Animal Testing....

[aakfish]

..As a Veggie most people would assume I am against animal testing but it's quite the opposite. I actually agree with it as long as it is testing medicine, NEVER cosmetics. If people's lives can be saved because of animal testing then I see that as a great thing. What are your opinions?

[Torey]

I'm against it. I don't care if animal testing can be used to find the cures to serious illnesses. You've got to think about the animals and what they must be going through. Animals have rights too. They have a right to live. They have a right to dignity too. Just because they cannot speak and are less intelligent that us, it doesn't give us the right to treat them like they have no life at all, like they are experiments and nothing more. We act as if we are far superior to animals, free to do whatever we want to them and it makes me so sick. I've read a lot about animal testing even though I get upset about it. They inject rats with tumor cells and I saw a picture of a rat with a tumor the size of a football on his side. How would you feel if someone injected you and watched you suffer like that, while you died of a tumor? And what's worse, they don't let these animals to die in peace, they leave them to basically rot in grotty cages inside a laboratory. They have no respect at all.

[aakfish]

The thing is Humans are superior to animals, I know its horrible what happens to the animals but I still agree with it.

If you were dying and were offered medicine that was tested on animals would you die rather than have a chance of living. I really doubt it.

[char]

Just as long as the animals aren't harmed in ANYWAY possible (I consider yelling and rough handling being harmed) then I'm okay with it.

I'm a vegetarian, obviously.

[teghan62]

Testing medicine on animals is actually pretty stupid. Okay that medicine works on THIS animal, so if officially works on a human? Uh no. Not always. Remember that these animals have different DNA or whatever than us and what works for THEM may not work for US. I'm sure most people wouldn't like it if animals injected us with diseases that might not even benefit them.

Testing cosmetics on animals should just be plain banned. THAT is animal cruelty right there.

I'm also sick of the whole "humans are superior to animals thing." Animals aren't the ones destroying the Earth now are they?

[Tdyans]

This subject actually came up on the rat forum that I frequent a few days ago. Many of the members there *love* rats-- animals that are commonly used in research and that most people consider highly expendable-- and treat them better than many people treat their dogs and cats. So you'd expect that most of them would be against animal testing, right? Well, there certainly were a few who were absolutely against it and even suggested that prison inmates should be used instead... but at least 75% and probably more were for using animals in medical research. I'll be taking a lot from what those people said because they've done a lot more studying on the subject and have a lot more personal experience in it than I ever will.

First off, be wary of taking all the propoganda that you see on any topic at face value. The worst example I've seen is a "comic book" that was created by PETA for kids (one of my biggest problems with PETA is how much they seem to target and try to manipulate children) about rats. It had about one page about having rats as pets, with basic obvious info like "Rats need food and water!" It could have gone on in the rest of the pages to give more information on how to properly care for pet rats (what exactly to feed them, what kind of housing they need, the fact that they should be kept in groups of at least two, info against putting a boy and girl together to get cute little babies-- that last one even seemed to be indirectly encouraged with all the cute pictures of mommy and daddy rats with their babies). That might have had a chance to make a positive difference in some animals' lives. Instead, they veered into over-the-top propoganda. One page was all about how cruel and horrible animal researchers are and how they cut off rats' heads with scissors and then laugh about it.

This is, as I said, the worst example I've ever seen and obviously extreme enough that I think just about anyone (except the impressionable young kids it was aimed at) should be able to see it as a grossly ridiculous overexaggeration. But the point is, not everything is true, even if the person reporting it sincerely believes it to be so. And not everything that's true is a representation of what's usual in the situation as a whole rather than an unfortunate exception. There's little doubt there were abuses in the past in the area of animal testing. There may indeed be cases today as well in which some labs ignore the rules that have been set in place to protect animals. But it's often argued that something that is used responsibly by the majority should not be stopped because it is abused by the minority.

