Animal Testing

FireCat

Oh Shi.. Don't wake the tiger!
Reaction score
530
e.g. snake's venom, they would use animals to make the anti dotes which would saves thousands of lives each year.
well they don't taste the snake venom on them self or give them some chemical to see if working or not. on that I don't see they harm the snake.

Something to think about
Based upon the traditional assumption that animals respond the same way that humans do when exposed to certain products, animals are continually used to test safety and/or effectiveness of drugs, household and personal care products, chemicals, medical devices, etc. However, animals are not 'LITTLE PEOPLE,' and their bodies often respond DIFFERENTLY than HUMANS. As a result, the animal-based testing methods continue to fail legitimate human needs, while new discoveries in the field of alternatives have led to new and improved techniques that do not involve live animals.
 
Reaction score
332
well they don't taste the snake venom on them self or give them some chemical to see if working or not. on that I don't see they harm the snake.

Human experimentation is not a valid alternative.

Something to think about
Based upon the traditional assumption that animals respond the same way that humans do when exposed to certain products, animals are continually used to test safety and/or effectiveness of drugs, household and personal care products, chemicals, medical devices, etc. However, animals are not 'LITTLE PEOPLE,' and their bodies often respond DIFFERENTLY than HUMANS. As a result, the animal-based testing methods continue to fail legitimate human needs, while new discoveries in the field of alternatives have led to new and improved techniques that do not involve live animals.

I can tell you for one thing that this is tripe. Animals would not be experimented on if the results did not have implications for human safety. The fact is that if something is toxic or carcinogenic or causes liver damage in a mouse it is probably going to have similar results in a human being.

If animal testing wasn't necessary, it wouldn't be done.
 

Flare

Stops copies me!
Reaction score
662
As a result, the animal-based testing methods continue to fail legitimate human needs, while new discoveries in the field of alternatives have led to new and improved techniques that do not involve live animals.
Well, until those techniques-in-development become reliable and viable enough for mainstream usage, there isn't much that can be done.
Unless of course, you want to put other humans in danger. If you think about the first smallpox vaccine, would you like to have been the boy that Jenner had inoculated with smallpox, and risked dying from smallpox as a result?
 

Varine

And as the moon rises, we shall prepare for war
Reaction score
803
The bodies function in essentially the same way. It's not as if the animals that are used in tests don't have the same basic parts that are being examined for damages. If you give a rat cancer, it's not going to be a special rat cancer that people can't get. Or whatever other disease.
 

esb

Because none of us are as cruel as all of us.
Reaction score
328
It would be ironical if people conducted tests on humans instead of animals. Why? Because the point of testing on animals, is so that humans don't die and/or suffer. Yet while making these products and medicines, who knows how many people would die. It's different from saying "100 mice died because of this shampoo" than "100 people died because of this shampoo". And no, shampoo probably wasn't the best example, and they probably ended up with 100 mice anyway, but I hope you get my point.
Also, for those saying they'd rather have human experiments, I'm sure you wouldn't say that when it's you or someone you care about that is up for experiment testing.
 

FireCat

Oh Shi.. Don't wake the tiger!
Reaction score
530
It would be ironical if people conducted tests on humans instead of animals. Why? Because the point of testing on animals, is so that humans don't die and/or suffer. Yet while making these products and medicines, who knows how many people would die. It's different from saying "100 mice died because of this shampoo" than "100 people died because of this shampoo". And no, shampoo probably wasn't the best example, and they probably ended up with 100 mice anyway, but I hope you get my point.
Also, for those saying they'd rather have human experiments, I'm sure you wouldn't say that when it's you or someone you care about that is up for experiment testing.

I agree with we cannot test on humans, and I agree that many medical breakthroughs have come from animal testing, yes, but that was when we HAD nothing else. Many companies perform unnecessary animal tests, as there are some required by law. Why not use these more sophisticated tests? When more complex science exists, we no longer need to stoop to this level. We know cigarettes are dangerous. Why do we still perform smoking tests on dogs and monkeys? There's no scientific value in it. Just because they can't speak doesn't make them stupid, or incapable of feeling, thought, or fear. All this in the name of science? I don't think so.

A simple mental exercise: do you still believe that animal testing is acceptable?
Imagine that we, as humans, are not in the position we are in now; imagine we share the earth with a species of higher intelligence and ability than ourselves. Now imagine that this higher species decides that it is time to find a cure for the common cold, or much more likely, wishes to test a new shampoo. Of course they are not going to test it on themselves, instead they will use you - a simple human. When the time comes,you are taken out of your cage and restrained on a science table. A member of this higher species proceeds to rub shampoo into your eyes, just to see what happens. Now, as a test subject against your will
 

Varine

And as the moon rises, we shall prepare for war
Reaction score
803
I agree with we cannot test on humans, and I agree that many medical breakthroughs have come from animal testing, yes, but that was when we HAD nothing else. Many companies perform unnecessary animal tests, as there are some required by law. Why not use these more sophisticated tests? When more complex science exists, we no longer need to stoop to this level. We know cigarettes are dangerous. Why do we still perform smoking tests on dogs and monkeys? There's no scientific value in it. Just because they can't speak doesn't make them stupid, or incapable of feeling, thought, or fear. All this in the name of science? I don't think so.

They're unhealthy, but do we know to what extent they actually damage the body directly? No. So we continue to experiment because people would like to know that. There is no other alternative that can be used with much certainty because we can't just create a lifeform that has a body that functions similarly to us to test on. Even if we could it would be way too expensive for most research.
 
Reaction score
332
I agree with we cannot test on humans, and I agree that many medical breakthroughs have come from animal testing, yes, but that was when we HAD nothing else.

We have little more now. Cell cultures and computer simulations can only substitute for animal testing in a small range of cases. Where these methods can be used, they will be, but by no means can they substitute for animal testing in any reasonable sense.

Many companies perform unnecessary animal tests, as there are some required by law. Why not use these more sophisticated tests? When more complex science exists, we no longer need to stoop to this level. We know cigarettes are dangerous. Why do we still perform smoking tests on dogs and monkeys? There's no scientific value in it. Just because they can't speak doesn't make them stupid, or incapable of feeling, thought, or fear. All this in the name of science? I don't think so.

The fact that some of these tests are required by law seems to indicate that they are not as entirely unnecessary as your source suggests. I would rather we avoid testing on monkeys and great apes, but trying to discredit animal testing and experimentation as a whole by focusing on a very small minority of cases is a flawed and disingenuous approach to the issue. I think it shows that the animal activists really have no better material to go by.

Imagine that we, as humans, are not in the position we are in now; imagine we share the earth with a species of higher intelligence and ability than ourselves. Now imagine that this higher species decides that it is time to find a cure for the common cold, or much more likely, wishes to test a new shampoo. Of course they are not going to test it on themselves, instead they will use you - a simple human. When the time comes,you are taken out of your cage and restrained on a science table. A member of this higher species proceeds to rub shampoo into your eyes, just to see what happens. Now, as a test subject against your will

This isn't a "mental exercise", it is a shameless emotional appeal to distract us from the real issue. The important difference here is that we know humans are conscious and so can consciously suffer. We can not say the same for a mouse or a guinea pig (or even a dog, really).
 

Romek

Super Moderator
Reaction score
963
It looks like the same point is constantly being repeated here now.
So lets add another suggestion. I wonder how it'll go. :p

If we shouldn't test on animals, why don't we test on Humans who have been sentenced to death anyway. If it fails, then they die anyway, otherwise, the scientists keep him/her and do more experiments.

Before you start about human rights. The person has none. That's why they're going to be killed. :)

Thanks for the great debating everyone! :D
 

FireCat

Oh Shi.. Don't wake the tiger!
Reaction score
530
This isn't a "mental exercise", it is a shameless emotional appeal to distract us from the real issue.
why shameless, it's only the true really.

The important difference here is that we know humans are conscious and so can consciously suffer. We can not say the same for a mouse or a guinea pig (or even a dog, really).
No one can be sure or tell the true if you not are a mouse or a dog you self who could say how it's for real.
 
Reaction score
332
why shameless, it's only the true really.

Because it appeals to your emotions rather than your reason. On closer inspection, we see that the situation outlined can only be ethically wrong because humans are intelligent, sentient, beings.

No one can be sure or tell the true if you not are a mouse or a dog you self.

This does not make sense.

It looks like the same point is constantly being repeated here now.
So lets add another suggestion. I wonder how it'll go. :p

It is being repeated for a reason.

If we shouldn't test on animals, why don't we test on Humans who have been sentenced to death anyway. If it fails, then they die anyway, otherwise, the scientists keep him/her and do more experiments.

Before you start about human rights. The person has none. That's why they're going to be killed. :)

They may not have legal rights (technically they still do, but this isn't an important distinction), but they are still capable of suffering.
 

FireCat

Oh Shi.. Don't wake the tiger!
Reaction score
530
If we shouldn't test on animals, why don't we test on Humans who have been sentenced to death anyway. If it fails, then they die anyway, otherwise, the scientists keep him/her and do more experiments.

Before you start about human rights. The person has none. That's why they're going to be killed. :)
I am towards on that to even if they die one day.
 

esb

Because none of us are as cruel as all of us.
Reaction score
328
If we shouldn't test on animals, why don't we test on Humans who have been sentenced to death anyway. If it fails, then they die anyway, otherwise, the scientists keep him/her and do more experiments.

Before you start about human rights. The person has none. That's why they're going to be killed. :)

Death penalty to me makes no difference to any other person. EVERYONE is going to die, eventually. The only difference with Death penalty is that they know when. So saying 'they're going to die anyway' is a pretty lame reason. Might as well test on people with terminal diseases, STDs, old people, hospitalized people in critical condition, etc. They're going to die anyway.

Also, next thing you know we will have a Human Activist group in here making a debate on why we shouldn't test on Humans. Joined by Animal activists.
 

Dr.Jack

That's Cap'n to you!
Reaction score
108
Guys, I just read the whole debate, and man, there were some immature posts. Please, let's try to avoid flames, spams and useless posts, else I think I may have to lock it.

As for my opinion. I support strongly medicines to be tested on animals. Medicines raise the the quality and length of life, I think we all agree stopping the invention of medicines is unrealistic. As for those of you saying we don't have to test on animals, the truth is we do. Maybe we should try to invest in creating a 'lab organ' (or so) to test medicines on, however, at the moment animal testing is the best we can do. For those of you who support human-testing over animal testing... Well, I fail to see your logic to be bluntly honest. The sad thing is that even animal-testing isn't accurate.

As for testing cosmetic products on animals. Here I really didn't make my mind yet. On one hand stopping the creation/invention of cosmetic products is an economic disaster (and god knows we don't need another one right now). On the other hand are cosmetics really important as animals? Can we ethically test on animals products that just make as look or smell better?

Lastly, there are some videos and articles of animals being abused while being tested. I think the responsible ones are to be punished with no excuses. The very least we can is test on animals in a nice environment where they don't suffer.
 

Flare

Stops copies me!
Reaction score
662
why don't we test on Humans who have been sentenced to death anyway. If it fails, then they die anyway, otherwise, the scientists keep him/her and do more experiments.
That would be a fairly limited alternative, since if a drug expected to be required for long-term use (or that the drug's effects won't be seen properly after a short period of time) such as something to inhibit the development of cancer, the person may very well be executed before that time, which makes that a pretty meaningless test since there wouldn't be enough time to see any results, or any non-lethal side-effects (since the drug may have killed the person before their scheduled execution date)

Also, is there enough people-awaiting-execution with the required ailment to allow for a suitable sample size that would allow for a good indication of whether the drug works or not.

Before you start about human rights. The person has none. That's why they're going to be killed
Sentenced to death because they have no rights? They were probably sentenced to death because they killed one or more people (the specific crime isn't really important here). They may not have rights (well, I can't see why they shouldn't be entitled to any humans rights, but that's not really the point) but that's not why they are going to be executed...

