Animal Testing--For or Against?

[RastaPope]

I'm for it on any animal that can't learn sign language.

 

[Laurel]

Depends.

Drugs like Thalidomide were tested on animals without problem. They did, however, cause big problems on humans. Testing substances on entirely different species often results in inaccurate data and dangerous situations.

However, there are situations where testing with animals is necessary to save human lives. In those cases, I agree with Jane Goodall. She believes that animals used in medical testing should be given all the respect and care that a human being in that situation would be given. This means anesthetic, sanitary treatment, and love. They should not be held in tiny cages sitting in their own filth with open wounds.

 

[Sillyman]

I'm not really for it. In the first place, animal testing isn't usually about the cure for cancer, it's about mascara that doesn't run, and secondly it's not terribly accurate.

Take lab mice for example. Lab mice have been bred so long now that they are genetically predisposed to get cancer for no reason at all, making their usefulness in determining carcinogens doubtful. Sachrinne was on the carcinogens list for many years before they found out that it crystallizes in rat bladders a different way than in human bladders, and you would have to eat several pounds of the stuff a day to get cancer.

If it were an important matter, and if it was proven that results on the animals could be considered the same as results on humans, then sure, that's fine. Otherwise, no.

 

[Spinaroonie]

I say anybody who wants to taste an animal should be able to.

 

[SINthysist]

I told you my monkey could pull a "D" average in college in an earlier thread about Harvard.

I say test the little fawkers and shame people back into real academics...

 

[nj-voyeur]

I'm for it when its done to cure diseases. Not to test some Hair care product. Just bread the animals for testing so that nobodys pets end up in test labs and there is no danger of hurting a species population in the wild.

Give them love? Hmmm. I guess so. But when scientist get attached to animals they will have to possible let die its not a good thing.

 

[Wizard]

As a kidney Pt. I say hell yes use them............We wouldn't know what we do now if it wasn't for that type of research.................

 

[Georgia Girl]

If it were not for animal research the medication I depend on might not be available so I say yes. I spent a good amount of time breeding monkeys for one of the larger pharmacetical companies. Our monkeys were treated very well. Hurricane Andrew changed that.

Dawn

 

[TWB]

I'm for it on any animal that can't learn sign language.

So I suppose you would be OK with testing on profoundly retarded humans who can't learn sign language too?

 

[RastaPope]

Re: Re: Animal Testing--For or Against?

So I suppose you would be OK with testing on profoundly retarded humans who can't learn sign language too?

Retards aren't quite animals.

 

[bluntforcemama]

For the most part, I'm against. I did see Goodall speak at a conference once, and I was swayed by her argument to the point where I would only agree to her conditions on animal testing. Some of the largest animal testers are charities and companies you wouldn't suspect, such as The March of Dimes, and the Phillip Morris company. I will not support them because of this. I won't buy anything that has been tested on animals, either. All life is precious, and many should not be sacrificed to save one.

http://www.peta-online.org/feat/carolina/phots/images/105-0567.jpg

http://www.peta-online.org/feat/carolina/phots/images/106-0700.jpg

http://www.peta.org/feat/greenwash/toprabbit2.jpg

http://www.peta.org/feat/medlab/top2.jpg

http://www.smokinganimals.com/bigsmokmonkey.jpg

http://www.peta.org/feat/oregon/images/largeimages/11twoshg.jpg

 

[BustyTheClown]

Those pictures are absolutely heartbreaking. Thanks for sharing them, though -- sometimes seeing what they are agreeing to helps people truly understand what they're suggesting when they support animal testing in most of its forms. I'm still struggling with whether or not I ever find it acceptable to test on animals, but Laurel's post made sense to me.

One other picture I saw that turned me off of animal testing was two monkeys in a cage, young but not quite as young as the ones in the above picture, holding on to each other for dear life with the most horrified look in their eyes. It was tragic realizing what hell those animals were living in, and their gesture spoke far more to me than they ever could have if they had the ability to speak.

Like Jeremy Bentham said, "The question is not, 'Can they think?' but 'Can theysuffer ?'" There is evidence to show that most animals can indeed suffer. I am of the opinion that they do not deserve to be caused suffering unless it is absolutely necessary. I have yet to be able to define when it would be absolutely necessary.

 

[Marxist]

I'm really hungry now. Yes, really.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

My feeling is that all drug or product testing should be done on the CEO and the board of directors--plus the largest shareholders--of whatever corporation stands to profit from the product or drug.