Poll: To What Extent Is Animal Testing Justifiable?

[bobmus]

There is a module option on the Pharmacology course I'm applying for that gives you the opportunity to experiment upon animals, presumably purely for the purpose of furthering your learning. This got me thinking if animal experimentation could be justified for this end, and to what extent we can justify animal testing as being ethically correct.
I thus pose the question to all of you: To what extent, if at all, is animal testing justifiable?

 

[SimplyTheWest]

Only when testing new drugs, to make sure they are safe for humans, and even then reduce the amount of animals used and reduce their suffering (if any).
I've applied for a pharmacology course as well.

 

[Canid117]

If it helps humans (and teaching future generations does) go for it.

 

[Radoh]

Never. And before I get called out for it, it is because animal testing is horribly inaccurate when it comes to human usage. There was a somewhat recent event where a painkiller got released that had been animal tested without a human trial as a followup. Turns out, when humans take it, almost half of them had heart attacks.

 

[Knight Captain Kerr]

When it helps humans but not cosmetics.

 

[Dags90]

There was a somewhat recent event where a painkiller got released that had been animal tested without a human trial as a followup. Turns out, when humans take it, almost half of them had heart attacks.

You aren't talking about COX-2 (Vioxx) inhibitors, are you? 'Cause those were tested on humans, the research was just sloppy/potentially deceptive.

 

[Qitz]

I never got why we test things on animals. Maybe because it's easier, and cheaper, to just grab some rabbit and pump it full of drugs but I still doubt just how useful the data is.

Personally, I'd just let them test on Death Row inmates, but them I'm a heartless bastard.

 

[Radoh]

There was a somewhat recent event where a painkiller got released that had been animal tested without a human trial as a followup. Turns out, when humans take it, almost half of them had heart attacks.

You aren't talking about COX-2 (Vioxx) inhibitors, are you? 'Cause those were tested on humans, the research was just sloppy/potentially deceptive.

I think that it might have been Vioxx, but not sure. It's been a long time since I did the research on it.

 

[NZpablo]

Teaching yes. Testing medicines, yes. Cosmetics, no.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

To whatever extent it takes to save human lives. Sorry, but I just think that human lives vastly outweigh animal ones.

 

[Blaster395]

Never. And before I get called out for it, it is because animal testing is horribly inaccurate when it comes to human usage. There was a somewhat recent event where a painkiller got released that had been animal tested without a human trial as a followup. Turns out, when humans take it, almost half of them had heart attacks.

Do you have a credible source of evidence for this?

No, he does not, because he is wrong. DRUGS ARE NEVER RELEASED WITHOUT HUMAN TESTING. They just use animal testing to make sure they are not some instakill mess that causes your eyeballs to melt.

 

[Radoh]

Never. And before I get called out for it, it is because animal testing is horribly inaccurate when it comes to human usage. There was a somewhat recent event where a painkiller got released that had been animal tested without a human trial as a followup. Turns out, when humans take it, almost half of them had heart attacks.

Do you have a credible source of evidence for this?

Like I said, I did a research paper on why animal testing was necessary. Midway in the gathering stage I had to alter my thesis to why animal testing is not useful. I did have a source, but it was like two years ago and I don't have the paper anymore.

 

[Blaster395]

1 isolated case does not make it useless. You could of made your thesis that animal testing is useful as a precursor to human testing.

 

[bobmus]

I've applied for a pharmacology course as well.

In England? *Curious as to where!*

Also, interesting to see the gradient at which the poll is currently slanting!

 

[Landrius]

I never got why we test things on animals. Maybe because it's easier, and cheaper, to just grab some rabbit and pump it full of drugs but I still doubt just how useful the data is.

Personally, I'd just let them test on Death Row inmates, but them I'm a heartless bastard.

From what I understand one reason is that often the researchers need to try to reproduce the disease or condition or whatever in the test subject(s) in order to then be able to try different ways of alleviating it.

I've never posted before, but this topic is a bit of a personal issue for me, so I felt I should. I suffer from something called Crohn's Disease (an autoimmune disease generally affecting the digestive system). It's a condition for which there has not been much in the way of any sort of medicine up until recently and for which there is still no cure and on top of that what medicines there are for it would not be there if they hadn't managed to finally reproduce the condition in a type of chimpanzee, I believe. So, yeah. It's not really something you can deal with, as without medicine it tends to get to the point where you either have to have some serious and risky surgery (which doesn't always work) or you die.

So those who would like to say it's never okay to test on animals, in a world where we do no such medical research, what would you have those like myself do, with nothing to stand between us and the very real problem of death?

To clarify, my personal stance on the actual poll is that animal testing is ethically right if it can save lives. I do get rather pissed at those who say "Never" because it's essentially a big middle finger to myself and many, many others.

 

[Andrew Wells]

1 isolated case does not make it useless. You could of made your thesis that animal testing is useful as a precursor to human testing.

Exactly, data acquired from testing on a mammalian model may not transfer exactly to a human patient it is useful to determine whether the drug actually does anything and what its toxic effects are.

 

[Dags90]

They just use animal testing to make sure they are not some instakill mess that causes your eyeballs to melt.

Not really. Mouse models are used all the time to check for effectiveness in various pathologies, it's not just used for safety. They're extremely useful because they're much cheaper than human tissue culture. Also, with things like knockout mice we can study genetic diseases on a scale that simply isn't possible with people because they're so rare.

 

[lSHaDoW-FoXl]

Good evening. I think it's wrong in all situations. Besides me clearly being a crazed animal rights activist here are my points. I think if people them selves are unwilling to suffer for the good of everyone else then they should just sit down and shut the fuck up, because they have no moral high ground - absolutely none - in claiming that a few should suffer for the many.

And you know what's funny? I bet everyone's that type of person. While we're all ranting on 'the good of the many' we ignore the fact that we our selves would instantly speak out against this behaviour if it ever effected us. Suddenly, those 'heroes' saving the lives of thousands of people become monsters.

And no, I'm never under the impression that animals are these cuddly helpless creatures. Animals are dangerous, uncivilized, and ocassionaly disgusting creatures. And if they're bigger then you then you can bet your ass they're looking to ruin your fucking day. But hey, just to be fair I see humans the same way, my self included.

My second argument is that 'Medical research' is a bunch of shit. We live in a fucked up nation where we slowly fuck our selves up by paying for unhealthy foods and then we pay our money for pills that only help us in the short term. Pharmaceuticals as well is nothing but a business, therefor I will not see it justifiable. Long term solutions will only come once saving lives stops being a business

So hold on a minute, if I find animals dangerous, disgusting creatures then why am I against testing on them? Well, that's pretty simple. Because unlike everyone else I don't want to play the role of the hypocrite, I want to be better then that. Therefor I use very simple logic -

I believe it's wrong because I wouldn't want it to happen to me. A very simple belief, 3rd grade simple, but it seems to just fly over everyones heads, and instead they find them selves running into double standards and inconsistencies. So no, if you're going to be either moral or consistent then testing on animals is completely wrong, we're the villains. No matter how good our intentions and how many people we save, it's simply not consistent or moral.

 

[Megahedron]

To anyone who says we shouldn't test cosmetics on animals, why draw the line there? I mean the alternative is to either unleash potentially deadly makeup on the world, or halt all innovation in the field and just stick with the products currently available. When we never invent a lip liner that won't run when I drink the blood of my enemies, you'll all feel pretty embarrassed that you ruined the demon's first impressions of my fashion skills.