Animal Testing, Yay or Nay.

[Title Loan Man]

For the record, the FDA refuses to place its seal of approval on anything that hasn't been tested on a human population.

 

[BlackStaticWolf]

For the record, the FDA refuses to place its seal of approval on anything that hasn't been tested on a human population.

Yep. And they don't give the ok for testing on humans until it's been tested on animals.

It's all part of the process of (hopefully) making a safe drug.

 

[Whispering Winds]

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?

First of all, I am a vegetarian. However, food is different. People need to eat in order to survive. Killing animals for survival is not the same as torturing them through tests. And whether they are tested against their will or not (and I don't think very many animals enjoy being poisoned or shocked, etc.) they are often treated with cruelty.

 

[LegacyComplete]

well, i think its fine for health related science for the better of mankind...

for cosmetics, well.. to be a bit sexist here, most females are WAAAAAY to caugh up with their looks..... animals should not endure the cosmetics testing.. the health science is enough...

 

[Brimstone-x]

Unless there actual torturing the animals, I don't see no harm, If A scientist offered me to test the cure for the common cold, I'll take it, but if it required them to jam 90 needles in my ass...Thats torture...

 

[Roman Candle]

Despain, the testing mistake here was one of those one in a billion chances that has to happen just to prove that proabilities mean nothing. The actual problem arose because monkeys have a single molecule different on a receptor site on an immune cell. That molecule difference meant that the effect on the cells was exponentially greater. It caused the cells to attack the body, resulting in a clinical condition known as "Inflamation of the Everything my God Jesus Christ come look at this Johnson". In fact, for this to happen, the substance in question would have to have No effect on pigs or apes, and no effect on a tissue sample of the relevent cells taken from humans, but have a life threatening effect on cells seemingly unrelated elsewhere in the human body, in doses so small that the expected effects would be barely noticable. And that happened to be exactly what happened.

Britain has, I believe, the strictest animal rights laws of any country in the world. And yet we also have fanatics who attack the children of the people who run the companies that supply the equipment to the labs where scientists carry out animal testing. They dug up the body of the grandmother of a scientist carrying out experiments on animals. You've got to wonder what the fuck these people were on. On a radio interview, I heard a man compare the Holocaust to tests on Gerbils. He actually said that the slaughter of thousands of Jews was not as bad as a few thousand Gerbils being experimented on. So I couldn't really bring myself to support anti-animal testing activists. Along with that are their pathetic attempts to manipulate people with propaganda. For instance, some showed me a picture of a dog, tied to a bench and dissected. They really tried to imply that the dog had been diced alive, but it clearly hadn't been. It just doesn't make me want to support them.

 

[ryanwh]

Of course. What I meant to say, really, is more that why should we test some drugs on humans that could be tested on monkeys first to see what lethal side effects it has on simians?

They're almost never testing on apes. Most apes are protected species. They're testing on rats and bunnies in the prelimenaries.

 

[ryanwh]

Because testing on rabbits and such largely DOESNT disprove such risky side effects. Something that turns a rabbit into a mutant might have no effect on us at all. We might of thrown away the cure for cancer because it had adverse effects on lower species(that react COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY than we would). Like a dog eating chocolate, what we consider a fantastic desert dish KILLS animals about our size that are mammals. So it goes without saying a small animal like a rat would have even more irrelevent reactions in regaurds to what would happen to us.

 

[BlackStaticWolf]

Like a dog eating chocolate, what we consider a fantastic desert dish KILLS animals about our size that are mammals.

That's a pretty bad example. You know why? Chocolate is toxic to humans as well. It's not nearly as toxic to us as it is to dogs (it even has some positive effects in us) but it is toxic nonetheless. Further, the vast majority of canine breeds are NOT even CLOSE to the same size as a human. Those breeds that ARE comparable in size... well it actually takes a quite large amount of chocolate for it do anything more than make them sick.

So it goes without saying a small animal like a rat would have even more irrelevent reactions in regaurds to what would happen to us.

It does NOT go without saying. A statement like that demonstrates either a clear lack of knowledge when it comes to biology or a willful obtuseness with regard to the debate. It is a simple FACT that most mammals share very similar (often time identical) reactions at a physiological level to the same stimuli. What is toxic to one mammal is toxic to virtually every mammal... it's merely the needed dosage that varies. The deviations that occur are usually deviations as to the severity of the effect, not the actual kind of effect. The instances where the reations deviate significantly are quite RARE... not even close to as common, as your posts would indicate that you think they are. The fact is, this type of severe deviation can even occur within a species: just look at food allergies. Peanuts kill some people... but I eat peanut butter sandwiches virtually every day.

The fact that these deviations occur does not nullify the usefulness of the tests.

Further, you seem to be harboring the idea that only drugs are developed on animals... this is completely untrue. Medical procedures like measuring blood pressure, pacemakers, and heart and lung machines were developed on animals. Surgery techniques, like those to correct and prevent bone diseases, were also developed on animals. The reactions in the development of this type of medical research is essentially NEVER different because it's actual physical testing rather than chemical.

Even further, animal testing for medical purposes isn't just intended to help humans. The heartworm medicine that's helped numerous dogs was developed from animal research.

 

[Roman Candle]

Because testing on rabbits and such largely DOESNT disprove such risky side effects. Something that turns a rabbit into a mutant might have no effect on us at all. We might of thrown away the cure for cancer because it had adverse effects on lower species(that react COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY than we would). Like a dog eating chocolate, what we consider a fantastic desert dish KILLS animals about our size that are mammals. So it goes without saying a small animal like a rat would have even more irrelevent reactions in regaurds to what would happen to us.

And you really think that you, ryanwh, have thought of this when the top scientics in the chemical industry have not? You really think that they would waste time and their sponserors' money on something that wasn't useful? But that you, with almost no grounding in biochemistry, have realised this. And it's only the first step in a long chain of tests.

 

[ryanwh]

That could exempt every one of us from talking about any given issue. Not really sure what qualifications have to do with having an opinion. Plenty of non-politicians think they know what America should do, should they silence themselves lacking the proper crudentials?
And given the fact that FUNDING comes from people who DONT KNOW, even if the scientist stated there was a good chance something that turned a bunny into a mutant would cure cancer, would the people paying for it allow human testing? Of course not.
Sceintists know what's best for stem cells, too, but guess what smart guy, they dont have the final say. People less qualified in the feild do.

 

[ryanwh]

Oh good, namecalling. I can always count on you to bring the argeument to your level Treg. Stem cell research and animal testing are both relevent in the findings of toxicology, to say bringing up one in the discussion of another is "idiocy" tells me a lot about your lack of knowledge in the feild as well. They're both protested for the same reason,and one's allowed while another isnt, but the one not allowed has far more relevent and helpful (to humans) possibilities.

 

[Andy6000]

Ryanwh, not only did you make a failed attempt at flamebaiting (it's extremely clever of you to put a minor flame, then edit it while they're responding to make it look bad), but you fail to make any point due to your incessant need to think about the person posting instead of the topic at hand. I'm not saying TREG did much better, though he didn't use the oh so clever tactic to get a riled up response.

Also, let's nicen up this topic shall we? I almost want to edit in an ASCII flower on the end of everyone's posts in here, we're far, far too angry here.

 

[RavenTDA]

To everyone who is against animal testing in the medical department. Where ever will they find humans crazy enough to subject themselves for all kinds of experimentation? They'd be very hard to come by especially if in the begining they are killed almost immediatly. There wouldn't be any medical advances coming around too quickly now would there?

Besides not all advances are nessisarily painful. There is one experiment they are doing with mice to try and figure out a birthcontrol for men. The mice are just left infertile if it goes wrong. Not really a big deal.

Also do we soon forget that humans ARE animals? In fact rabbits are a very good choice to use for expermentations since they are surprisingly close to us in DNA pattern.

 

[BlackStaticWolf]

I almost want to edit in an ASCII flower on the end of everyone's posts in here, we're far, far too angry here.

If you do, I'll love you forever because that'd make me giggle.

 

[WeAreSuperhero]

Why don't we feed the cosmetics and medicine to the animal rights activists instead of the animals? That way everyones happy.