Is Animal Testing Justified?

[The Dark Lord]

I believe it is, as it helps develop cures for human diseases so ultimately it is justified. I'd rather find a cure for cancer by killing 100 animals than leave the animals to live and no find a cure. Thoughts?

[Skeln]

Well after as long as the results form the chemical testings are auspicious then I would say that it is justified. We have an excess of rats as it is and even if we didn't we can quickly breed more so we have many testing subjects and as long as no cruel or inhumane measures are used then nothing terrible should befall the rats. No guarantees but I would preferably have the rat die than a human test subject. Besides, we kill rats in our own backyards using poisons not to mention the occasional catch for the dog so it's not like it's anything new. With proper procedures the rats wont suffer.

[INFERNO]

I vote yes but within certain boundaries only. I'm fine with animal testing but the methods of the testing and what is being tested I sometimes am not a supporter of. For example, if one method of testing the effectiveness of pain medications was breaking all the arms and legs of a rat/mouse without providing any medical assistance other than placebo or new pain medication, that is something I am against. This does not mean I'm against testing pain medications but rather certain methods that may be used to assess.

[Asylum]

i beleive animal testing to be wrong...

[Sith Lord 13]

It is when carried out in as humane a way as possible. Just like a fireman running into a burning building to save a pet. We all take, so we all have to give.

[Stallion]

i say its ok but only for finding cures for illnesses but for testing cosmetics i think that shouldnt be allowed because it is ethically wrong

[Skeln]

Yeah...the cosmetic testing has to stop...I doubt guinie pigs like to play Hilton every day.

[Perseus]

To an extent, yes. For hair products? Lol, no. If it helps find the cure for HIV/AIDS, yeah. If it's inhumane stuff, then no, sort of; I can continue, but I might be hated by the masses, so that's where I'll leave it.

[Modus Operandi]

I think it only crosses the line only when the animals suffer unnecessarily. Would you rather we test some of these cures in progress on humans? Not as a mean question, but as a practical one. I'm not sure where else we can even turn to for testing things.

[Jess]

it really depends. if it helps mankind yes if it's just for hair or whatever No

[INFERNO]

it really depends. if it helps mankind yes if it's just for hair or whatever No

What about if it's for testing drugs that are meant for veternarian purposes, such as a medication combating flees in dogs?

[Bawnji]

This method of research is most beneficial to human society. Rather than endanger people, we could extract a deeper understanding through animal testing. What is there to be found should we ignore problems and let them haunt us, directly?

[Jenna.]

I believe animal testing is wrong and most of the things they do are disgusting & appalling to be perfectly honest.

[The Dark Lord]

I believe animal testing is wrong and most of the things they do are disgusting & appalling to be perfectly honest.

But surely discovering a cure cancer outweighs killing a few rodents?

[Camazotz]

I am not one to judge the importance of one life form over another, so I'm neutral on the idea. I don't personally mind testing on animals since testing on humans is even worse, but putting any animal at risk of some kind of side-effect seems pretty immoral to me.

[Sith Lord 13]

What about if it's for testing drugs that are meant for veternarian purposes, such as a medication combating flees in dogs?

You just raised a good point I've never thought of when it comes to the debate on animal testing.

I'm all in favor of this kind of testing, just like I'm in favor of human trials before wide-spread medical use.

[jimmycouch14]

Unfortunately I believe it is necessary for the health and welfare of mankind. I won’t get into the argument of people being higher beings, but if they didn’t test new medications on animals what would they use? Don’t get me wrong I love animals and have pets of my own. I cried when my older cat had to be put to sleep. I just really believe it has to be done as humanly as possible. I also think there needs to be stricter regulations on the testing labs. Also only for medical purposes, not cosmetic reasons. I guess there are other arguments such as if we didn’t send a chimp into space we wouldn’t know it was safe for people. Without space exploration we wouldn’t even have digital watches or this web site. We as the dominate species really have to make sure we are doing everything possible to prevent unnecessary pain and suffering with all animals, not just the ones in the testing labs. This includes if you hunt (which I do) or if you eat (meat which I do.)

[MacMilker]

But surely discovering a cure cancer outweighs killing a few rodents?

But that isn't what goes on in some cases..

There are people who are inhumane in the process of it

[Sith Lord 13]

But surely discovering a cure cancer outweighs killing a few rodents?

Do you not see the logical progression of what you say? Only a few rodents becomes only a few cats and dogs. That becomes only a few dolphins and chimps. That becomes only a few mental deficient people. Until finally, you're living in Nazi Germany.

Note, I'm not saying animal testing is never a good thing, but that day when the death of a single being should fail to move us is a sad day indeed.

[The Dark Lord]

But that isn't what goes on in some cases..

There are people who are inhumane in the process of it

Your point being? I would rather 100 animals die than one human even catching a cold. It doesn't matter how humane people are in the name of scientific research, if it results in a cure for terminal illnesses

[SneakBrain]

well testing in animals is much better than testing in humans get it? animals are important but comes after human so if it was necessary yes although i vote for no

[The Dark Lord]

Do you not see the logical progression of what you say? Only a few rodents becomes only a few cats and dogs. That becomes only a few dolphins and chimps. That becomes only a few mental deficient people. Until finally, you're living in Nazi Germany.

Note, I'm not saying animal testing is never a good thing, but that day when the death of a single being should fail to move us is a sad day indeed.

Please don't insult my intelligence by implying I'm a Nazi, although if you think testing on rats will lead to testing on humans, then you are the type of person Hitler brain washed to come to power. Animal testing is done on dolphins as scientist believe they hold the cure to cancer, so not only are you naive, you are also incorrect

[The Batman]

Your point being? I would rather 100 animals die than one human even catching a cold. It doesn't matter how humane people are in the name of scientific research, if it results in a cure for terminal illnesses
Wow
Please don't insult my intelligence by implying I'm a Nazi, although if you think testing on rats will lead to testing on humans, then you are the type of person Hitler brain washed to come to power. Animal testing is done on dolphins as scientist believe they hold the cure to cancer, so not only are you naive, you are also incorrect
I would have agreed with you until you made that quote above. That is close to how the Nazi's thought...

[Sith Lord 13]

Please don't insult my intelligence by implying I'm a Nazi, although if you think testing on rats will lead to testing on humans, then you are the type of person Hitler brain washed to come to power. Animal testing is done on dolphins as scientist believe they hold the cure to cancer, so not only are you naive, you are also incorrect

First off, I didn't say you were a Nazi. Merely that this is the way humanity works. When any life means less than another, it will soon become a place where life itself has no meaning.

Second, if you thought I was being insulting by comparing what you said to a section of Nazi beliefs, please do not insult me by likening me to a Nazi party member. What I said was intended to show historical antecedent. What you said was nothing more than an ad hominem attack, and contributed nothing to the issue at hand. I have nothing against you personally, no matter how much I disagree with what you say. Please do not try and make this personal. Let's stick to the facts.

Third, I didn't say testing wasn't done on dolphins, although it is thankfully far less widespread than other forms of animal testing. If anything, the fact that testing is done on dolphins has proven my point. There is evidence that dolphins have intelligence that is at either human or near human levels. They appear to have the same capacity to feel, think, and reason as we do.



You keep saying animals are inferior to humans. Yet you have yet to provide substantial evidence of this claim. Please, show me some proof of this.

[The Dark Lord]

First off, I didn't say you were a Nazi. Merely that this is the way humanity works. When any life means less than another, it will soon become a place where life itself has no meaning.

Second, if you thought I was being insulting by comparing what you said to a section of Nazi beliefs, please do not insult me by likening me to a Nazi party member. What I said was intended to show historical antecedent. What you said was nothing more than an ad hominem attack, and contributed nothing to the issue at hand. I have nothing against you personally, no matter how much I disagree with what you say. Please do not try and make this personal. Let's stick to the facts.

Third, I didn't say testing wasn't done on dolphins, although it is thankfully far less widespread than other forms of animal testing. If anything, the fact that testing is done on dolphins has proven my point. There is evidence that dolphins have intelligence that is at either human or near human levels. They appear to have the same capacity to feel, think, and reason as we do.



