This discussion is closed.
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
What is this?/I'm confused
Hi there. If you're confused as to what is going on here then you are probably new to this section of TSR. This is a Model House of Commons, a forum where we emulate the structure of the Real Life House of Commons as an excuse to debate politics.

If you are seeing this and you want to get involved in the debate, please feel free. You do not need to join a party, get approval or join any group to get stuck in right away. If you enjoy it and you do want to join a party then you can do so here. If you have any questions or need any help please message me. I am the current speaker of the house and part of my role involves offering impartial advice to new members so I will always be happy to answer what questions you have. Alternatively, you can read the new members guide to get advice on a wide range of issues.

Note: Please refrain from making comments about how we spend our free time. It is our free time to spend.


M459 - Animal Testing Motion, JMR2018This house believes that testing drugs and other products on animals is a cruel practice, and that the government should take steps to make it illegal.
0
WobblyBovine
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
Aye, simple and true.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
Morality vs. practicality.

Looking forward to this.

Undecided at present.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
Nay. The testing is sometimes justified by the ends. As animals have less moral value than humans, it's preferable to exposing humans to the risk.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
No, animal testing is a very useful stage of drug development.
0
WobblyBovine
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Nay. The testing is sometimes justified by the ends. As animals have less moral value than humans, it's preferable to exposing humans to the risk.
I’d have to disagree with you. Who are we to designate value on other beings just because they aren’t human? And we don’t necessarily need to test on humans in a dangerous manner - it’s possible to test in vitro, or using computer simulations, or via microdosing.
3
Lumos_
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
I completely support the ethics of this motion, however I would need evidence of effective alternatives for drug testing. Abstain at the moment
0
WobblyBovine
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by Lumos_)
I completely support the ethics of this motion, however I would need evidence of effective alternatives for drug testing. Abstain at the moment

(Original post by JellyMilk)
And we don’t necessarily need to test on humans in a dangerous manner - it’s possible to test in vitro, or using computer simulations, or via microdosing.
Here you go, if you haven’t already seen it.
0
WobblyBovine
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
No, animal testing is a very useful stage of drug development.
The alternative methods I provided are actually more effective then animal testing, without the needless pain that the testing often causes.
0
Scisaac
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
No, animal testing is a very useful stage of drug development.
I have to disagree with you. Animals do not necessarily react the same as humans, in fact humans share more DNA with bananas than they do with some of the animals being tested on.

Yet I am aware we cannot test drugs on bananas, the point still stands that animals do not react the same as humans, so in my opinion it is not useful and should be made illegal
2
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by JellyMilk)
I’d have to disagree with you. Who are we to designate value on other beings just because they aren’t human? And we don’t necessarily need to test on humans in a dangerous manner - it’s possible to test in vitro, or using computer simulations, or via microdosing.
Morality is a method of regulating human conduct. I can't see any evidence that animals have any moral importance whatsoever beyond impulsive sentiment.
0
JMR2019.
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
The overwhelming number of animal tests which pass in animals (about 90%) fail in humans. It diverts funds away from tests that will actually be more effective. And that's without mentioning the many cruelties and pain that animals have to face in the process.
2
WobblyBovine
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Morality is a method of regulating human conduct. I can't see any evidence that animals have any moral importance whatsoever beyond impulsive sentiment.
It is not necessarily a fully moral basis. Other methods like the ones I suggested are more effective then animal testing because they allow for testing on a human cellular structure, which is vastly different from an animals.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by JellyMilk)
It is not necessarily a fully moral basis. Other methods like the ones I suggested are more effective then animal testing because they allow for testing on a human cellular structure, which is vastly different from an animals.
What are they like in terms of cost? My approach would be to let the market decide because ultimately there's no clear downside to animal testing.
0
WobblyBovine
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
What are they like in terms of cost? My approach would be to let the market decide because ultimately there's no clear downside to animal testing.
Usually, they are less expensive than animal testing - if you look at this link, you can clearly see that in vitro tests are much cheaper than their animal counterparts.

http://www.hsi.org/issues/chemical_p..._and_cost.html
0
username1221160
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
(Original post by JellyMilk)
I’d have to disagree with you. Who are we to designate value on other beings just because they aren’t human? And we don’t necessarily need to test on humans in a dangerous manner - it’s possible to test in vitro, or using computer simulations, or via microdosing.
Animal testing is more expensive, takes far longer and involves a **** load more paperwork than the methods you list. Regardless of the ethics, researchers would prefer not use animals for those reasons. Unfortunately none of the methods you list accurately replicate a whole mammalian system. Until someone comes up with a genuine alternative, animal experimentation will remain vital to scientific research.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
(Original post by JellyMilk)
Usually, they are less expensive than animal testing - if you look at this link, you can clearly see that in vitro tests are much cheaper than their animal counterparts.

http://www.hsi.org/issues/chemical_p..._and_cost.html
Great, let's let the market decide then. Either way, no good reason for the state to intervene.
0
WobblyBovine
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
(Original post by Sulfolobus)
Animal testing is more expensive, takes far longer and involves a **** load more paperwork than the methods you list. Regardless of the ethics, researchers would prefer not use animals for those reasons. Unfortunately none of the methods you list accurately replicate a whole mammalian system. Until someone comes up with a genuine alternative, animal experimentation will remain vital to scientific research.
Animal testing is just as unable to replicate a human system. There are countless drugs that passed animal trials but failed in humans. The methods I proposed are much more accurate.
0
WobblyBovine
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Great, let's let the market decide then. Either way, no good reason for the state to intervene.
The same can be said for fusion power. Although it is being developed incredibly quickly, and shown to be a viable alternative to environmentally unfriendly power types, it isn’t undermined by a lack of funding and a lack of governmental promotion.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
(Original post by JellyMilk)
The same can be said for fusion power. Although it is being developed incredibly quickly, and shown to be a viable alternative to environmentally unfriendly power types, it isn’t undermined by a lack of funding and a lack of governmental promotion.
You're comparing issues with fundamental infrastructure with quite complex research markets. The latter needs to be left to experts via the market, as there isn't too much damaged caused by private enterprise. Power is a different question entirely.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

What's your favourite genre?

Rock (175)
24.1%
Pop (180)
24.79%
Jazz (29)
3.99%
Classical (42)
5.79%
Hip-Hop (133)
18.32%
Electronic (46)
6.34%
Indie (121)
16.67%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise