Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Animal testing -Right or Wrong? Watch

  • 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

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
    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.
    The problem with a moral stance is that it is a difference of opinion (and base assumptions). How do we decide who's right? my consensus? If so, then animal testing is likely here to stay.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    For scientific tests yes, but not too much. Cosmetic - NO ****ING WAY!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'd rather they tested on convicted rapists and murderers serving life sentences, moreso than innocent animals.
    I'm serious. Of course it would never happen, though.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It's an interesting argument, but we need to approach from a more biological view I think.

    Firstly, can the animal feel pain? The vast majority of animlas we test on (I think) can feel pain.

    There is a much more important point though, when you think of pain. You attach a negative emotion to it. We as a species have this abilty to feel emotion, to feel anger, love, happiness etc. And it is this that makes pain so much more "negative" for "higher" animals such as us, we can feel sorrow and get clinical conditions like depression.

    Can a simple organism feel emotion such as sorrow? I doubt it. For them it would pain is a not a negative thing, or a postive thing it's simply a "thing" an evoloutionary mechanism to remove them from danger. If we give this organisms pain, it will not suffer, it will not feel sorrow.

    That is one of the main reasons why I support animal testing (on lower creatures)

    Food for thought anyway
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fonix)
    Can a simple organism feel emotion such as sorrow? I doubt it. For them it would pain is a not a negative thing, or a postive thing it's simply a "thing" an evoloutionary mechanism to remove them from danger. If we give this organisms pain, it will not suffer, it will not feel sorrow.
    Depends what your idea of a simple organism is really. The problem with putting it as an emotional capacity like it sounds you're suggesting is since it's not got well defined levels, you end up shifting down to a point where every animal it's acceptable to put in there, is absolutely useless for the tests as they're too dissimilar to us.
    Move up to animals with useful biological similarities, and you get blatant emotion, maybe not as profound as ours, but entirely recognisable as what we go through that makes it socially unacceptable to test on us.
    Not that I'm saying we shouldn't medicinally. As horrific as it is, it's a lesser evil, idealistically at least. But it's not as clear cut as it sounds you might think.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see any need to carry on testing things on animals, maybe the genetics side of things and advances in AI.. but for cosmetics deffently not, and most scientific purposes animals don't need to used.

    Should use those animals who think its right to abuse animals, see how they like it!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I do animal behavioral testing and what we do doesn't hurt them. At least, not too much compared to what other scientists do. I am not an animal activist obviously, but here is a way to think about it. Humans apparently won't let us test on them, so animals (some) share physiological resemblance to humans, and they're the closest thing we have to understanding diseases and potentially finding a cure.

    It's never a win-win situation, but we try to make the most of it. I hate euthanizing them, but it would be cruel to keep them alive. What they give to science is so great...it's completely understandable why this is a debatable issue.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Patriot)
    I disagree with it. It's an abuse of dominance to test dangerous/harmful drugs and other products on animals. If we did it on slaves people would moan, but we as humans are horrifically speciesist.
    QFT
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by London Prophet)
    The problem with a moral stance is that it is a difference of opinion (and base assumptions). How do we decide who's right? my consensus? If so, then animal testing is likely here to stay.
    I've not laid out my arguement, simply the conclusions it leads to for animal testing.

    I agree that moral stances are not definite or provable in the way that science or mathematics are. However, moral stances are (or should be) backed up by logical arguements and it's not simply a matter of different opinions. It is quite possible to weed out poorly argued or logically inconsistent positions. Working through the few robust positions that are left is trickier, but one doesn't make headway by simply making assertions.

    I'm aware that I've not even attempted to defend my own position. I've briefly covered some of my views on animal rights elsewhere on this forum (if you are interested) and I'm also in the process of writing about this subject for my degree. I don't have much interest in re-stating my arguements until I have developed my position a little more.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    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
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.