NationStates Jolt Archive

what is your opinion on animal testing?

all comments welcome

While not pretending to have great scientific knowledge about this, from what I gather animal testing is not always necessary - infact there are nearly always alternatives - and has been known to be fault and inaccurate in several occassions. This has to be a big argument against it.

On moral grounds I'm also against.

Against in terms of practical sensibility.

Just pay people to volunteer and sign waivers. Chemical analyses can determine within a good margin of error if something's likely to be lethal, so that's less of a concern than it used to be.

Why should we base our hopes on chemical reactions to animals who's physiology only tertially resembles ours? It boggles the mind.

animals taste like babies

no i pretty much dont care, there is going to be testing, you pick: animal or people, either way, some one is gonna bitch

It depends on the animal, really.

In my opinion: Anything less complicated (complicated as in, the level of complexity of the cerebral cortex, among other bits) than a mouse is, as far as I'm concerned, a worthless meat-robot that is no more worthy of consideration than a pebble. They may be able to feel pain, but without the higher nervous functions, to them it is just another stimulus to which they react instinctively, and not a cause of suffering. Without being fully self aware, an animal can't really be suffering. So, I'm all for jabbing them full of electrodes and sticking weird chemicals in them, if it advances science.

Of course, the likes of monkeys and beagles, I have slightly more empathy for.

Animal testing shortens the testing process, because the test animals have a shorter lifespan than the human consumers. It's one thing if you're testing skin reactions by applying lipstick to rabbits, but an entirely different need if you're tracking long-term cancers and cancer treatments in mice. What might take twenty years to manifest in humans could show up in two months of mouse testing.

Frankly, I'm fine with sacrificing a few mice to deal with long-term human problems. I'm no vegetarian either, and by comparison a lot more animals go to food than go to testing. I not only have no problem with animal testing, I work daily with scientists who do it. It's necessary.

Animal testing shortens the testing process, because the test animals have a shorter lifespan than the human consumers. It's one thing if you're testing skin reactions by applying lipstick to rabbits, but an entirely different need if you're tracking long-term cancers and cancer treatments in mice. What might take twenty years to manifest in humans could show up in two months of mouse testing.

Frankly, I'm fine with sacrificing a few mice to deal with long-term human problems. I'm no vegetarian either, and by comparison a lot more animals go to food than go to testing. I not only have no problem with animal testing, I work daily with scientists who do it. It's necessary.
why should anyone whine about rabbits anyway? its not like they snuck into your house in the middle of the night and stole your favorite pet, rabbits are PESTS, they arnt exactly high up there on good important animals

I'm in favor of it: I've lost family to cancer and I'd gladly send a million rabbits to the labs if it would produce a cure. It's the flat out lesser of two evils.

I am not opposed to animal testing but those who perform it should be required to whenever possible make the animals as comfortable as possible. This means unless they absolutely cannot get good results when pain-killers are used, then they must be used, etc. Too many animal expirimentors seem to feel the need to deaden themselves to their subjects' suffering by totally objectifying them to the point where they see them as only things who do not feel real pain. This kind of treatment should be criminal. Computer modelling should be used extensively in preparation for animal testing, which would then require far fewer animals to be sacrificed.

I was tested all the way through school, then finally had to take various tests once I reached a professional license, as well as my Driver's license. I don't see why animals should be exempted from testing since us humans are tested so often.

*grumble*

It's one thing if you're testing skin reactions by applying lipstick to rabbits,why should anyone whine about rabbits anyway? its not like they snuck into your house in the middle of the night and stole your favorite pet, rabbits are PESTS, they arnt exactly high up there on good important animals
I don't really give two shits about rabbits either, but I also don't give two shits about cosmetics. If the two, rabbits are probably more necessary.

I don't really give two shits about rabbits either, but I also don't give two shits about cosmetics. If the two, rabbits are probably more necessary.
That's an important distinction - medical testing is a completely different ball game from cosmetic and consumer goods testing.

I was tested all the way through school, then finally had to take various tests once I reached a professional license, as well as my Driver's license. I don't see why animals should be exempted from testing since us humans are tested so often.

*grumble*

What do you think about animal testing as a requirement for voter registration?

Computer modelling should be used extensively in preparation for animal testing, which would then require far fewer animals to be sacrificed.
Some of the most important and useful drugs came from serendipitious observations in animal testing. Computer modelling can never transcend its programming, and the art of the unanticipated result cannot be coded. You've just got to be observant and occasionally lucky.

Some of the most important and useful drugs came from serendipitious observations in animal testing. Computer modelling can never transcend its programming, and the art of the unanticipated result cannot be coded. You've just got to be observant and occasionally lucky.

Which drugs?

I am not talking about stopping animal testing... it would still be done because computer modelling is imperfect.

The kingdom of strangward reckons that animal testing is good and bad. The good thing is that you can cure diseases for people but the bad thing is that some of these research labs can be cruel to the animals.

If it speeds up the discovery of drugs to treat severe, widespread illnesses, why not test with animals. I suppose it would take longer if the developers of these medicines must wait until they could test with humans. Testing without any living organism is impossible (if i understand it correctly) when developing drugs. I'm naïve enough to think the laboratories do the testing without unneccessary cruelty towards them animals nowadays.

I don't think animal testing is necessary in trivial fields of study... like in cosmetics and such. i oppose that.

What I find funny is the how animal testing is being opposed sometimes: Bugs are ok, so are rodents... them funky beagles or apes is a strict no-no. Nobody opposes testing with insects. When testing with any mammals... some people already object. Primates? Hell NO!

EDIT: While i was writing this, somebody already mentioned beagles... priceless! :D

Which drugs?
Viagra, for one. It wasn't until it was clinically tested in humans that they found that it prevented hip injuries in older nursing home residents by keeping them from rolling out of bed.