Bleh, almost forgot - what about countries that don't support the death penalty? How are scientists in those countries supposed to test new products if there is nobody awaiting execution?
 

Seb!

You can change this now in User CP.
Reaction score
144
If we shouldn't test on animals, why don't we test on Humans who have been sentenced to death anyway. If it fails, then they die anyway, otherwise, the scientists keep him/her and do more experiments.

First of all, capital punishment itself can barely be justified.

Second of all, a large portion of death row is often proved innocent. Sadly, this most frequently happens after death. If society were to test products on these inmates, and then these same inmates were later excused.. This situation is almost medieval and is not acceptable under any circumstances.

Most importantly, being on death row doesn't mean that you're not human. We don't test on death row for the same reason that we don't have preliminary human trials: human beings have the most awareness of any species, and can understand and experience their pain more, as well.
 

Miz

Administrator
Reaction score
428
Animal Testing is needed, how evil it maybe, for any medical advances to happen. Animal Testing is needed, or a drug could be too powerful and kill the patient or too weak and do nothing.

We can't test it on anything other animals, because mirco-organisms are too tiny and we can't even tell with that. Plants are too different, and of course we can't use other humans.

It looks like the same point is constantly being repeated here now.
So lets add another suggestion. I wonder how it'll go. :p

If we shouldn't test on animals, why don't we test on Humans who have been sentenced to death anyway. If it fails, then they die anyway, otherwise, the scientists keep him/her and do more experiments.

Before you start about human rights. The person has none. That's why they're going to be killed. :)

Humans whether there going to die or not, are still human. Humans have emotions we can understand and they can talk back in our own language. We know they can feel the same pain and sorrow as us. (I am not saying animals can't ether, but for animals its different.) And even if in death row they still have rights, they have the right to speak, breathe and live (for how long they have left). Though not saying I like animal's being tested on, it's just testing it on human's breaks every part of our society and every law we made to protect human rights...
 

nabbig2

New Member
Reaction score
43
Animal Testing is needed, how evil it maybe, for any medical advances to happen. Animal Testing is needed, or a drug could be too powerful and kill the patient or too weak and do nothing.

We can't test it on anything other animals, because mirco-organisms are too tiny and we can't even tell with that. Plants are too different, and of course we can't use other humans.



Humans whether there going to die or not, are still human. Humans have emotions we can understand and they can talk back in our own language. We know they can feel the same pain and sorrow as us. (I am not saying animals can't ether, but for animals its different.) And even if in death row they still have rights, they have the right to speak, breathe and live (for how long they have left). Though not saying I like animal's being tested on, it's just testing it on human's breaks every part of our society and every law we made to protect human rights...

Animals have emotions and can communicate in their own languages as well.

As for the bolded part-so you believe that simply because it is the law of the government and society, it is right? Do you realize that testing on animals is horribly inefficient, and that testing on humans would make products much safer?

Also I want to ask Seb!: Why do you believe that we shouldn't test on whales, dolphins, or great apes?


Anyway, I certainly see that animal testing has probably saved my ass. Nevertheless I would prefer that humans be tested. Why not? Because one would be emotionally offended by it? I say survival of the fittest. And no, of course I would not support the testing of somebody I love. (Yes, I sound like a misanthropic asshole, but not everybody has to conform to society's beliefs, so get over it.)
 

vypur85

Hibernate
Reaction score
803
> Do you realize that testing on animals is horribly inefficient, and that testing on humans would make products much safer?

Errr... You're probably getting this a little wrong. Animal testing inefficient? Yeah. But of course for a reason. So what makes you think testing on humans is more efficient?

And, you must always understand that human testing does happen. And it is in practice, legally. It only depends on what stage it's being carried out. There are clinical trials, where patients are tested.


> Why not?

Hehehe... This is a very strong question. You've not seen 'tests' before.
 
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.

      The Helper Discord

      Members online

      Affiliates

      Hive Workshop NUON Dome World Editor Tutorials

      Network Sponsors

      Apex Steel Pipe - Buys and sells Steel Pipe.
      Top