Forums > Social Discussion > Is Testing on Animals Acceptible?
Login/Join to ParticipateBRONZE Member
chemical attraction
1,097 posts
Location: Ilkeston, Derbyshire, England
chemical attraction
1,097 posts
Location: Ilkeston, Derbyshire, England
Posted:
I am interested in everyones opinion as to whether they agree or
disagree with testing new drugs or products on animals before
they are released on to the market.If you do not agree how else
would you make sure they were safe and if you do agree please
tell me why...thanks
I am interested in everyones opinion as to whether they agree or
disagree with testing new drugs or products on animals before
they are released on to the market.If you do not agree how else
would you make sure they were safe and if you do agree please
tell me why...thanks
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
I'm not touching this one with a ten foot pole.
This one can only end in tears.
I'm not touching this one with a ten foot pole.
This one can only end in tears.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
First, there are people who say that animal testing is unnecessary and that we could do it with in vitro testing and computer simulations.
They're wrong. We simply can't model an intact organism that well. I should know; I've done animal research.
To those who oppose all testing for drugs on animals, I ask you to please stand by your principles and refuse all medical therapy. Why? Every drug out there (And I mean EVERY drug out there) has been tested on animals. After all, you've just whipped up some new chemical in a test tube that you think might have an effect...or it might be metabolized in some way you haven't thought of to some horribly toxic substance. You want us to start by giving it to people? Not gonna work.
Research on animals is the reason why this amazing drug I'm on ENBREL exists. Insight into the role of tumor necrosis factor in a mouse model of rheumatoid arthritis led to the discoveries that eventually led to the development of this drug, to say nothing of the advances required to figure out how to make a mammalian expression system to produce the drug.
I don't like animal testing anymore than the next guy; nobody does. But without it, there would be no medicine.
Now...for cosmetics? I suppose that new agents should always be tested just to make sure they won't cause burns or something, but other than that, I oppose animal testing for beauty agents that make use of well-known and generally-regarded-as-safe ingredients.
First, there are people who say that animal testing is unnecessary and that we could do it with in vitro testing and computer simulations.
They're wrong. We simply can't model an intact organism that well. I should know; I've done animal research.
To those who oppose all testing for drugs on animals, I ask you to please stand by your principles and refuse all medical therapy. Why? Every drug out there (And I mean EVERY drug out there) has been tested on animals. After all, you've just whipped up some new chemical in a test tube that you think might have an effect...or it might be metabolized in some way you haven't thought of to some horribly toxic substance. You want us to start by giving it to people? Not gonna work.
Research on animals is the reason why this amazing drug I'm on ENBREL exists. Insight into the role of tumor necrosis factor in a mouse model of rheumatoid arthritis led to the discoveries that eventually led to the development of this drug, to say nothing of the advances required to figure out how to make a mammalian expression system to produce the drug.
I don't like animal testing anymore than the next guy; nobody does. But without it, there would be no medicine.
Now...for cosmetics? I suppose that new agents should always be tested just to make sure they won't cause burns or something, but other than that, I oppose animal testing for beauty agents that make use of well-known and generally-regarded-as-safe ingredients.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
SILVER Member
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Posted:
For medicine, yes, for the reasons Lightning's just posted.
For cosmetics, no.
For medicine, yes, for the reasons Lightning's just posted.
For cosmetics, no.
But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Posted:
I agree with Lightning 100%. I work at a medical university and deal with data on a daily basis that is from animal cells of some sort.
I'm also a statistician, so I know how impossible it is to accurately create a model for human data with just plain numbers. Heck, we can't even do it very adequately for animal models, what makes someone think it's possible for human models which are usually a tad more complex? I've been involved in trying to create a mathematical model of just one system, and while we have gotten some where, the model is not 100% accurate, and we have only used less than half the data to create the model because you can only have so many equations with so many unknowns...i.e. there can't be more unknowns than equations (most of the models involve differential equations) or else a solution will not exist.
