PDA

View Full Version : Testing on animals



mithrandir
01-19-2002, 08:37 PM
Is it right to test a product on animals, if that product is for animals?

doubleanti
01-19-2002, 08:39 PM
if it's right to test products on humans that are for humans, then you would suppose yes...

else no...

Betazep
01-19-2002, 08:40 PM
Only if it is highly acidic and it burns a lot. :D j/k

iain
01-19-2002, 08:43 PM
if the product is for animals and has been proven beforehand that it can cause no major ill effects. Remember if a human says to a human "we want to test this on you" the human can say yes or no. we can do that to animals - they will just twitch their nose. the animal has no real choice in this.

If it is a cosmetic product - absolutely no way, if it is a project that will benefit a large amount of the population (eg a wonder drug to cure cancer) then yes.

survival of the fittest, cruel but true.

kermi3
01-19-2002, 09:00 PM
This is a toughy because it is flat out cruel to test things on animals however:

If we as a westren society see it as right (and I hesitently think it is) to attack an entire country (ie afganistan) and take out a regeime that, while horribly oppressive, did keep order and kept the roads safe, in order to keep ourselves safe from terrorists, then I don't see what the diffrence is in testing medicien on animails, IF it is to save lives. At somepoint we do have to test new cures to things etc, and if this is going to save human lives I'm afraid we must at some point test it on other creatures.

My precursor to any animal tests though would be that the animals would get the same treatment as a person IE: would not get "put down" at the end of the test.


Now as far as cosmetics though... NO WAY! .

basilisk
01-19-2002, 10:50 PM
i dont believe we should test anything on animals and in my view i feel that humans are highly arrogant if we feel we should test on animals - why on earth are we more important? A lot of work has gone into looking for alternatives to animal testing - for example the dr hadwen trust - however pharmaceutical companies are rather slow to go over to these ideas as it would cut into the most important thing for them (ie. not saving lives but their nice large profit margin as they would have to change all their procedures etc). Animal research is also not very practical - the study of chemical causing carcinogens costs 1million mice per year and the study is done over a number of years - new methods include using cultures of human cancer cells. These cells are obtained from biopsies or surgeries - its quicker and more accurate as the data is based on human cells.

As you can imagine my views did not stand me in high regard whilst doing my biology degree as i refused to perform any animal experiments. Nowadays i refuse to take pharmaceutical companies on as clients because of my objections to how they work.

doubleanti
01-20-2002, 12:23 AM
>morale is
>why on earth are we more important?

agreed... you all do understand my principles of the lyfe right? put yourself in a testtube if you haven't been around to see my persona... [you'd make an easy transition from living under a rock for the past months having not seen my persona]...

[continue]