I am curious as to this boards view on animal testing. I do not condone cosmetic testing done on animals, nor do I condone superfulous food testing. However with that geing said, animal testing for drugs and certain chemicals can and have been very helpful to the human race. What is your view of animal testing in a pre-clinical trial setting. For it someways For it anyway Against it sometimes Against it all the time
I am definately against animal testing and wish they would create an alternative. I wonder, if a cloned animal has no soul, would it be ok to use it for testing?
I'm sort of of the same opinion as David. I believe testing for cosmetics, house cleaners, etc. is so completely wrong. That said, I believe testing for medical purpose is not only okay, but a necessity. As much as I love animals, I do believe we are a 'higher life form' or whatever... and if a little bunny dies in the testing of a medication that will go on to save my daughter's life a year later, I have to believe that that bunny died a noble death... even though it had no choice in the matter.
Many times, the tests are rediculous! An example, they took rabbits and placed things like hair dye, mascara and other cosmetics in their eyes to see what would happen. The results often showed ulcers, burns and some caused blindness. Rabbits do not have tear ducts in their eyes like humans do. They had no way of washing out foreign matter, and even if they did, the testers didn't just put a dab or a drop, like you would likely get in your eyes during normal use of the product, they gobbed it in. It was all over the news about 10 years ago. Many of the things that affect a human do not do anything to an animal. Their systems are so different from ours. Testing food, for example, You can feed your dog raw chicken, raw beef, raw eggs, raw fish, raw liver, raw rabbit...you name it they can eat it raw...providing it is not spoiled. It is actually GOOD for them. It is the way many people feed their dogs now. All kinds of info on the net and in bookstores. My dogs follow a natural diet as well, have since I got them - one almost 7 years...great health, white teeth, no nasty breath...Their systems are made to break down these foods and they do not get sick from it. This is how nature designed them. Chocolate fine for humans, but can kill a dog. Therefore, isn't it not common sence that what will make a dog sick and what will make a person sick are two totally different subjects? Ditto with drug testing. Our systems are simply not the same. Things that are normal for humans like asprin ...what is it...asprin ok for dogs but dangerous to cats? I just don't feel that animal testing should be done. For one thing it is cruel, but for even the people who aren't animal lovers, you gotta be thinking, how accurate can the results even be if our bodies are so different? **** If you even consider a natural diet for your pets, read thoroughly up on it and consult a vet who has experience in these diets before you just switch a dog over. With a young pup it is very easy, but you want to make sure your pet is getting all of the nutrients it needs.
Devillock76, agreed on the personal experience, which is why I chose bunnies. When my daughter was 3, she developed something called Kawasaki's Disease, which, if left undiagnosed and untreated, can and often does lead to heart anyeurisms and sometimes death. The scary part is that KD often looks like other, easily treatable illnesses such as scarlet fever. Anyway... She was correctly diagnosed, hospitilized, and given a 12 hour treatment of IVIG-- intrevenious immunoglobulin, a product made right here, at our very own Bayer Healthcare plant. A product which, IIRC, is tested on bunnies. In any case, it's very likely that a bunny died, or was somehow otherwise affected in order to get my daughter that medicine. But that bunny very likely saved her life, or at the very least, kept her from having any sort of heart damage. So that's my story.
Indeed, the avacement of tissue culture has led science to a place where very often animal testing can be avoided, but sometimes there is no other choice. Not yet. Scientists would as much rather have another valid model as animal lovers would. Animals are expensive to house and care for and there are STRICT regulations by many government agencies restricting how and when they can be used. We will get there, someday. But for today, my children, my loved ones are more important than the meeses and ratties.
For anyone who is for it, please check out this link. http://www.rescueclearinghouse.com/vivisectionrealities.htm
I am so glad I caught a glimpse of the above sight before the entire thing loaded. That is the problem I have with groups like PETA....that kind of horrific stuff is unnecessary and I personally think to willing view it says something about a person. I don't need to see view implorable things like that in order to know where I stand.
