Is Animal Testing Antiquated?
0
We can grow hamburger meat in an incubater. Just one of the many things we can incubate and grow. Since we can now grow human tissues, organs, ext. should we still test products (cosmetics and medicines alike) on animals?
0
Yup, because a piece of tissue is not as complex as a complete living system with multiple organs and nervou systems.
0
neko-chan wrote...
Yup, because a piece of tissue is not as complex as a complete living system with multiple organs and nervou systems.Well put.
Also, I'm not convinced that vat-grown hamburger would be delicious without a hell of a lot of seasoning.
0
I think it is still neccisary for medical reasons. for cosmetics, no. test cosmetics on people who want to use them.
0
neko-chan wrote...
Yup, because a piece of tissue is not as complex as a complete living system with multiple organs and nervou systems.That pretty much covers it. I guess I'm just not an animal lover, but I'm not too terribly sympathetic towards animal activist groups when it comes to animal testing. The lesser of two greater evils. Something, or in this case maybe someone, always needs to be sacrificed.
Animal testing can continue for as long as it is necessary in my book. Call me unsympathetic, but I'd rather see animals be put through that process than myself or any other human.
0
Yes human testing would be a better choice then using some poor dog as a guinea pig =/. heck even using a guinea pig is bad too lol.
0
tswarthog
The Iconoclast
Akira The Demented wrote...
Yes human testing would be a better choice then using some poor dog as a guinea pig =/. heck even using a guinea pig is bad too lol.But humans don't like to take responsibility in general so no one is just going to step up and go "hey you can test all this unknown stuff on me, even if it involves large amounts of pain"
0
^I know that I wouldn't, I'd like the one who would do that.
While I do believe that animal-testing is essentially wrong, I understan that it is "needed" since no one in their right mind would want to have unknown and possibly dangerous shit in/on them. You can argue that it is morally wrong forever, its not gonna change anything.
While I do believe that animal-testing is essentially wrong, I understan that it is "needed" since no one in their right mind would want to have unknown and possibly dangerous shit in/on them. You can argue that it is morally wrong forever, its not gonna change anything.
0
Why do people think we should use humans instead? Is a human's life really more important than the life of an animal?
I love animals. My cat's sleeping beside my feet right now, and I always hate to see animals in pain. But shit needs to be done. Science needs to do horrible things to progress. Not that long ago, scientists had to rob graves (or pay people to) in order to study the inside of the human body, and if they hadn't done it, we might not have open-heart surgery right now.
If it cures cancer, it's worth a thousand animals dying, no matter how cute or cuddly they are. As for cosmetics, I don't like them testing shit on animals, but it's better than releasing products that can potentially kill humans. Though they shouldn't make lipstick that could kill a person. How the hell would they even do that?
I love animals. My cat's sleeping beside my feet right now, and I always hate to see animals in pain. But shit needs to be done. Science needs to do horrible things to progress. Not that long ago, scientists had to rob graves (or pay people to) in order to study the inside of the human body, and if they hadn't done it, we might not have open-heart surgery right now.
If it cures cancer, it's worth a thousand animals dying, no matter how cute or cuddly they are. As for cosmetics, I don't like them testing shit on animals, but it's better than releasing products that can potentially kill humans. Though they shouldn't make lipstick that could kill a person. How the hell would they even do that?
0
Sounds horrid but Id prefer prodcts o be tested on humans than animals. Theyre for humans after all anyway. Like cosmetics and drugs, might as well get better straight forward info than harm poor defenseless creatures.
I think its legal, to pay people to be live guinea pigs? There must be a country that allows such
I think if I am to take drugs for a seriously fatal disease, I think id prefer one tested on humans than chimps or rodents
I think its legal, to pay people to be live guinea pigs? There must be a country that allows such
I think if I am to take drugs for a seriously fatal disease, I think id prefer one tested on humans than chimps or rodents
0
See this question always makes me wonder why we have animals waiting to be put to death. If they're going to die anyway why aren't they just donated to people who need to test things on animals? That way animals that weren't going to die anyway would be alive and the ones that are dying would at least die meaningfully.
As for why animal testing is preferable to human testing. Would you rather potentially inflict horrible life altering things on something that would have to suffer for a few years or for decades? Most testing type animals simply don't have the sort of life span that humans do and thus even if people and animals were considered equal (which they aren't because a grown person took a lot more resources to grow than a mouse, a cat, a dog, etc.) it would still equate to less overall suffering to use animals.
I also agree grown meat is not complex enough for most testing purposes. For example, does -insert drug here- cure blindness? Well....it had no effect on the lump of meat so...um...no?
As for why animal testing is preferable to human testing. Would you rather potentially inflict horrible life altering things on something that would have to suffer for a few years or for decades? Most testing type animals simply don't have the sort of life span that humans do and thus even if people and animals were considered equal (which they aren't because a grown person took a lot more resources to grow than a mouse, a cat, a dog, etc.) it would still equate to less overall suffering to use animals.
I also agree grown meat is not complex enough for most testing purposes. For example, does -insert drug here- cure blindness? Well....it had no effect on the lump of meat so...um...no?
0
ashcrimson wrote...
Sounds horrid but Id prefer prodcts o be tested on humans than animals. Theyre for humans after all anyway. Like cosmetics and drugs, might as well get better straight forward info than harm poor defenseless creatures.I think its legal, to pay people to be live guinea pigs? There must be a country that allows such
I think if I am to take drugs for a seriously fatal disease, I think id prefer one tested on humans than chimps or rodents
I think the US actually allows humans to be guinea pigs for some things, as long as all the proper forms are signed and the thing isn't equivalent to sulfuric acid. It can pay well, from what I've heard, but all sorts of shit can go wrong, too. i don't care if I get paid $300 a week, I don't want to risk having diarrhea for a month or having all my hair fall out, lol.
As for medicines that are going to treat humans, I believe they do eventually get tested on humans, before being made available on the market, but before they get to that stage, they have to make sure the medicines don't cause cancer or organ failure and whatnot. That's what the animals would be for. First, animals, and if the medicine doesn't cripple them, then humans.
0
Thinking about this more seriously, if we are talking about expensive drugs that can give pharmaceutical companies a ton of money but also risk law suits if things go wrong... just thinking, isnt it logical to test these experimental drugs on humans in third world countries for example without even paying them, you just do it discreetly or in the guise of medical aid or something. Africa for example. Why test on rats when you can you can on humans of different ages. Im not proposing, im just wondering how many are doing it already or of a higher magnitude
I saw my doctor earlier, and I saw this info abouta new osteoperosis drug that you inject to your bones to get better. Anyway, it says, it has been PROVEN to cause cancer on RATS (its even in bold)... but it hasnt been proven to do so on humans yet because it hasnt been extensively tested. I think id like to know if it would I mean... Im not gonna trade losing a hip over dying of cancer. In cases like these, I think its freakin worth it to test em on humans first before selling them
I saw my doctor earlier, and I saw this info abouta new osteoperosis drug that you inject to your bones to get better. Anyway, it says, it has been PROVEN to cause cancer on RATS (its even in bold)... but it hasnt been proven to do so on humans yet because it hasnt been extensively tested. I think id like to know if it would I mean... Im not gonna trade losing a hip over dying of cancer. In cases like these, I think its freakin worth it to test em on humans first before selling them
0
ShaggyJebus wrote...
If it cures cancer, it's worth a thousand animals dying, no matter how cute or cuddly they are. As for cosmetics, I don't like them testing shit on animals, but it's better than releasing products that can potentially kill humans. Though they shouldn't make lipstick that could kill a person. How the hell would they even do that?
There's always a possibility that there's an allergen inside the chemicals used to make the product. Also, usually the cosmetics testing are for stuff that you can apply to your skin, so that your facial mask doesn't leave you with a nearly melted off face.
We need animal testing so we can determine whether or not human testing can be safely done. therefore it is important, because would you rather a rat die, or some human being die?
As a guy who interned at the FDA, whenever we got animal rights activists who would bitch at us, the easiest solution would be to offer them the power to switch places with the animals. not a single activist took us up on that offer.
0
Animal testing is needed as the last step before human trials. If there's a problem, it'll usually show up on the test mice or pig. Those two are the more commonly used animals, as they are widely available and is close to humans in biochemistry and organ structure.
We can't do away with animal testing for the foreseeable future, unfortunately, and sometimes we also have to sacrifice them for autopsy. It is necessary for development, which we still sorely need, despite our current level of knowledge.
If we don't use animal testing for drug trials, we're gonna see people dying. If we don't use animals for psychology, progress will grind to a near halt, since human volunteers don't like electrodes in their brain. Without animal testing for medical research, there will be no more development of new drugs, since we can't try out antiviral drugs on humans by infecting them first (which we sometimes do on animals).
We need them, there's no preventing that, but a good scientist knows to respect the animals. They're gonna die for our sake, so the least we can do is to treat them with dignity, if not absolute comfort.
We can't do away with animal testing for the foreseeable future, unfortunately, and sometimes we also have to sacrifice them for autopsy. It is necessary for development, which we still sorely need, despite our current level of knowledge.
If we don't use animal testing for drug trials, we're gonna see people dying. If we don't use animals for psychology, progress will grind to a near halt, since human volunteers don't like electrodes in their brain. Without animal testing for medical research, there will be no more development of new drugs, since we can't try out antiviral drugs on humans by infecting them first (which we sometimes do on animals).
We need them, there's no preventing that, but a good scientist knows to respect the animals. They're gonna die for our sake, so the least we can do is to treat them with dignity, if not absolute comfort.
0
dr roxo wrote...
We can grow hamburger meat in an incubater. Just one of the many things we can incubate and grow. Since we can now grow human tissues, organs, ext. should we still test products (cosmetics and medicines alike) on animals?It's still needed, but I do think animal testing is really bad and should be stopped as soon as possible.
0
Yea although the whole animal testing is needed I'm sure there's plenty topics where my decision is not as tough like when testing make-up im not really sure if is necessary, so to me at least there's a lot of gray area on this topic.
