monkeypie10 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 What do you guys think about animal testing? Is it right or wrong? Edit : Going to research the topic again, before making myself look like an idiot :wall: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parabola Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Aren't you going to bother to post your opinion? Or are you content to leave this as a spammy topic? Cosmetics - wrong. Medicine - right. If it wasn't for animal testing we wouldn't have at least 80% of the treatments we have today. This was mentioned on an episode of Penn & Teller's Bulls**t, where it was revealed that head members of PETA use treatments that were developed by animal testing - for example, one of them is a diabetic who needs insulin (developed through testing with dogs). If you're against animal testing for medicines, you'd sure as hell better not accept any medical treatments developed through animal testing. That would make you a big old hypocrite. If that means you die, well, that's one less idiot for the world to worry about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThoseTheBrokes Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 I smell a massive debate about this. I though.. Am neither for or against it. I don't know enough to make a vaild comment. However, I think it's good in someways and bad in others, It's good, because we humans benefit from it, But bad, Because the animals don't seem to like it.. Lol, Sounds werid, But I mean that they don't deserve it. I don't know what I'm talking about now.. Sorry :P My dA account..retired, as of the 1st January 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeypie10 Posted January 17, 2007 Author Share Posted January 17, 2007 I agree, for medicine it's right. Cosmectics - so and so. I meen you can't really say we should have never used it for cosmetics. We need to keep up our hygiene more than a mouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThoseTheBrokes Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 I agree, for medicine it's right. Cosmectics - so and so. I meen you can't really say we should have never used it for cosmetics. We need to keep up our hygiene more than a mouse. What? That last part, It made no sense. My dA account..retired, as of the 1st January 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redserpent4 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Medical testing, largely acceptable. Cosmetic testing, never acceptable. I say medically it's largely acceptable because it is for a worthwhile cause, fundamentally i would like to think that a human's life isn't worth more than an animals but it's a very difficult idea to justify. Therefore if there is a chance that through the possible death of 5 rats, we may find a cure for cancer or aids, its worth it. The crap like sticking an ear on a mouse's back or whatever is not worth it though, that achieves nothing. Cosmetically its not acceptable in my opinion, if your company is worried that your shampoo is gonna burn skin, try it on an employees or your own, why should animals suffer for a beauty product? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeypie10 Posted January 17, 2007 Author Share Posted January 17, 2007 I agree, for medicine it's right. Cosmectics - so and so. I meen you can't really say we should have never used it for cosmetics. We need to keep up our hygiene more than a mouse. What? That last part, It made no sense. Sorry, my mind is scattered elsewhere, I was talking to my brother about mesopotamian hygiene.. helping him with his homework. lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrington Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Well, would you rather they tested this stuff on people? How else to test it if not on some living being? Might as well be animals... or criminals maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThoseTheBrokes Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 And what about scientific testing? Like psychology. My dA account..retired, as of the 1st January 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeypie10 Posted January 17, 2007 Author Share Posted January 17, 2007 Thats what I was trying to say, Harrington got it out :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parabola Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 The crap like sticking an ear on a mouse's back or whatever is not worth it though, that achieves nothing. They didn't do it for fun you know... They didn't just get drunk and think 'hey lets sew an ear to a mouse'. That was done during development of methods to grow flesh on other animals before transplanting it to a person who needs it. For example, you lose your ear in an accident - you can then have a new one grown and grafted on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThoseTheBrokes Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 The crap like sticking an ear on a mouse's back or whatever is not worth it though, that achieves nothing. They didn't do it for fun you know... They didn't just get drunk and think 'hey lets sew an ear to a mouse'. That was done during development of methods to grow flesh on other animals before transplanting it to a person who needs it. For example, you lose your ear in an accident - you can then have a new one grown and grafted on. Think about it on the larger scale. Killing a few hundred mice will benefit millions of people worldwide. Which one would you want to help? I think it's rather obvious. My dA account..retired, as of the 1st January 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
menot Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 im for thoroughly justified animal testing.. if animal testing is the only way, or by FAR the most effective way to test something USEFUL (ie. something that will actually benefit society) then im all for it. when done humanely etc of course. http://www.pro-test.org.uk/ a protest group protesting FOR animal testing for scientific and medical advancement. i believe they started out in response to a march by ~100 animal activists protesting against a new building at oxford university, and had ~1000 people marching pro-test. babelfish - level 180 60th placestrongguy - level 173 69th place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redserpent4 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 The crap like sticking an ear on a mouse's back or whatever is not worth it though, that achieves nothing. They didn't do it for fun you know... They didn't just get drunk and think 'hey lets sew an ear to a mouse'. That was done during development of methods to grow flesh on other animals before transplanting it to a person who needs it. For example, you lose your ear in an accident - you can then have a new one grown and grafted on. ok scratch that example, how about the one where they cut open a monkey's head very neatly, just neatly enough to go all round the brain but not actually damage it, isn't it nice to have a monkey with half a head which is still alive and clearly in pain? what did that one achieve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfamousDuck Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 What do you guys think about animal testing? Is it right or wrong? Edit : Going to research the topic again, before making myself look like an idiot :wall: Did you by any chance get this idea from me i did about animal fur.If you did im not annoyed. ~Dark~ :twisted: Runescape - Currently In-active and a cancelled membership due to a broken computer and a cabbage laptop!2xBarrowsReward1600SkillTotalReached|08/05/2010(Previously 'Darkknightider', wow that was a bad name :p) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parabola Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 ok scratch that example, how about the one where they cut open a monkey's head very neatly, just neatly enough to go all round the brain but not actually damage it, isn't it nice to have a monkey with half a head which is still alive and clearly in pain? what did that one achieve? I'm guessing you don't know very much about any of these experiments, because if you had read anything about them you'd know what they were to achieve. Provide me with a link to the papers for that research and I'll read them for you (since you obviously haven't read them) and tell you what it was to achieve. You're just listening to tabloid hype and being too lazy to find out for yourself. Researchers don't get grants to do things for fun. There is always a point to what they are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeypie10 Posted January 17, 2007 Author Share Posted January 17, 2007 Apparently there are more ups and downs to animal testing than i thought. It's pretty much the matter of cruelty and knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeypie10 Posted January 17, 2007 Author Share Posted January 17, 2007 What do you guys think about animal testing? Is it right or wrong? Edit : Going to research the topic again, before making myself look like an idiot :wall: Did you by any chance get this idea from me i did about animal fur.If you did im not annoyed. ~Dark~ :twisted: No. Saw a presentation about it at school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dietokill2 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 better them then us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megakiller32 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 better them then us No, because the stuff could have different effects on animals then to us. :wall: Quit Runescape 30th May 2006.Thanks to Hawkxs for my signature :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Too Far Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 medicin- yes if they know it has a chance to work (i heard they somtimes just try evry idea that spins up in their heads) cosmetica- never! and might be a real good idea to use on murderers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parabola Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 better them then us No, because the stuff could have different effects on animals then to us. :wall: Could but generally doesn't. That's why such a staggering number of developments in human medicine have been made through animal testing. Some treatments discovered through animal testing include: Vaccinations for polio, diphtheria, mumps, measles, rubella, hepatitis, anthrax, chicken pox, cholera, flu, rabies, smallpox and tetanus. Insulin for diabetes, hip replacements, organ transplants, chemotherapy, pacemakers, coronary bypass surgery, penicillin, painkillers, anticoagulants, artificial hearts, corneal transplants. This is by no means an exhaustive list. They are just the ones I think you'd have heard of. Between 1992 and 1994 the Research Defence Society published the numbers of patients in the UK benefiting from treatments developed using animal testing: 50,000,000 prescriptions for antibiotics 30,000,000 prescriptions for asthma 3,000,000 operations under local or general anaesthetics 180,000 diabetics kept alive with insulin 90,000 cataract operations 60,000 joint operations 15,000 coronary bypasses 10,000 pacemakers implanted 6,000 heart valve repairs or replacements 4,000 congenital heart defects corrected 2,500 corneal transplants 2,000 kidney transplants 400 heart or heart/lung transplants If you are going to argue that such developments could be made without animal testing - well if they could have, they would have. UK law (Animals (Scientific procedures) Act, 1986) requires that alternatives to animal testing, when they exist, must be used. It defies logic to suggest that companies perform stupidly unnecessary tests on animals - businesses exist to create money, and money would be wasted unless serious research was being conducted. What's more, under the aforementioned act, research licenses are only granted if the potential results are important enough to justify the use of animals and if non-animal methods cannot be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will H Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 I would only ever support animal testing if it fits this criteria: 1. It has a purpose, its not just cutting up a live monkey to see what happens. 2. It will save lives in the long run. 3. The animals do not suffer, or do not suffer very much. 4. The test is reliable in comparison between the intended user and the test subject. (In other words, dont use something obscure like an elephant on something for humans) ~ W ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redserpent4 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 ok scratch that example, how about the one where they cut open a monkey's head very neatly, just neatly enough to go all round the brain but not actually damage it, isn't it nice to have a monkey with half a head which is still alive and clearly in pain? what did that one achieve? I'm guessing you don't know very much about any of these experiments, because if you had read anything about them you'd know what they were to achieve. Provide me with a link to the papers for that research and I'll read them for you (since you obviously haven't read them) and tell you what it was to achieve. You're just listening to tabloid hype and being too lazy to find out for yourself. Researchers don't get grants to do things for fun. There is always a point to what they are doing. perhaps i did not express my thoughts properly, but thanks i do know what im talking about, i studied this in depth for an ethics paper i did 2 years ago and its a consideration you have to know about when you are studying or have studied, verterinary sciences, biology and chemistry. I wont pick out any more examples, i'll just state my opinion which is (as i stated in my first post) that for medical research, animal testing is a valid means of scientific study. I don't have the links to that paper, and thats because i finished using that particular source when i finished the ethics paper 2 years ago. The point of the experiment was if i remember correctly to study the effects of various stimuli on the brain functions of the monkeys. The stimuli were things like physical pain, fear and stress. They were given electric shocks, they were made to listen to the sounds of their own species as animals were killed, they were prevented from sleeping and kept in tiny cages. I did not see the practical application of these results either then or now and i certainly don't understand the benefit this experiment had on humans. I also don't see why the monkeys had to have the top of their skulls removed. I'm not disputing that there must have been a reason which meant the funds were given to the scientists and im not gonna go brick their houses, i just don't believe that every non-cosmetic test carried out on animals is valid as something which will benefit humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celt23 Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Animal testing is perfectly fine. Testing on living things is necessary for developing miracle cures for cancer, diabetes ect. And it's much safer to test the cure-in-development on a grasshopper or cow than a human. Then once it passes all the tests they can safely test in on humans and see if it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now