You keep saying animals are inferior to humans. Yet you have yet to provide substantial evidence of this claim. Please, show me some proof of this.

Regardless of opinions surely finding that cure that will save millions of humans and animals is worth a couple of rats? Also we can talk, walk and have made monumentous discoveries, we have evolved further than animals, and are able to create food, shelter and materials in ways animals can't. Although I respect your opinion, I feel we are superior to animals and that if animal testing can save billions of humans or animals then it is justified in the name of science

Wow

I would have agreed with you until you made that quote above. That is close to how the Nazi's thought...

No its not, I think you are being unfair by implying that I think similarly to a Nazi, as no matter what happens people will never test products on humans.

[The Batman]

Regardless of opinions surely finding that cure that will save millions of humans and animals is worth a couple of rats? Also we can talk, walk and have made monumentous discoveries, we have evolved further than animals, and are able to create food, shelter and materials in ways animals can't. Although I respect your opinion, I feel we are superior to animals and that if animal testing can save billions of humans or animals then it is justified in the name of science



No its not, I think you are being unfair by implying that I think similarly to a Nazi, as no matter what happens people will never test products on humans.

At Auschwitz and other camps, under the direction of Dr. Eduard Wirths, selected inmates were subjected to various hazardous experiments which were supposedly designed to help German military personnel in combat situations, develop new weapons, aid in the recovery of military personnel that had been injured, and to advance the racial ideology backed by the Third Reich
Read this entire article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation

You're thinking of doing non-humane things to animals as long as it saves people. That's how the Germans thought about the Jews at the concentration camps, that as long as it saved lives of German soldiers it didn't matter what happened to them.

[The Dark Lord]

Read this entire article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation

You're thinking of doing non-humane things to animals as long as it saves people. That's how the Germans thought about the Jews at the concentration camps, that as long as it saved lives of German soldiers it didn't matter what happened to them.

I accept what you are saying but jews and animals aren't, at least according to me, equal. Also Hitler's personal hatred of Jews would have affected the German doctors research conclusions. I have also stated that if research helps animals then I feel it is justified. Also if you are comparing me to Adolf Hitler, I'm flattered but its not true or fair. I'm being realistic as opposed to idealistic.

[Sith Lord 13]

Regardless of opinions surely finding that cure that will save millions of humans and animals is worth a couple of rats? Also we can talk, walk and have made monumentous discoveries, we have evolved further than animals, and are able to create food, shelter and materials in ways animals can't. Although I respect your opinion, I feel we are superior to animals and that if animal testing can save billions of humans or animals then it is justified in the name of science

If I understand you correctly, the things you have said that make us superior to animals is that we walk, talk, and make "monumental discoveries". Most animals can walk. Many animals can talk, some even use human methods of communications, and the fact that we do not know how to communicate with the rest does not mean they can not speak. As for "monumental discoveries", until we have learned to communicate with a species, who knows what discoveries they have made.



No its not, I think you are being unfair by implying that I think similarly to a Nazi, as no matter what happens people will never test products on humans.

I don't think the biggest issue is that your thought patterns mimic Hitler. Rather, it is the fact that, as your thoughts spread to others, they will become more and more intensified. The person who listens to you could very easily become the next Hitler, as that is the logical progression of your concept.

[The Dark Lord]

I don't think the biggest issue is that your thought patterns mimic Hitler. Rather, it is the fact that, as your thoughts spread to others, they will become more and more intensified. The person who listens to you could very easily become the next Hitler, as that is the logical progression of your concept.

You begin from the wrong assumption: Animals are not equal to humans. I am neither convincing enough nor care enough to attempt to influence people's opinion. It is my belief, and my belief alone, that animal testing is justified. There was a deep-rooted anti jewish in Germany long before Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, Hitler merely brought the anti jewish movement forward, he did not create it. I don't believe animals are equal to humans but I do believe that ever human being is equal, and I also believe that most people would not allow testing on other human beings. You cannot possibly claim animal testing is wrong on the basis that it could lead to the rise of a fascist dictactor, that is obscene.

I believe that if a cure for cancer is discovered by killing 100 rodents (who are filled with disease anyway), then it would be worth it. Could someone please suggest a fair price for a cancer cure, if I am as out of touch with reality as it appears

[noratmedicine]

Humans do not benefit from animal experiments anyway...even peter singer has been paid by the vivisectors google 'ajudem nos singer rockefeller vivisection"
i didnt vote as there is no option saying "wrong and unnecessary and harmful to animals and humans"
from www.curedisease.net

DRUGS
"92% of new drugs fail in clinical trials, after they have passed all the safety tests in animals" US FDA (2004) "Innovation or Stagnation, Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to new Medical Products" (36).

"A drug that is tested in animals will have a completely different effect in man. There are uncounted examples that could be cited." (Dr. med. Karlheinz Blank) Lord Platt, President of the Royal College of Physicians said "No amount of animal testing can make a drug safe because humans react differently from animals." The report of the british pharmaceutical industries expert committee on drug toxicity said "Information from one animal species cannot be taken as valid for any other. It is not a matter of balancing the cruelty and suffering of animals against the gain of humanity spared from the suffering, because that is not the choice. Animals die to enable hundreds of new drugs to be marketed annually, but the gain is to industry, not mankind." Dr Herbert Gundersheimer, "Results from animal tests are not transferable between species, and therefore cannot guarantee product safety for humans…In reality these tests do not provide protection for consumers from unsafe products, but rather are used to protect corporations from legal liability." Report of the Medical Research Council "It must be emphasized that it is impossible to extrapolate quantitatively from one species to any other species." The Lancet, "We know from drug toxicity studies that animals are very imperfect indicators of human toxicity: only clinical experience and careful control of the introduction of new drugs can tell us about their real dangers." Dr Ralph Heywood, former scientific director of huntington life sciences, one of the largest contract research laboratories in the world speaking to the CIBA Foundation said "The best guess for the correlation of adverse toxic reactions between human and animal data is somewhere between 5% and 25%" and "90% of our work is done for legal and not for scientific reasons."
So the USFDA, from drug co's own data on millions of animals over decades indicates that animals are incorrect in determining drug toxicity for humans 92% of the time. It is a legal device, not a scientific one.

Microdosing Pharmagene of Asterand are making genetically engineered drugs made for individuals as drug effects vary between humans

CANCER from Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr

"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling PhD (Two-time Nobel Prize winner). Dr A. Sabin, creator of the vaccine of his name said, "It is time to end cancer research on animals because it is not related to humans." And Dr Irwin Bross in Fundamental and Applied Toxicology "The moral is that animal model systems not only kill animals they also kill humans. There is no good factual evidence to show that the use of animals in cancer research has led to the prevention or cure of a single human cancer." And Dr J F Brailsford "During the past fifty years scientists experimenting with thousands of animals have found 700 ways of causing cancer. But they had not discovered one way of curing the disease."


Have you ever wondered why, despite the billions of dollars spent on cancer research over many decades, and the constant promise of a cure which is forever "just around the corner", cancer continues to increase?
Cancer Is Increasing

Once quite rare, cancer is now the second major cause of death in Western countries such as Australia, the U.S.A. and the United Kingdom. In the early 1940s cancer accounted for 12% of Australian deaths. (1)ref # d'Espaignet, E.T. et al., Trends in Australian Mortality 1921-1988, Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS), Canberra, 1991, p. 33

By 1992 this figure had climbed to 25.9% of Australian deaths. (2)ref # Australian Bureau of Statistics, Causes of Death, Australia 1992, ABS, Canberra, 1993, p.1

and from safer med. campaign,
Given substances are not necessarily carcinogenic to all species. Studies show that 46% of chemicals found to be carcinogenic in rats were not carcinogenic in mice. [23] If species as closely related as mice to rats do not even contract cancer similarly, it's not surprising that 19 out of 20 compounds that are safe for humans caused cancer in animals. [24]


The US National Cancer Institute treated mice growing 48 different "human" cancers with a dozen different drugs proven successful in humans, and in 30 of the cases, the drugs were useless in mice. Almost two-thirds of the mouse models were wrong. Animal experimentation is not scientific because it is not predictive.

The US National Cancer Institute also undertook a 25 year screening programme, testing 40,000 plant species on animals for anti-tumour activity. Out of the outrageously expensive research, many positive results surfaced in animal models, but not a single benefit emerged for humans. As a result, the NCI now uses human cancer cells for cytotoxic screening.[25]

Dr. Richard Klausner, as director of the US National Cancer Institute, plainly states:

"The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse... We have cured mice of cancer for decades - and it simply didn't work in humans."
refs 23# DiCarlo DrugMet Rev,15; p409-131984.
24# Mutagenesis1987;2:73-78.
25# Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science, Volume II Animal Models Svendensen and Hau (Eds.) CRC Press 1994 p4.

you are certainly correct in saying that animal tests do not identify human carcionogens, even warnings on cigarette packets were delayed for 10 years due to animal 'tests' and 180 years for arsenic, also asbestos, literally thousands of human carcinogens. legal not scientific

Re insulin/diabetes as so little funds are put into human based research compared to animal we are unlikely to learn more about it.

i agree that animal res. isn't undertaken on a whim, getting published, qualifications, income and legal protection are major motives. even noble motives though do not lead to worthwhile results ie cures or protecting humans.

AIDS. from dr ray greek http://www.navs.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7753
"According to the February 20, 2009 issue of Science:

SIVcpz, the chimpanzee virus that infected humans and triggered the AIDS epidemic, caused no harm to apes. But new data reveal that wild chimps infected with SIVcpz are more likely to die than are uninfected chimps . . . Captive chimps experimentally infected with HIV-1 typically suffer no harm, which led several researchers to propose that chimps had lived with SIVcpz for centuries and that their immune systems had evolved to coexist with the virus. But few SIVcpz- infected chimps in the wild were identified until about a decade ago . . .

We hear all the time about a new breakthrough using animals. What often goes unreported in the news is that a vast majority of these fail to translate to humans. Since HIV was isolated researchers have been experimenting with nonhuman primates seeking a vaccine or cure. Neither have been found; for humans. Many vaccines and preventive measures have been found for monkeys. Yet the NIH continues to fund experiments on a different species suffering from a different virus.

Animals are not going to be predictive for humans because:

1.
animals and humans have different genes;
2.
animals and humans control and express the same genes differently;
3.
animals and humans live in different external environments (notice that wild chimpanzees are apparently susceptible to SIVcpz while captive chimps were not);
4.
animals and humans live in different internal environments (even if we all had the same gene, how all those genes and proteins interact would be different);
5.
even if animals and humans suffered from exactly the same virus in exactly the same fashion it does not follow they will respond similarly to the same treatment because different biochemical pathways may be involved.

The above differences highlight why monkeys are no better predictors for humans than are our more distant relatives, mice. A percentage of genetic similarity does not imply predictive ability...."

yes monkeys dont get aids so no point experimenting on them, same for all other human disease and all animal experiments. humans and animals only get the same diseases 1.16% of the time.

[Dorsum Oppel]

Fine for medical research, but not for cosmetics, ciggarettes and the like.

[songboy]

after reading these I think that if it saves races that other wise might of died out that it is fine

[Awesome]

There are so many animals on the world. Why not use some to our need. Lets see, we already eat them and hunt them. Testing on them is great to help us. Would you want a surgeon to tell you the surgery he is going to perform on you has never been tested on any living thing.

Remember that the human being is the dominant species in this world. We will always be.

[Continuum]

If the thing being tested is beneficial to mankind, I say yes but up to a certain point only. Animals should be treated as humane, if not preventing them to die off, as much as possible. Even though animals are no way equal to humans, we are responsible for any actions done to them.

[tpzy94]

not to be rude but irdc bout animal testing i mean its rather them than us n also they multipky quicker then us soo...

[preppykid95]

I believe it is, as it helps develop cures for human diseases so ultimately it is justified. I'd rather find a cure for cancer by killing 100 animals than leave the animals to live and no find a cure. Thoughts?

If animals could talk what do you think THEY would say?

[Kaius]

This has been dead for nearly 2 months, don't bump please :locked: