No one relishes using animals for experimentation, but the medical community has long insisted that such research helps develop potentially life-saving drugs and treatments. Is this justification compelling enough to continue using animals for medical research?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
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.
- marloma July 16, 2008 1:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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.
- alfawav
August 29, 2008 5:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
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.
- alfawav August 29, 2008 4:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
It's good to know that I'm not the only one that feels that medical research on animals cannot be justified.
- lisathevegan
September 17, 2008 7:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
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.
- Glasscat December 4, 2008 7:22PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
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?
- sor666 May 6, 2009 8:21AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
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?
- ReyMostaza May 6, 2009 10:10AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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.
- opiper June 21, 2009 4:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
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.
- death June 26, 2009 5:57PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
...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...
- opiper July 1, 2009 1:26PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
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.
- death July 3, 2009 5:32AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
So you have never vaccinated or wormed your pets ? Never had to take them to the vet?
It's not all about 'humans'
- Kelly616 July 27, 2009 11:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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!
- opiper July 28, 2009 11:46AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
animal testing is so wrong its inconclusive and there are better tests out there that down involve animals suffering every day of their lives.
- yella23eh July 11, 2009 12:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
In addition to my lifetime goal of responding to every post on this site, ever, I should probably tell you that the idea behind this site (I think) is for informed, reasoned discussion. So you can take the position "Animal Rights Testing is inconclusive, and thusly should not be used", but you have to provide evidence and facts to back that up.
- quantummechanik July 11, 2009 5:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Animal testing is one stage out of many that drugs have to go through before they are released to the general public.
Though it is not a pleasant task it is a needed one.
- MrBook August 22, 2009 3:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I think you need to provide some sort of argument for why it is ok to use animals in testing to begin with. It may be the case that animal testing helps save human lives but that doesn't necessarily justify it. We wouldnt tolerate involuntarily experimenting on humans so why is it acceptably to do this to animals? Animal testing kills millions of animals a year and sometimes in unspeakably cruel ways. Why is this testing justifiable in order to alleviate some human suffering?
- jordon September 5, 2009 11:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Animal testing is justified because it does alleviate human suffering... without it there would be no way to bring test needed medications.
If you oppose animal testing then you cannot use virtually any modern medication or medical diagnosis tool without using something that benefits from animal testing.
- MrBook September 6, 2009 7:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
What is it about alleviating human suffering that justifies torturing millions of animals to achieved? Shouldn't the animals suffering and death count?
- jordon September 6, 2009 8:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
We should test on New York rats. Do they count the same as a horse or cat or dog?
- ttut21 September 7, 2009 2:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If they are able to suffer comparably than they count the same.
- jordon September 7, 2009 5:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
What justifies it is that we are humans.
Why torture and kill billions of plants every year just to feed and cloth us?
- MrBook September 7, 2009 8:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I fully support most efforts to end suffering of all sorts. However when it comes to medical testing, I think everyone needs to place themselves in the position of the animals . They do not want to be subjected to often painful experiments. They don't want to die. We wouldn't involuntarily do these experiments to humans, so why is it ok to do them to animals?
In regards to us killing plants, I think that this line of reason runs into some problems. First plants don't have a central nervous system, there is no credible evidence to even hint that they can feel pain or that they have any conscious thought. This seperates them distinctly from animals. The second problem with this line of reasoning is that it doesn't help your case. If it were wrong to kill plants it would also be wrong to kill animals and thus wrong to experiment on them.
- jordon September 7, 2009 11:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Animal Testing is both morally reprehensible and scientifically irresponsible.
Humans save human lives, animal torture does not.
- Citizen D July 28, 2008 1:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Mother Earth does not belong to humans only, but also many millions and billions of other organisms.
We protect human rights, so what? Do humans care about other organisms? Very soon, this world will be filled with humans who do not feel for other organisms on this Earth. There must be another way to conduct researches than conducting them on animals. As an expert, I think you will be able to find out an alternative method for research.
If a human cares about human rights, it shows that the human respects life, therefore, he must respect animals' lives too.
- Rainie August 21, 2008 1:52AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The irony here is a bit overwhelming to say the least. SARS was caused and spread by humans using animals in the first place. By describing how researchers used animals to locate the cause of the SARS virus but leaving out the fact that humans caused the virus by exploiting and using non humans in the first place is a kin to blaming someone for killing someone while breaking and entering their home. INSANE!
LEAVE THE ANIMALS ALONE!
