How can people seriously be against animal testing?Kidhla49 - 9 Answers
I am against needless animal testing, such as testing new hair products on animals, makeups and other potentially dangerous, but not necessary for human-life, or even animal life (pet drugs are tested on a variety of animals too, after all). If a company is worried the new shampoo they made will make hair fall out and cause skin lesions then maybe they shouldn't have made it at all instead of testing it on a monkey or rabbit to find out, and then putting the animal down after putting it through a sufficient amount of trauma.
For necessary medication that betters the lives of humans and animals, we have to start testing somewhere and sadly, rats breed quicker than humans. They also have faster metabolisms so we can see the effects of medication on them faster. They are the perfect animal to begin testing on and I have no problem with that (and I'm a pet rat lover).
I think most people fall into the same camp as me; needless testing is... needless and shouldn't be done. Necessary testing is a sad fact of life but necessary. Some seem to take it too far without fully realizing the consequences of what they're saying; if they ended up severely sick and needing a new, experimental treatment, I'm sure they'd be the first to demand to know how the first trials (the ones on animals) went.
It's noble to want to save rats and monkeys from testing, but Nature gave us brains to use so that we could create medication and cure diseases for both humans AND animals.
A friend of mine who's now a scientist, did her college thesis on the effects of... something or other (she's the scientist, not me) on skin lesions. She used rats to demonstrate her hypothesis. I actually attended to the rats with her a number of times, because she needed help during the surgeries. She took every precaution she could to make them as comfortable as possible despite the process. She also put them down to sleep with chloroform as soon as they appeared to be in any great amount of pain. I like to think all scientists are as conscientious with their test subject animals.
I see some supreme irony in the fact that some people who claim to be against any and all animal testing are okay with eating meat from a fast food restaurant. McDonald's chickens go through far worse than a rat being used for cancer treatment research does.
You have raised an interesting question. Perhaps this thought experiment can help answer the question to some extent, or at least offer a different perspective on the issue:
Imagine that you or your family members were selected by another, more powerful group of people to be test subjects in experiments conducted without your permission. You do not support the research (in fact, you are not even aware of its purpose) and you are not permitted to control the extent or the level of your participation. Even worse, sometimes the testing can inflict painful injuries, or permanent harm on the test subjects. Occasionally the subjects of the experiment must die as a result of the research.
Next consider that most mammals do indeed feel pain just as we human beings feel pain. This situation has been well documented. Animals cannot always express their feelings in the same verbal way in which most humans communicate-- but they may still be able to harbor emotions and to respond to physiologic pain.
When one contemplates this issue in terms of the ethical treatment or mistreatment of animals during scientific research, the costs inflicted on many test subjects seem quite significant. Some scientists might dismiss this thought experiment as "anthropomorphic" yet genetic research has revealed that many mammals share a considerable percentage of genetic similarities to our own species e.g. primates are in genetic terms very close to human beings.
I do not believe the thought experiment is so foolish since only a few generations ago in a few limited military situations some scientists attempted to experiment without permission on human beings whom they regarded as too inferior to themselves to consider in ethical terms; developmentally disabled children, prisoners of war and captive concentration camp dwellers.
Fortunately, human beings can usually express viewpoints clearly with one another. But the wants, wishes and objectives of animal populations are much harder for us to appreciate sometimes and our right to inflict pain or injury upon them in the cause of a perceived greater benefit for human society may be an issue of debate as a result in some situations.
Well I have been on animal testings personally and some of them are a little bit outrageous and some of them are done as humanely as possible.
There are some test that used animals which Matter91 said which seems cruel. These test are done so they can be perfectly safe if it was accidentally or purposely done by a human. To test if that shampoo is "eye safe" testing it in an animal is needed than testing it in a human first which will make the human test subject in harms way. It may sound cruel but there is no other way.
There are no other ways to test products unless humans would subject themselves with this kinds of test. For a pill or a drug to be sold in the market, they will need to be tested first so it would be deemed safe to be used by people. Without any animal testing done with that drug, do you mind drinking a pill/drug that you knowingly risk yourself possible harm?
It may sound cruel but if you are against animal cruelty, would you mind if a drug company has given you a prototype pill with no testing whatsoever if its safe or not then ask you to test it, will you? You will be paid ofcourse.
There are drugs that are safe on the drawing boards but is deemed unsafe because of animal testing. Without those animal testing countless human lives would be endangered because of that drug. A testing is not only done in one animal or in this case in one human. Test samples span hundreds or even thousands if the test is rigorous enough. So you are willingly accept endangering 1000 people so 1000 animals would not be harmed?
A good question is them or us? One can argue the ethics of it or the animals be inflicted pain but it is either us or them. I for one don't want to drink/touch any drugs/chemicals not tested enough to be deemed safe for humans. One can argue that we don't want any man or animal to feel pain but we can also assume that some point in your life you will be popping pills for some small flu or a grave disease. Will you tell yourself I hate myself because by saving my life, I have indirectly approve inflicting harm to an animal? Will you stop drinking your pills/medicine so you would not be in burden of inflicting pain to an animal?
If you truly don't agree on animal testing then stop using any pills, vitamins, drugs and any object that was tested with animals. As one member said, there are alternative medicines out there.
You are also making a point that people generally test drugs on human without their prior knowledge. The military test was done to test how effective biological weapons are and are not done regularly.
Test animals can be treated ethically but how you define ethically is the problem. If there would really be a greater or equal testing without using humans ofcourse then by all means I will support it but until then I am not against animal testing and I will be glad to drink a drug tested on animals to make me feel better.
animal testing is not a want but it is a necessity. The advantages(not using humans) outweighs the disadvantages(using humans).
People can believe and be against whatever they want to be against and it's not only ignorance that causes them to feel that way.
It may be an ethical stand that all life is sacred and no life is worth the cost, regardless if that life is a rat or chimp. There are highly educated and quite intelligent people who are against all animal testing. It's a personal decision based on what that individual's beliefs and thoughts are on the subject.
You have, if I read your profile correctly, very specific and personal experience in areas that most of us have no exposure to at all. Based on that, it may seem totally unthinkable to you that someone could not advocate for animal testing.
But looking at the a cross section of the general populous, you'd be hard pressed to find many people with your specific and individual experience that leads you to wholeheartedly endorse animal testing.
And seriously, yes, there are those that are totally against animal testing.
Pointless animal testing accounts for very little percent of all animal testing. So there is no need to support the ignorance and get into minor details. If someone really wants to show their support of animal world why don't they adopt abandoned dogs or better tell ten friends to do so. Go vegetarian or stop hunting. That is what i consider pointless animal sacrifice.
Animal testing is also cruel form our point of view, but living our comfortable lives we forget that somewhere vaccines are badly needed, more food is badly needed, medicines are needed everywhere. As you correctly pointed out, who would like to be a first trial test rabbit himself? But in the end if one falls seriously sick, they will take only certified, tested medicine and not rely on placebo effects of so called alternative medicine.
Putting toothpaste on a rabbits eye to prove that it is safe for human use is silly if you ask me.
How a product reacts on an animal is not related to how it will react on people, if that were true we would not be eating chocolate, grapes, or garlic, nor would we grow lilies!
At this point we are testing things on animals just for the sake of it, so somebody can have a job.
Most of the tests are cruel, and the way the animals are housed, and treated is inhumane.
If you want to test a product for human use, let humans test it, people could earn extra income.
If I found out I had cancer, let me die.. there are too many people (7 billion) on the planet anyhow.
Some animal testing is pointless and cruel. For example using chimps as crash test dummies. I think animal testing should be avoided when possible. Sometimes you can simulate a human response by making a dummy.
Some medical experiments need living things. However there has been a lot of animal testing done for things that are not life or death. For example cosmetic products have been tested on animals. I think animal testing should only be done for things that have health benefits like life saving drugs.
Alma sea: Please define "alternative medicine" for me. I'm curious to know what that encompasses in your mind....