Animal Testing

[nabbig2]

> 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.

Testing on humans is more efficient because we get to directly test out the features on humans; it saves time. Animals are very different genetically, and sometimes they get reactions that humans don't get, and vice versa.

I see, people are tested on to a very small extent. But I'm talking about full on human testing.

As to your comment about me not seeing 'tests'-you have made an incorrect assumption. I have seen and read among the most gruesome tests performed on animals and humans. Nevertheless, I still personally prefer that humans be tested on rather than animals.

 

[vypur85]

> full on human testing

Ok. I'll give you a scenario: I want to design a drug which cures stroke.

First, you need a stroke patient. How many stroke patients out there you can find? Even if you can, do you think their relatives will allow you to test on them? So, think about it. Is this efficient?

Animals are used in this case (rats or mouse). They are induced to have stroke. Now, why not induce human instead? Who wants to volunteer? Also, always bear in mind, the drug is still only in 'designing' stage. It may not even work at all.


> Animals are very different genetically, and sometimes they get reactions that humans don't get, and vice versa

True. But we try to get as closely related as possible. Rats, mouse, monkeys, etc...

 

[nabbig2]

> full on human testing

Ok. I'll give you a scenario: I want to design a drug which cures stroke.

First, you need a stroke patient. How many stroke patients out there you can find? Even if you can, do you think their relatives will allow you to test on them? So, think about it. Is this efficient?

Animals are used in this case (rats or mouse). They are induced to have stroke. Now, why not induce human instead? Who wants to volunteer? Also, always bear in mind, the drug is still only in 'designing' stage. It may not even work at all.


> Animals are very different genetically, and sometimes they get reactions that humans don't get, and vice versa


True. But we try to get as closely related as possible. Rats, mouse, monkeys, etc...

Oh yes, I see your point on the patient thing. In today's society nobody would volunteer for horrendous experiments, and that is hardly efficient at all. My beliefs are that the the fittest will take over and use the "weaker" humans for testing-that would be perfectly effecient for the fit humans, wouldn't it? (I am not racist, hell no, just so that you know. I hate humanity as one. But the fit humans could certainly consist of different ethnicities.)

-True. But we try to get as closely related as possible. Rats, mouse, monkeys, etc...

Yes, we do get animals as closely related as possible-but there is one more that is even more closely related-homo sapiens.

-Also, always bear in mind, the drug is still only in 'designing' stage. It may not even work at all.

Yes, certainly and obviously. But if you are testing on humans, it does not matter-humans will die and suffer either way. When testing is conducted on animals, drugs are also in the same stage, and may prove to have been uselessly tested on animals.

 

[vypur85]

> it does not matter - humans will die

Who wants to do it? Almost none. Prisoners?


I understand what you feel about animal testings. I never liked this as well. I never liked killing anything. I mean, I've seen animals being killed humanely, and I still feel sad. I see rats, mouse, guinea pigs (they're damn cute), rabbits (cute too!) etc... in cages. They're bred just to be tested. And in the end, will be killed (humanely). Sometimes, you can feel that these animals are crying. I feel sad too... But... The most you can do is by feeding them something nice for their final meal... Sigh...

 

[nabbig2]

> it does not matter - humans will die

Who wants to do it? Almost none. Prisoners?


I understand what you feel about animal testings. I never liked this as well. I never liked killing anything. I mean, I've seen animals being killed humanely, and I still feel sad. I see rats, mouse, guinea pigs (they're damn cute), rabbits (cute too!) etc... in cages. They're bred just to be tested. And in the end, will be killed (humanely). Sometimes, you can feel that these animals are crying. I feel sad too... But... The most you can do is by feeding them something nice for their final meal... Sigh...

Who wants to test on the humans? Well as sick as it may seem, there are a lot of people who are willing to do such a thing (and have done so in the past.)

Yes, I see your statement. I share your feelings about animals being killed. I realize that I can try my hardest but I will end up harming animals one way or another. Being bred to be tested is truely a miserable life from birth to death-and animals that are tested on are rarely killed humanely (at least by my standards). But nevertheless, I hold to my beliefs that humans deserve suffering and would have no probem with doing it myself in a society that accepts the practice. I also believe that animals should not be subservient to humans, and not to mention suffer immensely in the process.

Nevertheless... I'm no serial killer or anything lol