Is Animal Testing Justifiable or Should We Seek Alternatives?

[Greg Bernhardt]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

For the most part I'm for it, but it does depend a little on the type of animal and nature of the tesing.

 

[Jikx]

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!

 

[Monique]

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 colleague 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 conscious 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.

 

[Zero]

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!

 

[Sting]

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 necessary product)...

But I'm with Zero: screw cosmetics companies!

 

[Beren]

Seriously, how much prettier is a mouse going to get with eye liner?

 

[liljediboi]

for those people against animal testing, would they change their mind if, for instance, they have a disease, let's 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

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by liljediboi
for those people against animal testing, would they change their mind if, for instance, they have a disease, let's 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

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?

 

[Monique]

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.

 

[Another God]

I'm for it.

 

[Mentat]

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.

 

[Mattius_]

Well I am going out further and saying that at long as the pain of the animal is justified reasonably(which I am 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. I am 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.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Zero
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!

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.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Originally posted by Phobos
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.

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?

 

[FZ+]

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.

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.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

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."

 

[liljediboi]

mattius uses the words "justified reasonably"
my question is what is considered justified? saving human lives?

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by Mattius_
Well I am going out further and saying that at long as the pain of the animal is justified reasonably(which I am 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. I am 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.

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 I am 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.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Do you know how they test pain killers? The hot plate test. They stick a mouse on a hot plate and turn it on. They see how long it takes for the mouse start jumping up and down. They know they have an effective pain killer when the mouse just sits there and burns.

Cruel? Yup.

Have you got a better way for testing pain killers?

 

[Monique]

Yes! If it has been found not to have adverse effects, administer it to a human and ASK them if that helps them to relieve the pain.

That is just too cruel!

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Originally posted by Monique
Yes! If it has been found not to have adverse effects

How do they test if it has adverse effects? Animals!

ASK them if that helps them to relieve the pain.

As they slip into a coma because of lack of prior animal testing

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by Greg Bernhardt
How do they test if it has adverse effects? Animals!

As they slip into a coma because of lack of prior animal testing

You haven't read my previous posts, I agree with animal testing.

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.

I think putting an animal on a hot plate, to find out whether it relieves pain, it very cruel. Get a group of human volunteers, tell them that the drug has been tested to be safe. Ask them next time they get a headache to take the drug and see if it helps.

Ofcourse animal testing is still necessary to test if it is safe to administor and in what dose.. but that doesn't require the malicious act of torturing an animal for a simple thing as pain relievers.. we've got plenty of painrelievers already for the world to go around..

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Do you know how they test pain killers? The hot plate test. They stick a mouse on a hot plate and turn it on. They see how long it takes for the mouse start jumping up and down. They know they have an effective pain killer when the mouse just sits there and burns.

Cruel? Yup.

Have you got a better way for testing pain killers?

That may sound cruel to emotional beings like us, but it's really not. It would be cruel if the mouse felt pain, but if it never suffered at all, then it is just as "cruel" as killing it in its sleep.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Monique
You haven't read my previous posts, I agree with animal testing.

I think putting an animal on a hot plate, to find out whether it relieves pain, it very cruel. Get a group of human volunteers, tell them that the drug has been tested to be safe. Ask them next time they get a headache to take the drug and see if it helps.

Ofcourse animal testing is still necessary to test if it is safe to administor and in what dose.. but that doesn't require the malicious act of torturing an animal for a simple thing as pain relievers.. we've got plenty of painrelievers already for the world to go around..

Monique, the animal wasn't tortured, it didn't feel a thing...pain-killer worked, that is. I don't know what they do if it doesn't work, but I hope they save the little guy [b(].

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Monique
Yes! If it has been found not to have adverse effects, administer it to a human and ASK them if that helps them to relieve the pain.

That is just too cruel!

That wouldn't work. There's no control. No way to measure and quantify. And even if everybody told the truth, then you may have a drug that cures headaches. But you still wouldn't have something that would be applicable to, e.g., somebody getting their legs blown off by a landmine. The only way you could get it to work with humans is to commit injury. And any sane person won't volunteer to getting hurt. And nobody insane enough could give informed consent.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Mentat
That may sound cruel to emotional beings like us, but it's really not. It would be cruel if the mouse felt pain, but if it never suffered at all, then it is just as "cruel" as killing it in its sleep.

You are assuming that A. the pain killer worked, B. the correct dosage was given (also what the test is used to determine), and C. the drug never wears off. The only way mice are going to come out of the hot plate test without feeling pain is if the're ODed or if they catch fire and burn to death.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
You are assuming that A. the pain killer worked, B. the correct dosage was given (also what the test is used to determine), and C. the drug never wears off. The only way mice are going to come out of the hot plate test without feeling pain is if the're ODed or if they catch fire and burn to death.

Yeah, if they burn to death, then they never feel pain. I thought that was the point.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yeah, if they burn to death, then they never feel pain. I thought that was the point.

The point is to determine what drug and in what dose is need to control pain. So you're going to end up with a lot more mice with burnt feet than dead ones. And, I believe, they stop the test when the heat are clearly burning and the mouse is trying to figure out where all the smoke is coming from.

 

[Monique]

Didn't we have all those unfortunate scientists finding out the effects of drugs by accident some odd centuries ago? I think, let's just stick with that stuff and stop burning animals alive.

I'd have to agree though, the line is thin.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Thalidomide.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Thalidomide.

I'm sorry?

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Monique
I'm sorry?

Thalidomide. Google it. It's the textbook example of why animal testing is so necessary.

 

[Monique]

Yeah, well, there are only so many things that can be found out by testing on animals.. mistakes can happen too.

*edit* I have another one: DDT.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Monique
Yeah, well, there are only so many things that can be found out by testing on animals.. mistakes can happen too.

*edit* I have another one: DDT.

What does DDT have to due with testing drugs on animals?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
What does DDT have to due with testing drugs on animals?

DDT might ward off flies, but it's destructive to wildlife.

 

[Monique]

If you don't know why I said DDT, could you then explain why you said Thalidomide?

I said DDT, since for decennia people thought it was a very safe chemical, only harmfull to insect, not to humans. They used to shower themselves in that stuff and used it perfusely. Until they found out many years later that it in fact IS dangerous to humans, I believe it was causing some defect in fertility/developing embryo.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

monique:

Animal rights proponents often cite the drug Thalidomide as an example of the failure of animal testing. (Thalidomide caused unforeseen birth defects in pregnant European women during the 1960s.) In fact, every test of the drug on pregnant animals, regardless of species, showed that it caused birth defects. The drug was sold over-the-counter in Europe, however, before adequate animal testing and without tests on pregnant animals -- despite the fact that it was sold for morning sickness during pregnancy! The drug was never approved for such use in the U.S. because of questions about its safety. (Thalidomide was approved for leprosy.) Subsequent research on animals also showed that Thalidomide inhibits the growth of blood vessels -- the action that caused birth defects but that also makes the drug effective against multiple myeloma, a type of cancer.

- Americans for Medical Progress

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Monique
If you don't know why I said DDT, could you then explain why you said Thalidomide?

I said DDT, since for decennia people thought it was a very safe chemical, only harmfull to insect, not to humans. They used to shower themselves in that stuff and used it perfusely. Until they found out many years later that it in fact IS dangerous to humans, I believe it was causing some defect in fertility/developing embryo.

First off, DDT was never tested in clinical trials for human consumption. Secondly, the harmful effects of DDT is what it does to the environment, i.e. it gets in the food chain, is fat soluble, and is particularly harmful to birds of prey because it weakens egg shells. Thirdly, if extensive animal testing of DDT had occured, the damage may have been preventable. Although DDT was invented in the early twentieth century, and there wasn't that kind of environmental awareness there is today.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Monique
could you then explain why you said Thalidomide?

I'm serious. Go to google.com. Select images. Enter "thalidomide."

 

[Monique]

Greg: thank you for that little illumination :) So chemsuperfreak, we agree then that we should be carefull with drug safety. That still doesn't mean we are free to torture animals without any moral implications.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
I'm serious. Go to google.com. Select images. Enter "thalidomide."

Yeah, I know.. I just had never heard of that drug before. There also used to be a birth control pill, about one generation ago, which had long lasting effects. Woman who had taken the pill and later decided to get children also were confronted with genetic defects in their children.


Well, wouldn't you find THIS interesting.. the FDA is still performing tests with thalidomide on males and females.. http://www.fda.gov/cder/news/thalidomide.htm

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Monique



Well, wouldn't you find THIS interesting.. the FDA is still performing tests with thalidomide on males and females.. http://www.fda.gov/cder/news/thalidomide.htm

Oh, I know. It's been used to treat leprosy in India for years. The right enantiomer is perfectly safe for human consumption.

 

[jimmy p]

I am for animal testing for certain reason. I am against animal testing for cosmetics and things like that but for medicine and the good of nature (woah hippy-boy!) then testing on animals is important. I mean what is a 20 mice to countless humans AND animals...lol ur cat would prob eat them 20 mice...not very nice n I am sorry if i offend

 

[notal33t]

Animal testing-Whose testing WHO!

I once was an anthropomorhic centralist, that viewed "animals" as an exploitable resource. Until the day a dolphin decided to give me a wake up call by tossing a beach ball at my face while I was taking a picture of it at a marine park! As for the human race being the "top dog" brainwise on this planet, get real! Or better yet expand your conciousness to include "none technical species" as candidates for that role!

 

[Hurkyl]

Just to chime in with a little Devil's Advocate...


A lot of people have been against against testing for cosmetic purposes... the purpose is the same when testing for cosmetic purposes and when testing for medicinal purposes; to make sure that the chemicals aren't harmful.

Are you suggesting that people should cross their fingers and hope they don't get cancer from wearing make-up, or are you suggesting the cosmetics industry be shut down? Or do you have some alternative for making sure the stuff isn't harmful that doesn't require animal testing (and why wouldn't this alternative work with medicinal testing)?

 

[notal33t]

We are not alpha & omega!

Cosmetic "research" indeed! For mercy sake realize that this "research" causes untold suffering in species unable to communicate their agony in a way we "intelligent humans" seem to be capable of understanding! Perhaps having OUR race treated the same way by some alien "grey" race might wake us up! As for medical research.. Please PLEASE make sure the research is at least monitored by people not interested in making the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR!

 

[Monique]

I agree very much, I have never done anything related to animal research, so I really don't know how these things are regulated.

Can anyone tell me which organizations look out for the welfare of these animals, do they give yearly (and unexpected) inspections?

 

[Monique]

I mean, I have worked with radiochemicals and the regulations are very strict and tight. I have to write down where I worked with it, when, how much, moniter after using, moniter weekly and monthy even when not using it. We got yearly training and inspection by OESH and can expect someone from the federal nuclear inspection to walk in and try to get to our radiochemicals to see how close he can get to it. Something similar for labanimals? Does animal sanity get monitored?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Just to chime in with a little Devil's Advocate...


A lot of people have been against against testing for cosmetic purposes... the purpose is the same when testing for cosmetic purposes and when testing for medicinal purposes; to make sure that the chemicals aren't harmful.

Are you suggesting that people should cross their fingers and hope they don't get cancer from wearing make-up, or are you suggesting the cosmetics industry be shut down? Or do you have some alternative for making sure the stuff isn't harmful that doesn't require animal testing (and why wouldn't this alternative work with medicinal testing)?

I think what we are saying is that the animal testing done for cosmetic purposes ins't necessary or humane. We already know plenty of non-harmful ways to make cosmetics, and if they can'[t test new ways without mutilating animals, then that's their tough luck, isn't it?