Animal Testing, Yay or Nay.
- Thread starter Bangvang
- Start date
Despain v.1
Member
Sure, why not. I don't get how you could go wrong with makeup or shampoo. Oh, no, my dog's hair turned green. :x
I have no problem with it (unless the people are being unnessecarily cruel to the animals, rather tahn just testing with them). Better than humans.
I have no problem with it (unless the people are being unnessecarily cruel to the animals, rather tahn just testing with them). Better than humans.
Drake Miriel
Member
It's just wrong. Testing cosmetics on them is just stupid, and the pills often work differently in animals than humans.
BlackStaticWolf
Member
Drake Miriel said:
Which would be why doctors test medicine on humans after the animal testing phase is finished. If an experimental treatment has a positive effect in animals, it's more likely that it will actually have a positive effect in humans as well.
Yes, for scientific or medical purposes.
How else are you going to test it? Frankly, though every tree-hugging granola-eating sandal-wearing hippy protests it, how else are they going to do testing? As Despain said, as long as the tests are done in a humane and professional manner, then there's no problem with it.
Cosmetics is a whole other matter.
How else are you going to test it? Frankly, though every tree-hugging granola-eating sandal-wearing hippy protests it, how else are they going to do testing? As Despain said, as long as the tests are done in a humane and professional manner, then there's no problem with it.
Cosmetics is a whole other matter.
Whispering Winds
Member
I do not believe testing products on animals is acceptable unless the animal is not harmed in any way- which usually is not the case. The poor creatures are only raised so that they can have products tested on them against their will. Animals should not be tortured for the benefits of humanity. Though an animal's life is not usually valued as greatly in our society than a human's life, it should not be disregarded.
Despain v.1
Member
What. How would you know if its against their will or not. do you speak animal? No. You. Don't.
If animals are born and raised specifically for that purpose, there's no problem. Like cows on a farm. They're bred to be eaten. If they weren't going to be killed and eaten, then they never would have been born to begin with. So what's the problem?
m_artist200
Member
For medical/scientific reasons, yes. For example, rats (i think it was rats...)react similarly to humans when it comes to reacting to chemicals.
So...if a new cutting edge cancer drug is developed, but they're not sure of the saftey of it, they're drug up...what...several thousand rats with tumors and see the results. And ya, its nesscary to do it on thousands. If something is wrong, the odds of it showing are more likely in 1000+ cases than just 10 or so.
And if for some reason all of the rats die faster than they should have? Well, its a damn good thing you didn't release it before testing it. >_>
But....for cosmetics? Come on, do you really need em? Americans spend billions on cosmetics every year, and to do what? :P nothing a paper bag won't solve.
So...if a new cutting edge cancer drug is developed, but they're not sure of the saftey of it, they're drug up...what...several thousand rats with tumors and see the results. And ya, its nesscary to do it on thousands. If something is wrong, the odds of it showing are more likely in 1000+ cases than just 10 or so.
And if for some reason all of the rats die faster than they should have? Well, its a damn good thing you didn't release it before testing it. >_>
But....for cosmetics? Come on, do you really need em? Americans spend billions on cosmetics every year, and to do what? :P nothing a paper bag won't solve.
Despain v.1
Member
m_artist200 said:
You answer your own question here.
sup economy
We're similar enough that the results to the biology are usually almost the same, if not identical. But we're different enough that people don't find a problem with throwing their lives away. You know, it's discrimination, but it's outside our actual 'race' so it's okay. But then again, who draws these lines? I don't care for cosmetics, so I'm kind of against that, but then again, I also hate animals with a passion, therefore I'm for all animal testing.
In fact, screw the millions of dollars of research that goes into every product BEFORE the testing phase to try and make it as safe as possible, just get a vague idea, slap it together and spray it on like 12,000 rabbits.
In fact, screw the millions of dollars of research that goes into every product BEFORE the testing phase to try and make it as safe as possible, just get a vague idea, slap it together and spray it on like 12,000 rabbits.
Meh, this is a subject I feel very strongly about and without getting too in depth in my reasoning...I say no on all accounts.
I really see no benefit in scientific studies using animals for medical research because they go through hundreds of "specimens" even before they think they have an somewhat credible solution. Also (as been said before), animals are from a different makeup then humans, so the effects of their research would be different. Like for instance with the shampoo bit. They drop shampoo into these animal's eyes, blind them...and repeat the process until they stick a label on the bottle that says "if shampoo comes in contact with the eye...". Shampoos that say "have not been tested on animals" on the back of the bottle works the same does and poses the same amount of risk to human well being as animal tested formulae.
But playing devil's advocate now I could be wrong. I'm not as well versed in this subject as I'd like to be, so there is much room for error.
About animals lacking free will, you're pretty much painting with broad stroaks there Hugo Zelmar. Much can be said about some humans if put in the right context.
For further information and whatnot if you are opposed to inhumane treatment of animals, visit http://www.animalcruelty.com . There is rather a short flash/shockwave presentation with some disturbing images if you will taken inside of these testing laboratories. Further along in the presentation, you can navigate through different sections and learn about more of this on going thing. Also one of Goldfinger's albums has a special feature embedded in their cd about something similiar...but unfortunately I can't show that to you.
Cheers
I really see no benefit in scientific studies using animals for medical research because they go through hundreds of "specimens" even before they think they have an somewhat credible solution. Also (as been said before), animals are from a different makeup then humans, so the effects of their research would be different. Like for instance with the shampoo bit. They drop shampoo into these animal's eyes, blind them...and repeat the process until they stick a label on the bottle that says "if shampoo comes in contact with the eye...". Shampoos that say "have not been tested on animals" on the back of the bottle works the same does and poses the same amount of risk to human well being as animal tested formulae.
But playing devil's advocate now I could be wrong. I'm not as well versed in this subject as I'd like to be, so there is much room for error.
About animals lacking free will, you're pretty much painting with broad stroaks there Hugo Zelmar. Much can be said about some humans if put in the right context.
For further information and whatnot if you are opposed to inhumane treatment of animals, visit http://www.animalcruelty.com . There is rather a short flash/shockwave presentation with some disturbing images if you will taken inside of these testing laboratories. Further along in the presentation, you can navigate through different sections and learn about more of this on going thing. Also one of Goldfinger's albums has a special feature embedded in their cd about something similiar...but unfortunately I can't show that to you.
Cheers
Drake Miriel
Member
Obviously that's another story...Kest said:
BlackStaticWolf
Member
Faeroe said:
Dude, is the insult really called for?
Blackbeard":1s63l6ga said:
They go through hundreds of test subjects during animal testing for the same reason that they go through hundreds of test subjects during human testing: The researchers have to account for statistical flukes. If they don't have a large enough sample size, then there's no guarantee that the results aren't just a fluke. And again (as has been said before) the animals used in medical testing are chosen because they react very similarly to humans. The animals used rarely react differently to such a degree that it would invalidate the test results... that's why those animals are used.
Shampoo is a cosmetic product and goes through a completely different approval process from medicine. There is absolutely no legitimate reason why cosmetics should be tested on animals.
I just checked that website out... and... there's very little actual information posted. Additionally, they don't post the studies that provided them with the statistics that they cite, so there is no way to verify the information given. I'm against animal cruelty ( and pointless cruelty in general, really). but that site seems to be more about propaganda and less about presenting actual supported facts.
Actually they do it all the time. Didnt you hear about the drug tsting in briton, where a bunch of the recipiants has pussing elephant-man esc symptoms and incredibly painful deaths. Quite a surprise, since NOTHING like that happened to the animal tests preceding it. So animal testing isnt as accurate as some people would like you to believe.
BlackStaticWolf
Member
TREG said:
Exactly. No one has said that humans and test animals react identically (although, simians and humans almost always do because of genetic similarities). There are going to be a few differences... but if a drug causes a rat's internal organs to melt and leak out its anus... well, it probably isn't safe for human use.
Ideally, medicine is tested on human subjects after a preliminary animal testing phase. That way you can determine what harmful effects it might have on humans that it didn't have in animals... and whether the medicine is even effective in humans.