- Phat P August 6, 2008 11:18AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
If animals are used to grow human parts that opens up a whole new can of worms because it blurs the line between human and nonhuman.
But more importantly, animals do not exist in order to serve our bizarre whims. They are not ours to use or abuse.
- ElaineVigneault September 1, 2008 9:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Swine Flu, Foot And Mouth, Mad Cow, Bird Flu...no thanks..Ill keep my body parts or die.
- coreypaul October 26, 2009 3:42AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The people at the labs use tax money that the government give them to test animals, against the Animal Welfare Act. The general public would not pay taxes if they knew what part of it was being used for.
- bookworm3 December 8, 2008 6:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Do we have the moral right to violate the interests of any being merely to satisfy our own interests?
In the case of humans, we of course say "no." In the case of other animals, for some reason we say "yes." However, I have not yet heard one non-arbitrary reason why this is so.
All sentient animals have a moral right to life and to not be caused pain, much less to live their lives without being used against their will in other ways. To grant legal protection for humans and not for non-humans is speciesist hypocrisy. Species membership simply is not a morally valid justification for ignoring the interests of sentient beings, any more than age, sex, race, and so on.
- Eric Prescott August 27, 2008 9:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
I'll just assume that the statement "I have not yet heard one non-arbitrary reason why this is so" is hyperbole, otherwise I imagine you have not spoken to many serious people who don't share your view. While there are a variety of differences between humans and animals, I'll pick the simplest set: cognitive capabilities. If one believes that types and/or levels of cognition in some way determine moral values and rights, then there is a difference between humans and animals. That of course does not necessarily mean that it is then ok to harm animals, but it can form a basis for an argument for the use of animals under certain conditions.
Animals in scientific studies are bred and therefore would not be alive otherwise. Additionally, in the wild many of them are at risk of far greater pain and harm being prey animals.
In my mind, there are several ethical/values questions that should be considered:
1. Is it better for an animal to never exist or live in a laboratory setting?
2. What types of testing and what levels of pain/stress can be inflicted before life is not worth having lived in the first place? (possibly the most difficult question)
3. What can be done to improve conditions for the animals, without disrupting the science?
4. What is the combination of pleasure/pain for the animals that appropriately can be traded off for advances in medicine?
These questions clearly do not have right or wrong answers as they depend on initial values that are somewhat arbitrary. However they do allow for individuals with their own values to determine the sort of policies that they would be comfortable with. As a graduate student in neuroscience, I am personally involved in animal experiments, and I do occasionally wonder if the research I am doing will provide sufficient advances to justify the use of the animals in my care. I do hope that future research and ethical discussion will lead us to even better rules for care of animals and the conditions for their use. Ultimately I do believe that animal testing is justified, though I am uncommitted on exactly what conditions for which this is true.
- ToddG December 3, 2008 10:35AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Sentience is sufficient criteria for a being to possess the basic moral right not to be used as the resource of another. Cognitive capacity is irrelevant for this purpose, though an animal's c.c. could certainly be relevant to which other rights that animal may have.
Because rights protect interests, we need to look at what interests animals have. All sentient beings have a fundamental interest in not being harmed. As more cognitive capacities are determined, interests relevant to that capacity may then be discerned.
Because you are truly concerned about the issue of animal use in laboratory settings, I strongly recommend reading ch. 5 of Gary L. Francione's book, Animals as Persons.
- Eric Prescott December 3, 2008 10:55AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
You make an interesting point about an animals being used as a resource, but I don't think it is so simple. After all, a person or animal can be used as a resource and still get what it/he/she wants. I still maintain that the question is what is a fair trade-off between a subject's sacrifice and its gain. One might also put into play the benefit to other beings in a utilitarian model, but I'll leave that aside since my impression is that you would reject that view. Do you think that all experimentation on animals is wrong, just those experiments that cause pain/death, any experiments involving animals bred for experimentation, any experiments involving animals in captivity for whatever reason?
I suppose some of these questions may be addressed in the book you recommended. I appreciate the suggestion and I'll take a look.
- ToddG December 7, 2008 8:42AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I do oppose using nonhuman animals in biomedical research whatever the reason, on the grounds that doing so violates their moral rights (I should clarify that above I meant "merely" as a resource, i.e., as our property. We do not allow treating humans merely as resources (or slaves, is the idea), though of course most humans have the ability to consent to have their labor exploited in return for financial consideration (and typically, when properly informed, have the ability to give reasonable consent to be test subjects). Nonhumans do not of course have the ability to consent in this way.
With respect to the reasons why I oppose animal use for research in particular, I think that chapter I recommended is the simplest way to expound on that.
- Eric Prescott December 7, 2008 11:23AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
The word specieist is ridiculous. Using specieist as one would use racist or sexist implies that animals are equal to various minorities that have been persecuted throughout the centuries. The level of absurdity this debate gets taken to when people talk about meat as comparable to the Holocaust and work animals as equivalent to black slaves is infuriating. They are not. Animals are not people, this is not discrimination, it is a fact. The new PETA brand of Political Correctness is equally absurd. To insist on saying "non-human animals" instead of simply "animals" takes the already inane concept of PC to a whole new level. Your whole argument against animal testing based on discrimination against animals is offensive to people who really have been discriminated against, and is not a valid argument against animal testing. There is a valid ethical component to the debate, and it should not be overlooked, by any means, but this overt exaggeration of it is damaging to your argument and is highly infuriating.
- richardsonkr December 7, 2008 1:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Richard, your fury is misdirected. I will ignore the parts of your comment that have nothing to do with what I wrote. Instead I will focus on 1) your claim that the word speciesist is ridiculous--which is simply your opinion, not an assertion of fact--as well as 2) the idea that I'm opposed to animal testing because it discriminate against animals, which I'll break into a) your conception of my argument and b) the actual argument. Finally (3), I'll address this notion you have that to respect nonhuman animals means we must disrespect human animals. That seems to be the core issue underlying your comments.
1. The word speciesism was coined by Richard Ryder several decades ago, and has been refined over the years. The implication you draw, that animals are equal to minorities that have been persecuted is your own conclusion, not mine. The implication to me is that, like other -isms, speciesism describes a failure to accord a being equal consideration or respect based on species membership rather than race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Gary L. Francione, Joan Dunayer, Peter Singer, and many others have written on this subject extensively to describe why speciesism is as arbitrary as any form of bias against members of homo sapiens.
Recognizing speciesism and according animals equal consideration for their interests where they are similar to ours does not mean they are literally equal to humans in every way. That would be a fallacious comparison.
At any rate, you provide no valid argument against using this term. While you indignantly call it ridiculous, etymologically speaking, the word is perfectly sensible.
2a) You argue that my argument against animal testing is based on discrimination, but this is false (see: my argument, or 2b). Even if it was based on discrimination, that should not be offensive to people who have been discriminated against any more than it would be offensive to women to say that black humans have been victimized by discrimination. One is not saying that all women are black, or that all black humans are women.
As a side note, for your unwillingness to accept the term "nonhuman animals" throws into further relief your own biases. There is nothing PC about it. Rather it is a matter of being more descriptive. We are animals, too, and distinguishing between human and nonhuman animals is helpful to any conversation in which we are making distinctions between humans and all other animals.
2b) I'm opposed to animal testing because I believe it violates their moral rights, irrespective of whether any discrimination is at work against any species of animal in a given scenario, humans included.
3) There's a fairly common sentiment I come across that respecting animals is somehow denigrating to humans. I don't understand this. If anything, by respecting the moral rights of animals and going vegan, I have had my respect and concern for other humans deepened as well. Once you are no longer blind to our complicit in the wanton and unnecessary slaughter of billions of sentient beings, you can stop ignoring a great many other moral concerns, too.
A lot of people describe it as having their eyes opened. They start wondering how all their food is produced, where their commercial goods are being manufactured, how, and by whom, etc. It tends to lead to a greater sense of awareness, understanding, and respect for all beings, in my experience, so your suggestion that giving nonhuman animals greater respect lowers human beings somehow seems totally unfounded, and you have provided no evidence to the contrary.
- Eric Prescott December 7, 2008 7:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: No
If the testing is for something stupid like cosmetics.. i think its wrong but if it is to test a medicine that might kill a baby i say feed it to the rat.. and if that is inhumane in your eyes so be it i make no apologies just because i dont go along with something most of you do just because it is politically correct..
- cbooh October 30, 2009 11:46PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Can Medical Research on Animals be Justified?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'd rather see a rat die than a person
The first argument that PETA uses to argue against animal testing is that many of the drugs tested on animals and moved into human trials end up being harmful to humans. What they don't mention is how many drugs are tested on animals that don't move onto human trials because they're determined to be dangerous.
Here's an overly simplified example. Bleach certainly kills the AIDS virus. Test tube trials would show this is absolutely true. We clearly don't want to inject bleach into somebody to see if it kills them too. We test it on animals first because we'd rather see a dozen dead rats than a dozen dead people.
Computer models and lab tests can certainly help eliminate many dangerous chemicals but in the end there are many that seem fine in the computer but just don't work. I'd rather see a rat die than a person.
- State of Reason
August 6, 2008 1:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
On "rathers"
Your personal preference may be as justifiable as animal testing. While we all have personal attachments and preferences, it does not lead us to a moral or even a logically consistent argument.
I would rather see a rat be tested with chemicals than my daughter undergo such experiments. But, then, I'd also rather see *your* daughter tested upon than my daughter. See? I can find both options horrible and morally reprehensible, but my personal feelings and attachments would still allow me to make a judgment.
So the question isn't whether or not you have a feeling about who should be spared or given preferential treatment. The question is whether there is a morally consistent justification for animal research. This argument, therefore, will follow the same existential path that the Should We Eat Meat discussion followed.
What should easily be agreed upon, however, is that the majority of clinical research involving the torture of animals is redundant and unnecessary. The reason we cannot arrive there, however, is because of the effort and interest invested in making sure this concept never comes to the public's attention. Remember: most animal testing is not based on ground-breaking, live-saving discoveries. However, we do know, more or less, just how much window cleaner a beagle puppy can swallow before it loses consciousness. We also have a fairly good idea what the impact of high levels of ingested shampoo will have on the unborn children of a mother rat.
- mike
January 30, 2009 3:44PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
not so simple
I don't believe this issue is cut and dry. Generally we should not test on animals, but I don't think this should be an absolute rule.
On a side note, many of the vegans around here will rightly point out that we do not need to eat animal products to be healthy and that a good vegetarian diet is healthier than one with animal products. The irony is that we know this in large part because of animal testing!
- jayd
September 26, 2008 8:40AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not really irony
First, we know that a vegetarian diet is healthy primarily because of human case studies. Second, even if animal testing were a part of the discovery, this would not be reason to continue doing so.
If one finds that one's actions are unnecessary and perhaps ethically unjustifiable, it would be illogical to use that prior use as justification for future use, regardless of the gains.
- mike
January 30, 2009 3:29PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why
how come humans never think about what other species feel
put your self in the viewpoint of a rat, how would you feel if you were imprisoned and tested on without your permission??
i'm not biasing my arguments on human welfare because humans never cared about other species, this selfish, self absorbed species should care more about it's surrounding species and environments
- Stormwolf
February 12, 2009 3:23PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
put myself in the viewpoint of a rat???
no thank you i put out traps if i see any rats....hate, hate, hate them and if that is wrong so be it...if you want them crawling around your house fine but not me ...
- cbooh
October 30, 2009 11:42PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Neurogenesis
We wouldn't know that marijuana (and other anti-depressants) promote neurogenesis without animal testing. Animal research is crucial in some areas of research, especially concerning the brain.
- Starlon
February 19, 2009 7:08PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Use PETA Members for Testing
The most obnoxious part of some of these various kook agendas is the sheer hypocrisy involved. People living in wood homes protest against cutting down trees. People who use motorized transport and enjoy carbon based warmth in their homes prostest global warming. And, of course, you have the veggie heads at PETA, who enjoy all the benefits of animal tested drugs, and all the benefits of an omnivorous society, yet oppose using a mouse to ensure the next prescription they buy will be safe.
Do any of these veggie heads refuse treatment when they're sick because the life saving medications they need were tested on animals? I hardly thing so. Like most fuzzy headed sociopaths, they'll geek in a heartbeat when their own chestnuts are in the fire.
So, I'll make this suggestion; instead of using mice, members of PETA should be used in drug trials. Round 'em up, strap 'em to a laboratory table, and let the games begin. After all, this should be recognized as their clear duty in support of their stated agendas and they should be more than happy to participate in light of all the mice they will save.
The only practical problem I see with using PETA members is it would be nearly impossible to determine if a side effect of a new drug is brain damage. How would you be able to tell?
- Don Earl
March 17, 2009 5:39PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I Refuse to Buy products untested on animals first!
