Well guys, this is something which is always on the news, and im sure some of you must hold fairly strong views on the subject, i'd like to hear them.

Tony Blair (British PM) has been criticised for speaking oput in favour of animal testing, if it helps to save human lives.

Your thoughts? :m:

If this thread (or one like it already exists, sorry).

I agree with animal testing because it is a necessary part in the curing of many diseases.

But some medicines and man made products react differently in animals, therefore giving us a false impression of what the outcome of that particular medicine is, and making the animals suffer needlessly.

What do you say to that?

I think that the public doesn't really realize what animal testing entails. The image of an injection of shampoo into the eyes of a fluffy bunny is usually what comes to mind or the injection of a new drug to look for side effects.

But this is what occurs,no?

animal testing? yes indeedy!

But this is what occurs,no?

Just a part.

I'll just say this while i am here. i am not gonna discuss. i know what te views about this will be here, and 99.9 of you'll i find quite dipleasure in recently. load of sheeple and HOW

animal testing is EVIL. waswatching this terrible drama the other night about these two child killrs Ian Brady and Myra Hindley. He too thought animals were not worth anything. as did Mengele, as does most of tis fukin fuk up you fkers love--called culture in the age of science

go and explore what Dr Mengele dd. IF any of you had the guts to explore about the Illuminati you'd see how they push EUGENICS....this is diea that like plants and animals that humans too can be bred to be more 'superior' like they are
and that certian 'root races' are more closer to animals
well like sad, go and explore about Dr Mengele and what he got up to In Auswich concentration camp! he would have children in cages and do vivisection on them. Horrorific right?

But for animals you go 'ohhh THATs alright' dont you? for your precious horrible arses that apparently is alright. dcause your callous. you lost your souls way back when right , and now cannot see or feel any thing ELSE with feeling and soul. a i close?

yeah go checkout about Mengele

http://www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=26519

i know this much, if you are so concerned about animal 'rights' then do not use anything that has been tested on animals.

yeah go checkout about Mengele
what does mengele have to do with animal testing?

yeah go checkout about Mengele

What kind of arrogant twat are you to assume we don't know about Mengele? What has Mengele got to do with animal experiments. The essence of his actions is that he did not restrict himself to animals, but included humans (yes, I know humans are animals too). What has eugenics got to do with animal experiments?

Why do you assume you can just do any experiment you want to do.

I thought you made the promise to go away. Don't disappoint us.

animal testing is EVIL

So if my dog gets ill it's better to let it suffer than offer it medications that may have been tested on other dogs?

To allow millions of dogs to suffer rather than just a few thousand seems like a harsh philosophy. I'm it sure would lead to more distress in the long run.

Sick animals have a right to safe effective treatment.
I don't know how you can disagree.
Dee Cee

I thought you made the promise to go away. Don't disappoint us.
oh spurious, ouch !

IF any of you had the guts to explore about the Illuminati you'd see how they push EUGENICS....
http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/cwm.gif

Oh my, you do make me laugh out loud. (At you, of course, not with you.) http://www.fadzter.com/smilies/roflol.gif

Hitler was a vegetarian... if you're a vegge then I guess that makes you... Hitler! *gasp*

Seriously, I have a strong hatred for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and other such 'anti-'s. It really doesn't matter that a few animals are suffering - life in the wild probably isn't much better (or longer).

And it's not the animals' suffering that's really the problem - it's the people who feel for them. Without that misplaced compassion that drives them to outrageous behaviour, they'd be quietly sitting in their hutches.... oops 'homes'.

The whole point of the thing is to lessen human suffering; for a definate number of animals used in the testing of a particular treatment there will be an indefinate amount of people who benefit throughout time.

animal testing is EVIL

So if my dog gets ill it's better to let it suffer than offer it medications that may have been tested on other dogs?

To allow millions of dogs to suffer rather than just a few thousand seems like a harsh philosophy. I'm it sure would lead to more distress in the long run.

Sick animals have a right to safe effective treatment.
I don't know how you can disagree.
Dee Cee

What are you on about? Animal testing is not done on people's pets!

I'll just say this while i am here. i am not gonna discuss. i know what te views about this will be here, and 99.9 of you'll i find quite dipleasure in recently. load of sheeple and HOW

animal testing is EVIL. waswatching this terrible drama the other night about these two child killrs Ian Brady and Myra Hindley. He too thought animals were not worth anything. as did Mengele, as does most of tis fukin fuk up you fkers love--called culture in the age of science

go and explore what Dr Mengele dd. IF any of you had the guts to explore about the Illuminati you'd see how they push EUGENICS....this is diea that like plants and animals that humans too can be bred to be more 'superior' like they are
and that certian 'root races' are more closer to animals
well like sad, go and explore about Dr Mengele and what he got up to In Auswich concentration camp! he would have children in cages and do vivisection on them. Horrorific right?

But for animals you go 'ohhh THATs alright' dont you? for your precious horrible arses that apparently is alright. dcause your callous. you lost your souls way back when right , and now cannot see or feel any thing ELSE with feeling and soul. a i close?

yeah go checkout about Mengele

what so now you are comparing the actions of the nazis to animal testers, the tests that Mengele cannot be compared to animal testing, at least animal testing can be of benifit to people. i know that this may sound a little harsh but i would rather animals suffered than, for instance, there was no cure for cancer found

the fact of the matter is that drugs and medical procedures must be tested.
the question now becomes who or what do we test on?
there are only two possibilitys
1 test on animals
2 test on humans

it doesn't take a lot on my part to come to a swift conclusion.

I'd like to ask those who think animals shouldn't be used in experiments what do they think the alternative should be

Animal testing is not done on people's pets!

Perhaps my post was so sublime it passed you by completely.
Try this.
Veterinary pharmacology relies on animal testing to reduce the suffering of animals.
If we wish to promote animal welfare animal testing must continue.
Those who oppose testing usually do so on the grounds of animal welfare.
Do you see?

It's not an argument you see presented very often.
I don't know why.
Dee Cee

In general, yes I do support animal testing, under strict restrictions.

Animal testing and animal tasting is moral

Here is a new research approach into the behavior of trapped birds and hungry cats.
This apparatus is were the birds flies into thinking it is a nest and seeing the food inside...it is then vacuumed down the chute...into the bottom...for later inspection by a lucky hungry kitty.
http://de.fishki.net/pics9/p9.gif

i will reiterate that i support NECESSARY animal testing

Animal testing is not done on people's pets!

Perhaps my post was so sublime it passed you by completely.
Try this.
Veterinary pharmacology relies on animal testing to reduce the suffering of animals.
If we wish to promote animal welfare animal testing must continue.
Those who oppose testing usually do so on the grounds of animal welfare.
Do you see?

It's not an argument you see presented very often.
I don't know why.
Dee Cee

I'm not sure 'sublime' is the word. Subtle, perhaps.

Surely millions of dogs are not used in such experiments? Or are you talking about pets restricted from treatment not yet fully tested? And many more than a few thousand benefit... In the veterinarian issue I feel the point relies on the amount of animals experimented on vs. treated with the results.

It was the term 'my dog' that threw the meaning you gave in the second post away.

Do you agree with Animal testing/research?

What kind of animal testing/research? For what purpose?

I agree with some testing on animals, but not all.

i was watching question time last night and i agree that animal testing for MEDICAL reasons is ok but not for cosmetics, i was wondering how would animal rights extremists feel if they were denied medication that was tested on animals, maybe thay would soon change their minds

What kind of animal testing/research? For what purpose?
Maybe i should have been more specific, but i haven't researched the area very thouroughly, and i just wanted peoples opinions in general. What sort do you agree with?

Animal testing is messed up. Maybe eating animals isn't wrong, but testing on them is? That's cruel! I think the way you treat animals says something about yourself. If you can hurt an animal without any remorse that shows what kind of person you are. I'm not some bleeding heart for animals but to treat a living creature that way is wrong on many levels.
Animals can feel pain. To say they can't is completely stupid. There are many alternative ways for test things.

not for cosmetics

That's very true.

There are many alternative ways for test things.

No there are not. I can't do my work without animal testing.

Spurious you do that for a living?

Pretending to be a biologist.

There are many alternative ways for test things.
many alternatives?
i can only think of two.
they are:
1. human testing
2. no testing

i bet you anything that people that are against animal testing are the first ones to sue when a medical procedure doesn't work.

i don't know man. if you are against animal testing then do not use anything that has been tested on animals. that includes about 97% of our drugs

I agree completely:people who don't agree with animal testing, don't buy products from companies that do.

However, I don't agree with the alternative "human testing" Isn't that even more inhumane??

It is completely ignorant and narrow-minded of people to think that animals cannot feel pain. I really don't think I need to explain my point there.

There are other alternatives that have been found to be cheaper and more reliable:
-Human skin model tests, which is a total replacement for skin corrosion studies on rabbits

-There is the use of human skin leftover from surgical procedures or donated cadavers that can be used to measure the rate at which a chemical is able to penetrate the skin.

-Cells grown in culture to assess the potential for sunlight-induced irritation to the skin

If the scienctists testing on animals are unable to perform these alternatives, then what are they doing there in the first place?

I don't test substances. I test theories.

I don't test substances. I test theories.
Well, uhh, I wasn't specifically talking to you

The public usually has a totally wrong idea on animal testing. They think the majority of animal research is done for testing medicin or substances. That is not quite true.

Here is a pie chart from canada. It's from an anti-animal testing site, but that doesn't quite fog the message presented in the pie-chart.


http://www.cruelscience.ca/images/res_stats_sm.gif

yes indeed, most animals are used in “curiosity-driven” research. That's the stuff I do. In our small lab we go through a few thousand mice a year. That's one lab.

No cure for cancer will come out of it of course, and neither will your shampoo sting your eyes less.

The introduction of transgenic mice has increased the animal use in pure science dramatically. This happened at the same time that the alternatives were introduced. People thought there might be a decrease of animal use at this point, but what actually happened was the opposite. Animal use has increased.

So we are talking about me.

..your point....

There are no alternatives since the alternatives means you couldn't publish your results, meaning you couldn't apply for grants, meaning your couldn't do research in the first place.

edit:

Or in other words: how can you use an alternative model for a model you do not understand?

If you can hurt an animal without any remorse that shows what kind of person you are... Animals can feel pain.

So what if they feel pain? If you don't think too much about it... you won't feel the pain of remorse.

Hi, back

So what if they feel pain? If you don't think too much about it... you won't feel the pain of remorse.


So what if they feel pain? I can't not think about it.

There are no alternatives since the alternatives means you couldn't publish your results, meaning you couldn't apply for grants, meaning your couldn't do research in the first place.

edit:

Or in other words: how can you use an alternative model for a model you do not understand?

I don't get what your saying.

I don't understand what you are saying either, monkey

try.

Monkey! hahaha, I like that. That should be your nickname.

I don't understand what you are saying either, monkey
it sounds to me that he is saying he does research for the sake of research

he's into the 'what if' scenario.

in my opinion that is the only 'true' scientist.

not to be nosey but who is the most inerested in your labs results spurious?

i'm coming on to this topic late in the game, but i'm going to go ahead and say that i'm against animal testing pretty much across the board as far as chemicals, drugs, cosmetics...etc are concerned. i don't think that there is a need for it. animals are not the same as people. if you want to find out whether or not something will help or harm people, you should conduct the test on a human. i wouldn't have a problem with that, especially if the people having things tested on them were being paid and doing it of their own volition, or alternatively i think that i would be ok with it if it was being done focibly on violent criminals. animals are basically helpless forms of life that rely on human beings to not brutalize them or torture them at their whim to find out if something like iced tea mix will burn your skin or eat away your liver. we should amend our laws to allow more types of human testing, or at least admit as a society that if we wouldn't test something on a person, then we shouldn't test it on an animal.