. . .

I'm naïve enough to think the laboratories do the testing without unneccessary cruelty towards them animals nowadays.

. . .



Why are you so naïve?

Viagra, for one. It wasn't until it was clinically tested in humans that they found that it prevented older nursing home residents from rolling out of bed.

So it wasn't noticed in lab animals, was it?

So it wasn't noticed in lab animals, was it?
[lack of smilies doesn't mean lack of humor]

Why are you so naïve?

Right! I wonder that meself sometimes. If you meant in relation to the drug labs becoming more humane towards the animals... i guess it's cos of the attention the animal rights movements have shed on them.

Anyway my point is this: which is better/worse, to do no computer modelling and cut open 500 rabbits, or to do computer modelling and cut open 100 rabbits to verify your computer findings? The computer work is probably cheaper, too, for those of you who care nothing for the suffering of rabbits.

[lack of smilies doesn't mean lack of humor]

Ahh... so I take it that this was not as effective in female patients? ;)

Test on humans, damn things breed like flies anyway.

Test on humans, damn things breed like flies anyway.

...and the smell???

...and the smell???

Obviously the testing facilities would be far away from natural habitats.

Obviously the testing facilities would be far away from natural habitats.

Obviously you haven't watched enough "...Flying Circus". ;)

Obviously you haven't watched enough "...Flying Circus". ;)

Can you ever? ;)

Can you ever? ;)

...oh GOD yes! :(

I am not opposed to animal testing but those who perform it should be required to whenever possible make the animals as comfortable as possible. This means unless they absolutely cannot get good results when pain-killers are used, then they must be used, etc.

You have just described the limitations already placed on animal testing in the medical field. =)

As a scientist, I would like to comment on this issue. People are talking a lot about chemical reactions, as if drugs are the only things ever tested in animals. Of course, regardless of how much you think we know about the body, there are pretty much always unexpected side effects. One cannot ethically test something initially in a human when it may kill them due to a completely unexpected side effect. Also, dosage issues must be initially partially worked out in an animal model *before* moving to humans.

Another person complained about the validity of animal models - this person has not really looked into the matter much. Animal models are chosen based off of two criterion. The first is their usefulness as a model in the given experiment. The second is their expense and convenience. Certain animals are wonderful for experiments in certain areas. This is why not all studies use the exact same animal model and why we must move into larger animals, such as pigs, in many instances (Pigs are incredibly close to humans biochemically and in terms of the vascular system).

Things other than drugs must also be tested. I am currently working in the area of adult stem cells and how to push them to become vascular smooth muscle. To do this, I need a large supply of cells, including already formed vascular smooth muscle. Basically, I have to take an artery out of something, get the smooth muscle cells out, and culture them (as well as the bone marrow progenitor cells). There is no way to justify taking an artery out of a human being for research, nor is there really a way to justify taking bone marrow out of a human being (which is a very painful procedure) for anything other than treating another human being.

As for the treatment of animals, I don't claim to know anything about cosmetics companies, but in the medical field, we are held to an extrememly high bar. Before we ever start a given experiment, we must describe exactly how animals are to be treated. If a painful procedure (even just drawing blood) is planned, we must discuss what type of pain relief we will give. If pain relief is not to be given, we must give a damn good explanation for why it would interfere with our experiments. Animals must be kept on a regular light/dark cycle unless the experiment requires that this not be done. If animals are to be sacrificed, it must be done in as painless a manner as possible. It's not like we are mercilessly torturing any animals here.

...oh GOD yes! :(

And now, a man with a tape recorder up his nose.

Oh, one final note - if sacrifice is not necessary in your testing, the money you propose for the experiment must be enough to take care of them for the rest of their natural lives. This becomes quite a large amount in primates, which are generally used for behavioral testing anyways - and have quite a long life-span.

If such restrictions are already placed on animal expirimentation then it is either a fairly recent development or a fairly overlooked one.

If such restrictions are already placed on animal expirimentation then it is either a fairly recent development or a fairly overlooked one.

How many labs have you worked in? While restrictions have been changing over the years, I can assure you that (especially in the university system), they are neither new nor overlooked.

Every animal experiment has to go through an IRB (Institutional Review Board) which includes scientists, animal specialists, and usually at least one layman before every being performed. Anyone breaking the rules can be promptly fired (and before performing any animal experiments, one must sign a form to that effect).

How many labs have you worked in? While restrictions have been changing over the years, I can assure you that (especially in the university system), they are neither new nor overlooked.

Every animal experiment has to go through an IRB (Institutional Review Board) which includes scientists, animal specialists, and usually at least one layman before every being performed. Anyone breaking the rules can be promptly fired (and before performing any animal experiments, one must sign a form to that effect).

I have never worked in any biology labs. From the sound of things though you have only worked in the university system. Are there IRBs elsewhere?

I have never worked in any biology labs. From the sound of things though you have only worked in the university system. Are there IRBs elsewhere?

In the medical field, yes - although they may be composed differently. Of course, in the medical field, the FDA places all kinds of restrictions on testing of anything meant to ever be used in humans - including those I have discussed.

Of course, the vast majority of testing of animals in the biological and medical fields take place within the University system.

BTW are we talking about the same govt-backed uni system that once gave syphallis and massive radioisotope doses to unsuspecting Black patients?

I think that animal testing is o.k when trying to find a cure for cancer but is ridiculous and wrong when used to test the latest cosmetics.

BTW are we talking about the same govt-backed uni system that once gave syphallis and massive radioisotope doses to unsuspecting Black patients?

I don't know exactly what you are talking about, but I do know that these days we have something called "informed consent" for any human patients.