At the moment, I'm dealing with RSV which is a lower respiratory disease that can be fatal to children under two. We are looking at infected mice at the moment to try to see which proteins because differently in diseased cells versus normal cells. The goal is to develop a drug to make it less lethal to young children. I'm also looking at mouse cells from the brains of animals that have been given cocaine - partially to see how the brain behaves, partially to understand if the drug could ever be used positively in a controlled setting, and partially to understand the chemical dependence of the drug. Doctors have to deal with patients doped up on these and other drugs so it's important to study. I've also dealt with mice given X to look at possible benefits of it as well.
I agree with Lightning 100%. I work at a medical university and deal with data on a daily basis that is from animal cells of some sort.
I'm also a statistician, so I know how impossible it is to accurately create a model for human data with just plain numbers. Heck, we can't even do it very adequately for animal models, what makes someone think it's possible for human models which are usually a tad more complex? I've been involved in trying to create a mathematical model of just one system, and while we have gotten some where, the model is not 100% accurate, and we have only used less than half the data to create the model because you can only have so many equations with so many unknowns...i.e. there can't be more unknowns than equations (most of the models involve differential equations) or else a solution will not exist.
At the moment, I'm dealing with RSV which is a lower respiratory disease that can be fatal to children under two. We are looking at infected mice at the moment to try to see which proteins because differently in diseased cells versus normal cells. The goal is to develop a drug to make it less lethal to young children. I'm also looking at mouse cells from the brains of animals that have been given cocaine - partially to see how the brain behaves, partially to understand if the drug could ever be used positively in a controlled setting, and partially to understand the chemical dependence of the drug. Doctors have to deal with patients doped up on these and other drugs so it's important to study. I've also dealt with mice given X to look at possible benefits of it as well.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
"Duuude, like, so, we gave these mice some E, and they acted...like...all wierd and stuff."
Bless you for working with RSV...the bain of my existence in pediatrics. There is a monoclonal antibody against it (palivizumab [SYNAGIS]), but it doesn't treat an active infection and it kind of really doesn't work that well, anyway.
"Duuude, like, so, we gave these mice some E, and they acted...like...all wierd and stuff."
Bless you for working with RSV...the bain of my existence in pediatrics. There is a monoclonal antibody against it (palivizumab [SYNAGIS]), but it doesn't treat an active infection and it kind of really doesn't work that well, anyway.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Posted:
Well, we've learned quite a bit about the proteins that are activated because of RSV infection. In fact, it's all I ever speak about when I go to conferences and such because that's the data I've been analysing the longest. It's also the reason we are trying to model a specific regulatory pathway. There are two docs here who are very actively working on RSV. I have been told there is a rather small community of people working on it, so if I hear anything positive, I'll be sure to let you know.
Well, we've learned quite a bit about the proteins that are activated because of RSV infection. In fact, it's all I ever speak about when I go to conferences and such because that's the data I've been analysing the longest. It's also the reason we are trying to model a specific regulatory pathway. There are two docs here who are very actively working on RSV. I have been told there is a rather small community of people working on it, so if I hear anything positive, I'll be sure to let you know.
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,533 posts
Location: Hampshire College, MA, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,533 posts
Location: Hampshire College, MA, USA
Posted:
my dad works for the FDA and does a good bit of animal research. many of the tests preformed on animals are no fun at all, but they are treated very well. everything possible is done to ease thier suffering, and if it is clear that the animal is not going to live, they are quickly and painlessly delivered from their suffering. animal testing might not be nice, but its necessary. there is absolutely no substitute for living test subjects (yet), and nobody is suggesting we use people. that leaves only other animals, unfortunately.
my dad works for the FDA and does a good bit of animal research. many of the tests preformed on animals are no fun at all, but they are treated very well. everything possible is done to ease thier suffering, and if it is clear that the animal is not going to live, they are quickly and painlessly delivered from their suffering. animal testing might not be nice, but its necessary. there is absolutely no substitute for living test subjects (yet), and nobody is suggesting we use people. that leaves only other animals, unfortunately.
