Jesus Christ, I'll say. While I won't go judging you as a person but um . . . what if some of those people in death row were actually innocent?Qitz said:
Poll: To What Extent Is Animal Testing Justifiable?
- Thread starter bobmus
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I know there's been some advantages to animal testing, after all I'm fairly sure Diabetes medicine came about from animal testing. My thought though is that it would be far more efficient to simply test on humans to begin with.Landrius said:
Sure there are some people who wouldn't want to, for fear of negative results but there have been times where they did wide spread drug tests with test groups.
Or maybe the refinement process from animal to human are vast leaps. Personally I don't know as I'm not a pharmacologist.
Sucks for them I guess. While I may not know the exact percentage of people who are, truthfully, innocent I would guess that it's not very high. Course it could also depend on where / when you were put on Death Row.lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
Besides, could just use the guy who abducted and raped a bunch of kids.
That argument doesn't make too much sense. So basically, no one in this world minds that people in switzerland are making anti - matter but we freak out when make up might make us a bit itchy? Fuck me! I think we underestimate our smartest minds. If they have resources, time, and equipment then I'm sure they can make perfect products. It'll be costly, yes. It'll be timely, yes. But why the fuck not? These businesses are just hunky dory anyway. Besides, do we really need the newest make up ASAP?Megahedron said:
Businesses will release bad products whether we have animal testing or not. It's just a matter of whether they rush it or not.
You make some interesting points (and I mean "interesting" not in a bad way, mind). As I previously posted, I personally have a condition which would might well end up resulting in my own death if there had not been some sort of research in how to stop it from doing that. It is very true that what is done for test purposes is not something I would want done to me; I doubt anyone would want something like that done to themselves.lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
On the other hand, I also wouldn't want to suffer what my condition causes me to suffer. Your logic appears to work simply, as you say: "I believe it's wrong because I wouldn't want it to happen to me". Very well. Is my condition wrong, then? Would you like to have it?
If the answer is no, you would not like to have Crohn's Disease, then by the logic of your belief it is wrong. So if the only way to alleviate the suffering caused is to cause suffering in animals rather than our own species... where is the right decision? It seems to me that we have two evils here by your logic (which is probably accurate, actually).
So which do we choose? The one where suffering happens or the one where suffering happens?
I guess in that case I have to stand with our own species and, by extent, myself--even if it does indeed make for a villainous picture.
On a different note, as to the medical research thing you mentioned, I am not qualified to say one way or another whether or not it is bullshit. From what little I do know I agree on that point, the "saving lives as a business" thing is pretty bad and I wish it could be better, but I suppose "saving lives as a business" is better than "saving no lives at all".
I'm for rampant animal testing... as well as human testing.
We do what we must... because we can... but then again I am a monster.
We do what we must... because we can... but then again I am a monster.
Holy shit, someone thought I was serious. That's okay. We'll see if I can defend this point.lSHaDoW-FoXl said:
Alright, you said that businesses will release bad products no matter what. Well, we have to look at the costs vs. the potential gains. First of all, the issue is not whether the makeup makes people itchy. I'm not sure you can test for that in animals, anyways. The question is if it's going to cause real problems, usually cancer or heart disease. Now, there's no way a company would just release something that works on dummies and eat the lawsuits if it turns out to cause bowel cancer, that'd be too risky. So then they'd have to come up with a way to test it. Would any company pour millions into research to create this superior cosmetic product? And I mean a higher level of millions than they currently do... Would it be hundreds? I'm not sure how we'd ensure that these products are safe for humans without animal testing, bu it will probably be expensive. Let's invent a way, shall we?
So, lipstick needs to be safe when ingested, so that will be our hypothetical. So we'll need a mock digestive system set up, to see what chemicals it is processed into during human digestion and whether these products are able to pass into the human body. Fair enough, we could probably come up with a way to do that for not too much money. Then comes the tricky part. We'd need to find a way to test these chemicals (and their derivatives when broken down by the human liver) on... let's say a dozen types of human tissue. That's going to be your issue. Unless (and this is terrifying, but possible) we use some sort of lab grown human tissue farm, like a big blob of liver tissue that you dig out of a fridge somewhere and inject a few mls of whatever you're testing, we aren't going to be able to test the stuff except on living human beings. And again, lawsuits.
So sure, I do believe that scientists could come up with the perfect tube of lipstick that never wipes off unless you want it to and causes no human problems, but they would never know if it actually caused those human problems unless they released it on the public and hoped that it didn't. And they would never do that. I assume. Maybe the makeup industry is much more lucrative than I think it is, but I doubt that. And that... is two paragraphs of stream of consciousness writing. I had fun. Did you?
Edit: And now that I've re-read it, holy strawman! Disregard that middle paragraph.
As far as I know drugs are tested on computer simulations (?) first, then insects and only afterwards, and if needed, on mice, avoiding other animals as much as possible. And humans only when the drug is near perfect.
I'm positive that animal testing should be possible, but only for the creation of medicaments, and obviously for courses (biology, medicine, etc.)
It boils down to whether you think human life is more valuable than that of a white bred mouse.
