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

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Tinks_)
    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.
    Apologies, I obviously didn't read your post properly

    For those who may not know, the central doctrine of animal testing is "The Three Rs". That's Reduction, Replacement and Refinement.

    Reduction: Reducing the number of animals used, and the extent to which an animal is tested upon. Perfect example of how this is working - In the past decade, R&D output has more than tripled, yet the number of animals used as stayed roughly constant.

    Replacement: Replacing animal methods with non-animal methods. A large amount of the work done by LAS (laboratory animal science) scientists across the industry is concerned with coming up with new methods that don't rely on animals that give the same results. Whilst it perhaps may never be possible to completely rule them out (and certainly not in the near future), huge advances are being made in the field of animal replacement.

    Refinement: Refining current animal techniques so they're less painful or distressing to the animals. As above, a huge amount of LAS studies are not into drug safety etc, but into refining techniques and coming up with new ones that give equally valid results with the least animal distress.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    it's only wrong if you're a bleeding heart hippy
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joey11223)
    for the most part no, I think all medical testing is necessary. However for certain cosmetic products I think it is unnessecary.
    Cosmetic Testing has been illegal in the UK for a decade.

    (Original post by daniel_williams)
    the testing itself i think is ok in some cases but the condistions in which some animals are kept during testing is a disgrace and frankly disgusting.
    Based on what? AR videos and pictures from the 1970s - I realise you agree with research but you should have a look at conditions these days - they're impressive (and this comes from someone who has never done research but has been to dozens of animal labs around the US and UK).
    http://speakingofresearch.com/facts/...lfare-the-3rs/

    (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.

    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.
    The first point is not a valid argument. The anatomic similarities and moral differences are not comparable. In fact the AR folk are responsible for EXACTLY the same "contradiction" by saying that "animal testing doesn't work because they're so different, and it's morally bad because they're so similar to us" - the argument is ridiculous - but so is the original one you presented.

    With respect to different reactions. We can often see where the differences will be - so certain biological differences between dogs and humans make them a bad model for food-stuffs, but very good for, say, heart models or pancreatic models.

    Note that the Northwick incident of severe bad reactions is VERY VERY rare - problems at early phase drug trials are almost unheard of because animal research weeds out nearly all the dangerous drugs.

    (Original post by _Tinks_)
    I personally think it's wrong - I think animal testing for medical purposes has been important in the past when there was no viable alternative, but now when there are methods such as using human stem cells/skin samples and computer models there's less of a need for it. Especially as animal testing doesn't always produce accurate results - just look at the whole thalidimide thing in the 50's =\

    And the way a lot of the animals are treated is just plain cruelty =(
    Animal regulations are the tightest of nearly any industry in the UK or compared with animal regulations across the world.

    These "alternatives" are used alongside rather than as absolute replacements. Computer models rely on animal research data to make them, you can't model pregnancy or complex diseases is cell cultures - they don't have "symptoms" in the way an entire organism does.
    http://speakingofresearch.com/extrem.../alternatives/

    Thalidomide was a disaster which forced a change in the way we do animal research - for a start it wasn't tested on pregnant animals, and the animal data was what kept it off the US market.
    http://pro-test.org.uk/facts.php?lt=b

    (Original post by star_5)
    For example, aspirin causes birth defects in rats but not in humans, (random fact, but you can see the point I'm trying to make...how accurate are these tests?)
    Aspirin is an example of AR spin - the tests those results come from involve overdosing mice on aspirin - we see nasty side effects from overdosing humans on aspirin.
    http://speakingofresearch.com/extrem...bad-science/#4

    (Original post by farawayheartbeat)
    keeping them in contained environments, depriving them of the normal affection (eg, if they were pets instead)
    ..."normal" ...on the scale of living history what part of keeping pets can be considered "normal".

    You do realise that animals in labs have huge amounts of attention from an entire staff of dedicated lab technicians who work round the clock to keep animal welfare standards highl.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    No.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Just a note to those saying that we should test on rapists/murderers etc. -

    If we were to do that, we'd use up all of them within a matter of years, and there isn't a high enough incidence rate to keep up the necessary supply.

    I'm afraid animals are the only option.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    nope
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spike4848)
    Just a note to those saying that we should test on rapists/murderers etc. -

    If we were to do that, we'd use up all of them within a matter of years, and there isn't a high enough incidence rate to keep up the necessary supply.

    I'm afraid animals are the only option.
    For the small fraction of tests for which that would be viable, it would be more like hours.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    People that say the conditions are bad are funny. I would wager they are kept in much better conditions than a lot of pets.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cowsgoquack)
    People that say the conditions are bad are funny. I would wager they are kept in much better conditions than a lot of pets.
    They absolutely are. I just had a little peak into the new animal facility at work, it's state of the art, really incredible
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revd. Mike)
    They absolutely are. I just had a little peak into the new animal facility at work, it's state of the art, really incredible
    I just went to see the new buildings at ware last week.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cowsgoquack)
    I just went to see the new buildings at ware last week.
    :eek: You're a GSKer?
    Offline

    0
    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.

    Medicines should be tested on convicted murderers and rapists - that way, we get accurate results that actually mean something, and we save the lives of innocent animals. If somebody has killed someone, they've forfeited their right to life, and if we're paying for them to be kept in prison, we may as well get some use out of them.
    I agree.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gravityisamyth)
    I agree.
    Then I hope you don't use ANY medications or household chemicals, lest you be a hypocrite.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revd. Mike)
    Then I hope you don't use ANY medications or household chemicals, lest you be a hypocrite.
    Thinking it is wrong does NOT necessarily mean you're being a hypocrite just cause you use those products.
    Personally I think it is terribly wrong and feel ashamed of a society which contributes to this. There should be strict rules for household chemicals, medications ect. It's not always easy/ possible to avoid those product though...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revd. Mike)
    Then I hope you don't use ANY medications or household chemicals, lest you be a hypocrite.
    I don't. :ahee:

    No, seriously though, I know I am a hypocrite to an extent. But I avoid particular companies if I know they're notorious for animal testing.

    It's impossible to completely avoid it in every day life though, for medicine obviously, and it's difficult to know which cosmetic companies are ethical and which aren't.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    For cosmetics - it's wrong and unnecessary.

    For human medical research - it's justifiable.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revd. Mike)
    :eek: You're a GSKer?
    Not full time haha, but I've been working summers since 2005. At the frythe atmo cos my team (Gen tox, Safety assessment) moved over during the building work from ware. Quite good actually cos that means i've worked at all the sites in the area pretty much!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cowsgoquack)
    Not full time haha, but I've been working summers since 2005. At the frythe atmo cos my team (Gen tox, Safety assessment) moved over during the building work from ware. Quite good actually cos that means i've worked at all the sites in the area pretty much!
    The Frythe is my main site Although I'm about 60/40 between Frythe and Ware. But as soon as the majority have moved back to Ware then I'll be in Bld 9 permanently, so swish!
 
 
 
  • 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
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    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

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.