-James
"How do you know if you're happy or sad without a mask? Or angry? Or ready for dessert?"
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I think that it's acceptable for those who oppose animal testing to make use of medical therapy, for the following reasons: -
1. the reason all drugs have been tested on animals is because that is the way our culture does things. If animal testing was either banned, or reduced, then drugs would be tested using other methods (simulations, on humans etc).
Obviously those who oppose all, or some, animal testing, did not request, or agree to, all drugs being tested on animals; as they didn't request or bring about the current situation, I see no reason for them to deny themselves medical treatment.
2. For those who do want to push that point (that those who oppose testing should refuse treatment), I believe it would only be fair if alternatives were offered. this would either be drugs not tested on animals, or by establishing a cut-off date such that those who do oppose animal testing would not use any new drugs tested on animals after that date.
IMO, you need to offer alternatives; it's not fair to say 'you oppose testing therefore you can either take this (possibly) life saving drug (and be a hypocrite); or, you can go without treatment entirely.
Written by: LLiigghhttnniinngg
To those who oppose all testing for drugs on animals, I ask you to please stand by your principles and refuse all medical therapy. Why? Every drug out there (And I mean EVERY drug out there) has been tested on animals. ..........
I think that it's acceptable for those who oppose animal testing to make use of medical therapy, for the following reasons: -
1. the reason all drugs have been tested on animals is because that is the way our culture does things. If animal testing was either banned, or reduced, then drugs would be tested using other methods (simulations, on humans etc).
Obviously those who oppose all, or some, animal testing, did not request, or agree to, all drugs being tested on animals; as they didn't request or bring about the current situation, I see no reason for them to deny themselves medical treatment.
2. For those who do want to push that point (that those who oppose testing should refuse treatment), I believe it would only be fair if alternatives were offered. this would either be drugs not tested on animals, or by establishing a cut-off date such that those who do oppose animal testing would not use any new drugs tested on animals after that date.
IMO, you need to offer alternatives; it's not fair to say 'you oppose testing therefore you can either take this (possibly) life saving drug (and be a hypocrite); or, you can go without treatment entirely.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
Mumma Hen
6,391 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Mumma Hen
6,391 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posted:
all I am going to say is that its disgusting, its unessacary, it makes me so angry my blood boils.
I belong to the antivivisection society.
oh my god. Just thinking about it makes me furious.
Im with NYC.
*hides behind NYC*
all I am going to say is that its disgusting, its unessacary, it makes me so angry my blood boils.
I belong to the antivivisection society.
oh my god. Just thinking about it makes me furious.
Im with NYC.
*hides behind NYC*
TAJ "boat mummy." VALURA "yes sweetie you went on a boat, was daddy there with you?" TAJ "no, but monkey on boat" VALURA "well then sweetie, Daddy WAS there with you"
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
Hee hee... Can you hide behind me even though we radically disagree?
I'm all for "Agree to disagree" now let's have tea.
Hee hee... Can you hide behind me even though we radically disagree?
I'm all for "Agree to disagree" now let's have tea.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
SILVER Member
Mumma Hen
6,391 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Mumma Hen
6,391 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posted:
Im agreeing with you to stay away from here....Ill still hide behind you even if we disagree... cause this kind of stuff actually gives me nightmares.
*drinks tea in fancy cup...*
Im agreeing with you to stay away from here....Ill still hide behind you even if we disagree... cause this kind of stuff actually gives me nightmares.
*drinks tea in fancy cup...*
TAJ "boat mummy." VALURA "yes sweetie you went on a boat, was daddy there with you?" TAJ "no, but monkey on boat" VALURA "well then sweetie, Daddy WAS there with you"
member
53 posts
Location: Arizona, USA
53 posts
Location: Arizona, USA
Posted:
i've had many debates with people on this topic, but the best reason i have for not agreeing with animal testing is that, even though we are phisoloically similar to animals, biologically we are much different. I mean in this that our bodies react differently compared to the bodies of animals used in tests. First of all, interesting fact, a rodent, any rodent, giunea pig, rat, mouse whatever, can synthesize about 3 (might be thirty, dont have my notes with me, when i say debate i meant debates
) times more vitamin C then the average person can within their bodies. Because of this, it reacts differently when exposed to certain diseases or anomolies (such as cancer, or stroke research). Therefore, when, testing of these problems goes on with a rodent, as it does most of the time, it causes different problems with the research because of this one difference (there is a REASON why orange juice commercials say drinking their product can reduce the chances of certain cancers and diseases). Next, there is a problem pyschologically for the testing of drugs on animals. Think of this from your own point of view. Lets say you have a big project due, its the middle of the night, you need to present it tomorrow, and no one in your group has done a thing to help you on it. What are the chances that you, are extremely stressed out and, because of this, are starting to get sick? I see it all the time once finals come around on college campuses. Dozens upon dozens of sick students stressed out about their next exam. If we are so similar to animals, dont you think they would respond to stress pysiologically in the same way we do? Dont you also think that if you're testing something on an animal and it gets more sick because of stress on top of having the infection already artificially injected into it, then this can cause severe problems in the research? As for those who say we cannot use in vitro testing i ask this question. What are you looking at in the first place? You are looking at anomolies that take place at the molecular level and destroy cells at that level as well. It would be much easier to say, allow a little something called stem cell research to be oked by certain world powers, then use these stem cells to develop into the types of cells of a certain area, inject the cells, through micromanipulation of some sort, take your pick, with the said anomoly, and then test and retest for a vaccine. This seems like a better way of going about things to me. Those who say that there is no other way are not looking hard enough or just given into the norms of society and what is deemed acceptable. Thats it for now, i think i have rambled on enough and i am sure that most of the people reading this post have not even gotten to this point before they make there decision about my case and judge me accordingly (this based off the fact that i am one of two people i think that have been opposed to this new age of vivisection). Anyways i dont pretend to know all the answers, but there is more out there then meets the eye.
i've had many debates with people on this topic, but the best reason i have for not agreeing with animal testing is that, even though we are phisoloically similar to animals, biologically we are much different. I mean in this that our bodies react differently compared to the bodies of animals used in tests. First of all, interesting fact, a rodent, any rodent, giunea pig, rat, mouse whatever, can synthesize about 3 (might be thirty, dont have my notes with me, when i say debate i meant debates
) times more vitamin C then the average person can within their bodies. Because of this, it reacts differently when exposed to certain diseases or anomolies (such as cancer, or stroke research). Therefore, when, testing of these problems goes on with a rodent, as it does most of the time, it causes different problems with the research because of this one difference (there is a REASON why orange juice commercials say drinking their product can reduce the chances of certain cancers and diseases). Next, there is a problem pyschologically for the testing of drugs on animals. Think of this from your own point of view. Lets say you have a big project due, its the middle of the night, you need to present it tomorrow, and no one in your group has done a thing to help you on it. What are the chances that you, are extremely stressed out and, because of this, are starting to get sick? I see it all the time once finals come around on college campuses. Dozens upon dozens of sick students stressed out about their next exam. If we are so similar to animals, dont you think they would respond to stress pysiologically in the same way we do? Dont you also think that if you're testing something on an animal and it gets more sick because of stress on top of having the infection already artificially injected into it, then this can cause severe problems in the research? As for those who say we cannot use in vitro testing i ask this question. What are you looking at in the first place? You are looking at anomolies that take place at the molecular level and destroy cells at that level as well. It would be much easier to say, allow a little something called stem cell research to be oked by certain world powers, then use these stem cells to develop into the types of cells of a certain area, inject the cells, through micromanipulation of some sort, take your pick, with the said anomoly, and then test and retest for a vaccine. This seems like a better way of going about things to me. Those who say that there is no other way are not looking hard enough or just given into the norms of society and what is deemed acceptable. Thats it for now, i think i have rambled on enough and i am sure that most of the people reading this post have not even gotten to this point before they make there decision about my case and judge me accordingly (this based off the fact that i am one of two people i think that have been opposed to this new age of vivisection). Anyways i dont pretend to know all the answers, but there is more out there then meets the eye. ....i got nothing.
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
Don't know about America, but in the EU animal testing of mixtures of cosmetics is prohibited. The only testing allowed is that of new ingredients. While there is always an off-chance that mixtures will have negative effects that the single components don't, I suppose it's a fairly reasonable regulation.
The only reason shops like the Body Shop can sell non-animal tested products is that other companies have tested all the components previously.
At the moment, lots of companies are working like crazy (including the one sponsoring my PhD!) to find alternative models for testing of the single ingredients. There are many regions of cosmetic testing like skin absorbance where good models do exist, but others can't be that easily assessed. Some examples are reproductive toxicology (for those that don't know it, this is one of the points where lots of disabled children were born I think in the 60s, because the animal model DID differ from the human!), or chronic inhalation studies, which I work on.
The EU plans to phase out all animal testing for which alternatives can be found and validated within the next 9 years. I'm sure there will be some issues where alternatives will never be found (I'm doubtful about my project, for example, though currently things are looking good), but it's a step in the right direction.
About testing for medicine, all I can say is that me and people I love live with or have suffered from diabetes, Morbus Crohn, cancer, depressions, high blood pressure, epilepsy and probably a good many other things I can't remember right now, and I'm quite glad animal testing has found methods to keep us alive. I've heard some people saying they'd prefer sick people to die instead of torturing the animals, but I'll wait until they have children that need medicine for them to change their mind
Written by: LLiigghhttnniinngg
Now...for cosmetics? I suppose that new agents should always be tested just to make sure they won't cause burns or something, but other than that, I oppose animal testing for beauty agents that make use of well-known and generally-regarded-as-safe ingredients.
Don't know about America, but in the EU animal testing of mixtures of cosmetics is prohibited. The only testing allowed is that of new ingredients. While there is always an off-chance that mixtures will have negative effects that the single components don't, I suppose it's a fairly reasonable regulation.
The only reason shops like the Body Shop can sell non-animal tested products is that other companies have tested all the components previously.
At the moment, lots of companies are working like crazy (including the one sponsoring my PhD!) to find alternative models for testing of the single ingredients. There are many regions of cosmetic testing like skin absorbance where good models do exist, but others can't be that easily assessed. Some examples are reproductive toxicology (for those that don't know it, this is one of the points where lots of disabled children were born I think in the 60s, because the animal model DID differ from the human!), or chronic inhalation studies, which I work on.
The EU plans to phase out all animal testing for which alternatives can be found and validated within the next 9 years. I'm sure there will be some issues where alternatives will never be found (I'm doubtful about my project, for example, though currently things are looking good), but it's a step in the right direction.
About testing for medicine, all I can say is that me and people I love live with or have suffered from diabetes, Morbus Crohn, cancer, depressions, high blood pressure, epilepsy and probably a good many other things I can't remember right now, and I'm quite glad animal testing has found methods to keep us alive. I've heard some people saying they'd prefer sick people to die instead of torturing the animals, but I'll wait until they have children that need medicine for them to change their mind
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
BRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
Well, evidentally even the Vice President of PETA is for drug testing since she knowingly takes an animal tested drug for her diabetes.
And if PETA supports it, well then.....
I concider it a necessary evil, plain and simple for me, for medical purposes as well as for *new* cosmetic ingredients.
I also agree that people who vehemently oppose it, especially those such as PETA, should stand by their convictions and find alternatives.
Well, evidentally even the Vice President of PETA is for drug testing since she knowingly takes an animal tested drug for her diabetes.
And if PETA supports it, well then.....
I concider it a necessary evil, plain and simple for me, for medical purposes as well as for *new* cosmetic ingredients.
I also agree that people who vehemently oppose it, especially those such as PETA, should stand by their convictions and find alternatives.
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
My view as a vegan of 5 years: Animal testing for any reason other than non commercial medical isn't acceptable. I don't think the UK legistlation goes far enough. There's nothing stopping companies having products tested outside the EU and selling them here, where animal care standards are even lower. There's no law against selling such products.
What I'd like: If an experiment must be performed for medical purposes which can't be done another way, then it can be done on the basis that it's creditable (ie they've put forth good reasoning and several other scientists are willing to put their name to it), performed properly and the results are made freely available in a centralised database, so it does not need repeating unnessecarily in the future, with strong penalties against people who do not adhere. I'm sure a lot involved with vivisection would agree, and I'd rather campaign for this than complete abolution.
However, I think animal testing for non medical, commercial gain is just wrong (especially when there's alternatives but it's done to save money), it's no better than the experiments the nazis performed in germany. Personally I don't use any animal tested products (within the past 10 years) or those containing animal ingrediants (including medication), and I have been known to refuse painkillers in hospital. Would I change my mind if i was in more pain or had a life threatening disease? I don't know, never been in that situation. Perhaps. In the meantime I have no hard feelings against people involved in medical research (of which the motivation of many I'm sure is to help people) or those using the products.
Does the body shop actually not perform any animal testing? As far as I'm aware they've only ever said that they're against it. I remember on the tour of their factory the guide was very uneasy about answering the direction question "does bodyshop test on animals". Being against something isn't quite the same isn't quite the same as not practising it. Goerge Bush is against terrorism......
My view as a vegan of 5 years: Animal testing for any reason other than non commercial medical isn't acceptable. I don't think the UK legistlation goes far enough. There's nothing stopping companies having products tested outside the EU and selling them here, where animal care standards are even lower. There's no law against selling such products.
What I'd like: If an experiment must be performed for medical purposes which can't be done another way, then it can be done on the basis that it's creditable (ie they've put forth good reasoning and several other scientists are willing to put their name to it), performed properly and the results are made freely available in a centralised database, so it does not need repeating unnessecarily in the future, with strong penalties against people who do not adhere. I'm sure a lot involved with vivisection would agree, and I'd rather campaign for this than complete abolution.
However, I think animal testing for non medical, commercial gain is just wrong (especially when there's alternatives but it's done to save money), it's no better than the experiments the nazis performed in germany. Personally I don't use any animal tested products (within the past 10 years) or those containing animal ingrediants (including medication), and I have been known to refuse painkillers in hospital. Would I change my mind if i was in more pain or had a life threatening disease? I don't know, never been in that situation. Perhaps. In the meantime I have no hard feelings against people involved in medical research (of which the motivation of many I'm sure is to help people) or those using the products.
Written by: Birgit
The only reason shops like the Body Shop can sell non-animal tested products is that other companies have tested all the components previously.
Does the body shop actually not perform any animal testing? As far as I'm aware they've only ever said that they're against it. I remember on the tour of their factory the guide was very uneasy about answering the direction question "does bodyshop test on animals". Being against something isn't quite the same isn't quite the same as not practising it. Goerge Bush is against terrorism......
