animals also have rights? They feel pain and suffering just as much as we do, and yet somehow you believe torturing animals for testing to be 'necessary' but doing the exact same to humans to be 'horrific'?
Original post by stardusty
Do you forget animals also have rights? They feel pain and suffering just as much as we do, and yet somehow you believe torturing animals for testing to be 'necessary' but doing the exact same to humans to be 'horrific'?
Well.. yes? 95+% of animal testing is on mice. I do indeed attach more moral significance to a human than a mouse. Vast majority of people would, thankfully!
I support animal testing because it reaps great benefits and the conditions, in the UK at least, are actually vastly better than, for example, the meat industry.
You are vegan, i assume? (you probably are but just to check)?
Original post by Browniee_00
I am against animal testing, but I would love to hear people's different points of views on the subject.
Although I am against it, I have tested on animals before since that's the only way you can investigate what's happening. I don't agree with testing on monkeys, dogs, cats etc.
The animals that we tested on were mice, rats and small organisms.
Original post by nexttime
Yes! These scientists who are experts in their fields and get paid per amount of useful research they produce need us to tell them how to do their jobs! They can thank us later!
Actually some scientists are pointing out how silly animal testing is. It's on old technique that I'm sure was at one point one of the more effective ways to test things, but at this point we have more effective methods that could not only be more humane for animals, but also lead to more effective research and less incidents when it comes to real human trials.
They won't be perfect either and animal testing does still have some merits to it, but it's not the only way of doing things and I think instead of holding onto this old technique we should be looking towards others that will be both more humane and more effective.
I don't have the time or energy to hunt down really good sources on the matter, but here are some quick things I've found.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvJHq2FJPDM
http://www.nature.com/news/preclinical-research-make-mouse-studies-work-1.14913
https://www.aerzte-gegen-tierversuche.de/agt-en/index.php/resources/human-medicine/55-the-scientific-case-against-animal-experiments
http://www.medicinekillsmillions.com/articles/doctors_oppose_animal_research.html
Honestly the "but scientists" argument is pretty dumb because science is ever changing. Medicine used to include drilling holes in skulls to release demons and piling people with leeches. Instead of saying "but that's what doctors do s it must be right" people looked into better methods and now we have things like blood transfusions and brain scans.
Obviously I am not an expert on science or testing, but just shutting down the idea of change based on that is silly.
I am not saying "this is absolutely how to fix it. I would know cos I'm a smart smart" I'm saying "hey it looks like mice may not be the best representation of a human and these examples seem to show it can lead to unfortunate incidents. Maybe the smart people should look into better methods and maybe we should encourage that so the people who fund things will think it's a good idea".
The demand of the public and people/ organisations with money plays a huge role in what science is researched so average jos opinion does actually matter and although it may not be 100% accurate or well verified it should be considered.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by stardusty
Do you forget animals also have rights? They feel pain and suffering just as much as we do, and yet somehow you believe torturing animals for testing to be 'necessary' but doing the exact same to humans to be 'horrific'?
Yes, because we're at the top of the food chain, they're not. Pretending that human life or suffering isn't more important than that of a rat is incredibly naive.
I'm all for abolishing animal testing as soon as we get viable alternatives, something being actively worked on (and again, something I worked on myself) but as of right now it's still a necessary precursor to human testing. That tide is changing, but it's still going to take some time.
If people were really against animal testing then you'd take a stand and not use any modern medicines, well, whatsoever. But people won't, because they're hypocrites.
Original post by Kathy89
Computer modules, modified tissues, are among the things that can be used instead of animal testing prior to human trials. They show same effectivity rates only cost more money.
And that is surely the point. Your named examples show that animal testing is outdated and strictly speaking redundant.
For. My ethics is fine with it ( We are at the top , we do as we please )
Original post by TheAlchemistress
Human testing?
Exists. That is almost linked with people who administer a placebo, if that can be regarded as such anyway.
Original post by nexttime
Well.. yes? 95+% of animal testing is on mice. I do indeed attach more moral significance to a human than a mouse. Vast majority of people would, thankfully!
