Some people do behave erratically and show more worrying signs of the functioning mind of a less capable specie. You may have a case... 'To test or not to test'
Animal Testing: For or Against?
Sort:
put it this way animal testing gave loads of good stuff its messed as well, allow it, more good than bad
My heart cries for the animal in pain, my mind sees many profits to be gained.
With advances in modern science individual cells can used or stem cells to grow individual organs to test on rather than a whole live organism. I believe testing is necessary but with todays advances we can cut out the suffering to advance the old creed, "do onto others as you would have them do onto you". Animals i think included.
Feb 24, 2015
0
#6
It's never been right, in my view. You don't torture one species to benefit another species. It's a moral crime as bad as a meat factory.
To present one of the many opposing opinions:
"Nearly every Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine since 1901 has relied on animal data for their research and the past 2 decades has brought many medical breakthroughs thanks to animal testing. Without it, we would have surely not been so successful in our battle against TB, Polio or Cancer to name a few.
Does this justify animal testing? It is a small price to pay for so much good to come.
If you find yourself on the surgical bed or in need of medication to combat a life-threatening disease, would you go as far to reject all proposed and current methods of treatment due to 'animal testing' certified products?
It is human nature for an inclinition of good, or greater good. We wouldn't want to necessarily hurt anyone or anything on purpose just for the pure satisfaction or sake of it, it's not something to be purely proud of when it concerns animal testing, but it is something that has helped advance science & technology.
There are alternatives to animal testing, but new ideas, new ways of going about things naturally brings skepticism and fear. Until we have sufficient means of replacing animal testing, expect little change. Most if not all would happily convert to the new method that doesn't cause harm to animals once it is an economical and cost effective way. We're not evil, simply trying to survive and better ourselves.
Animal testing is not something we proudly parade about, but it is something that is helping to save lives."
(http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-animal-testing-a-good-thing)
lottery420 wrote:
With advances in modern science individual cells can used or stem cells to grow individual organs to test on rather than a whole live organism. I believe testing is necessary but with todays advances we can cut out the suffering to advance the old creed, "do onto others as you would have them do onto you". Animals i think included.
Some food for though to again present an opposing argument.
Respect for human life requires that we should also show respect for human embryos. Some people believe that embryonic stem cell research violates this principle, as an embryo is destroyed during the process of stem cell line derivation. The concept of human dignity is a difficult one because it is unclear what it means exactly; and this is exacerbated by the fact that it has been employed to justify fundamentally opposing views. Most authors understand the notion of human dignity as our essential humanity, what makes us human. Consequently this concept is closely related to beliefs regarding the moral status of the human embryo. You oppose animal testing, but wave the flag of consent to test on potential humanlife who also had no choice whatsoever in whether in engage in such studies?
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2726839/)
(http://www.eurostemcell.org/toolkititem/stem-cell-treatments-and-ethics-discussion-lesson)
(http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/stemcells/scissues/)
(http://www.biomedinvo4all.com/en/research-themes/stem-cell-therapy/stem-cell-therapy-ethics)
@Fkey, Question: Does suffering go hand in hand with learning?
Fkey wrote:
I rather doubt it, are you talking about inflicting it or suffering it ?
It may in some circumstances, but it is hardly a given.
Again people respond differently to suffering, some may learn, some may destroy themselves.
Both cases. But would you regard it necessary?
connecttomk wrote:
Please stop cruelty against animals.
We do not want to prolong our life span at the cost of innocent creatures.
What about clothing? Wool, silk, cashmere, Lamb fur, leather etc. Animal skin/fur shearing ...
Feb 24, 2015
0
#13
Why are humans a species so riddled with diseases and filth? Societies they build is home to the overpopulation of rats, cockroaches, parasitic bug infestations. Everywhere they go, everything they do, everything they touch turn sickly, diseased, corrupt, polluted...their sadism towards other species in all these centuries since they came to being on this planet doesn't appear to "advance" anything ....maybe instead of of torturing animals in labs, they should have just gone into the amazons and learned from the tribes there on how to survive with destroying nature and torturing animals while staying in perfect balance with the ecosystem....oh too late, they fucked that up too already.
They are "too intelligent" to heed God's laws of nature and physics.
Fkey, as well as clinical testing on humans, it is also a requirement to test on 2 animals/rodents according to the ICH and it just so happens many pharmaceutical and biotech companies find animals to be a good prerequisite study before moving onto human studies.
The basis is the similarity in biochemical pathways, the widespread of proteins and similar pharmacokinetics & pharmacodynamics. (drug behaviour). Dummy runs if you like, before fully pledging to an expensive project. 100's of millions of $ or £.
(http://www.ich.org/home.html)
Feb 24, 2015
0
#15
Testing on animals is a necessary step in the research of many things before human use can be approved. It should be done in a very humane monitored fashion.
It is funded by governments of the respective bodies of EU, FDA and Japanese Ministry of Health backed by the big pharma blue chip companies etc.
I should of made it more clear, what I posted isn't necessarily my views, rather just enabling a platform for discussion.
@Fkey, lets look at both sides.
One could propose us to consider what about the good that has come out of drug discovery & drug design? (as well as cosmetics & clothing etc )
How many safe medicines have successfully treated and cured diseases & infections? How many vaccinations have saved the vunerable?
Animal testing is cringing and disheartening, but it seems that the regulatory bodies FDA and EMA permit and accept data from animal testing to support the application process.
Why?
As mentioned before, the CEO's and researchers seem reluctant to change methods that have proven to them that work. Regardless of what has ebeen said there is a changing paradigm of moving away and reducing preliminary animal testing in medicinals as some companies are pushing for new novels means of testing.
With plausible reasons, the pharmaceutical industry can be looked as a skwered moneymaking machine.
Fkey wrote:
Funded by Big Pharma ??? what a suprise lol.
To me that says it all.
Not fully, nor is it their choice. Governments apply pressure to these giant companies to partially fund the odd symposium or annual meeting. There are a lot of external bodies (representing the welfare of animals) involved in these meetings.
ARE YOU FOR OR AGAINST ANIMAL TESTING?
Background
A History of Animals and Chess
Animal themes can make popular board games, especially for people who are not normally gamers. Modern releases like Takenoko, where players care for a panda, and Hive, an abstract battle between insects, have found many fans. Arimaa, another modern abstract, uses a chess set but all pieces represent animals.
But using animals as a theme for board games isn't a modern idea. Traditional board games, starting thousands of years ago, have used animals as their theme. A number of broad subcategories have come into existence over the intervening years that reflect the natures of animals and their relationship to humans.
The oldest animal themes, like the oldest games, treat animals as racing teams. Egyptian racing games, like dogs & jackals, used animal shapes as an alternative to simply colouring the pieces, and this was often done with some other race games like senet. Later games used horses as race animals, though in teams as opposed to the modern all-against-all nature of the sport. In nyout the pieces are called horses, and an early mediaeval Chinese game (confusingly called xiang qi, but not Chinese chess) had teams of horses racing against one another.
After this came chess, which includes war animals in its armies. The modern knights were originally cavalry, and the bishops of our game were the war elephants of earlier cultures. Some expanded chess games included camels as war mounts, too. Japanese chess variants went further with the animal theme, but these were more abstract.
The use of animals in such board games can only generate the idea that they were respected, feared, adored and in some cases worshipped. So there is a clear link between chess and animals, which got me thinking about animal testing. We can already see the depiction and the 'use of animals' in board games to have been very beneficial to humans, but how about the real life application?
Animal Testing
Animal rights are widely known and accepted in many cultures across the globe to varying extents but despite this there are topics and events which happen every year that often cause much debate and controversy in the public and media news outlets, journals and forums.
From high profile support from celebrities, outspoken models from the fashion world and animal campaigners, animal rights is an issue that has sparked outrage and even government debate.
Animal Testing can be narrowed down to a simple explanation of "using animals to experiment on" with the understanding of the usage, safety, toxicity and effectiveness of drugs, chemicals, pesticides, cosmetics, household products and understanding human biochemistry & anatomy. It also includes exploring new fabric trends or taxidermy sculptures (art of stuffing or filling skins of animals) to observational (behavioural) studies and so forth. So anything which permits or renders the use of animals for prerequisite studies.
The Discussion
Arguments are powered by both moral and scientific reasons, logical and rational ideas to justify an action response, its important to question the necessity and justification of a wide range of issues regarding contemporary affairs.
Feel free to share your views regarding animal testing, on whether it is an issue, how it effects research and its commercial application, the morals and ethics behind the intentions, the current techniques, how you plan to combat it or rather improve the current models etc.
ARE YOU FOR OR AGAINST ANIMAL TESTING?
References & Further Reading
[1]A Critical Look at Animal Experimentation, Medical Research Modernization Committee, Christopher Anderegg et al, 2006
link: (http://www.mrmcmed.org/critical_look.pdf)
[2]Animal Testing: Pro's and Cons, About Animal Testing
link: (http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk/using-animals-testing-pros-versus-cons.html)
[3] Advice and Welfare of Animals, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
link: (http://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/laboratory/areanimalexperimentsnecessary)
[4] Game Themes from History, Cyningstan Traditional Board Games Blog, 2006
link: (http://www.cyningstan.com/news/492/latest-news)
[5] Takenoko Board Game, Antoine Buaza, 2011
link: (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/70919/takenoko)