animal testing

[Elmo]

i've just been writing an essay for one of my biology subjects and in one of the papers i was using for research it was talking about an experiment done using animals. Basically they had one "germ-free" animal which had no "good bacteria" in its body, and one "conventional" animal which did have "good bacteria". Now, i was wondering why they did it on animals and not on humans, and it appears to me that it's because if we had no "good bacteria" in our bodies, we'd be as good as immunosuppressed (open to infection), which clearly isnt good and could well kill us. So why did they do the experiment on animals? well you kinda have to weigh up the pros and cons of it all. pros are that the knowledge of certain biological processes in the body will be increased and/or new cures/vaccines/drugs can be made to treat certain illnesses. Cons - many animals die/become severely disabled leading to being put down and some people reckon that animals dont have rights.

So, in a nut shell, i really dont know what to think about the practice. I think it's cruel, but without it, we wouldnt have a lot of the drugs/cures/vaccines we have today.

so guys what do you think?

[Ant]

I voted NO, but then I thought about it a bit longer... I suppose like you said it has helped us a lot developing new medicines etc.

I would only have to say its okay as long as it is for extremely benificial reasons, and even then, as long as they are extremely professional about it.

Definately not for stupid reason like cosmetics etc, thats just cruel.

This is another one of those topics which I'm sure some people have some very strong views about.

ant

[petrefax]

its a very emotive subject & one i'm sure will provoke much debate.

my 2p - whilst it would be preferable that no creature suffers, ever. thats just not gonna happen so i agree with animal research but only if there is evidence that its neccesary to advance medical knowledge on diseases & potential cures which will prevent or minimise human suffering or death, where there's no other alternative available, and research methodology is as humane as possible.

there comes a time in the testing of most drugs / treatments where its no longer possible to surmise, theorise or extrapolate from current data & you have to test. its not like drugs / treatments aren't tested on humans tho - testing on animals is usually the penultimate stage of testing, the final stage of testing is then (obviously depending on what drugs / treatments we're talking about) done by way of clinical trials etc

[Skii]

Well my missus has been told to watch her back on her way into work - she works for a Fire detection systems company that just happens to have a contract with Huntingdon Labs for their fire Extinguishers and equipment. they were all called into a board meeting on Friday PM to be told that Animal Rights nutters are targetting them because they associate with an Animal Testing establishment.


Sorry - not really related to the discussion but just spooky as this subject just came up.

My views - yep for Medical resarch, definately no-no for cosmetics.

[DaBeeeenster]

Read an interesting fact the other day. If all the money spent on cosmetics in the world were instead spent on welfare, everyone on the planet would have enough to eat. Makes you think really.

[DaBeeeenster]

The problem really regarding testing for medical reasons, is that it's very hard to draw a line. Where do you stop testing on animals based on the following diseases:

- Cancer
- Leaukemia
- MS
- Blindness
- Deafness
- Clinical Depression
- Acne

I dont know. Its tricky. I'm thinking that, unless it is a life threatening disease, I wouldn't want animals to be tested. Then again if I were blind I would probably argue differently.

[[GSV]Trig]

For medical research and stuff yes, for makeup and rubbish like that its stupid...

I think they should do testing on people in prison tbh, not like speeders and petty criminals but the more hard core serial killer types...

[DaBeeeenster]

For medical research and stuff yes, for makeup and rubbish like that its stupid...

I think they should do testing on people in prison tbh, not like speeders and petty criminals but the more hard core serial killer types...

Erm, you are joking, arent you?

[[GSV]Trig]

No, if your going to test something for use on humans why test it on a pig?
Testing it on humans will give you proper results that testing on a pig wont....

[Skii]

<pulls up a nice comfy chair - open pop-corn and fizzy drink>

[megah0]

I have worked in research using animals and belive it or not we care deeply about the welfare of the animals involved. In my case we used mice but other animals such as rabbits and a plethora of invertebrates were also in use. At every stage prior to the sacrifice of the animal the wellbeing and comfort of the animal was paramount, the methods of sacrifice used were the most humane and painless available.

The research I was doing involved the reaction of the immune system to parasites, an important concern in agriculture and human health with an aim to developing a drug treatment.


All the staff with whom I worked were fiercely againt the use of animals in the cosmetic industry but there is a need for their use, it is far far better for a couple of dozen rats go blind from a shampoo than even one child, I know that is a simplistic and emotive example but it is an important consideration.

My vote would be somewhere between the first two options.

[revol68]

the problem with animal testing is that 90% of it is repeats of tests that have been done before, also generalising between humans and other species is generally not a good idea and has led to some pretty bad screw ups..

anyway don't have time now but ill have a longer response soon..

as for the idiot who said we should test on prisoners it is more a reflection on your own babarism than anythingelse... more to follow after i get some grub.

[Skii]

as for the idiot who said we should test on prisoners it is more a reflection on your own babarism than anythingelse... more to follow after i get some grub.

Revol I wish you would stop using the insults.

[Russ]

the problem with animal testing is that 90% of it is repeats of tests that have been done before

url?

[Elmo]

the problem with animal testing is that 90% of it is repeats of tests that have been done before, also generalising between humans and other species is generally not a good idea and has led to some pretty bad screw ups..

ok, so u think a scientific experiment should only take place once? is that a reliable experiment then? If we only did experiments once there could be major flaws. you have to do the same experiment in different conditions, many times in each condition, to make the results more reliable. Things arent perfect first time, and you cant generalise and say "well if it's ok in that case, so it'll be ok in every case". If a drug is tested on an animal, as someone else said earlier, it's then put on CLINICAL TRIAL, which is on people, these people are monitored closely and if it isnt working the way it's supposed to, they're taken off and treated.

If you had any experience in scientific experimentation, you would realise all of the above.

[Auran]

Having been on the wrong end of the extreme animal rights groups activities when I was younger unsurprisingly I have quite strong opinions on this subject, but I shall try and keep my soapbox in the cupboard.

I believe until we can find viable alternatives the use of animals in medical research will have to continue. Of course animals will probably always be part of Vetinary research as cures for the various diseases that blight livestock would be of great benefit to many third world countries. (Whether they would be able to afford them is another discussion). What I have a problem with is the use of animals for cosmetic testing, especially considering the fact that viable alternatives do exist.

Yes there have been cases where the extrapolation from animal to human has given rise to some high profile mistakes, but a lot of people have benefited from when they got it right. Of course different animals are used for different types of tests depending upon the intended use. For example a Pigs gastric system is very similar to that of a human, hence why we taste like pork when roasted, not like chickens as the popular myth goes

On the subject of 90% of tests being repeats of work done before, then I'd like to see where that figure comes from. In order to get a licence for animal experimentation your application MUST include a thorough review and critique of all previous work plus a detailed account of how the planned work differs with specific emphasis on the benefits of the results.