Is there anything wrong with animal testing?

[Ormiston]

I think no. Am I just delirious or what?

 

[NoName]

I don't think so. It's better than letting it get onto the market and then finding out it's lethal, and having a bunch of dead people, instead of a few dead rats.

 

[LikeMothsToFlame]

Animal testing > human testing > no testing at all

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

Well, it depends on the specifics of the situation, whether the method being used is most humane possible that will still accomplish what's necessary, good care for the animals being tested on outside the testing, that sort of thing. I don't think it's inherently wrong, but I think it can be done the wrong way.

 

[Buttons*]

animals arent the same as people... so why should we test things on animals if its not going to affect us in the same way anyhow?

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

no, why should we test potentially lethal products on our own species? It's safer to use the animals.

 

[Buttons*]

no, why should we test potentially lethal products on our own species? It's safer to use the animals.

Why do we make potentially lethal products? Why dont we test on people who want to die? There do exist people who would donate their bodies to science...

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

we don't know the effects they will have on humans if they are not first tested.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Test animals? Why, do you think THEY know the answers???

In reality, I have no issue with testing on animals.

 

[painted wolf]

I think that for some reserch it is nessisary, but for many applications, animal testing is poorly done and unnessisary.
Many drugs work brilliantly on animals and end up be disasterous for humans... we are often too dissimiler for many drug tests to be accuate indicators. Not only in terms of our physiologies but by sheer fact that we are larger and metaboloically tuned fundimentally differently.

however for some testing, such as genetics and what have you, animals are good measures of success... for all our differences basic genetic, molecular and celluar function is the same.

So, drugs and chemicals = highly suspect IMHO
genetic therapy and humanly conducted sergical procedures = ok under the right circumstances IMHO

wa:do

 

[almifkhar]

i will just reply with a question

is there anything wrong with human testing?

 

[nutshell]

I'm fine with animal testing as long as it is for the purpose of expanding our medical knowledge, however, I do draw the line when cosmetic companies start injecting their products into the eyes of bunnies. Inhumane because it is unnecessary.

 

[michel]

I'm fine with animal testing as long as it is for the purpose of expanding our medical knowledge, however, I do draw the line when cosmetic companies start injecting their products into the eyes of bunnies. Inhumane because it is unnecessary.

I agree. I think it ought to be on a strict basis of only for medical advancement, and even then I am not happy with the idea. Painted Wolf makes valid points though, there are cases when the results of trials on animals has given the 'wrong' results as far as humans are concerned.

The way I look at it is this; If one of my children, or my wife was sick, and their life depended on a medicine which would not have been in use had it not been tested on animals...........well, I'll leave it there. It's a nasty one, whichever way you look at it.

 

[Saw11_2000]

I have always wondered why we don't test new medications and stuff on criminals who are on death row. They're going to die anyways, and plus, this might help to repay their debt they caused. Since they're humans, we wouldn't have any weird cross-compatibility issues like those we sometimes see with animals. Anyone else think this is acceptable/proper?

 

[Ryan2065]

animals arent the same as people... so why should we test things on animals if its not going to affect us in the same way anyhow?

Mice are extremely similar to humans... through cloning and genetic experiments, we can genetically engineer mice to have dna very similar to a human (more so than they already are) and genetic testing on animals can potentially save many many lives of human test subjects.

 

[nutshell]

I have always wondered why we don't test new medications and stuff on criminals who are on death row. They're going to die anyways, and plus, this might help to repay their debt they caused. Since they're humans, we wouldn't have any weird cross-compatibility issues like those we sometimes see with animals. Anyone else think this is acceptable/proper?

I'm not sure I would actually want to go there, although the idea is tempting.

The ACLU would certainly have a fit.

 

[Saw11_2000]

That's why we would keep it a secret. They can't argue with something they don't know about.

 

[Solon]

no, why should we test potentially lethal products on our own species? It's safer to use the animals.

they didn't do very well with testing many drugs, one thinks recently about a certain anti-inflammatory, now wthdrawn.The adverse affects only became apparent after a number of years. The value of using animals is dubious at best, misleading at worst. Quite apart from that, it is quite clear that many experiments, especially those outside of medical research are unethical, and should be banned forwith.

S

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I have always wondered why we don't test new medications and stuff on criminals who are on death row. They're going to die anyways, and plus, this might help to repay their debt they caused. Since they're humans, we wouldn't have any weird cross-compatibility issues like those we sometimes see with animals. Anyone else think this is acceptable/proper?

The nazi's in Germany did a lot of medical testing on prisoners. after all they were going to kill them anyway. Kept it secret for quite a long time to.

never was never will be a good idea.

Terry_____________________________
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

 

[Sunstone]

I have always wondered why we don't test new medications and stuff on criminals who are on death row. They're going to die anyways, and plus, this might help to repay their debt they caused. Since they're humans, we wouldn't have any weird cross-compatibility issues like those we sometimes see with animals. Anyone else think this is acceptable/proper?

Wouldn't that constitute cruel and unusual punnishment?