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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i will reiterate that i support NECESSARY animal testing

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

That's very true.

 

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.

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

eople 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.

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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?