I support animal testing because it reaps great benefits and the conditions, in the UK at least, are actually vastly better than, for example, the meat industry.
You are vegan, i assume? (you probably are but just to check)?
I support animal testing because it reaps great benefits and the conditions, in the UK at least, are actually vastly better than, for example, the meat industry.
You are vegan, i assume? (you probably are but just to check)?
You are sorta right. The most commonly used organism is a certain specie of fish that I have forgotten the name of.
Due to lots of regulations and scruitiny, labs who handle animals lots of rules that they have to adheer to otherwise they will loose their licence.
Scientists who want to use animals have to use the most simplest form organism possible. E.g Those who would like to use cats, dogs or even monkeys need to give very good reasons for why they should use those species.
And there are probably many other rules and regulations for animal welfare.
I mean, what I am trying to show is that Animal testing nowadays isn't how many people in this thread think it is.
Original post by stoyfan
You are sorta right. The most commonly used organism is a certain specie of fish that I have forgotten the name of.
Due to lots of regulations and scruitiny, labs who handle animals lots of rules that they have to adheer to otherwise they will loose their licence.
Scientists who want to use animals have to use the most simplest form organism possible. E.g Those who would like to use cats, dogs or even monkeys need to give very good reasons for why they should use those species.
And there are probably many other rules and regulations for animal welfare.
I mean, what I am trying to show is that Animal testing nowadays isn't how many people in this thread think it is.
Due to lots of regulations and scruitiny, labs who handle animals lots of rules that they have to adheer to otherwise they will loose their licence.
Scientists who want to use animals have to use the most simplest form organism possible. E.g Those who would like to use cats, dogs or even monkeys need to give very good reasons for why they should use those species.
And there are probably many other rules and regulations for animal welfare.
I mean, what I am trying to show is that Animal testing nowadays isn't how many people in this thread think it is.
Zebrafish ?
Original post by Kindred
I'm saying "hey it looks like mice may not be the best representation of a human and these examples seem to show it can lead to unfortunate incidents. Maybe the smart people should look into better methods and maybe we should encourage that so the people who fund things will think it's a good idea"
And I'm saying that they definitely already are.
Think about it - you've pointed out that 80%+ of drugs tested on humans do not work (although the Nature article you cited actually says that it'd be higher if people were more rigorous with their animal testing - an argument for more animal testing!). Animals used in other kinds of research - for example genetically modified mice used to research the genetics of diseases - also have limitations. Finding a perfect foolproof alternative that can be used in every case would not only be highly ethical (and something the vast majority of scientists care about), it would also greatly improve drugs research and make you billions of pounds. That is not an exaggeration - billions. We have hundreds of universities around the world who would want that. There are thousands more private companies who would want that (and the billions that would come with it).
And yet we are still using animals. Because no alternative exists.
Its also very hard to see how there could be an alternative for all cases. As mentioned - one of the most common methods in genetics research now is to genetically engineer a mouse to not have the gene in question and see what happens. The technique has vastly advanced our knowledge of human genetic disease. How could that be replaced exactly?
But we'll keep looking for alternative methods, as all the incentives are pushing people to do. In the meantime, we need animals. Sounds like you don't in fact object to that too much then?
Original post by AverageHuman
For. My ethics is fine with it ( We are at the top , we do as we please )
Not sure if serious? So.. would you apply that to its full extent? Do I therefore have the right to rape and torture any human who is weaker than me too?
Original post by Kallisto
And that is surely the point. Your named examples show that animal testing is outdated and strictly speaking redundant.
Animal testing is absolutely absolutely not redundant. That is pure fantasy.
Original post by stoyfan
You are sorta right. The most commonly used organism is a certain specie of fish that I have forgotten the name of.
Its definitely not. It is mice.
But otherwise yes i agree - it is always the simplest organism and the conditions they are kept in are very favourable, especially compared to the meat industry.
Original post by nexttime
And I'm saying that they definitely already are.
Think about it - you've pointed out that 80%+ of drugs tested on humans do not work (although the Nature article you cited actually says that it'd be higher if people were more rigorous with their animal testing - an argument for more animal testing!). Animals used in other kinds of research - for example genetically modified mice used to research the genetics of diseases - also have limitations. Finding a perfect foolproof alternative that can be used in every case would not only be highly ethical (and something the vast majority of scientists care about), it would also greatly improve drugs research and make you billions of pounds. That is not an exaggeration - billions. We have hundreds of universities around the world who would want that. There are thousands more private companies who would want that (and the billions that would come with it).
And yet we are still using animals. Because no alternative exists.
Its also very hard to see how there could be an alternative for all cases. As mentioned - one of the most common methods in genetics research now is to genetically engineer a mouse to not have the gene in question and see what happens. The technique has vastly advanced our knowledge of human genetic disease. How could that be replaced exactly?
But we'll keep looking for alternative methods, as all the incentives are pushing people to do. In the meantime, we need animals. Sounds like you don't in fact object to that too much then?
Not sure if serious? So.. would you apply that to its full extent? Do I therefore have the right to rape and torture any human who is weaker than me too?
Animal testing is absolutely absolutely not redundant. That is pure fantasy.
Its definitely not. It is mice.
But otherwise yes i agree - it is always the simplest organism and the conditions they are kept in are very favourable, especially compared to the meat industry.
Think about it - you've pointed out that 80%+ of drugs tested on humans do not work (although the Nature article you cited actually says that it'd be higher if people were more rigorous with their animal testing - an argument for more animal testing!). Animals used in other kinds of research - for example genetically modified mice used to research the genetics of diseases - also have limitations. Finding a perfect foolproof alternative that can be used in every case would not only be highly ethical (and something the vast majority of scientists care about), it would also greatly improve drugs research and make you billions of pounds. That is not an exaggeration - billions. We have hundreds of universities around the world who would want that. There are thousands more private companies who would want that (and the billions that would come with it).
And yet we are still using animals. Because no alternative exists.
Its also very hard to see how there could be an alternative for all cases. As mentioned - one of the most common methods in genetics research now is to genetically engineer a mouse to not have the gene in question and see what happens. The technique has vastly advanced our knowledge of human genetic disease. How could that be replaced exactly?
But we'll keep looking for alternative methods, as all the incentives are pushing people to do. In the meantime, we need animals. Sounds like you don't in fact object to that too much then?
Not sure if serious? So.. would you apply that to its full extent? Do I therefore have the right to rape and torture any human who is weaker than me too?
Animal testing is absolutely absolutely not redundant. That is pure fantasy.
Its definitely not. It is mice.
But otherwise yes i agree - it is always the simplest organism and the conditions they are kept in are very favourable, especially compared to the meat industry.
It seems you are right. Out of all of the animals that were tested in 2016,72.8% are mice, are fish.
Original post by nexttime
(...)
Animal testing is absolutely absolutely not redundant. That is pure fantasy. (...)
Animal testing is absolutely absolutely not redundant. That is pure fantasy. (...)
Can you reason why am I wrong? Don't mind if you teach me better. So tell me what is your view or why animal testing is still indispensable.
For, human safety is paramount
For
Human lives are much more valuable than animals believe it or not.
Human lives are much more valuable than animals believe it or not.
Original post by Kallisto
Can you reason why am I wrong? Don't mind if you teach me better. So tell me what is your view or why animal testing is still indispensable.
Read the rest of that post. In particular the bit about incentives, and genetic knock-out mice.
In addition, there's just the fact that you can't tell the full effect of a drug until it is seen in a full multi-organ system. In particular, the affect of interactions between the liver, kidneys, and circulatory system are impossible to predict. Current and new techniques may be able to reduce the amount of animal testing, and may reduce how risky said testing is to the animals to a degree, but it will never (or at least, not in our lifetimes) be able to replace testing it on a full 99.9% genetically identical animal, like a mouse.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 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 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 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 ?
