If animal testing didn't exist....?

Question

...then scientists wouldn't have been able to create safe vaccines for both humans AND animals right? What about the AIDS drugs, anti-cancer drugs & basically ALL the other drugs that hospitals & veterinarians are using & treating their patients right now? If they weren't tested on animals 1st to make sure they are working & are safe, then all these drugs wouldn't exist today. What about pet food? I'm pretty sure most companies test their food on animals to be 100% sure YOUR pets don't drop dead from eating their food.

IMO, eventhough it is not very nice to do these kind of things to animals, it still has to be done to create new & better, stronger drugs/medications for everybody & that includes animals as well. However, I do NOT agree with scientists using animals to test cosmetic products & other unnecessary stuff. Those stuff are NOT important but drugs are. AND I also wish those scientists would treat the animals more humanely & respectfully.

Malaysia is about to open an animal testing laboratory sometime this year. It'll be the 1st in our country. Animals lovers over here are quite upset about it & are screaming bloody murder. Honestly, I am fine with it JUST AS LONG the animals are treated humanely. I really wish they are treated better.

In your own words, what do you think about animal testing? Do you think it should be banned? Do you think animal testing is important for certain things?

Thanks to those who answer.
BA will be chosen.

Answer 1

I think you're probably in the wrong section for answers to this ethical question. Good luck!



(I think the majority of animal testing is just unnecessary, cruel and unethical...we don't need to squirt bunnies in the eye with perfume to know that it stings! I also think to test on any animal that is less than extremely closely related to human DNA is foolishness and unnecessary. I won't comment past that.)

Answer 2

Animal testing is absolutely essential because it would be scientifically, medically, ethically, morally, and legally indefensible to give a human being a substance which had never before been given to a living organism. It is essential that serious or lethal side effects be identified as accurately as possible before proceeding to human trials. Suppose your child had a serious progressive illness, and the doctors told you there was a new drug that might help. Picture this discussion: Well doctor, what are the risks? We have no idea. What are the side effects? We have no idea. Could it harm her? We have no idea. Could it kill her? We have no idea. How long would she have to take the drug? We have no idea. What is the safe dosage? We have no idea. Ok, well lets give it to her and see what happens. Not my child! Some unknowledgeable people say that testing on cell cultures can provide the same information. If that were true, no scientist would waste precious research funds on animal testing, which is many times more expensive. In fact, all new drugs are tested in cell culture before going on to animal trials, and most potential drugs never go on to animal trials because they don’t show promising results in culture. But cell culture testing alone cannot provide the needed information to ensure maximum safety in human trials. A cell culture doesn’t have a heart, lungs, kidneys, blood, a brain, or any other organs. Therefore it cannot predict such side effects as cardiac arrest, lung collapse, kidney failure, blood clots, brain tumors, etc.

Answer 3

Micki, on certain genetic levels, mice are extremely close to us. Then you get into the fact that most rodents used for testing are biologically engineered in some way or other... I know the company we go through for school has over 400 genetically different strains of mice alone.



Chinchillas are extremely similiar to us in the ear. Pigs in the skin, and anatomically they are almost identical in the shape and layout of their organs.



I do not like the thought of animal testing. However, I do not like where the world would be without it. Back when the average lifespan was 30-40 years? Yeah.





Primates are the closest to us, genetically, but they make up a VERY small percentage of test subjects, and that is how it SHOULD be. They are almost impossible to breed in captivity so the majority are wild caught. Many species are endangered. They carry several zoonotic diseases that are hard to test for. And they are just too intelligent for a fullfilling life in a research lab. Whereas a mouse is very easily amused in a shoebox container, and the short lifespan allows for much easier studying. That is why rodents make up over 90% of all research animals.



Besides, there are many myths about testing that are not true (at least not in the USA). The animal welfare act and other laws greatly minimize the number of animals used. All other methods must be looked at first. Animals may only be used if no other means can get the same results (although, they are required to do animal testing FIRST before ANY drug is tested on humans). Labs are required to use the smallest amount of animals as possible, in the shortest amount of time possible. Cosmetic testing is rarely done anymore (although, again, I speak for USA laws). Testing now is VERY very very different then it was even 30 years ago, and is MUCH more humane.

Answer 4

There are two main points I would need satisfactory answers to before I would consider animal testing to be justifiable in the interest of advances in human medical treatment.



1. That the proposed experience *was* for advances in medical treatment & there was a real likelihood that the information gained from the experiments would result in a treatment that would be transferable to humans.



If it works in a dog, mouse or ape, does it mean that it would necessarily have the same affect on a human....



2. That the animal would not be subjected to excruciating pain or discomfort in the pursuit of the knowledge the scientists wanted. It is one thing to say that humans are more important that animals, but another to subject them to intolerable living conditions, which is a mere pitiful existence & not a life.



In my opinion animal testing should only be undertaken where there is not better alternative, for a justifiable reason, with the least possible suffering to the animals & under strict regulation.

Answer 5

If animal testing didn't exist, we would all be better people... more kind & compassionate... any human knowledge gained from testing on animals is done so at the expense of human character.

Answer 6

I hate animal testing. I think it's cruel and disgusting.



*BUT*

I wouldn't have a problem with it if they didn't test products like makeup, and beauty products on the animals and if they didn't do the same tests over and over again even after they knew it was safe I wouldn't be so against it. It's just.. I don't think they should do it on so many animals either.. and I don't like the ways they test the animals.



So I think it should be banned for most things.. but for CERTAIN things it should be allowed.. and well, it's hard to explain what I think about it.



I pretty much agree with what you think about it though.

Except.. I did here about the lab opening in Malaysia. One of my friends from over there said something about it. Tbh I'm against it. I think there are enough testing labs already. ._.

Answer 7

There are animal testing video's on YouTube as it is awful what they do to these animals..Iams is a big contributor to animal testing and you would'nt believe tha sad and sickening state of these animals.I'm sorry I am totally against all animal testing and I would be joining the protest line in a heartbeat..I can't post the video's as when I did last time I was reported and got a Violation notice thats how awful the video's are..and no animal should have to suffer.You have plenty of death row inmates so test on them

Answer 8

If people go to the doctor and get vaccines, get surgeries, take their pet to the vet, use pain medications, etc. then they support ETHICAL medical testing on animals. I highly doubt the people who want to end ALL forms of animal testing will be jumping in line to test out experimental procedures/medications/vaccines etc. Besides, veterinary and human medicine are so entwined it is not uncommon for new treatments and procedures to be tried out in vet clinics first then migrate over to human medicine. This is another form of animal testing!



People have it ingrained in their mind that all research facilities are this evil torture house, when really nowadays there is more abuse going on in vet clinics than research facilities. Research facilities have a huge amount of red tape and strict guidelines they have to adhere to. Most are inspected regularly by not only USDA, but also IACUC and AAALAC as well.

Answer 9

I would also like to add that because of animal testing we probably would not have had penicillin that has save so many lives. The guy who invented it tested it on rats I believe,well rats had no reaction to penicillin, so the guy was about to throw all his research away and start over. His friend got sick and rather than let him die, the guy decided to give it one last try and gave his friend the drug, and guess what it worked. And now we have life saving penicillin.



The problem with testing on rats is, they often don't have the same reactions to drugs that we do. If the animals are treated well, and not unleashed on society with potential lethal and harmful diseases, then I have no problem with animal testing. The problem is that not all labs are secure, and disease ridden animals have gotten loose and have cause a ruckus. I do have a problem with testing cosmetics and other vanity, useless stuff on animals.



Wish I had the term paper I did on this with me, but I don't.



I also like to point out that I absolutely despise, vivisection. You just have to look it up to learn about it, I really don't want to delve into it.



Edit- Alexander Fleming tested penicillin on rabbits not rats.

Answer 10

I don't agree with testing for things like cosmetics.



But animal testing does have its place. The leaps and bounds in veterinary care have come about because of animal testing for human medicine. So it not only helps us, it helps our pets as well.



If there are other more reliable means of testing I do think should be used first.



I hold the same stance on treatment for lab animals as I do food animals. These animals are giving a great sacrifice and should be treated with utmost care and respect, they should also be given the best possible quality of life while they are here.

Answer 11

When necessary, animal testing is necessary and should be continued. That noted, researchers should dedicate a LOT of thought about the necessity and use only the degree of animal testing necessary to reach a scientifically valid conclusion.

Answer 12

I think with all technology we have today, we should be trying to find ways to test things without animals.

Animal testing on cosmetics and other household items should be banned.

Answer 13

I'm not against the testing on animals, I'm against how many animals are treated in the process.



For testing processed pet "food", many dogs are treated horribly.



I agree that for medical purposes it is necessary and I care about humans over animals.



For cosmetic purposes, I think it's unnecessary.



It should not be banned. Whenever the government steps in, everything gets even more screwed up.

Answer 14

I agree with you

we do NEED animal testing, but not to the extent of cosmetics



I used to be anti-testing and all that stuff. but now I know that it is needed

Answer 15

yes, animal testing is required for alot of things that you may or may not realize.

dont believe what you see in tv how they beat the animal and kill em

cosmetics, they just rub it on the skin to see if any allergic reactions to it, and the people working there have vets to take care of the animal, most of the workers even become attached to the animal an bring em treats and so forth.

Answer 16

Its a necessary evil IMO.

Answer 17

I agree with you, I think it is important, end of story.





Some people are dangerously stupid, that's why they do what they do, including their temper tantrums.