Animal Testing

[TheDamien]

Animals shoudn't be tested on. Just make healthier products and it removes the need for them.

It isn't like products are developed to be unsafe or unhealthy, and that they can be made "healthier" on a whim. If preliminary testing indicates that a product is safe, how are researchers to know that it isn't? Only animal testing can provide that minimal guarantee of safety. Drugs, food additives and all manner of things also go through the same sort of testing to establish that same standard of consumer safety.

Don't get the idea that animal experimentation is limited to testing products and additives, though. It is much wider and encompasses many fields. There is no reason to sacrifice so much over such a trifling ethical issue.

Possibly make up some chemical mixture and see how it reacts to the product?

Although things like chemical tests, computer modeling and cell cultures can be used in conjunction with animal testing to provide better results and reduce the amount of testing necessary, there are very few cases in which the need for animal testing can be obviated completely.

The sad fact is that there are no real alternatives to animal testing at this point in time.

 

[FireCat]

@Varine "nothing at all. fine"

I know some people begin to test on something so they not needed a animal anymore, but I don't remember what it was they used instead .

So it's possible sqrage

 

[Seb!]

If any alternative was plausible, it would be carried out. No one wants to hurt animals, but if that is the only way to assure that tested and safe products pass into the market, then so be it.

 

[Prometheus]

The sad fact is that there are no real alternatives to animal testing at this point in time.

It's called human testing.
The product should be safe enough in the testing phase, so humans can use it.

 

[Seb!]

The terrible truth is that there are some cases in which safety cannot be determined without prior testing. If they think a certain product is safe enough, it is moved to clinical trial.

If not, animals are used to guarantee that humans will not be placed in harm's way. There are more intelligent people worrying about this. If there was an alternative, it would be taken. Do you think that they simply want to test animals for the fun of it?

 

[vypur85]

> I am pretty sure some do that for fun and for curiosity!

Then those 'some' are just jackasses in the scientific community. But other than that, animal testing is inevitable.


And, you guys do realise that animal testing does not only involve drugs and injections? Please don't forget genetic and developmental testings.

Imagine you want to understand the function of a gene which controls the development of eyes. Silence this gene, and the eye won't develop. Express this gene, and the eyes start to develop. Say you want to proof that this gene is indeed the eye gene. You need to either silence the gene or express the gene. Silence this gene, and you won't get eyes developing on your face. Express this gene on the hand, you probably might get eye development on your hand. Is it even possible? How would you know? Now, would you do it on humans? (Actually, it is indeed possible to express eyes gene in some other parts of the anatomy).

No, plants do not have eyes. You can't do it on plants in terms of this. And no, you cannot create a pseudo-eye and then play around with it. And no, no one would even want to volunteer to do this. Besides, to be able to test this, the test has to be made on embryonic stem cells, the point where 'baby' has not been differentiated yet. Who's going to give their baby away for such tests?

 

[Varine]

It's called human testing.
The product should be safe enough in the testing phase, so humans can use it.

Uhh no. That's why they test it.

 

[Prometheus]

Uhh no. That's why they test it.

I'm going to go with the line...
"Animals have feelings too."
Animals can feel pain, just because they can't express it like us doesn't mean we should treat them like testing dummies.

 

[Varine]

I'm going to go with the line...
"Animals have feelings too."
Animals can feel pain, just because they can't express it like us doesn't mean we should treat them like testing dummies.

... and...?

 

[Prometheus]

I thought I finished my point?
"Animals shouldn't be our testing dummies"

 

[Varine]

I thought I finished my point?
"Animals shouldn't be our testing dummies"

Because they have feelings? Since when does anyone care about feelings?

 

[Prometheus]

Because they have feelings? Since when does anyone care about feelings?

Varine, not everyone conforms to your ideals.
There are a large portion of people who want to protect the enviroment, animals, ect.

 

[Varine]

Varine, not everyone conforms to your ideals.
There are a large portion of people who want to protect the enviroment, animals, ect.

Yeah. But there's a larger portion that doesn't really care because they want medicine that's not going to kill them. And as I recall I recently given a little red notice from you telling me to watch my language. Not everyone is going to conform to your ideals; a large portion of people are fine with the words I choose to use.

 

[sqrage]

Let's try to keep these debates above 3rd grade level debating, else we might lose debates all together. :thup:

 

[Aqua Dragon]

As stated several times already, there is simply no better alternative then animal testing at the current moment.

If you can't get everything you want, settle for the next best possible option

 

[esb]

Feelings are a BS excuse. Seriously. Homosexuals have feelings and they aren't cared about. Immigrants have feelings and they're deported. We all have feelings which aren't cared for. So please, stop with the feelings stuff. I don't want to feel sick, so instead someone is going to test something on an animal for a while, and I won't have that sick feeling anymore.
Call me selfish, but that's what we are.

 

[FireCat]

Because they have feelings? Since when does anyone care about feelings?

I care..what is wrong with feelings?

 

[Flare]

While I don't agree with animal testing, it's difficult to say that there is an alternative - while I don't particularly like either option, I'd rather spare a human life.

Just make healthier products and it removes the need for them. Possibly make up some chemical mixture and see how it reacts to the product?

1) How are we supposed to know if the product is healthier without being able to test it on anything and, in particular, make a comparison between the "healthier" version of the product and the older version). It isn't much good to find a different test subject (species) for a new form of a product since they may have very different reactions and could falsely indicate that a new product is better/worse than its previous form.

2) What good would that do? Considering all the different substances which make up the body, it would take far too long to test each substance individually and, even with that, a product may not react with a single substance, but with a mixture of 2+ substances, which would result in an infinite number of tests, which would mean it'd take decades (if not more) to have a product that is safe for human use and, by the time that comes, the need for the product may no longer exist, or it may not be usable (if, say, it was a vaccine and the disease it had become so widespread that a vaccine wouldn't be of any use)

The product should be safe enough in the testing phase

If there's nothing to test on, how can there be a testing phase to begin with? Anyway, due to the chemical complexity of input substances and output substances, there's no way to guarantee that the product will be safe (or that it's unsafe) without having something to test on in the first place - if you had to choose between a family member or your pet to have a potentially fatal product tested on, which would you choose?

 

[TheDamien]

It's called human testing.
The product should be safe enough in the testing phase, so humans can use it.

The point of the testing phase is to ensure that the product is safe for humans.

I'm going to go with the line...
"Animals have feelings too."
Animals can feel pain, just because they can't express it like us doesn't mean we should treat them like testing dummies.

It seems likely to me that some animals are capable of rudimentary conscious experience, but I highly doubt that rabbits and mice can actually "feel" pain in the way that humans can.

Feelings are a BS excuse. Seriously. Homosexuals have feelings and they aren't cared about. Immigrants have feelings and they're deported. We all have feelings which aren't cared for. So please, stop with the feelings stuff.

This is a good point. I bet you the world would be a much nicer place if everyone valued humans as much as activists value animals.

 

[Nigerianrulz]

I actually agree with animal testing,although its not something we want to do, at all.
But if it wasn't for the animals, i think many vaccines and medicine wouldn't be available to be used,

e.g. snake's venom, they would use animals to make the anti dotes which would saves thousands of lives each year.