Science & Animal Testing

[Davey Gaga]

To what extent, if at all, do you support animal testing? Is it all in the name of furthering science for all life? Regardless of future benefits is it still wrong to use animals?

One way around this is to use volunteering humans as model organisms but what are the problems associated with this?

Things like drosophila melanogaster (common fruit fly) have a short life span, a remarkably similar genome to ours, produce industrial quantities of offspring, are cheap, easy to keep etc so they're fantastic for studying genetics. Humans live much longer, there're complications with testing, few offspring. So fruit flies are better to use than humans - but they're still animals. Should we be testing gene therapies/manipulating genes/gene products on these animals or still do it on humans?

Mice are used to demonstrate and measure the effects of Huntington's Disease (progressive degenerative neurological condition) - standing on turnstiles to assess their balance. Animal rights activists forced cushions to be placed underneath the animals to avoid pain but this then gives invalid results about balance - if the animal has no incentive to stay on the turnstile (as it's a soft landing) then we don't have a true measure of the effects of the Disease. So should the cushion be removed and the animal hurt in the name of science?

What about drugs? We need to test drugs in physiological systems...the death of a human as a result of a failed drugs test is a lot more serious (beaurocratically speaking) than the death of an animal as a result of a drugs test...but if we didn't test drugs on animals, it'd take even longer than the typical 10 years+ to have a new drug reach the public. Think about your family - are any of them diabetic? Hypertensive? Suffering from cancer? Those drugs were developed as the result of animal testing.

Cosmetics? Often animals are used to test cosmetics. Deoderant, make-up etc - we all use some form of cosmetic. Could we do without them now?

And if it's not okay to test on animals, living things, is it okay to use things like yeast for alcohol? Bacteria as antibiotics?

N.B. not intending to discuss ethics of transgenics/cloning/messing with "nature" (although I don't doubt the discussions won't travel in that direction) - specifically wanted to discuss using animals in scientific testing, something that science sees as essential.

 

[Valvalis]

I think the best thing to do would be to use volunteering humans, if at all possible. It's not technically possible for an animal to volunteer, and so I believe it's unethical, because you're using it against its will. Plus, it's the most direct approach to studying how something affects humans--by testing it on actual humans.

However, if there's some sort of medical research that can only be done on animals for some reason, and it saves someone's life that I care about, then it's hard to argue against it, because I do value the people I love more than a rat or a fruit fly. And it is unfair, I know, but if the animal has to suffer for less time than my loved one, if nothing else than the fact that it has a much shorter natural lifespan, then it's hard not to feel that way :/ But I would at least feel grateful towards the animal, and thank it just as much as the scientist, rather than just ignoring the fact that it was used.

Animal testing for things that are not vital to human existence, however--cosmetics, things like that--is absolutely f**king criminal, because no one needs makeup to survive and no one can possibly justify that they do. That makes me want to vomit every time I think about it.

 

[Æon Flux]

My belief is I dont agree with animal testing and in no way support it,I dont bye anything thet dosent have a "Not tested on animals label"

But on the other side of the spectrum I love science and I believe there are alot of people willing to sell their bodies for testing use,right or wrong they are paid to be guinny pigs, so I dont see why people just dont make more use of that,realistically I understand most people dont wish to have lasting problems do to the testing proces.
Yes it has drawbacks but at leaste the person is a willing participant.
A person has the right to chose whats done to them whereas an animal does not I dont believe its fair thet a living creature should suffer for a person when there is a person willling to be paid for such a thing,and the person would be treated better than said animal.
I realy dont like the thought of something suffering just so my life could be better in some way, I myself would rather suffer.
But its just not like that and rats and such are considerd expendable. I also think its more of a veiw on what "type" of animal is considerd ok to test apon in peoples outlook. Most people consider rats and flies pests so they dont consider it a big deal if they are tested apon.
My whole issue is animals cant be willing whereas a person can be because animals are considerd nothing more than property...
For yeast and bacteria use I would also say its a persons veiw on weather its a living thing and should it be used in the manner intendid. Everything considerd living have cells down to the air we breath should we discontinue breathing? Theres so many ways to veiw this I myself would have a difficult time in saying whats right or wrong to do with said things.
I think my reply is more along the lines of...animal activism? or some such thing sorry its probably not along the lines of the topic you intendid

 

[Davey Gaga]

I realy dont like the thought of something suffering just so my life could be better in some way, I myself would rather suffer.

This is indeed the basis of the controversy but I ask you: are you a vegetarian? If not then you're not completely against animals suffering because they're bound to endure some pain when they're killed. In the wild, or in years gone by, predators hunted and killed their prey. The prey were naturally scared and those caught are killed and eaten - I'm guessing being eaten isn't pleasurable. So do we support humans being carnivorous?

For yeast and bacteria use I would also say its a persons veiw on weather its a living thing and should

They are. Viruses are the only microorganisms where there's doubt on whether or not they are actually alive. Yeast and bacteria are.

 

[Æon Flux]

This is indeed the basis of the controversy but I ask you: are you a vegetarian? If not then you're not completely against animals suffering because they're bound to endure some pain when they're killed. In the wild, or in years gone by, predators hunted and killed their prey. The prey were naturally scared and those caught are killed and eaten - I'm guessing being eaten isn't pleasurable. So do we support humans being carnivorous?

They are. Viruses are the only microorganisms where there's doubt on whether or not they are actually alive. Yeast and bacteria are.

Yes they are living I agree but most people just consider them as something to be used most people dont veiw them as a..."living" thing and even if they/we do/did is it wrong to use them?
That I cant answer since its one of those things thets so hard to reply to.
Do I use yeast when I bake? yes
do I myself consider it wrong? On a molecular level yes in a "realistic human veiw" no its made to be used as such...

And for as animal activisty as I am Im also not a vegitarian,wich id like to point out for those thet are, vegetables and such are indeed living things as well so in my opinion its the same difference as eating meat so i find it a moot point between being a vegitarian or not, vegitables have living cells same as meat products.
No I dont agree with animal suffering there are better ways to treat animals up untill" slaughter time" but it does serve humanity and serves its purpose,for wich I could say is the same thing as animal testing...
They have their reasons for being weather as cattle or testing and no i dont agree with it but there are more "humane" ways of dealing with such things thet I do believe should be done.
As wrong as I still find it to be it is the way it is and even if its being used to serve me in some ways if there are better less harmfull ways of doing things why not do it in a way thet causes less suffereing?
Actually I have to stop here,I do have alot more to say but its time for work and I dont want to be late,I shall returneth~Good topic by the by realy makes one examine their own beliefs~
BBS so i may finish~

 

[Rydrum2112]

Testing on animals is fine for legitimate purposes, any real scientific research done on them has to pass through Review Boards- and as such has been "cleared" ethically (such as universities).

I think a short sighted view is inappropriate here, Gamingway says "Animal testing for things that are not vital to human existence, however--cosmetics, things like that--is absolutely f**king criminal"

For example- Hubel & Weisel were doing their experiments just to advance knowledge and not "vital to human existence" at the time BUT their discoveries are monumentally important for vision and cortical plasticity.

 

[Lirael]

I absolutely hate the idea that animals should suffer for our benefit. The methods used are barbaric and the facts are extremely upsetting. Nevertheless, I can understand the arguments for testing on animals when it comes to medicine... If a friend of relative had a serious disease, I'd like to think that a cure would be available, and it's only going to happen if we can test...and test again. There really aren't enough willing people to test on to provide the numbers that scientists need, so they do have to test on animals.

I'd like to add that I'm practically vegan (bar yogurt and chocolate, though I may stop eating it after New Year) in my own home now because I hate how animals suffer for humanity. However, I can't think of another way. :/ All I can hope is that any cure will be adapted for animals too, so that animals who develop a certain disease will be saved as well as the humans who develop that diease.

I don't believe in testing cosmetics on animals. We don't need cosmetics for our health. Furthermore, we already have the cosmetics we need for hygiene, like toothpaste, deodorant, shampoo and soap... Why must a business develop something new? For money. No animals should be sacrificed for business. :/

 

[Richard B Riddick]

Animals in the wild are threatened by extinction due to declining habitat and similar factors brought on by human encroachment upon native ecosystems.

Animals in captivity housed in animal shelters are periodically euthanized if adopters are unavailable.

If we we're not experimenting on animals, we're making them extinct or euthanizing them due to what poor & neglectful owners we are.

They're no safer in the wild than they are being experimented on, which makes it somewhat pointless to talk about.

 

[Sultan]

My friend always argued that inmates on death row should be given the option of becoming test subjects. Part of me thinks that's a pretty neat idea. No reason in singing a song we all know. We're mostly unanimous in the idea that animals being tested for luxurious things like cosmetics should be abolished while necessary scientific research for our benefit (and sometimes even animals) while unpleasant is called for.

Long away ahead til we manage to replicate the human body artificially with accurate reactions to testing.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

Don't know how accurate this is...

• Between 10.1 and 16. 7 million dogs and cats are put to death in pounds and shelters annually.
• Approximately 17-22 million animals are used in research each year.
• Fewer than one dog or cat is used for research for every 50 destroyed by animal pounds.
• Rats, mice and other rodents make up 85-90% of all research animals.
• Only 0.5% are non-human primates.
• There has been a 40% decrease in the numbers of animals used in biomedical research and testing in the US since 1968

http://www.animaltestingfacts.zoomshare.com/

Its possible neglectful and irresponsible pet owners are a more pressing issue than animal experimentation.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

I support animal testing almost entirely. I'm against testing on non-human primates and similarly intelligent animals, but okay for pretty much anything else. Before anyone jumps to the defense of cats and dogs, we slaughter pigs wholesale and they're smarter than both of those animals. Our attachment to cats and dogs (and horses) is sentimental, not really practical.

We need to use mice and fruit flies because they're the most practical. Even with a wealth of volunteering humans, we're simply not practical for anything but the final parts of research.

I place human life above other animals lives because we're sentient. I think everyone in here should examine their views on that as well. If you value animal lives so much, when do they equal a human life? Is it 1:1? Or is 1000 mice per human too much? 100? 10? What about a dog? Or a cat?

I tend to find that a lot of animal rights activists, while their intentions are noble, have very illogical or hypocritical values. Hell, PETA euthanizes an estimated 85% to 95% of the animals they "save" from shelters, while some shelters save just as many from euthanasia. Yet they still oppose them. Source.

 

[Lirael]

I place human life above other animals lives because we're sentient. I think everyone in here should examine their views on that as well. If you value animal lives so much, when do they equal a human life? Is it 1:1? Or is 1000 mice per human too much? 100? 10? What about a dog? Or a cat?

Here you hit a very complex moral issue... These issues aren't black and white and it's incredibly difficult to arrive at an answer. I could never make a decision; I couldn't even say that one human life is worth sacrificing to save another... Yes, at the end of the day, I would agree that 1 human life is worth more than 1 animal life, but I couldn't be so heartless to say it is ethical that X number of animals die to save a human.

Also, I'd like to address what you said at the beginning.

I support animal testing almost entirely.

Do you think it's okay to test cosmetics on animals? There is absolutely no logical argument in my mind that could justify it. New cosmetics aren't necessary to our wellbeing. We already have hundreds of items to choose from and most, if not all, of our cosmetic needs have been addressed.

There are more than enough brands of shampoo and soap, and more than enough types within each brand.

There are more than enough types of toothpaste to address each person's need, as far as I'm aware... There is already toothpaste for sensitive teeth, toothpaste that can be used to whiten teeth... The only product they could possibly invent is one that rebuilds your enamel, which is broken away (for good) by the acids in fruit. But we're survived for years without it, and there ARE toothpastes which make your teeth stronger to shield them against the acid.

There are probably too many purfumes, enough varieties of foundation and mascara etc...

 

[Davey Gaga]

I totally forgot I'd made this thread.

Where do we draw the line on what is and is not an acceptable organism to use for testing? It's just so frustrating - no one gives a shit if you use flies or worms or bacteria or yeast to test anything but mice and "above" have an outcry for their safety. Who are we to place the value of the life of a mouse above a worm or a fly?

It seems to be completely related to how large or indeed cute the organism is. I find it in myself - if I had to do experiments with mice and kill them in the process, I'd feel awful but, as was the case 2 weeks ago in my Genetics lab, I was sitting poking the 1mm long worms on an agar plate and slicing them up and squashing them and all sorts yet I didn't care.

We do get more out of studying bacteria than we would, say, a cat (let's forget about the feline AIDS breakthrough just now) because of size, maintenance, cost, variability and the lack of ethical issues...but if it turned out that cats were more genetically similar to humans and would, in theory, be better candidates for studying inheritance or diseases, would we be happy about it? No.

It's a strange phenomenon - I'm guilty of valuing some organisms over others. We all are. WHY though?

On the other side of it, if we had to do all of our experiments on humans we'd be fucking fucked. We wouldn't have even a blip on the radar of what's actually happening in Life Sciences - not by a long shot. Humans are horrible to study biology.