Animal testing debate, for or against?
Scroll to see replies
I know quite a few people are for this practice however, personally I find it quite barbaric because you it cannot be ethically justified as they cannot give their consent as well as it is only to develop things to see how it could affect humans and whether it cures anything. How can this be justified? You're putting an innocent animal through hell just to obtain a medicine to cure a human or give them make-up etc.
We made such a big deal about slavery and how that lead to death for many of those people, but here were, too, are using another creature that we think are lesser than ourselves. It is wrong!
We made such a big deal about slavery and how that lead to death for many of those people, but here were, too, are using another creature that we think are lesser than ourselves. It is wrong!
Original post by nexttime
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.
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.
A mouse is different nonetheless, apart from the genetically identity. To test agents, it may come to different effects because of the different size of the bodies in comparison. Just to name an example.
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?
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?
I never said they wouldn't be. In fact I said something which would imply I believe they already are. I'm just stating my opinion that I think it's a worthy cause to be looking at alternatives where they are already possible and developing ones where there aren't.
I realise that is a long goal and that in the past and currently animal testing has done good things.
I don't know how it should be done and I thin it would be quite stupid of me to speculate because it's not something I know enough about.
What I am saying is that I am personally opposed to animal testing (bare in mind that doesn't mean I think it should be immediately abolished. I disagree with a lot of things on a personal level that I don't necessarily think are a bad idea on a larger scale). And also that I believe we should be pushing to find alternatives- both as scientists doing the actual thinking and as a society and influence encouraging that search. I am aware that there are some potentials (I don't know if they are currently viable) to replace at least some of the animal testing done and I think that is something we should work towards.
In the past it was hard to believe that we could go to the moon, survive an amputation etc etc. We developed new ideas and abilities later which made those things possible. I am saying that I think we should be trying to do that here (note that doesn't mean I don't think it is currently happening, just that I agree with it). That's all.
Why would anyone be against animal testing?
Animals like rats, mice and guinea pigs are inferior and are not needed in society they have no intellectual prowess why should we give them rights like consent.
Same people here talking about no consent from the animals but are For abortion "on some grounds", the Hypocrisy is disgusting.
Animals like rats, mice and guinea pigs are inferior and are not needed in society they have no intellectual prowess why should we give them rights like consent.
Same people here talking about no consent from the animals but are For abortion "on some grounds", the Hypocrisy is disgusting.
Original post by Kathy89
How there is no other option for medicine designed for humans?
New disease, scientists develop a cure but it could be risky to life. No-one wants to risk their life trying something that could potentially kill them so they can test it on an animal to see if it kills the animal or if there are any side effects. Sure animals dying is bad, but better than a human dying.
Alternatives would be to test on murderers and rapists etc. but that goes against human rights laws.
Testing soap on animals is inhumane as soap isn't a necessity.
Original post by Kathy89
There are a lot of them actually.
Your morals are very corrupt.
Animals > Humans is not fair moral in any way
Original post by idkwhattoput
Your morals are very corrupt.
Animals > Humans is not fair moral in any way
Animals > Humans is not fair moral in any way
animals = humans.
if you want medicine for mice try it on lab mice, if you want medicine for humans try it on humans.
Original post by The PoliticalGuy
Why would anyone be against animal testing?
Animals like rats, mice and guinea pigs are inferior and are not needed in society they have no intellectual prowess why should we give them rights like consent.
Same people here talking about no consent from the animals but are For abortion "on some grounds", the Hypocrisy is disgusting.
Animals like rats, mice and guinea pigs are inferior and are not needed in society they have no intellectual prowess why should we give them rights like consent.
Same people here talking about no consent from the animals but are For abortion "on some grounds", the Hypocrisy is disgusting.
Exactly, in my opinion abortion should be allowed as a fetus != to baby. Whats the point of some 15y/o chav having a kid to ruin its life. Better of it didn't exist in the first place.
Animals are human so we don't have to be humane to them. They are cheap and efficient things to test on to better humanity. If someones so 'pro animal' give them the choice to step in for testing rather than an animal. With any natural selectio will work its way.
For.
But by all means, offer yourself to be tested in place of a rat if it makes you feel better. We should allow for more human volunteers in these situations. If none of the animal rights activists step up, well, there you go. That's why we had rats.
But by all means, offer yourself to be tested in place of a rat if it makes you feel better. We should allow for more human volunteers in these situations. If none of the animal rights activists step up, well, there you go. That's why we had rats.
"For" I mean it would be great if we didn't need to, but the alternative is that we test on humans, and potentially kill people.
Original post by Kathy89
Same moral as testing on rats and monkeys. Much more accurate results.
Humans matter more than rats/every other animal - so it is immoral.