i'm coming on to this topic late in the game, but i'm going to go ahead and say that i'm against animal testing pretty much across the board as far as chemicals, drugs, cosmetics...etc are concerned. i don't think that there is a need for it. animals are not the same as people. if you want to find out whether or not something will help or harm people, you should conduct the test on a human. i wouldn't have a problem with that, especially if the people having things tested on them were being paid and doing it of their own volition, or alternatively i think that i would be ok with it if it was being done focibly on violent criminals. animals are basically helpless forms of life that rely on human beings to not brutalize them or torture them at their whim to find out if something like iced tea mix will burn your skin or eat away your liver. we should amend our laws to allow more types of human testing, or at least admit as a society that if we wouldn't test something on a person, then we shouldn't test it on an animal.

I couldn't agree more.

To experiment on beings that dont have the luxory of a voice and very little awareness of the intentions of those who *seem* to be their guardians and providers for personal gain i think is possibly one of the worse ethical crimes you can commit.

I have a feeling future generations will judge this society for its animal testing in the way we judge past generations for slavery.

So what if they feel pain? If you don't think too much about it... you won't feel the pain of remorse.
Psychopath much? :bugeye:

seriously folks, there are some experiments which cannot be performed in vitro. and i too work with animals, and the goal of all scientific institutions is to design procedures which result in the minimum of pain for the animal in question. you should see all the damned paperwork one has to fill out… :(

seriously folks, there are some experiments which cannot be performed in vitro. and i too work with animals, and the goal of all scientific institutions is to design procedures which result in the minimum of pain for the animal in question. you should see all the damned paperwork one has to fill out… :(

The animal rights movement would like a stop to ALL animal testing, but that isn't realistic, yet. The best we can hope for is that all animal testing stop unless it is almost certain to be of direct benefit to both humans and animals. To give people carte blanche to carry out any tests they like under the huge blanket of 'medical research' is bound to result in needless experiments that have no benefit whatsoever.

i am for animal testing like most other on a controlled basis... that it's not just "scientist" f*cking around cos they had a joint at lunch but rather for pursuit of scientific progress... i don't know too much on the area in question but i can't believe that the alternatives mentioned can cover all that animal testing entail...

my mother happens to be a biologist and as such she works with mice in experiments on a day-to-day basis... apparantly she has a liscense that entitles her to work with animal testing... a liscense that can apparantly be revoked rather easily should she not "treat" the animals with considerate care during the process of experimentation... i also have 2 dogs and a cat at home and she is very careful that they are treated properly and taken care of well because she might have her liscense revoked...

i don't think anyone can disagree that they'd rather have the testing be done on an animal than a relative (mentioning relative to evoke emotional attachment as eventually everyone must be known to someone)...

if i'm not entierly mistaken medical trials do occur even on humans... and as far as i'm concerned it's either sick people who have nothing to lose by going through the procedure or poor students like me that get injected with all sorts of thing so they can get the money for their pot noodles... the latter doesn't seem too ethical in a way does it? yet that's the type of people that testing attracts would they not be able to do it on animals (forseeing as i said that i don't think the alternative measures mentioned covers all that is in the area of animal testing.

i am for animal testing like most other on a controlled basis... that it's not just "scientist" f*cking around cos they had a joint at lunch but rather for pursuit of scientific progress... i don't know too much on the area in question but i can't believe that the alternatives mentioned can cover all that animal testing entail...

my mother happens to be a biologist and as such she works with mice in experiments on a day-to-day basis... apparantly she has a liscense that entitles her to work with animal testing... a liscense that can apparantly be revoked rather easily should she not "treat" the animals with considerate care during the process of experimentation... i also have 2 dogs and a cat at home and she is very careful that they are treated properly and taken care of well because she might have her liscense revoked...

i don't think anyone can disagree that they'd rather have the testing be done on an animal than a relative (mentioning relative to evoke emotional attachment as eventually everyone must be known to someone)...

if i'm not entierly mistaken medical trials do occur even on humans... and as far as i'm concerned it's either sick people who have nothing to lose by going through the procedure or poor students like me that get injected with all sorts of thing so they can get the money for their pot noodles... the latter doesn't seem too ethical in a way does it? yet that's the type of people that testing attracts would they not be able to do it on animals (forseeing as i said that i don't think the alternative measures mentioned covers all that is in the area of animal testing.

Humans testing would be welcomed by the scientific community if they could get enough volunteers, since it would speed up research.
Are the experiments your mother carries out essential? Do they directly benefit humans and animals with the minimum possible suffering of the mice?

When will people get over the idea that animal testing is important its NOT anymore! once a pone a time yes because we weren't as scientifically advanced as we are now. there are other alternatives that are more accurate than animal testing are hell of alot cheaper and don't cause pain! and don't give me trash about its in the name of science because i come from a family of scientists and ALL of them a posse testing on animals, its no longer that its a moral issue, there are OTHER RESOURCES!!!! people are so busy in caring about them selves that you forget what your actually doing. do you get a kick out of torturing animal? cause thats what it is don't even bother to deny it. you can't explain why you do it, you excuse it as its for science, or its better 1,000,000 animals die (tortured) than people , well how about this one no animals die, you test on lab created tissue of humans and humans don't die either. is that so hard for yous to get your head around ? i mean can you be that moronic to not give it a go ? what are you scared of that it might actually work and you don't the chance to harm animals any more? seriously you should be ashamed.

mice and rabbits don't equal little people, they have different reactions to us

http://*******************/

The seedy reality of animal testing.

very touchy subject

i would go and contact laboritries and see what happens to animals
then go and see the human labs and see what they do to humans
not much to humans you will find animals being tested for human research

but if they do tests for animals on animals to help them
coool
and tests on humans for humans that would be even more bloody cooool

The animal rights movement would like a stop to ALL animal testing, but that isn't realistic, yet. The best we can hope for is that all animal testing stop unless it is almost certain to be of direct benefit to both humans and animals. To give people carte blanche to carry out any tests they like under the huge blanket of 'medical research' is bound to result in needless experiments that have no benefit whatsoever.

One approach to reducing the amount of unneccessary testing would be to have a public register of all tests involving animals. It could have headings like Species of Test Animal, Short Test Summary, Possible Benefits. Then an independent group of Vets and Biologists could add an additional listing of probable levels of pain and discomfort, organ damage, etc. that the test would entail.

Then PETA and pretty much everyone could begin by attacking the clearly frivolous tests. If the possible benefits to humans are very low and the tests are clearly torture and the species involved is say dogs, well even die hard animal testing advocates will agree to that the test is not justified.

That way we can whittle away from the worst cases and work upwards. In most discussions it comes down to no testing versus testing. A worthy philosophical discussion, but also a distraction. The fact is some testing is a waste of time and hurts animals unneccesarily. We can begin there and begin debating as the cases become more confusing.

i have to agree with it, because without it, i would be dead by now. sacrificing mice and rats for the good of mankind is ok with me, its when they test bleach by putting it in cats eyes that makes me sad

i have to agree with it, because without it, i would be dead by now. sacrificing mice and rats for the good of mankind is ok with me, its when they test bleach by putting it in cats eyes that makes me sad

That's a good follow up to what I was getting at. If we discuss animal testing in general you want to defend it. There are some who want to get rid of the whole thing. This is stalemate. However, perhaps most people would agree to stop the test you mentioned about with cats and bleach - I have no idea if this is a real test or not, but certainly similar things have been done. We can move together through worst cases until we lose consensus or majority.

I agree with animal testing because it is a necessary part in the curing of many diseases.

No it isn't, in fact testing on people would definitely yield better results.

I'm against it but I understand that sometimes things can't be ideal.