Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Your view on animal testing

  1. Oct 11, 2003 #1
    There is a lot of controversy over the morality of testing new products and procedures on non-human species. I seek to find out what everyone believes concerning this issue, as well as how much everyone knows about alternatives.
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 11, 2003 #2
  4. Oct 12, 2003 #3


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    For the most part I'm for it, but it does depend a little on the type of animal and nature of the tesing.
  5. Oct 12, 2003 #4
    I'm mostly for it as well, as per russ_watters.

    There are simply things that can't be tested otherwise. Where would HIV research be without testing on the simian equivalent?

    In-vitro experiments only go so far, I suppose if we really want to stop using animals we should just skip straight to the humans. I mean, how better to test the effect on humans, than to test it on humans!
  6. Oct 12, 2003 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yeah, I'd never want to experiment on animals, cutting off their tails and feet.. my mother would disown me :P But I DO think that animals are a great resource for information and should be used appropriately.

    For instance, I once isolated monoclonal antibodies from a mouse, but the mouse died without suffering (CO2) which justified it to me.

    A former collegue used to tell me that there was a very heavy weight on his back, of all the dogs he experimented on in his past. At the time he was becoming a heart surgeon and was doing a thesis on developing some kind of new operation. For that he had to operate a healthy dog, open heart operation, but afterwards the dog needed to live in order to see the after effects. This is the point where it becomes inhuman, since the dog goes through tremendous suffering and when it finally heals the woods, it is opened up again, to check the organs and then sacrificed.

    If testing like this needs to be done, it is my opinion to develop a testing animal which cannot feel pain or is not concious of the handlings. Like a chicken without a head.

    But ofcourse, in vitro testing is a reasonable way of starting things, after all, skin can be grown in the lab.
  7. Oct 12, 2003 #6
    Animal testing for medical reasons is acceptable to me, with the understanding that the experiments will be done as humanely as reasonably possible. On the other hand, screw cosmetics companies!
  8. Oct 12, 2003 #7
    I'm surprised I saw Bausch & Lomb on the list.

    Shoot, how on Earth do they put contact lenses on a lab rat?

    Anyway, I'm against it to a certain extent. As long as the animal suffers no discomfort or harm (and as long as it's a reasonable neccessary product)...

    But I'm with Zero: screw cosmetics companies!
  9. Oct 13, 2003 #8
    Seriously, how much prettier is a mouse going to get with eye liner?
  10. Oct 13, 2003 #9
    for those people against animal testing, would they change their mind if, for instance, they have a disease, lets say... some type of cancer, and the doctor says you will likely die in 3 years. but, if in those 3 years, animal testing would present a cure for this cancer, is animal testing good?

    you will most likely say no, but there are people out who can be saved. and acording to nature, survival of the fittest.

    i says its an unfair question
  11. Oct 13, 2003 #10
    Well, I think most of us are ok with it in order to save human lives...even if we aren't happy with it. I would eat my dog if it were me or him, but I wouldn't be happy with that choice either, you know?
  12. Oct 13, 2003 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Have you ever seen how animals are treated when they are going for slaughtery? Or are being raised for meat?

    For someone who is against animal testing in any way, they should be vegetarian too.

    So my motto: it may be done, in such a way that the animal doesn't suffer needlessly.. I think a lot of work remains to be done in order to achieve this.
  13. Oct 13, 2003 #12

    Another God

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I'm for it.
  14. Oct 13, 2003 #13
    I'm for animal testing, for the most part, too (though I agree with Monique, that, should the animal die, it should not suffer). However, I read an article recently about experimental mice, which are kept in cages for most (if not all) of their lives. There are scientists who believe that they may not be getting completely valid results from experimenting with these mice, since all animals behave differently in captivity than they do in the wild.

    It's something to consider, anyway, unless the only people we are trying to help with our results are people who are serving a life sentence in prison. :wink:
  15. Oct 13, 2003 #14
    Well im going out further and saying that at long as the pain of the animal is justified reasonably(which im sure almost all are) then it is acceptable. However, I do believe that anyone who eats meat regularly should be required to take a trip to the slaughterhouse. I eat meat, but I am conmfortable with the means to which i get that meat. Im sorry, but this world has never been beautiful in this respect, it has been survivalist; and any effects of cruelty towards animals are 'right' by the reasoning of a survivalist.

    We are all survivalists.
  16. Oct 13, 2003 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well said.

    Seems like a "necessary evil" that would be good to minimize. Fortunately or unfortunately, it's mostly out-of-sight/out-of-mind.
  17. Oct 13, 2003 #16
    On the other hand, some cosmetics are medical based and use for any number of applications to help patients physically or mentally.

    Does anyone have a link to animal testing laws in the US?
  18. Oct 13, 2003 #17


    User Avatar

    Pro. It's hell of a lot more moral than procedures on human species.

    Alternatives? Well, yes some exist, but most are extremely specialised, not very detailed, unreliable, and often demand additional animal tests to caibrate the models.

    I assume that the researchers who do animal testing aren't crazy power-mad... etc. Animal testing is in general expensive, subject to heavy regulation (Ironically, the UK has the strongest regulations in the world, and simultaneously the most active animal rights groups.) and so not conducted except for an absolute requirement.

    And if these researchers are crazy... then who the hell gave them their qualifications? Clearly some responsibility must be used in all such experiments, but animal testing as a whole is very important and useful.
  19. Oct 13, 2003 #18
    Quoting Dennis Leary:

    "If hooking a racoon up to a car battery is going to cure AIDS five years from now, I've got two things to say about it- the red is positive and the black is negative."
  20. Oct 13, 2003 #19
    mattius uses the words "justified reasonably"
    my question is what is considered justified? saving human lives?
  21. Oct 14, 2003 #20


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I REALLY don't agree with this, and I think it is ignorant to say that we are suvivalists and that that justifies suffering of non-humanoid life.

    We are humans, and our main trait is that we can survive under all cicumstances due to our adaptability. So your reasoning: "effects of cruelty towards animals are 'right' by the reasoning of a survivalist". Might hold true in the so called third world countries, but people who have an abundance of other options should think twice about these animal cruelties and their options of buying animal-friendly products.

    You also say: "as long as the pain of the animal is justified reasonably (which im sure almost all are)" How can you be sure in any way that it is justified? The example I gave about the dogs and the heart operations, I think it is very very cruel and should be stopped. The person performing the procedures agreed. Dogs are very intelligent animals and form personal bonds to their caretaker, and the caretaker is abusing them by cutting them open, let them live and suffer a few months, cut them open again and sacrifice the dog. That is just not the right way to do things.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook