New Medical Products Must be Tested in Living Organisms
Animal rights/liberationists mount two primary arguments against the use of animals in medical and scientific research. The first is entirely an ethical assertion: Regardless of the admitted benefits humans receive from animal experimentation, the research must be stopped because it is immoral. The most notable proponents of this approach are professors Gary Francione and Tom Regan. This position is terribly wrong, in my view, but it permits an ethical debate based upon an empirically accurate understanding that, at least to some degree, animal research benefits humankind and that applying the animal rights abolitionist view to the matter would deprive us of these results.
The other, and I must say predominate, animal rights approach to opposing animal research—let’s call it the “anti science meme”— is intellectually dishonest and factually unsupportable. Not only is animal research ethically wrong, this argument goes, but it actually provides no benefits to humans, and indeed, causes us significant harm.
Animal rights activists use the public's ignorance of the scientific method to mislead about the place of animals in research. For example, in early research, scientists often proceed using the kinds of techniques animal rightists claim should be the be all and end all prior to human testing, e.g. computer programs, tissue lines, etc. But eventually, testing in a living organism is required to test hypotheses, verify findings, and test for safety.
One need only look at recent efforts to create a vital regenerative medical sector. One approach toward this end has been embryonic stem cells. But they can't be tested yet in humans because animal studies show that they cause tumors. As reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in December 2000, for example, researchers at Harvard Medical School and McLean Hospital in Belmont, MA, injected mouse embryonic stem cells into rats in an attempt to alleviate Parkinson’s-like symptoms. Of the 25 rats receiving the injections, 14 showed modest improvement, 6 showed no benefit, while 5 died of brain tumors caused by the embryonic stem cells. In other words, the hoped-for treatment actually killed one-fifth of the animal subjects. [i]
Had these animal studies not been done, the cells might have been injected into humans and the deaths would have been of people rather than rats. Animal rightists may believe that "a rat, is a pig, is a dog, is a boy," as Ingrid Newkirk has put it. But most people don't. It would have been unethical to go from non organism theory into human testing.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
It seems to me it is excellent idea. Any condition Ill be subscribing to your victual and I hankering you transmit again soon.winter jackets 2011 I love this postCtotally keel!
This guy is really lucky! I am happy to find it thanks for sharing it here.winter jackets Nice work. Really nice and impressive blog I found today. This post is very useful thx!
If the medicine was veterinary, then yes, definately test it on the intended subjects. But if the medicine is intended for humans then the only testing of it should be done on humans. I've heard people argue that humans could die from testing things on them and I don't understand what the problem is with that. Humans die all the time. In fact, chances are the human who's life is risked by being a test subject is probably dying anyway. I can't imagine someone with cancer or AIDS having the patience to "wait their turn" to test new drugs. Lets see, I'll be dead in three months from lung cancer if the new drug doesn't help, but I have to wait six months before I can try it while they test it on dogs first? How many people die waiting for drugs caught up in the regulatory nightmare of unneccessary animal testing ? Testing on any living organism other than the intended user makes little sense, biologically, ethically, or financially. Because extrapolated data is weak data, animal testing does us no favors. Lets test on humans and get solid facts we can really use to save lives.
Yes, it is true and I know this for a fact, people take untested drugs in the hope they will work , because it takes 5-10 years for a new drug to be released after all that testing . Anyway if you have a terminal disease no one knows much about, then you dont have a lot to lose.
the reason scientists test on many types of animals is apparently due to certain organs in the animals that resemble humans organs.for instance testing on the nervous system of a cat would be more percise than a nervous system of a dog or other such animal.this increases the amount of animals that die in research and scientists are unfortunatly slowed in there progression of a cure but these are much better than useing humans for research.waiting for a cure and dieing from there sickness is better to most people than useing something that could shorten their already shortening lives and since no one can safely say when someone will die i find it hard to beilieve the sick would sighn up for that.in fact almost no human would sighn up for something that could harm them.prisoners might get a higher turnout ,but there familys might take legal action agianst the state for inhumane treatment or some other such allegation.i just dont see people no matter what there views are could watch and allow another person to suffer and have long term effects of suffering or die.
...I fail to see the point of testing any medicine on living organisms for whom the medicine is not intended. Cat, dog, mouse, and rabbit organs may "resemble" human organs, but by definition, they are NOT human organs and therefore do not function exactly as human organs do.
Take tobacco testing and lung cancer , for example. The tobacco companies used the results of animal testing for decades to dupe people into believing humans couldn't get lung cancer from smoking . By the mid 1960's, they had spent millions trying to develop lung cancer in animals with tobacco smoke (often force-fed in insanely excessive and non-applicable amounts) and had absolutely zero success. They couldn't get dogs, cats, rabbits, or mice to get lung cancer, no matter how hard they tried to give it to them, and so scientists extrapolated the animal testing to mean humans couldn't get cancer from smoking either - no matter how much they smoked or for how long.
Not only does this illustrate the pointlessness of testing anything on animals to determine it's effects on humans, it also makes me wonder why the National Institute of Health (NIH) is still issuing million dollar grants of taxpayer monies to scientists who continue pointless animal testing of tobacco products.