Now's when I get more into the things said by the people at the rat forum. A few of them have actually worked in labs in which animal testing was done at one point or another, and some even discovered their love of rats as pets in that way. Though obviously they have a bias of their own, they didn't withhold the fact that it's often heartbreaking work, and I trust their personal accounts more than any general information that I might hear. They reported that today there are many regulations in place as far as how animals are kept and treated and what kinds of things can be done to them. Anything that requires animal testing requires lots of paperwork and lots of examinations by people outside of the lab to make sure that it's done right, and one of the biggest things for the agency that regulates these things is to keep the animals pain free as much as possible. They said that the animals are actually treated better than many pets. Their cages are kept clean; they are given toys, things to chew on, and whatever else they need for enrichment; dogs are played with daily; social animals are kept with other animals whenever possible; they are given preventative veterinary care and there is always a vet on staff to take care of any other medical problems immediately; when necessary, they are euthanized humanely. Again, all of this is required and regulated in the world of animal testing today. The people who work in these labs are not horrible animal-hating people who love to torture animals, and anyone who does seem to be is removed. Many of them love animals and do their best to give these animals the best lives they can given the circumstances.

Most drugs do have to be tested on humans at some point before they can be released, to make sure that they work for humans the same way they do for animals. But if all the steps of the experiments were conducted on humans instead of animals, it would take far too long to see any results. Animals are used because their life cycles and the age at which they reproduce are so much shorter than humans, so the effects can be seen much faster.

The fact is, chances are that everyone in this forum has had the life of a loved one, if not their own life, affected positively-- either improved, prolonged, or even saved-- by animal research. Any drug you take or vaccine you're given had to be approved by the FDA, and that requires animal testing. Many medical procedures have come to be because of animal research. While I feel more negatively toward animal testing as far as cosmetics and personal products go, someone pointed out that even products that are advertised as "cruelty-free" have had most of their components tested at some point on animals, and the "cruelty-free" label can still be applied simply because the product itself wasn't.

Also, humans are not the only ones who benefit from this research. Cures, vaccines, and procedures are found, directly and indirectly, for our pets as well. With animals like dogs and cats, there is probably research done specifically to find these things for them. For animals like rats, it's probably found only indirectly in the research that is meant to benefit humans, but it's found nonetheless. Rats are prone to respiratory problems, but there are several drugs that can help to conquer this, without which many pet rats would live very short, miserable lives. These drugs were discovered through research for cures for human problems. Nobody would have cared to go out looking for ways to help just rats, whether we like it or not. Rats are also prone to tumors. If a cure for cancer is ever found through research on rats, perhaps rats themselves might benefit as well.

Most people don't like the idea of unnecessary cruelty to animals, and that includes people who support and even conduct animal experimentation. I don't think many would argue that it's sad that some animals have to die for this purpose, but many look at the longterm results-- for both humans and animals-- that we often take for granted today and that might be even greater in the future, and consider it worthwhile as long as the testing is necessary (not for cosmetics or flavored cigarettes or whatever) and everything possible is done to still make the animals' lives pain-free, comfortable and even happy.

[KittyKadaveral]

Aak said:

The thing is Humans are superior to animals, I know its horrible what happens to the animals but I still agree with it.

If you were dying and were offered medicine that was tested on animals would you die rather than have a chance of living. I really doubt it.

And what makes you think humans are superior to animals? Is it the fact that they destroy everything on the planet as well as each other? A wise woman once said, if you take away all the green things on the planet the earth would die, you take away all the flying and swimming things the earth will die, you take away all the furred creatures the earth will die, but you take away humans and the earth will flourish.

You also have to think that animals don't react to the same things people do nor do they get the same diseases so I don't see how putting AIDS in a rat is going to help some idiot human find a cure. After all AIDS is a human thing, not rat or dog or pig for that matter.

I say do research on a prisoner on death row.

[Eggz]

Gaah, animal testing. 'Tis evil. Poor innocent animals have to suffer so that you can look beautiful. (I think I've watched Legally Blonde 2 too many times ) But as for medicine testing, I think it's alright as long as the animal is not harmed. It could save our lives...

[Tdyans]

KittyKadaveral said:

You also have to think that animals don't react to the same things people do nor do they get the same diseases so I don't see how putting AIDS in a rat is going to help some idiot human find a cure. After all AIDS is a human thing, not rat or dog or pig for that matter.

My guess would be that most AIDS testing is done on primates, since the last time I was learning about it (which was admittedly several years ago), it was believed that it may have first infected humans through contact with an infected ape or monkey.

We do share many common diseases and common reactions with animals. Rats get cancer, so they are used for cancer research. Monkeys can contract AIDS, so they are used for AIDS research. As I said, these labs have to submit a lot of paperwork and go through a lot of inspections in order to be able to conduct animal research, and if it was thought based on prior research and information that studying a certain disease in a certain animal would not yield useful results, then the research would never get approved in the first place. Yes, final testing before a drug is released does then have to be done on humans to make absolutely sure that they react in the same way, but as I said, if every stage of the research was conducted on humans, because of their longer life cycle, the research would move hundreds of times slower than it already does.

[Retired Blub]

Tdyans said:

My guess would be that most AIDS testing is done on primates, since the last time I was learning about it (which was admittedly several years ago), it was believed that it may have first infected humans through contact with an infected ape or monkey.

We do share many common diseases and common reactions with animals. Rats get cancer, so they are used for cancer research. Monkeys can contract AIDS, so they are used for AIDS research. As I said, these labs have to submit a lot of paperwork and go through a lot of inspections in order to be able to conduct animal research, and if it was thought based on prior research and information that studying a certain disease in a certain animal would not yield useful results, then the research would never get approved in the first place. Yes, final testing before a drug is released does then have to be done on humans to make absolutely sure that they react in the same way, but as I said, if every stage of the research was conducted on humans, because of their longer life cycle, the research would move hundreds of times slower than it already does.

Yeah, I heard that there were some monkeys in Africa that had AIDS and it spread through humans, which is now why there's that AIDS epidemic in Africa.

Anyway, my opinon: NO for cosmetics, yes and no for medicine. I sort of have mixed opinions that are too long to type out.

[Deleted]

I skimmed through all of the posts here.

Cometics: Ugh, that is just totally sick. And it's cruel to force a poor animal to wear some lipstick or something like that. Big no. (And I don't use cosmetics. They're unnatural.)

Medicine? I don't know. I mean, I think if something tested on an animal helps thousands of people in the long run may be okay... I'll have to agree with Teghan and Kitty on the part about medicine. After all, the animals' DNA is not the same as ours or they would actually be having 23 pair of chromosomes and walking on two feet. Pretty much else is repeated in the posts above.

As for the testing in labs, I have split opinions about that. Whoever that wrote the part about animals being taken out of their natural life and put into cages (I'm too lazy to look up who) is right, and it isn't nice. But really, that whole argument just is just built on feelings of guilt. Don't you think other animals use yet other animals to testing? I think so anyway.

Well, I'm against animal testing for cosmetics, that's for sure. About medicine, I don't know. I'm kind of biased...

And for the record, I'm not a veggie. *groans* No, please don't bring up the debate about if it is right to eat meat or anything, I already have that stupid project in school.

[Oily]

I don't think cosmetics testing is so great, but I would be for medicine testing. We do share common illnesses with animals. Testing benefits humans immensely. You may look at a rat with a tumour and consider it disgusting, but both many rats and humans every day suffer and die from those kind of things. I certainly don't approve of PETA. I've heard what they do to animal scientists, or even people suspected of being remotely related to animal testing.

The medical benefits it brings are immense. It's not just testing new drugs: it's stuff like how environment affects the animals, or how certain levels of hormone do this or that. If it didn't work, they wouldn't just randomly do it. There would be no point.

And, yes, lab animals are looked after very well. The propaganda you see of starving dogs etc - what would be the point? If you're conducting an experiment on stress levels in rats with certain hormones, then leaving it with a horrible, cramped cage could skew your results. Scientists aren't there to harm the animals. They are well cared for.

And animals are not equal with humans. I own a gorgeous little puppy right now, and I do love animals. But we are superior. You think animals don't destroy the earth? Rabbits and deer can become out of control, over eating away all the grass, stripping out all the vegetation. Predators could probably wipe out whole species of prey. The reason it doesn't happen is because nature intervenes - if animals breed, increase their numbers too much and eat everything, they start to die out from hunger and so the numbers decrease. The only difference is that humans have managed to go beyond that - which makes us superior.

There's animals that eat their own young. Some animals kill each other quite happily. The very fact that we angst over hurting animals is proof we're superior - a conscience, a developed brain.

I don't believe it excuses animal testing though. I'm not saying we should go around killing animals because we're better than them. I support medical testing for the health benefits it brings to both animals and humans.

[Kiddo]

Oily said:

There's animals that eat their own young. Some animals kill each other quite happily. The very fact that we angst over hurting animals is proof we're superior - a conscience, a developed brain.

That's an excellent point - I've always believed humans have superior intellect than animals - but that's a good way of putting it.

Basically, I do not think cosmetic testing should be done on animals. Round up a bunch of starving college students, have them sign some disclaimers so they won't sue if they get a rash, and pay them enough to buy a textbook or two and they'll have all the volunteers they need. Seriously. It'd probably be cheaper than paying for the animals.

As for medical testing - go for it. If a cat, rat, dog, whatever, has to die to find a cure for a disease then that's fine with me. But I have the 'benefit' of seeing someone I love suffer every single day for the rest of his life under a disease.

[Buddy]

Tdyans said:

This subject actually came up on the rat forum that I frequent a few days ago. Many of the members there *love* rats-- animals that are commonly used in research and that most people consider highly expendable-- and treat them better than many people treat their dogs and cats. So you'd expect that most of them would be against animal testing, right? Well, there certainly were a few who were absolutely against it and even suggested that prison inmates should be used instead... but at least 75% and probably more were for using animals in medical research. I'll be taking a lot from what those people said because they've done a lot more studying on the subject and have a lot more personal experience in it than I ever will.

First off, be wary of taking all the propoganda that you see on any topic at face value. The worst example I've seen is a "comic book" that was created by PETA for kids (one of my biggest problems with PETA is how much they seem to target and try to manipulate children) about rats. It had about one page about having rats as pets, with basic obvious info like "Rats need food and water!" It could have gone on in the rest of the pages to give more information on how to properly care for pet rats (what exactly to feed them, what kind of housing they need, the fact that they should be kept in groups of at least two, info against putting a boy and girl together to get cute little babies-- that last one even seemed to be indirectly encouraged with all the cute pictures of mommy and daddy rats with their babies). That might have had a chance to make a positive difference in some animals' lives. Instead, they veered into over-the-top propoganda. One page was all about how cruel and horrible animal researchers are and how they cut off rats' heads with scissors and then laugh about it.

This is, as I said, the worst example I've ever seen and obviously extreme enough that I think just about anyone (except the impressionable young kids it was aimed at) should be able to see it as a grossly ridiculous overexaggeration. But the point is, not everything is true, even if the person reporting it sincerely believes it to be so. And not everything that's true is a representation of what's usual in the situation as a whole rather than an unfortunate exception. There's little doubt there were abuses in the past in the area of animal testing. There may indeed be cases today as well in which some labs ignore the rules that have been set in place to protect animals. But it's often argued that something that is used responsibly by the majority should not be stopped because it is abused by the minority.