I realize mine is an unpopular opinion, but I have seen the evidence! When our plant closed in the 1980s the only job I could find was as a lab tech in bioassay research lab. We did tests on compounds for places like P&G and others, including Top Secret govt studies. Some studies included finding compounds that cause cancer and ones than maight cure cancer. One of my Grandmothers had spent her last months in a cancer research study so I felt proud to carry it on even in a small way. Yes, it was horrid seeing what many compounds did to the animals -- and I vowed to never take that risk with my own family!!! Today, there are some technologies that eliminate some use of animals in studies, but for other studies animals should still be used before a company can use a compound in a product.
- KathleenR
March 20, 2009 7:55AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
why?
At the risk of sounding crass- why is your grandmother's life more improtant than that of an animal?
- sor666
May 6, 2009 8:16AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Only Medicinal reasons
Animal testing for the reasons of Cosmetology or Beauty is simply cruel. But if we can use animals to save people, to find a cure for a disease, to grow ears or organs to save humans, what is more important? A rat or a person? A person with a family, with intellect, with a soul . If 100 rats were tested, even though this is unfortunate, what if the sacrifice of these 100 rats found a cure for cancer ?
I do think that the animals being tested on for medical purposes should still be given at least a decent life. If they are testing rats, they should let the rats have some space when they aren't being tested, in a decent sized cage where they can go about their rat life as normal as they possibly can.
If your mother, or someone very special to you was dying from a severe illness with no cure, but they were on the verge of discovery for the cure, they just needed to test on a few animals before they could be entirely sure, would you let them sacrifice the animals or would you insist they don't? Would you let them research and let your mother have a chance to live?
We shouldn't be any more cruel than we have to be, but for the purposes of medicine , animal testing is better than dying humans.
- poodleskirt
March 27, 2009 7:24PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Never can be justified at all
I am gene postive for Huntington Disease, yet I strongly oppose animal testing - yes I would prefer to just have the disease. How can it possibly be right to induce the disease in millions of animals deliberately for the chance it could lead to a cure? Surely, you would not induce Huntingtons in other people deliberately to see if you could find a cure- so what is the difference? Why should mice be less important?
- sor666
May 6, 2009 8:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Undecided
While I in some ways oppose animal testing it has very little to do with what most of its opposition is against it for. To me ,I see humans trying to find a cure for every single illness that comes along which is why we have more than doubled the average life span of us. While that may be great and all it does nothing for the problem of our population. Gone are the days of if someone got a certain disease it was their time to go. We are in such a frenzy to prolong our lives or the lives of others that we have upset the natural balance of things.
While testing on animals is one thing , what about the cures that are discovered from them. One that I am not sure to many people know about is developement of a cure for AIDS or HIV by studies done on crocodilians. They have injected crocs with the virus and their immune system kills it dead. While I myself have been celibite from about nine years I could care less if they find a cure. I don't wish harm to anyone but once again, sometimes it's just our time to go. If enough people are oppessed to it on the sole reason of animal rights then they should devise a plan of how to make all testing done on humans. To only oppose animal testing without a new plan being offered is leaving details unattended that damage their cause. Since very few people will understand or agree with my opposition to testing because the majority of people are scared of death without a human testing program animals will continue to be tested on.
- Mcdowelli76
June 1, 2009 6:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
YES
Why not test things on animals ,before giving it to humans?
- countryboy
September 7, 2009 9:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What do they REALLY learn?
What I want to know is how valid is the info that they get from testing on animals ? My concern is just because a certain chemical/drug has one affect on a mouse does that mean it will have the same affect on a human. There are biological differences there, which is why I refuse to take any pharma meds, I dont like the idea of "whats good for a mouse, is good for a human." Hence my aversion to big pharma, and my zero tolerance policy to their drugs . Do they seriously think I will take their meds because a mouse or monkey had positive results from taking it?
- rkm
September 15, 2009 12:34PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
medicaiton
Do they seriously think I will take their meds because a mouse or monkey had positive results from taking it?
- rkm
No, but then that is why animal testing is just part one of the testing process. Animal trials come first then, after extensive testing, it moves on to human trials. This is to minimize the risk to the humans who are the first test subjects. There are differences in anatomy and biology, but there are also remarkable similarities between humans and other animals .
- MrBook
September 15, 2009 5:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
still not convincing
This still does not change my mind about taking meds. I just do not think big pharma ultimately has my best interest in mind, they are more concerned about the money than they are what they are pumping into our bodies. I am still not going to take that crap and feed the machine.
- rkm
September 18, 2009 10:09AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.