x Turn on thread page Beta
Animal testing debate, for or against? watch
- 05-02-2018 03:27
(Original post by nexttime)
- 06-02-2018 20:46
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.
Its not your right to force yourself upon someone. You may try but you will always be rightfully shunned and prosecuted if you do.
- 07-02-2018 14:31
I'm a committed vegetarian & hate any form of animal cruelty so my natural reaction to animal testing is to be against it. I'm completely against it for cosmetics, hair products etc & make sure to buy brands which aren't tested on animals. When it comes to vital medical research I'd say I'm more on the fence- it really depends on what alternatives to animal testing are out there & how effective they are.
If there's no other way a particular drug can be tested I wouldn't say I'm 'for' animal testing, because I still don't like the idea of it, but I'd say then it could be described as a necessary evil. Even though I'm pro animal rights I've never really been convinced by the arguments of some of the more hardcore animal rights supporters who go on about 'speciesism' & that human life is no more valuable than that of any other species. I value human life more than that of ,say, a mouse or a rat so on balance I think animal testing could be justified if there's no other alternative & the research is life saving.
- 07-02-2018 17:40