Original post by Kathy89
animals = humans.
if you want medicine for mice try it on lab mice, if you want medicine for humans try it on humans.
if you want medicine for mice try it on lab mice, if you want medicine for humans try it on humans.
lol
monkeys care about other monkeys
lions care about other lions
basically they don't give a **** about other species
and from a human's perspective: humans >>>> animals
If you disagree don't take medicines or the pharmaceutical industry will use your money for further animal testing.
Original post by Kallisto
A mouse is different nonetheless, apart from the genetically identity. To test agents, it may come to different effects because of the different size of the bodies in comparison. Just to name an example.
It is different and that is why we test on humans. But only after animals of course. To just jump straight to humans would be negligent.
Obviously you adjust dosing to size of body. I don't know for sure but don't think that's a commonly occurring problem.
And for the non-pharmacological testing aspects of animal testing - simply no alternative currently. Unless we just want to stop developing medicine, which for most people is quite unthinkable.
Original post by Kindred
...
Ok
In the past it was hard to believe that we could go to the moon, survive an amputation etc etc.
This was possible since we had stones sharp enough to cut bones off! The Romans routinely did them. A lot died of infection, but not everyone
Lets see what the future holds and in the meantime do what we have to.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by nexttime
Ok
This was possible since we had stones sharp enough to cut bones off! The Romans routinely did them. A lot died of infection, but not everyone
Lets see what the future holds and in the meantime do what we have to.
Ok
This was possible since we had stones sharp enough to cut bones off! The Romans routinely did them. A lot died of infection, but not everyone
Lets see what the future holds and in the meantime do what we have to.
I guess really we just have sharper stones now (kinda what scalpels etc are).
So many myths about animal experimentation.
The fact animals survive experimentation does not mean humans will not die - in 2006 they could not even save the chap under medical supervision while the monkeys showed no side-effects.
Experiments are never 'necessary'.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/world/europe/volkswagen-diesel-emissions-monkeys.html
Results of 'necessary' tests abandoned when it suits.
Forcing monkeys by machine to smoke 60 cigarettes a day to study the effects of cigarettes in the 1990's (long after we all knew about cigarettes) is another one - animals suffering because people like a fag in their mouth.
In France, experimenting on animals in increasing - not decreasing- despite attempts to make the public believe otherwise - there is no appetite for finding other methods because students want their phd's and animals are cheap. 10pct of those animals are not from authorised sources, a 'reported' 10pct suffer 'severe pain' eg operations without anesthetic. 30-50pct of monkeys are re-used for subsequent experiments.
I'd be interested if tomorrow experiments were authorised on paedophiles and mass murderers would the crime rate and the cost of crime go down. I find it a much more ethical solution, with the promise of higher quality results.
The fact animals survive experimentation does not mean humans will not die - in 2006 they could not even save the chap under medical supervision while the monkeys showed no side-effects.
Experiments are never 'necessary'.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/world/europe/volkswagen-diesel-emissions-monkeys.html
Results of 'necessary' tests abandoned when it suits.
Forcing monkeys by machine to smoke 60 cigarettes a day to study the effects of cigarettes in the 1990's (long after we all knew about cigarettes) is another one - animals suffering because people like a fag in their mouth.
In France, experimenting on animals in increasing - not decreasing- despite attempts to make the public believe otherwise - there is no appetite for finding other methods because students want their phd's and animals are cheap. 10pct of those animals are not from authorised sources, a 'reported' 10pct suffer 'severe pain' eg operations without anesthetic. 30-50pct of monkeys are re-used for subsequent experiments.
I'd be interested if tomorrow experiments were authorised on paedophiles and mass murderers would the crime rate and the cost of crime go down. I find it a much more ethical solution, with the promise of higher quality results.
(edited 6 years ago)
pro- for medical testing
Just a response to the people arguing for it as a necessary evil...
Is it really that necessary? It's one thing if it's going to save us all from a superbug or help find a cure for some of the nastiest illnesses out there or those that don't give people a fair shot at life.
But otherwise, in terms of medical research at least, shouldn't we be content with the discoveries we've made and call it quits for the most part, providing it doesn't threaten our existence? Is it really worth it just to add a few extra years onto our lives or find a cure for an illness we've been suffering from since our existence?
Still making my mind up but just want to put that out there.
Is it really that necessary? It's one thing if it's going to save us all from a superbug or help find a cure for some of the nastiest illnesses out there or those that don't give people a fair shot at life.
But otherwise, in terms of medical research at least, shouldn't we be content with the discoveries we've made and call it quits for the most part, providing it doesn't threaten our existence? Is it really worth it just to add a few extra years onto our lives or find a cure for an illness we've been suffering from since our existence?
Still making my mind up but just want to put that out there.
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 ?