If it's too difficult to handle the suffering and death of a person, why is it not too difficult to handle the suffering and death of an animal? Are we not all flesh and blood? Do we not share nervous systems with pain receptors? Aren't the biological similarities between human and non-human animals (the ones that dupe people into thinking animal testing is justified) the strongest argument against irrelevant animal testing? We think animals are similar enough to humans to be able to extrapolate meaningful data from torturing them but not similar enough to humans to deserve any consideration for living without pain? The abuses of power we exercise on non-human animals only makes us less worthy of our dominant position.
Human animals are, by far, the most savage beasts of all...
So you have never vaccinated or wormed your pets ? Never had to take them to the vet?
It's not all about 'humans'
Yes, I have vaccinated and wormed my pets . And I've given them various pharmaceuticals too. I take all my pets to the vet regularly. But I'm wondering if you read my original post on this subject. I said "If the medicine was veterinary, then yes, definately test it on the intended subjects." My point is simple: testing human medications on non-human animals is cruel and unneccessary. If the medicine is veterinary, test it on animals, but if the medicine is meant for humans, don't test it on animals, test it on humans! Regardless, I totally agree with you about one thing: it's not all about us!
i fully acknowledge that animal testing can be sketchy and a bit of a gamble when applied to humans.however those animal tests gave scientists a new question "why did so many animals not develop cancer but humans did?" with research and study people might learn something new about human biology and they might even get a clearer understanding of the cancer's smokeing cause.so even though scientists were not able to convince the populace of the dangers of smokeing they did get food for thought and ultimately i would say set the ground work for new scientific studies and tests.i feel that animal testing is relevant still because somewhere in an animal test relevant information can be found, though it might not be the info the scientists are looking for, it is still valuble to some feild of study.
ultimately as alternatives become more advanced and succesfull animal testing will have a diminshed purpose in scientific research but unless exstensive evidence prooves animal testings utter impotance at obtaining new and relevant information would i agree that animal testing should be Completely wiped out as a scientific tool.
the last part of your response covered philosophy and it being quite late i am unable to type my philosophies on the matter.if possible your next response could further cover your philosophies so that i can have the main bulk of my response geared tords my thoughts on the matter.
There is no philosohical basis on which to mount the argument that the death of five people is more devastating than that of five animals . What is the difference? Why are animals seen as less important- there are six billion people we can do without a few?
I don't believe that either animals or humans have any intrinsic value to the planet. I agree, we should be treated equally, but we should not elevate animals to do so, we should knock ourselves off of this pedestal of "humanity" and accept the world as it is. Of course if neither human nor animal has intrisic value I would say test on animals for our own selfish interests. What is the difference?
It's good to know that I'm not the only one that feels that medical research on animals cannot be justified.
To me, it just proves how stupid the human animal can be. Researchers spray chemicals in these tortured animals' eyes, only to be able to tell the two legged idiots running around loose that it is harmful to spray chemicals in their eyes! So much of the research is just moronic and a total waste of money. Those people out there that need to be told NOT to put hot coffee between their legs because they could be burned, and then, of course, the juries that award these idiots enormous sums of money for being stupid, to me, have the same level of intelligence as the researchers. What happened to common sense? Unless you're looking to make a bundle from a lawsuit - thanks to our pathetic judicial system - use your head for something other than keeping your ears apart! Poor defenseless animals do not need to be used for cruel research—ask for volunteers from death row. At least they would be VOLUNTEERS! And, of course, there is always technology to turn to. If the formulas and information are entered into the computers these researchers have spent millions on, it would be hard to believe that these computers cannot come up with the answers they need.
what if a person accidentally sprayed it in there eyes?what if it had happen to a child?i think the researchers were trying to come up with a chemical that wouldn't harm anyone and it seems they think in advance on what may occur. as we all know they are called experiments its like a trial and error method they experiment up to a point that they succeed in knowing what is harmful or not in the product. they try to come up with something that would benefit the welfare of the products user.
maybe we shouldn't put an analogy that is absurdly incomparable to the actual topic.
Having been exposed to this profitable and unethical world of medical research through the eyes of a “former” vivisectionist, all I can say is this is about human egocentric methodologies and money. This has nothing to do with “healing”, and you sir know that better than most.
I'm not a scientist or an expert on the subject, but the argument that NO medical research done to animals is every justified just doesn't make any sense. While it's probably true that we need to be more compassionate with animals, we still need to continue testing and research on animals. Most everything I have read -- assuming from credible sources without a pro-animal agenda -- points to the fact that testing on animals does save human lives.
I also have a lay perspective of this issue, yet through the eyes and words of well-informed acquaintances, I have learned to follow the money and “cures that are banned” by our Allopathic medical establishment.
With our technological advancements in the last few decades, using animals vs. basic medical algorithms, as just one of many noninvasive, profoundly more accurate, research methods, is medieval.
If you think you will ever see cures for cancers, or anything else that is backed by massive dollar movement through charities and grants, then all I can say is please, do not donate your money.
I hope this was in no way impolite.