nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Animal testing,do you agree to it?

Kaneda_

Its hard to know where to stand on this one.The web is full of sites that are against it,but there are some solid arguments that basically says that it is neccesary to develop new drugs and testing on animals paves the way and allows develpment of the drug for human consumption.

There are alot of cosmetic companies that test on animals, but there are also alot that dont.

I feel that it i cruel and shouldnt be banned worldwide, But what if a close family member/friend, or even yourself were to become terminally ill? Would i still take ths stance knowing that the drugs could have been developed if animal testing was allowed? This is the argument.

There are plenty of places on the web to look furhter ino this, and ive only started to take notice of it so i am not well informed of this subjet yet.

Are you against it or for it?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Eric Cartman

yes, in the same way I agree with hunting , fur and the meat industry , animals are our servants, here to be used in whatever way to benefit man.

Biggins

Eric Cartman wrote: »

yes ...here to be used in whatever way to benefit man.

No sheep is safe then so?

Kaneda_

Eric Cartman wrote: »

yes, in the same way I agree with hunting , fur and the meat industry , animals are our servants, here to be used in whatever way to benefit man.

While i am against it mostly, i still enjoy my meat more that any other food besides snowballs.

Blondini

Animal testing - no way.

Fcuckers are renowned for releasing software with tons of bugs in them.

pragmatic1

Animals are used to test every single drug. If you dont agree with it, next time you're seriously ill refuse the medication.

Don Juan DeMagoo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

yes, in the same way I agree with hunting , fur and the meat industry

Why not use trolls as they have a slight few similarities to decent human beings. Then again any positive effect that testing has on them will probably be not for the benefit of humanity....

animals are our servants, here to be used in whatever way to benefit man.

They suck, I just asked my dog to make me an espresso and he is just sitting there licking his balls. Not good enough I say, with a recession going on.

Don Juan DeMagoo

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Awesome, so you'd be volunteering for a phase one clinical trial for a brand new drug that had never been tested on another living thing then? Didn't think so..

Actually I am in favour of clinical testing on humans, sure why not. If they consent for beaucoup of money, sure i see no harm in it. Better use of them than sending off to war.
However I could not allow the animals to be doing the testing on the humans, there is just too much bad blood there.

Well there is my two cent, i hope that this has been of some help

TPD

All for it for medicine and related areas. Cosmetics, not really.

Larianne

TheZohan wrote: »

[massive list..] More than you'd think.

What do Kleenex do when testing animals? See if the tissues cut the bejaysis outta their noses?

El_Dangeroso

Don Juan DeMagoo wrote: »

Actually I am in favour of clinical testing on humans, sure why not. If they consent for beaucoup of money, sure i see no harm in it. Better use of them than sending off to war.
However I could not allow the animals to be doing the testing on the humans, there is just too much bad blood there.

Well there is my two cent, i hope that this has been of some help

They do clinical testing for sure (and btw in Europe no one is allowed to be paid, you get expenses and that's it) but they also do the animal testing first to make sure it doesn't instantly cause toxicity.

Animal studies are an important first step in any drug development. Unless we just get some poor Africans to do it, sher no-one cares about them.

[Deleted User]

I would just like to point out that while companies like Body Shop do not participate in animal testing, the ingrediants they use in their products have been used in animal testing. It would not be possible for cosmetic companies to use such ingrediants without their effect on humans being known. So while they don't themselves take part in any animal testing, they do use a list of products that are known to be safe for humans, through the use of animal testing.

C.D.

To put it in perspective, about 1 in 25 pharmaceuticals found in the lab make it to clinical trial stage. Of those that enter Phase 0, 1 in 8 make it to market. Keeping in mind it takes a long time to get to the clinical trial stage, it takes over 7 years alone to get approval in the major markets from the start of testing.

The average cost to bring a drug to market is is excess of $1,000,000,000.

Were you to ban animal testing, whether it is morally right or wrong, you would add significant amounts of time to the the process and increase this cost exponentially under the current regulatory process. This would have the effect of the cost of new treatments rocketing up and manufacturers abandoning the development of less "profitable" treatments as they will never see a return on their investment.

As it stands, only those in the developed world can afford the latest treatment- removing animal testing would mean only a very small minority of people could afford treatment and fewer diseases would be treated.

[Deleted User]

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Awesome, so you'd be volunteering for a phase one clinical trial for a brand new drug that had never been tested on another living thing then? Didn't think so..

For the 50 things on that list there is about 10,000 things that have been discovered through animal testing. I'm not for unnecessary bunny torturing, but we have to be realistic about what can and can't be achieved with animal testing. It's very easy to take a simplistic view on these things but I know people alive today due to lifesaving drugs tested on animals.

I agree totally with this. I'm completely for animal testing, however there are massive changes that need to be made. It is quite common for apes and chimps to be kept in tiny cages and never see sunlight. This is ridiculous - in what way does that benefit the testing being carried out? Also those against vivisection don't seem to want to believe what goes on it ethics meetings nor do they wish to believe that in research institutes, that if the need for the testing on animals cannot be proven to be neccessary then it does not get approval.

I personally work with mammalian cells (no animals) but I infect them, I kill them, I do many, many things to them, but they are not an animal. What do they anti animal testing people think of this?

Flincher

Against, they get all nervous and give silly answers.

(I can't for the life of me remember where I heard that joke, if anyone remembers the stand-up/tv show please let me know).

On a serious note, in terms of medication, its a necessary evil.

Don Juan DeMagoo

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

They do clinical testing for sure (and btw in Europe no one is allowed to be paid, you get expenses and that's it) but they also do the animal testing first to make sure it doesn't instantly cause toxicity.

Unless we just get some poor Africans to do it, sher no-one cares about them.

I do :P

bleg

The people that are against animal texting probably shouldn't take any drugs since the vast majority of drugs on the market have involved animals at some stage.

steddyeddy

I agree with animal testing for drug use but not for any of the family hominidae.

Greentopia

bleg wrote: »

The people that are against animal texting probably shouldn't take any drugs since the vast majority of drugs on the market have involved animals at some stage.

How does this work having no opposable thumbs?

Da Shins Kelly

Medical animal research - yes.
Cosmetic animal research - no.

If there was any other way for coming up with ways to find new vaccines and cures for diseases, they'd do it, but there isn't. At the moment, animal testing is the best they've got. There simply aren't enough people willing to put themselves forward to have these vaccines tested on them. If you're so against it, then put yourself forward. It's not an ideal situation to be carrying out vivisection, but it really is the only option right now. If a better alternative arises, then it will be changed.

steddyeddy

Eric Cartman wrote: »

yes, in the same way I agree with hunting , fur and the meat industry , animals are our servants, here to be used in whatever way to benefit man.

Including other humans?

Irish Guitarist

Pretty much every medicine available has been tested on animals. For that reason I've decided to stop visiting the doctor until there's something seriously wrong with me. If I get the flu or have a pain in my back I just put up with it now rather than getting a prescription.

I don't use deodorant anymore because I can't find one that doesn't test on animals. If I can't find toothpaste that doesn't test on animals I brush my teeth with baking soda instead (it's actually as good as toothpaste but tastes vile).

There's a health shop nearby that sells products that haven't been tested on animals. I buy things like sun block from there.

Greentopia

I'm against animal testing for cosmetics and in the beauty industry absolutely, but resigned to the fact that it must happen to further medical research/drug testing, though I hate the anthropocentrism implicit in it.

steddyeddy

Right I agree that animal testing should be used but not on the apes. Most of the apes have shown they are able to use sign langauge and shown to feel simular family ties to our own, anyone who agrees to testing on these im sure wouldnt have problems with testing on humans.

Da Shins Kelly

steddyeddy wrote: »

Right I agree that animal testing should be used but not on the apes. Most of the apes have shown they are able to use sign langauge and shown to feel simular family ties to our own, anyone who agrees to testing on these im sure wouldnt have problems with testing on humans.

There is testing on humans. People put themselves forward for it. Apparently it pays quite well (it'd want to given the risks).

Greentopia

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

I don't use deodorant anymore because I can't find one that doesn't test on animals. If I can't find toothpaste that doesn't test on animals I brush my teeth with baking soda instead (it's actually as good as toothpaste but tastes vile).

I use Faith in Nature rock crystal deodorant and it works fine and I use Kingfisher brand toothpaste. Neither of these two companies test on animals and you'll find both in a health food shop.
You can see more brands that don't test here

Irish_Elect_Eng

TheZohan wrote: »

More than you'd think.

That list is not even close to a full listing. <1% of the companies.

twinytwo

Animal testing is wrong... just because we destroy ourselves we think we have a right to do it to other animals.

El_Dangeroso

Starla_o0 wrote: »

I agree totally with this. I'm completely for animal testing, however there are massive changes that need to be made. It is quite common for apes and chimps to be kept in tiny cages and never see sunlight. This is ridiculous - in what way does that benefit the testing being carried out? Also those against vivisection don't seem to want to believe what goes on it ethics meetings nor do they wish to believe that in research institutes, that if the need for the testing on animals cannot be proven to be neccessary then it does not get approval.

I personally work with mammalian cells (no animals) but I infect them, I kill them, I do many, many things to them, but they are not an animal. What do they anti animal testing people think of this?

Actually testing on primates is one area that is under discussion at the moment. It requires a special license and there's big doubts about whether it actually has achieved anything.

Most major discoveries have originated from mice and rats.

Regulations do vary but all animal testing in the EU is subject to directive 86/609/EEC, so it is regulated.

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

There is testing on humans. People put themselves forward for it. Apparently it pays quite well (it'd want to given the risks).

It can't pay anything in the EU (as regulations are based on Good Clinical Practice).

Logical Fallacy

It all depends. If it's make up and **** i don't agree with it.

If it's testing for cures to horrible diseases i can at least see the point of it.

TheFullDuck

What about make-up for dogs?

That's where the money is! :pac: