Animal testing

Nature Boy

Just wondering what people's attitude towards animal testing are.

Do you care?
Do you believe every product that says "No animal testing"?
Do you assume "Dermatologically tested" to also mean no animal testing?

doctor evil

Necessary evil.

Nature Boy

doctor evil wrote:

Necessary evil.

How is it necessary?

Reaver772

Nature Boy wrote:

Do you care?

Nope not a bit

Nature Boy wrote:

Do you believe every product that says "No animal testing"?

It's just advertising some are true some are false

Nature Boy wrote:

Do you assume "Dermatologically tested" to also mean no animal testing?

No it doesn't say what kind of skin.

Raminahobbin

i always avoid them. if someone is a vegetarian for their love of animals, i dont understand why they dont avoid products tested on animals- i actually think it's worse sometimes. pure unnecessary evil, especially as far cosmetics and household products go, whatever you think about medication. to the best of my knowledge i have avoided all animal tested medicines and products for a good few years now

Nature Boy

Raminahobbin wrote:

i actually think it's worse sometimes

Yeah I agree. Especially for cosmetics, no animal should have to suffer for somebody's vanity.

I guess everything boils down to pure greed. We just take what we want and we don't care who or what gets harmed in the process (Well some people do care but the people that matter don't care!)

It's terrible that in this day and age, and considering how intelligent we are that we still have to rely on other species to survive. Surely we shouldn't need animals for anything by now.

Clinical Waste

Higher intelligence doesn't alter the food chain though does it.

And conversely, maybe if we used animals more (for say transport, clothing and food) we could lessen our dependance on oil and other depleting fossil fuels that are used for transportation and the manufacturing of synthetic substitutes.

And maybe then, the whole planet will survive just that little bit longer for you and your furry friends.

BTW: do you keep pets?

Nature Boy

No i don't have any pets but my wife is a deer and my son is a cute little furry rabbit. And we live in a big house made from hemp.

I'm sure there's plenty of other things you could spend you're time doing

Shabadu

Wrong forum. Moved to Humanities.

Personally, I feel non-crucial testing is abhorrent (cosmetics etc.), but I would still support animal testing for medicinal reasons as long as the animal was treated ethically.

Nature Boy

I dunno.

Is it really possible to treat an animal ethically while testing on them?

I suppose everyone has different views on whether it's ok to exploit animals or not

Dave!

Don't agree with it for cosmetics, but for medical purposes it's necessary.

(before you ask, it's because we'll DIE if we don't have medicines that work -- and humans are more important than animals, yeh)

BTW, why does your poll have no option for "I agree with it wholeheartedly"?

The_Minister

Most people seem not to care. I don't think the options you gave were the best tbh.

Dades

Regarding the poll I think the answers are too black and white.
I would imagine most people (myself included) would claim that testing cosmetics is "wrong" but that testing medication is "necessary".

Of course most do nothing about either.

Nature Boy

There is an option to say you disagree with it but don't avoid it. That's the same thing


This poll was originally posted in a vegan board

Nature Boy

The Atheist wrote:

testing cosmetics is "wrong" but that testing medication is "necessary".

I thought there were alternatives to animal testing in medication?

GuanYin

There is no such thing as "not tested on animals". Its a complete myth.

Any product that you purchase that says "not tested" on animals is either made of components that were previously tested on animals as independent components or the product was initially tested on an animal and non-animal model to ensure that the results were homogenuous before all further testing commenced on the non-animal model.

If you doubt this, go check FDA and industry regulatory affairs guidelines in both the EU and US.

The fact of the matter is, you may not like animal testing, you may disagree with the practice, but you would not be the healthy individual you are today without it. Every medicine you have ever taken has been animal tested. Every vaccination you have ever had was animal tested.

Personally, I don't like animal testing but I appreciate the need for it.

Nature Boy

Ok I guess I'll leave this to you guys to discuss!
I'm headed back to the Vegetarian board!

Like i said it probably boils down to greed and whether you believe that our lives are more important than anything else in this world.

D

I agree with animal testing. Not all of it mind you but if somone pushed me for a yes no answer I'd have to go with it. I know very little, pain/operation/irritation etc. However, from what I have seen it is feeding mice etc, drugs to test their affects, side affects. I aggree with this. In fact, if 1,000 monkeys/mice/rats had to be hurt and killed in an effort to cure/ease/prevent and disease, for example lets say alzheimer's then i am all for it. If there was a shadow of a chance that a cure for AIDS could be found from the slaughter of one million mice then I say slaughter them (dramatic I know but I'm sure many would agree, especially those who know sufferers).

CathyMoran

I do not think that it is a good idea for cosmetics but for medicines it is necessary - I suffer from type 1 diabetes, if they had not found out that it was caused by problems with the pancreas I would be dead now, as would millions of other people.

Eoin

psi wrote:

There is no such thing as "not tested on animals". Its a complete myth.

Any product that you purchase that says "not tested" on animals is either made of components that were previously tested on animals as independent components or the product was initially tested on an animal and non-animal model to ensure that the results were homogenuous before all further testing commenced on the non-animal model.

Wasn't it Bodyshop who said that they didn't do animal testing, but what they didn't say was that they just paid another company to do it for them?

Going to have to go with the flow, and agree with the others who said that medical testing isn't nice but necessary, and cosmetic testing shouldn't be done.

Like the comedian Rich Hall said, what's the point of testing cosmetics on bunny rabbits anyway - they look cute as it is...

Dades

Nature Boy wrote:

There is an option to say you disagree with it but don't avoid it. That's the same thing

My point is "it" is too vague. People agree with certain aspects - but not others. No matter really. Polls are only a means to spark debate, which is fine.

GuanYin

eoin_s wrote:

Like the comedian Rich Hall said, what's the point of testing cosmetics on bunny rabits anyway - they look cute as it is...

I prefer Jimmy Carr

Cat's have 9 lives, which makes them ideal for animal testing

Tar.Aldarion

Against vivisection.
I would agree with the quotes in '1,000 doctors against vivisection'.


Mr Twain said, I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn't...The pain which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further.
I agree.
What I think about vivisection is that if people admit that they have the right to take or endanger the life of living beings for the benefit of many, there will be no limit to their cruelty.

There is no doubt that the best test species for man is man. This is based on the fact that it is not possible to extrapolate animal data directly to man, due to interspecies variation in anatomy, physiology and biochemistry.

Dades

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

There is no doubt that the best test species for man is man.

Especially the ones that sign up for medical experiments, right?

I don't know much about testing but I presume if we took animals out of the chain there would be an exponential increase in incidents like the one last month where some testers nearly died. Off to the third world with the drug companies, no doubt...

GuanYin

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

There is no doubt that the best test species for man is man. This is based on the fact that it is not possible to extrapolate animal data directly to man, due to interspecies variation in anatomy, physiology and biochemistry.

You don't give scientists much credit.

It is of course possible to extrapolate animal data directly to man. However, in order to do this you need to fully explore the system in your animal model, map it, compare its function to that of man and then once you know all the variables use it to extrapolate new data. Remember, nature is a big fan of conservation. If a trick works well its flourishes amond species.

You don't just think people put things in animals willy nilly do you? That would be pointless and stupid. They must know and understand exactly how the animal model relates to man before an ethics committee would even look at an application.

As far as the pain animals feel, in alot of cases its none. With the exceptions of knockouts and disease models in animals, alot of work is done either on animal tissue or anaesthetised animals who simply go under and never wake up.

The other thing to consider is that people seem to have a huge misconception about nature and ecologies and conservation. Mother nature is a nasty beast and the fate of most animals is quite humane when compared with the fate in store for wild animals.