I'm positive that animal testing should be possible, but only for the creation of medicaments, and obviously for courses (biology, medicine, etc.)
It boils down to whether you think human life is more valuable than that of a white bred mouse.
Welcome to the forums, and I'm glad this discussion prompted you to comment! Just looked up Crohn's Disease, and it sounds awful and in my view too a very good example of where animal experimentation can prove useful - finding just ways to prevent symptoms of a disease such as this while we search for a cure is a very worthwhile cause, and indeed the reason behind my choice of course. Thanks for sharingLandrius said:
Well, considering the fact that in any western country, drug regulations are so strict that you couldn't release a drug without human trials before hand, I am calling bullshit on that.Radoh said:
And as far as the innacuracy of animal testing goes, there are animals that share a hell of a lot of biochemistry with us. They test anti anxiety meds on rats because rats have the same neurotransmitters as human beings. Monkeys have DNA and biochemistry remarkably similar to our own. Using animals to test out things like the brain anatomy has progressed quite a lot of our knowledge.
Using animal studies is one of the only ways that we have had to test out which areas of the brain are responsible for what actions, because till recently that hasn't been possible in humans.
Funny because that's what I think, I also think that criminals should complete their sentence in forced unpaid labour, not prisons.Qitz said:
For the purposes of making human lives better, I believe it's justified. But I also believe that it should be tested on animals with similar systems to our own. For instance, pigs decompose like we do, and generally speaking, their skin and musculature is made up similar to ours, so testing skin medications and so forth on them makes sense.
That said, I'm against testing cosmetics on animals. Fuck people. The rich wanna look fancy, let them try the untested shit on themselves.
That said, I'm against testing cosmetics on animals. Fuck people. The rich wanna look fancy, let them try the untested shit on themselves.
I have no major issues with experimenting on animals, even for cosmetics, as long as there is a end benefit in mind for man.
I'd never have known my grandfather if not for animal testing and growing up without him in my life would have been a terrible robbery of experience. He was diabetic.
I don't know exactly how many dogs Fredrick Banting killed by removing their pancreas's and then trying to save them, but the number is somewhere around 300-500. Is that worth saving millions of diabetics worldwide with the discovery of insulin?
I'd personally say yes, but I wouldn't think less of someone who disagreed with me; there's a lot of sides to the issue.
I don't know exactly how many dogs Fredrick Banting killed by removing their pancreas's and then trying to save them, but the number is somewhere around 300-500. Is that worth saving millions of diabetics worldwide with the discovery of insulin?
I'd personally say yes, but I wouldn't think less of someone who disagreed with me; there's a lot of sides to the issue.
My lab uses a very large variety of organisms, from the humble E.Coli and S.Cerevisae to transgenic mice which we breed for that purpose. On one memorable occasion, another lab in my department had to use a bunch of armadillos for an project that required M.Leprae in a living organism.
All the research done on these organisms is extremely valuable (although I would say that about my own research). However, they all involve the eventual death of pretty much all the animal and bacterial models - for example, the creation of transgenic mice is extremely inefficient, resulting in only 5 - 10% of a brood that express the required phenotype; the rest tend to be disposed of unless we can find a use for them. The resulting transgenic mice usually end up on a dissection board.
Importantly, our experiments would simply not be possible without the use of these models and their eventual death - does this mean our research should be banned? The same argument can and is used for safety testing on animal models. One cannot initially use humans (for obvious reasons) and the next best available model for humans are other mammals.
Cosmetics (since that is what this thread seems to be focussing on) are first tested on these models to reduce risk and then tested on a small batch of volunteers. This is then expanded to a larger sample size before being released onto the market.
So to conclude my little rant, animal testing is both necessary and appropriate in the context of research and of safety testing.
All the research done on these organisms is extremely valuable (although I would say that about my own research). However, they all involve the eventual death of pretty much all the animal and bacterial models - for example, the creation of transgenic mice is extremely inefficient, resulting in only 5 - 10% of a brood that express the required phenotype; the rest tend to be disposed of unless we can find a use for them. The resulting transgenic mice usually end up on a dissection board.
Importantly, our experiments would simply not be possible without the use of these models and their eventual death - does this mean our research should be banned? The same argument can and is used for safety testing on animal models. One cannot initially use humans (for obvious reasons) and the next best available model for humans are other mammals.
Cosmetics (since that is what this thread seems to be focussing on) are first tested on these models to reduce risk and then tested on a small batch of volunteers. This is then expanded to a larger sample size before being released onto the market.
So to conclude my little rant, animal testing is both necessary and appropriate in the context of research and of safety testing.
I don't really have an oppinion.
I think that any cosmetics companies should be required to donate a portion of profits to animal charities to help counteract the negatives of testing, and that the subjects should be helped to go back to a normal life afterwards. For medical purposes, I hope they just treat them humanely.
Other than that...nope, no qualms.
I think that any cosmetics companies should be required to donate a portion of profits to animal charities to help counteract the negatives of testing, and that the subjects should be helped to go back to a normal life afterwards. For medical purposes, I hope they just treat them humanely.
Other than that...nope, no qualms.