I'm late jumping in on this, but: If animal research enhances MEDICINE for humans, then I'm all for it. You can make them look like a 3-toed monkey-faced sloth for all I care. But, if the research is for cosmetics and the like, then I am against it. In my opinion, unless this cosmetic procedure is due to burns, lacerations, or something similar, then the person really doesn't need the procedure. Namely, plastic surgery. Thus, animals shouldn't be tested for it. It WOULD be rather humorous to see some pics of rats with Botox or Rabbits with breast augmentation. Kidding.
"Good" for them is a bit of a question as it does asllow them to host harmful bacteria and shed that bacteria. So will humans who do not normally cook certain foods. I suppose you have heard of sushi? I suppose that is the reason the vet gave my dog benadryl to help keep the reaction to his shots at a minimum ... just like they prescribe it for human usage. I know of people who cannot eat peanuts because they will die, but I love them. Does that make peanuts a "good" or a "bad" thing for people? Actually, their systems are more similar than they are different. People are actually more different from other people if you look at it objectively. I suppose the differences is why they used porcine heart valves in humans as a replacement?
Wanting to have some truth added to offset the outdated pictures and misrepresentations concerning animal research.
If you have something to add, then post it. Have you been in the research facilities lately? How about taking some photos and get back to us.
Ok how about this. The main complaint is that animal testing does not show all of the possible side effects, which is true since there are many interactions that would have to be considered. Thus the animal testing is to determine the risks to more closely monitor if the drug were to go to clinical trials. These clinical trials do not provide a complete set of data because they cannot be large enough to do so. Thus, we are dealing with the information which is practical from the amount of time, money, and effort which may be allocated and without unnecessary delay that may cause more loss in the human population. The AR view is that any problem with a drug is the result of animal testing, which ingores the later clinical trials that also must be passed. They also promote "alternatives" which are rarely specifically named. The use of cell cultures gives limited data on the effect on cells, not organs or organisms and also require animal products to support the growth of the culture. The use of computer models is also goven, but ignores the issue of the need for prior data from which to develop the model and the computer capacity required for an entire organism. I am not comfortable with the concept of a model beign used to tell me whether I will live or die based on less information than is used to predict the weather ... knowing just how accurate the weather predictions are. As for research labs, I have friends who work for Glaxo S/K, Duke, St. Judes, NIEHS, and EPA who have all worked with animal research. while I have not been to all of their labs, I have discussed them in some detail at one time or another. How many research labs are on your resume? A bit of information from a researcher friend from Canada, which I believe originated in the UK. THE CHALLENGE OF DETECTING SIDE-EFFECTS FROM LIMITED DATA * Detecting nasty side-effects is harder than it looks. * The health scares over cox-2 drugs and the food dye Sudan 1 have highlighted the challenge of assessing health risks from limited data. While studies involving huge numbers of patients or laboratory animals are clearly better at detecting side-effects than small ones, they are also far more expensive and time-consuming. However, the ability of a study to detect risk does not increase pro-rata with size: to double the sensitivity, the required number of patients quadruples. * Worst of all, estimating the required numbers demands some guessing at the likely level of risk - a bad guess raises the danger of the study being "underpowered", lacking the numbers needed to detect the true level of risk. * One solution is to set up a trial so large that it is sure to have a reasonable chance of detecting serious side-effects in one patient out of every N taking the drug. Statistical theory then shows that a comparison of four times N-squared patients taking the drug with the same number taking a placebo will do the trick. But for blockbuster drugs such as Vioxx, side-effects affecting one in 1,000 patients constitute a health alert and detecting that level of risk needs a study involving millions. * The only way of acquiring such vast numbers is for pharmaceutical companies and regulators to keep drugs under close surveillance long after approval.
I would say that you are more than a little biased. Are you also involved in animal welfare? If so this could be a conflict of interest. How do you feel about breaking animals' necks, torturing them, and gassing them? Do you feel that it is humane to break their legs on purpose, just to practice fixing them? What about injecting healthy, adoptable animals with cancer in a research lab? Your writing is familiar to me. Have we met before?