Master of the Munchkins
246 posts
246 posts
Posted:
I think it depends on whether or not the product would actually benefit mankind, for instance if penicillin was discovered nowadays I think it would be acceptable to test it on animals because it would hugely benefit mankind, however if it is, as i have heard many a time, cosmetics that are tested on animals to see if they are harmful i think that is utterly wrong. Cosmetics are not important enough to subject any creature to that treatment. However I think if a massively important drug had been developed, such as a cure for cancer, it should be tested on animals, because th benefit to the world would be unimaginable
I think it depends on whether or not the product would actually benefit mankind, for instance if penicillin was discovered nowadays I think it would be acceptable to test it on animals because it would hugely benefit mankind, however if it is, as i have heard many a time, cosmetics that are tested on animals to see if they are harmful i think that is utterly wrong. Cosmetics are not important enough to subject any creature to that treatment. However I think if a massively important drug had been developed, such as a cure for cancer, it should be tested on animals, because th benefit to the world would be unimaginable
Are you that clever that you smile forever? 
What's from the Earth is of the greatest worth
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Even penicillin had to be tested on animals.
So it kills bacteria. Is that because it kills EVERYTHING, or because it selectively kills bacteria.
Animal trials are solely done to establish safety for humans. We know it's not predictive, which is why human trials for safety are done next, and THEN large-scale human trials for efficacy. That's why it can take 10 years from test tube to tablet.
For those of you who oppose animal testing for drugs, what are the alternatives?
"Simulation" isn't an option. Let me just stop that one right there. If you're going to say "in vitro," then be detailed in how we are to measure all physiological variables in vitro.
I'm always open to alternatives. I hate animal research. But I just don't see another option without bringing all medical research to a screeching halt.
Even penicillin had to be tested on animals.
So it kills bacteria. Is that because it kills EVERYTHING, or because it selectively kills bacteria.
Animal trials are solely done to establish safety for humans. We know it's not predictive, which is why human trials for safety are done next, and THEN large-scale human trials for efficacy. That's why it can take 10 years from test tube to tablet.
For those of you who oppose animal testing for drugs, what are the alternatives?
"Simulation" isn't an option. Let me just stop that one right there. If you're going to say "in vitro," then be detailed in how we are to measure all physiological variables in vitro.
I'm always open to alternatives. I hate animal research. But I just don't see another option without bringing all medical research to a screeching halt.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
Master of the Munchkins
246 posts
246 posts
Posted:
but do you agree that for things like cosmetics it is unessesary?
but do you agree that for things like cosmetics it is unessesary?
Are you that clever that you smile forever?
What's from the Earth is of the greatest worth
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Oh yeah, for cosmetics, unless there's a brand-new agent in there, it's unnecessary.
Oh yeah, for cosmetics, unless there's a brand-new agent in there, it's unnecessary.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
Master of the Munchkins
246 posts
246 posts
Posted:
I dont understand people who think that it should be stopped completely, i mean sure its not very nice, but they should just imagine how much worse quality of life and life expectancy would be without animal testing on revolutionary drugs
I dont understand people who think that it should be stopped completely, i mean sure its not very nice, but they should just imagine how much worse quality of life and life expectancy would be without animal testing on revolutionary drugs
Are you that clever that you smile forever?
What's from the Earth is of the greatest worth
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Like I said, take a drug like ENBREL that has changed the quality of life for so many people, including myself. NO WAY you could do that without animal research into:
1) Mechanisms of rheumatoid arthritis in animal models
2) Research in transgenic protein expression in animal cell culture
3) Toxicity research
4) Rsearch into animal genetics
Just to start.
Like I said, take a drug like ENBREL that has changed the quality of life for so many people, including myself. NO WAY you could do that without animal research into:
1) Mechanisms of rheumatoid arthritis in animal models
2) Research in transgenic protein expression in animal cell culture
3) Toxicity research
4) Rsearch into animal genetics
Just to start.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
Master of the Munchkins
246 posts
246 posts
Posted:
what does ENBREL do?
what does ENBREL do?
Are you that clever that you smile forever?
What's from the Earth is of the greatest worth
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
ENBREL is a soluble TNF-alpha receptor. Basically, TNF-alpha is a big honking protein that is involved in the inflammatory process in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, juvenile rheumatoid arhtritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis (which is like rheumatoid arthritis, but affects the back...and that's what I have).
ENBREL basically grabs TNF floating around in solution and takes it out of commission. This reduces the inflammation and, for me, has led to complete remission. And I was pretty darned sick before I went on it.
ENBREL is a soluble TNF-alpha receptor. Basically, TNF-alpha is a big honking protein that is involved in the inflammatory process in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, juvenile rheumatoid arhtritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis (which is like rheumatoid arthritis, but affects the back...and that's what I have).
ENBREL basically grabs TNF floating around in solution and takes it out of commission. This reduces the inflammation and, for me, has led to complete remission. And I was pretty darned sick before I went on it.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
Master of the Munchkins
246 posts
246 posts
Posted:
good for you
good for you
Are you that clever that you smile forever?
What's from the Earth is of the greatest worth
newbie
9 posts
9 posts
Posted:
It is absolutely cruel to perform this testing on innocent beings. Whatever the benefits, we simply do not have the right to exploit these animals that have done nothing to deserve it.
I do have a better solution. Testing should be done on convicts. They are not innocent like the animals are. I am not an expert, but it seems reasonable to think that the testing would be more effective if it was actually done on people instead of other animals.
I don't expect this to be a popular opinion, as the vast majority of humans simply do not agree that the rest of Earth's life is as important as humans.
It is absolutely cruel to perform this testing on innocent beings. Whatever the benefits, we simply do not have the right to exploit these animals that have done nothing to deserve it.
I do have a better solution. Testing should be done on convicts. They are not innocent like the animals are. I am not an expert, but it seems reasonable to think that the testing would be more effective if it was actually done on people instead of other animals.
I don't expect this to be a popular opinion, as the vast majority of humans simply do not agree that the rest of Earth's life is as important as humans.
Master of the Munchkins
246 posts
246 posts
Posted:
ye but wat kind of convicts? any and all of them? i saw a thing on tv where a mum wud be put in jail if her sons didnt go to school. she had been trying her hardest to get them to school but they wudnt go. she was perfectly innocent, wat if they tested on her?
ye but wat kind of convicts? any and all of them? i saw a thing on tv where a mum wud be put in jail if her sons didnt go to school. she had been trying her hardest to get them to school but they wudnt go. she was perfectly innocent, wat if they tested on her?
Are you that clever that you smile forever?
What's from the Earth is of the greatest worth
newbie
9 posts
9 posts
Posted:
In my opinion, the only reason a person should be put in jail is if they are a danger to society. We should not put them in there with the illusion that it will help them. We should only put people in jail if they are violent and the rest of us will be safer because they are locked away.
In my opinion, the only reason a person should be put in jail is if they are a danger to society. We should not put them in there with the illusion that it will help them. We should only put people in jail if they are violent and the rest of us will be safer because they are locked away.
Master of the Munchkins
246 posts
246 posts
Posted:
yes but that doesnt happen does it, our jails are full because we put people in for stupid and petty things that could be resolved quite easily withou jail bing in place. The same is true in America, if no even more so
yes but that doesnt happen does it, our jails are full because we put people in for stupid and petty things that could be resolved quite easily withou jail bing in place. The same is true in America, if no even more so
Are you that clever that you smile forever?
What's from the Earth is of the greatest worth
newbie
9 posts
9 posts
Posted:
well, the problems with the justice system are probably off topic for this thread. Since convict testing is not going to replace animal testing any time soon, lets just hope that the justice system is reformed before convict testing begins
well, the problems with the justice system are probably off topic for this thread. Since convict testing is not going to replace animal testing any time soon, lets just hope that the justice system is reformed before convict testing begins
Master of the Munchkins
246 posts
246 posts
Posted:
true true
true true
Are you that clever that you smile forever?
What's from the Earth is of the greatest worth
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [testing animal * acceptible] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > Is Testing on Animals Acceptible? [305 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com