Turn on thread page Beta

Animal testing -Right or Wrong? watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Is animal testing 'right'?
    Yes, completely
    17
    14.66%
    Yes, for cosmetic purposes only
    0
    0%
    Yes, for theraputic purposes only
    55
    47.41%
    No, never
    44
    37.93%

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Here's a question for people.

    If you had a very close family member, say a parent (or you, yourself) who was dying of an illness, who could be easily cured by a medicine that had been approved for human use after testing on animals. Would you be for/against taking this medicine, knowing full well that a lot of animals would have been sacraficed for this cure?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Never okay :no:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabris)
    Here's a question for people.

    If you had a very close family member, say a parent (or you, yourself) who was dying of an illness, who could be easily cured by a medicine that had been approved for human use after testing on animals. Would you be for/against taking this medicine, knowing full well that a lot of animals would have been sacraficed for this cure?
    Testing that's in the past, can't be taken back and isn't done any more? Be worse to not take it, makes them in vain rather than just cruel.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabris)
    Here's a question for people.

    If you had a very close family member, say a parent (or you, yourself) who was dying of an illness, who could be easily cured by a medicine that had been approved for human use after testing on animals. Would you be for/against taking this medicine, knowing full well that a lot of animals would have been sacraficed for this cure?
    In a deeply emotional life-death situation, many (perhaps most) people would make judgements that conflicted with their ethics.

    That doesn't mean they've undermined themselves or negated their beliefs. It means they'll live.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
    In a deeply emotional life-death situation, many (perhaps most) people would make judgements that conflicted with their ethics.

    That doesn't mean they've undermined themselves or negated their beliefs. It means they'll live.
    Is it worth it though?

    Let's make this a bit more interesting. What if it was a random person's life. You have no association with that person. Otherwise everything else is the same Take the deep connection out of the equation.

    The life of one person isn't any more valuable than all the animals that were killed to save the person. Doesn't seem very balanced to me.

    Or, in a similar situation. A group of people share a terminal illness (or just one person). There is a cure for it that has already been discovered, but it requires testing on animals before approval and use on humans. The target shares a 100% homology with the human disease model and is guaranteed to work if approved. Would you proceed and save these people/person, or would you save the animals?

    Obviously this is ignoring real life drug approval and trialling since that'd take silly amounts of time.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabris)
    Is it worth it though?

    Let's make this a bit more interesting. What if it was a random person's life. You have no association with that person. Otherwise everything else is the same Take the deep connection out of the equation.

    The life of one person isn't any more valuable than all the animals that were killed to save the person. Doesn't seem very balanced to me.

    Or, in a similar situation. A group of people share a terminal illness (or just one person). There is a cure for it that has already been discovered, but it requires testing on animals before approval and use on humans. The target shares a 100% homology with the human disease model and is guaranteed to work if approved. Would you proceed and save these people/person, or would you save the animals?

    Obviously this is ignoring real life drug approval and trialling since that'd take silly amounts of time.
    What point are you trying to make?

    In my opinion, no individual should feel guilty about keeping themselves alive. If that means taking animal tested drugs, so be it. Because this is a matter of life and death rather than 'personal taste' (such as eating meat or using certain cosmetics), one cannot really lead by example and make it out alive. However, those of us who do not believe that drugs and medical proceedures should not be tested on animals have a duty (especially if that belief is put to the test) to educate the public and advocate alternative methods.

    This isn't the crusade, we're not martyrs. We're of more use to the animals alive than dead or severely ill.

    I could turn it around and ask what some people would be willing to do to other humans if their life (or the life or someone they cared for) hung in the balance. Demonstrating that some people would stoop to violence to protect themselves from other humans or to save their life at the expense of other humans doesn't tell us anything about their principles. It just tells us what they'd do with their most basic survival instincts kick in.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I'm curious as to where the people who think it's wrong full stop think veterinary medicine comes from? Or should we stop the whole profession and let animals die of illness because it's necessary to test on animals to gain the necessary medical cures?

    (This is based on the premis that many of the anti-animal-testing lobby claim that using animals is a poor substitute for human medicine, so clearly by that logic you would have to test on animals to get animal medicine.)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
    What point are you trying to make?

    In my opinion, no individual should feel guilty about keeping themselves alive.
    I'm also talking about others though, their life in your hands. In the last case, there is no association so it's weighing up the life of two different animals.

    However, those of us who do not believe that drugs and medical proceedures should not be tested on animals have a duty (especially if that belief is put to the test) to educate the public and advocate alternative methods.
    What alternatives are there? In vivo and in vitro experiments are completely different. Something that works in a test tube doesn't mean it'll work in a body.

    Animal testing for medical research isn't perfect. If there was something better, people would use it to reduce the ethical problems.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabris)
    I'm also talking about others though, their life in your hands. In the last case, there is no association so it's weighing up the life of two different animals.


    What alternatives are there? In vivo and in vitro experiments are completely different. Something that works in a test tube doesn't mean it'll work in a body.

    Animal testing for medical research isn't perfect. If there was something better, people would use it to reduce the ethical problems.
    Again, I'm asking what you are trying to show? What is your opinion?

    I understand that experiments on animals are useful and that they can save lives. I've never denied this. However, animals are not responsible for our health and so should not be made to suffer in our quest for better quality of life and longer lifespans.

    I think there will be alternatives as our understanding of the human body grows and as we develop better methods of simulating human tissue responses, as well as growing living flesh and organ samples to test on. I also harbor a vague hope that our culture of seeing progression at huge environmental, human and non-human cost will die down a bit, and we'll stop seeing the ends as justifying the means.

    If you want an answer from me about your "no association" example, I can't give one. I wouldn't feel any duty or responsibility towards those people and sad as their loss of health or deaths might be, it is not my fault and I hope I won't kill innocent beings in the name of life. However, that doesn't mean that my emotional reaction to seeing someone get sick or die wouldn't override my beliefs.

    People don't have a right to be healthy, they simply have a right not to be made sick or harmed by the negligence or intention of other moral agents. It's not about weighing up lives, and saying that a human is more or less important than a rabbit. They're two lives that should not even be on the scales together. The human is (probably) more important than the rabbit but the human does not have the right to demand the rabbit dies for it and the rabbit does not have a duty to die for the human.

    I feel you have a missplaced faith in the human desire to "reduce ethical problems". Humans as a species and individuals are quite capable of causing suffering and death for reasons as trivial as amusement and enjoyment. I wouldn't have any trust that humans as a species would naturally move away from animal testing unless there was a cheaper, quicker alternative. As far as I am aware, there are alternative methods of testing avaliable now but animal testing is still the most heavily relied upon method. However, as I have said, my concern is not with effective testing. It is a philosophical position, not a scientific one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Its not nice, but it is necessary, the controls on it are very strict, it's only used in the uk if theres no realistic alternative. Also as a prime example think of the millions of people (and animals) who would suffer if testing on dogs didn't lead to discoveries about diabetes.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by xarcul)
    I was just wondering what the general consensus of TSR is on the subject of animal testing.

    I'll attach a poll (hopefully...)

    Personally, I'm completely okay with it as long as it's for therapeutic reasons, but I'm dead against it for cosmetic reasons...

    EDIT: whoops, could only manage to spell therapeutic right the once...
    Aside from a distinction between a substantive justification (like medicine) as opposed to trivial (like cosmetics) we should consider the issue of suffering. Where we can be reasonably confident that an animal is capable of suffering pain and distress of an order we know we find intolerable for ourselves we can't, imv, necessarily justify testing even where it is to substantive human benefit.

    In short, is it ok to give chimps cancer so we can test cancer drugs which might help humans? I think not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    probably yes but I couldn't care less
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If we can cure some of the horrible diseases in this world then I'm all for it. Testing what the new MAC lipstick will be like? No thanks.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    If more humans volunteered to go on trial then we wouldn't have to use animals. Also it's stupid to use animals for something as pointless as makeup :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Great apes and chimps are not used in th uk. In fact only 0.1% are primates 82% are rodents
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emi_sarb)
    Microbes have no nervous system so can't feel pain. You also kill loads of microbes every time you cook food or wash your hands.
    I guess you could say he's not so "well educated"


    (Original post by Cunning_Stunt)
    I'd rather they tested it on animals than me.
    Yep

    (Original post by Miss.L)
    It shocked me comletely to learn that not one breakthrough in the cure for AIDS has come through animal testing and yet it continues to happen. Please dont be fooled by the propeganda surrounding it, do some research and im sure you will be shocked. xx
    :facepalm:

    (Original post by Aj12)
    When will you be showing up at a lab for drug testing then?
    Agree
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
    Again, I'm asking what you are trying to show? What is your opinion?
    Nothing really, I just like to poke. My opinion of things doesn't sway too strongly either way. I'd rather people not use animal models for all the ethical reasons, but at the same time, I appreciate how useful they are and what can be learned from them. Until there's a viable alternative, I'm not going to bash on scientists for using animals in medical science.

    I think there will be alternatives as our understanding of the human body grows and as we develop better methods of simulating human tissue responses, as well as growing living flesh and organ samples to test on. I also harbor a vague hope that our culture of seeing progression at huge environmental, human and non-human cost will die down a bit, and we'll stop seeing the ends as justifying the means.

    As far as I am aware, there are alternative methods of testing avaliable now but animal testing is still the most heavily relied upon method. However, as I have said, my concern is not with effective testing. It is a philosophical position, not a scientific one.
    If there was, people would be pushing those a lot more than animal models. There isn't anything as reliable as an animal model at the moment. If there was, people would be jumping at the chance to use them since it saves a lot of hassle.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabris)
    Nothing really, I just like to poke. My opinion of things doesn't sway too strongly either way. I'd rather people not use animal models for all the ethical reasons, but at the same time, I appreciate how useful they are and what can be learned from them. Until there's a viable alternative, I'm not going to bash on scientists for using animals in medical science.


    If there was, people would be pushing those a lot more than animal models. There isn't anything as reliable as an animal model at the moment. If there was, people would be jumping at the chance to use them since it saves a lot of hassle.
    I think the problem with trusting that people would move away from animal testing is that there are huge financial and political interests at stake. Companies that breed lab animals, that make equipment for animal experiments and whose entire livelihoods are bound up in animal testing (both in terms of money and advocacy) have a much louder and more persuasive voice than those of us who would like industries to abolish animal testing.

    I appreciate that there is nothing out there (yet) that quite does the same job as a live animal for certain experiments or tests, but the debate about animal testing tends to work from the presumption that animal experiments are ethical and necessary, and then asks the abolitionists to justify what is seen as a "anti-human" stance.

    I actually quite like humans. I just think that there a point where the ends cease to justify the means.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lil Piranha)
    I'm curious as to where the people who think it's wrong full stop think veterinary medicine comes from? Or should we stop the whole profession and let animals die of illness because it's necessary to test on animals to gain the necessary medical cures?

    (This is based on the premis that many of the anti-animal-testing lobby claim that using animals is a poor substitute for human medicine, so clearly by that logic you would have to test on animals to get animal medicine.)
    Well, I'm an abolitionist so I don't think we should breed animals for human use full stop. In a world in which the only animals that humans interact with are wild ones, or those in conservation work to correct the negative impact that humans have had on certain species, veterinary medicine is not so important. In the meantime, yes we do have animals. By saying that we don't believe in animal testing, we're not saying we don't believe in testing. We're simply saying that removing the freedom of an innocent animal (human or non-human) for some notion of 'the greater good' is wrong. Tests can happen in other ways and putting pressure on governments and industries to move away from animal testing gives them a reason to put funds into developing alternatives.

    In a hypothetical situation in which we have no animal testing, no suitable testing alternatives and a whole host of humans and non-humans who need medical help which can only be provided by animal testing then . . . that's life. Animals, human and non-human, get sick and they die. This can be heartbreaking and in many cases there is a lot of suffering. An appeal that is effectively "think of the children and cute bunnies" isn't going to be persuasive, because we have thought of them and still concluded that animal testing is wrong.

    So yes. If the only alternative to animal testing is no testing at all (which it isn't) then those of us who believe in abolishing the use of animals have to accept that humans and non-human animals will die.

    I must add that my objection to animal testing isn't a scientific one - it's not because I think animals make bad models for human bodies or that animal testing is poor science. Animal testing is a branch of science that certainly has a lot of bad science in it - there are many tests that are not properly recorded, give predictably inconclusive results, are poorly thought through or are 'bad science' in other ways. This is the same of all branches of science. Animal bodies can be good models for human bodies, although there are obvious and important differences. My objection is philosophical.

    I realise your point was aimed at those who do think using animal models for human bodies is bad, and object on that basis. I just wanted to give a response from someone on the anti-testing side to show that we do understand that a paradigm shift in our favour means that we have to accept some uncomfortable truths.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's okay to test on animals, I'd rather we test on animals to find out about side effects of certain drugs than test on humans and have them die.
 
 
 
Poll
Could you cope without Wifi?
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.