Now's when I get more into the things said by the people at the rat forum. A few of them have actually worked in labs in which animal testing was done at one point or another, and some even discovered their love of rats as pets in that way. Though obviously they have a bias of their own, they didn't withhold the fact that it's often heartbreaking work, and I trust their personal accounts more than any general information that I might hear. They reported that today there are many regulations in place as far as how animals are kept and treated and what kinds of things can be done to them. Anything that requires animal testing requires lots of paperwork and lots of examinations by people outside of the lab to make sure that it's done right, and one of the biggest things for the agency that regulates these things is to keep the animals pain free as much as possible. They said that the animals are actually treated better than many pets. Their cages are kept clean; they are given toys, things to chew on, and whatever else they need for enrichment; dogs are played with daily; social animals are kept with other animals whenever possible; they are given preventative veterinary care and there is always a vet on staff to take care of any other medical problems immediately; when necessary, they are euthanized humanely. Again, all of this is required and regulated in the world of animal testing today. The people who work in these labs are not horrible animal-hating people who love to torture animals, and anyone who does seem to be is removed. Many of them love animals and do their best to give these animals the best lives they can given the circumstances.

Most drugs do have to be tested on humans at some point before they can be released, to make sure that they work for humans the same way they do for animals. But if all the steps of the experiments were conducted on humans instead of animals, it would take far too long to see any results. Animals are used because their life cycles and the age at which they reproduce are so much shorter than humans, so the effects can be seen much faster.

The fact is, chances are that everyone in this forum has had the life of a loved one, if not their own life, affected positively-- either improved, prolonged, or even saved-- by animal research. Any drug you take or vaccine you're given had to be approved by the FDA, and that requires animal testing. Many medical procedures have come to be because of animal research. While I feel more negatively toward animal testing as far as cosmetics and personal products go, someone pointed out that even products that are advertised as "cruelty-free" have had most of their components tested at some point on animals, and the "cruelty-free" label can still be applied simply because the product itself wasn't.

Also, humans are not the only ones who benefit from this research. Cures, vaccines, and procedures are found, directly and indirectly, for our pets as well. With animals like dogs and cats, there is probably research done specifically to find these things for them. For animals like rats, it's probably found only indirectly in the research that is meant to benefit humans, but it's found nonetheless. Rats are prone to respiratory problems, but there are several drugs that can help to conquer this, without which many pet rats would live very short, miserable lives. These drugs were discovered through research for cures for human problems. Nobody would have cared to go out looking for ways to help just rats, whether we like it or not. Rats are also prone to tumors. If a cure for cancer is ever found through research on rats, perhaps rats themselves might benefit as well.

Most people don't like the idea of unnecessary cruelty to animals, and that includes people who support and even conduct animal experimentation. I don't think many would argue that it's sad that some animals have to die for this purpose, but many look at the longterm results-- for both humans and animals-- that we often take for granted today and that might be even greater in the future, and consider it worthwhile as long as the testing is necessary (not for cosmetics or flavored cigarettes or whatever) and everything possible is done to still make the animals' lives pain-free, comfortable and even happy.

As far as I'm concerned, Tdyans said it all.

[Smiley]

My aunt works with rats in labs. In fact, one time she even brought me along - it wasn't exactly allowed, but it was a Saturday and hardly anyone else was there, and she did get some special permission from the head of her department. I actually got a personal look at the place where the rats are held. The cages are amazingly clean, well-stocked with food and water, with plenty of toys to play with. She did a little experiment on a few of the babies - it took about a second - and then they went right back to playing. Then she proceeded to spending a good fifteen minutes cleaning out their living quarters, and we left.

They really do make a big effort to keep things clean and healthy there, and the thought that the experiments they carry out may actually be able to cure cancer and other diseases really makes me respect it. I think we're all in agreement that cosmetic testing is absolutely horrible, but for medical purposes, it's a fast and efficient way to develop crucial vaccines and medicines.

And I'd write more, but it's late and my mind is poot.