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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There's really not a yes or no answer to this, because let's face it, some animals are cared for by humans...and some aren't. If somebody is testing a bunch of nice looking dogs, then surely more people are bound to be upset than if that same somebody is utilizing your average band of rats.

    Personally I'm not a huge fan of it but eh, there's nothing you can do to stop it. There's worse that can be done to animals than merely testing them after all. Many of them are killed just to be eaten by us. I think one would prefer to be tested.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    And most of you who say animal testing is wrong eat meat. Give yourselves a medal or go vegan.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Imo, animal testing (for medical research) is justifiable.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abc101)
    Yes, it is wrong. There's a very pertinent saying that people who advocate animal testing say it's worthwhile because animals are similar to us, but when asked why it's not wrong, they say because animals are different to us.

    The most important fact is that nobody should be able to inflict indescribable pain, suffering and torment upon an innocent animal who has no way of defending him or herself. It's sickening.

    Even if you're heartless and don't care about animal welfare, animals will not react in the same way as humans to a product. For example, chocolate is lethal to dogs, but not to humans. Animals can eat some things that would prove toxic to us. Just look at the trials fiasco a few years ago - the drug had passed the animal testing stage yet proved nearly fatal on humans.
    QFT. Besides, a lot of the pro-animal testing folk will suffer a moral panic if a case of bestiality came on the news. What makes them think a horse getting some satisfaction at the hands of a human is more grave than animal testing is beyond me. Though I do laugh at the law at protecting some animals because they're cute and fluffy, like dogs. I'm a vegan but I see no difference in a dog or to a rat.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The ethics of animal testing are all about quantity. Testing a medicine on a rat, that could cure cancer is not wrong.

    Testing the same medicine on thousands of chimps is. Why? It's the numbers affected that make the difference. We are trying to find a good balance between the benefits and downsides. In the first case the positive side is far up, whereas in the second example the negative side outweighs the postive one. This is debatable, but the principle of quantity remains.

    However, I must mention the arguments. Scientists, researchers and the people on the pro side argue that we are humans, therefore should be interested in improving our own lives. That makes sense and I doubt anyone would give their life for that of a rat or dog. On the other side, we have the con people who argue that animals have "feelings". Other than the physical feelings, we cannot know if animals have human feelings such as shame, agony, loneliness, etc. Personally, I don't believe that they do. Let's notice how these people attribute animals with human feelings. This is due to their own anxiety and fear of pain and death. Fighting for those animals gives them hope and security.

    This review concludes that there is no other reason for protecting animals from lab experiments other than the good old human life (sex in Freudian) drive, therefore experiments may be pursued.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If it strengthens a theory of some sort then yes. However using it for trivial things is wrong.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abc101)
    Yes, it is wrong. There's a very pertinent saying that people who advocate animal testing say it's worthwhile because animals are similar to us, but when asked why it's not wrong, they say because animals are different to us.
    They're similar to use biologically, which makes experimenting on them worthwhile. They're different to us on a spiritual/social level, to the people who advocate testing at least, which makes experimenting on them not wrong. I've never heard anyone say the phrase you're claiming, and mean it in the sense you choose to interpret it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    Other than the physical feelings, we cannot know if animals have human feelings such as shame, agony, loneliness, etc.
    Why? Because they don't seem to show it in the exact manner that we do or because we're not clever enough to know how to find out? Quite sure if I ran over someone's pet dog or cat there will be a lot of agony, if the unfortunate animal were not killed instantly.

    I assume you haven't joined the lame Facebook group petitioning against the use of dogs for live bait for sharks.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    The ethics of animal testing are all about quantity. Testing a medicine on a rat, that could cure cancer is not wrong.

    Testing the same medicine on thousands of chimps is. Why? It's the numbers affected that make the difference. We are trying to find a good balance between the benefits and downsides. In the first case the positive side is far up, whereas in the second example the negative side outweighs the postive one. This is debatable, but the principle of quantity remains.

    However, I must mention the arguments. Scientists, researchers and the people on the pro side argue that we are humans, therefore should be interested in improving our own lives. That makes sense and I doubt anyone would give their life for that of a rat or dog. On the other side, we have the con people who argue that animals have "feelings". Other than the physical feelings, we cannot know if animals have human feelings such as shame, agony, loneliness, etc. Personally, I don't believe that they do. Let's notice how these people attribute animals with human feelings. This is due to their own anxiety and fear of pain and death. Fighting for those animals gives them hope and security.

    This review concludes that there is no other reason for protecting animals from lab experiments other than the good old human life (sex in Freudian) drive, therefore experiments may be pursued.
    true, but the review is quite simple...

    This is followed somewhat during animal testing, animals are split into small (rats) large (dogs) and primate groups. As the animal gets bigger more and more justification has so be proven before the testing is authorised. (ie, on diseases drug is to be used for (cancer over hay fever) and potential effectiveness).

    Type of animal looked at as well as quantity and amount of pain suffered.

    It really annoys me when I read so many stupid ignorant replies regarding such issues on a public forum; in fact it is a bad idea to bring up the topic at all. (not directed at person quoted)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crazyhelicopter)
    Ah good, more people commenting on things they are ignorant in- brilliant
    I think I have a pretty decent understanding of the alternatives of animal testing thank you very much (Y)
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Pheonixx)
    true, but the review is quite simple...

    This is followed somewhat during animal testing, animals are split into small (rats) large (dogs) and primate groups. As the animal gets bigger more and more justification has so be proven before the testing is authorised. (ie, on diseases drug is to be used for (cancer over hay fever) and potential effectiveness).

    Type of animal looked at as well as quantity and amount of pain suffered.

    It really annoys me when I read so many stupid ignorant replies regarding such issues on a public forum; in fact it is a bad idea to bring up the topic at all. (not directed at person quoted)
    Do you think that those who protest outside our lecture theatre every thursday, or those that send used syringes through the post to the families of scientists, are necessarily any better educated?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Nope. I'd rather an animal die a horrible death, than a human.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No.

    But human testing is equally moral.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    Do you think that those who protest outside our lecture theatre every thursday, or those that send used syringes through the post to the families of scientists, are necessarily any better educated?

    Usually they aren't, but what's your point?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    well if people were testing on you would you think it was wrong.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Tinks_)
    I think I have a pretty decent understanding of the alternatives of animal testing thank you very much (Y)
    What alternatives? If there was a viable alternative to a test using an animal, it would be used. Cell cultures, in silico modelling, lab on a chip, in vitro assays, etc. are all supplementary, they cannot replace entirely. If you think they can then I suggest you go and do some more learning.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ok.. i work for a pharma company that does deal with animal testing, and for medical reasons it is sometime unavoidable. Yes there are alternatives available but they are limited, and most mainstream pharma companies use alternatives where they are feasible.
    I dont think that animal testing for cosmetics is right, and I dont use products from companies that do.

    What irritates me are the hypocrites that will turn up and shout at me as I go to work about animal testing, but will not refuse treatment (or condemn treatment of their families) when they get ill themselves.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am not against animal testing as long as, the animals are well treated and are drugged during tests.
    at the end of the day, u don't want to wear a perfume and just go blind !!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revd. Mike)
    What alternatives? If there was a viable alternative to a test using an animal, it would be used. Cell cultures, in silico modelling, lab on a chip, in vitro assays, etc. are all supplementary, they cannot replace entirely. If you think they can then I suggest you go and do some more learning.
    I didn't say the alternatives can replace animal testing entirely; if you read my first post you'd notice I actually said that there was less of a need for it, not that it isn't needed at all. Even though I don't personally agree with it, I understand it's purpose.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    For part of my work experience I went to an animal testing facility, I was convinced beforehand that i'd be completely opposed to it but it was a really illuminating experience...

    (it was medical testing btw)
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • 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.