Do you think Animal Testing is right?

[Meree.]

Hello everyone.
So recently, I have been studying alot about Animal Testing in Biology.
I've always thought about this kind of thing, and I want to know if YOU think it's right?

Animal Testing basically consists of coming up with cure's for diseases,
and the terminally ill (Maybe to extend there life span, etc)
They firstly test on a bunch of cells but the cells are not whole and are just a group so they need to then test on something whole.
Whats I find wrong about this is, they test on rats, mice, monkey's, dogs etc and acheive nothing.
Animals have a different emmune system etc, and it reacts differently to them than it does to us humans. It may work on them, doesn't mean its gonna work on us. Aswell as that, if it doesn't work, it can put the animal through alot of pain, and suffering aswell as it leading to deaths.
My brother thinks it's right to test on rats and mice, but not for Dogs and Monkeys.

In my opinion it should be stopped altogether. It's cruel. All those animals have lives just like we do.. it's not right..

Thats just my opinion!
Now I wanna know what YOU think!
So post a reply below with what you feel about this debate!

DO YOU THINK ANIMAL TESTING IS RIGHT?
Positive and nice comments only! & Please don't judge others opinions.
Thanks! = )

[GommeInc]

Well there's different ideas really - Animals are not as sentient as Humans (particularly rats which we share alot in common with), so arguably suggesting the rat is going to suffer pain the same way as we do is debateable - we are not rats and rats are not humans, so the two different species arguably have two different thought patterns, pain receptors and so forth.

Then there's the one you pointed out, alot of the time the immune system is very different - not just species, but individual creatures like Human A might have a different immune system to Human B, or Rat A is different to Rat B. This is where testing on humans comes in to play when the product has passed testing on animals (or insects in some cases), because they usually test on multiple animals to get a successful ratio. It also depends on the product too, medicines can be quite dodgy, but we owe alot to animals. It's only medical testing (brain surgery and other organs) which appear to be animal cruelty, where the animal is opened up and played around with and the chances are it will come out brain damaged.

Isn't Animal Testing unpopular now, compared to the past? Alot of activists managed to get the major tests removed (medical and part medicinal). Beauty products are usually testing straight to humans, as they are only going to cause rashes at best, considering most ingredients in beauty products are now known to us

[AlexOC]

Well, i'm subscribed to PETA, and i hate anything to do with Animal Cruelty. I wish people would open their eyes to what happens behind closed doors and refuse to purchase products from companies that test on animals. I will only use products which are not tested on animals, and i think everyone should follow suit. Besides most test results gained from testing on animals are invalid, due to the differences between our body and theirs. Like the graze test, which involves pouring a liquid such as perfume or shampoo into a rabbits eye then leaving it to see the outcome to determine wether it is safe or not for human use, even though a rabbits eye is so different in many ways than a human eye deeming the results possibly nonsense.

[Ardemax]

If we didn't, many cures and medicines wouldn't be around today.

It's a little loss for a big gain.

[AlexOC]

If we didn't, many cures and medicines wouldn't be around today.

It's a little loss for a big gain.

But now we have technology to aid us in research. We can't just use animals because they can't say no. We used to test on black people, orphans, gays and gypsys but that had to stop because of 'human rights', so why isn't 'animal rights' being enforced.

[FlyingJesus]

Animals are not as sentient as Humans

As in not sentient at all I think there are arguments that dolphins may be but I don't know of any labs that test medicines on dolphins so kind of a moot point.

Then there's the one you pointed out, alot of the time the immune system is very different - not just species, but individual creatures like Human A might have a different immune system to Human B, or Rat A is different to Rat B.

Aye but for basic things such as finding out dosage and physical side effects it's far better for a few rats to be damaged than to kill off humans by not testing something before release, and even if you later do human testing it's best to know what you might expect first.

It's only medical testing (brain surgery and other organs) which appear to be animal cruelty, where the animal is opened up and played around with and the chances are it will come out brain damaged.

I'd have thought cosmetic animal testing would be considered more cruel as the human benefits are so much less prominent - lathering a dog up in potentially dangerous chemicals would I'm sure be more supported if it were to put an end to some medical condition rather than if it were to test a new perfume

Well, i'm subscribed to PETA, and i hate anything to do with Animal Cruelty.

Puts you out of any logical argument.

I wish people would open their eyes to what happens behind closed doors and refuse to purchase products from companies that test on animals.

Why? I don't believe in non-humans having equal rights in terms of comfort and freedom as it only bothers them in a purely reflexive way rather than having any sort of understanding, and I'd rather reap the benefits of testing than see a cat smile.

I will only use products which are not tested on animals, and i think everyone should follow suit.

I only like to talk to people irl I think are attractive and think everyone should follow suit, but that's just as much a pipedream.

Besides most test results gained from testing on animals are invalid, due to the differences between our body and theirs. Like the graze test, which involves pouring a liquid such as perfume or shampoo into a rabbits eye then leaving it to see the outcome to determine wether it is safe or not for human use, even though a rabbits eye is so different in many ways than a human eye deeming the results possibly nonsense.

Well no it's still an eye, the fundamental makeup of it works similarly enough for it to be useful if there's a massive problem. I would far prefer a rough guess at the dangers of a compound at the expense of a few rabbits than leave an entire market of human consumers at risk, and believe it to be utterly ridiculous to opine otherwise.

But now we have technology to aid us in research. We can't just use animals because they can't say no. We used to test on black people, orphans, gays and gypsys but that had to stop because of 'human rights', so why isn't 'animal rights' being enforced.

Not the same in any single way except for it being alive. You may as well campaign for equal rights for plantlife and bacteria.

[AlexOC]

As in not sentient at all I think there are arguments that dolphins may be but I don't know of any labs that test medicines on dolphins so kind of a moot point.



Aye but for basic things such as finding out dosage and physical side effects it's far better for a few rats to be damaged than to kill off humans by not testing something before release, and even if you later do human testing it's best to know what you might expect first.



I'd have thought cosmetic animal testing would be considered more cruel as the human benefits are so much less prominent - lathering a dog up in potentially dangerous chemicals would I'm sure be more supported if it were to put an end to some medical condition rather than if it were to test a new perfume



Puts you out of any logical argument.



Why? I don't believe in non-humans having equal rights in terms of comfort and freedom as it only bothers them in a purely reflexive way rather than having any sort of understanding, and I'd rather reap the benefits of testing than see a cat smile.



I only like to talk to people irl I think are attractive and think everyone should follow suit, but that's just as much a pipedream.



Well no it's still an eye, the fundamental makeup of it works similarly enough for it to be useful if there's a massive problem. I would far prefer a rough guess at the dangers of a compound at the expense of a few rabbits than leave an entire market of human consumers at risk, and believe it to be utterly ridiculous to opine otherwise.



Not the same in any single way except for it being alive. You may as well campaign for equal rights for plantlife and bacteria.

Well no, because many problems have not been detected through a graze test, which have then occured once the product has been brought out for human use. Because a rabbits eye reacts differently to a humans.

And that is a stupid thing to say, your responses show you are very narrow-minded, which is why YOU can not input logically into this argument.

[Richie]

Nope I don't think its right

[Ardemax]

Ok let me put it to you: you had life threatening cancer

Your one hope is that they test this new drug.

They can't because animals can't be tested on, what are you going to do?

[FlyingJesus]

Well no, because many problems have not been detected through a graze test, which have then occured once the product has been brought out for human use. Because a rabbits eye reacts differently to a humans.

Compared to how many problems that HAVE been successfully avoided through extensive animal testing? One simply cannot deny the benefits no matter what your moral standpoint

And that is a stupid thing to say, your responses show you are very narrow-minded, which is why YOU can not input logically into this argument.

You obviously don't know what logic is if you don't think my arguments are logical. My guess is that's aimed at the plant/bacteria thing as that was bolded, and may I ask why that's not a logical step? If humans aren't allowed to be considered more advanced and therefore more worthy of rights than other animals then why can mammals have rights over plants and microorganisms? They're just as alive as a rat or bat or the cat that sat on the mat so what you think about that