Thoughts on animal testing?

What do you think about animal testing? Is it a good thing or not?


0|0
9|13

Most Helpful Guy

  • Its a necessary evil.
    Before a pharmaceutical is released for clinical testing it needs to be tested on a living organism to ensure the human test subjects are relatively safe.

    4|3
    0|0
    • They could treat the animals better.

    • Show All
    • Well in the end, they still die. Even if an animal survived a test, they will be reused for another.

    • The lock them in cages and they do treat them rough. I've seen cats awake with their brain matter showing. They are in pain but they can't move their mouths because of the trauma. I got in the mail last year twice from PETA. I almost threw up and I still can't get the image out of my head. This was being done at a university. They take strays and shelter cats to do this. They don't even have to. They are just randomly experimenting.

Most Helpful Girl

  • It's a HORRIBLE thing. Nothing good about it. I feel so bad for the poor animals. I don't care, it needs to be stopped. Like, why can't they test products on pedophiles, rapists, all these bad people? Would make more sense. They're just harming innocent animals that don't deserve it.

    4|1
    0|2
    • I know right! And it makes no complete sense with this generation's advanced technology, there must be alternatives out there, and they've chosen to sacrifice harmless creatures. Many of makeup and household products WE use are mostly tested on animals.

    • Show All
    • @Bards but then it becomes an issue over violating some basic human rights - rights that even criminals possess. I mean drug every rapist or murderer? Fine but what if it was a false rape accusation? Or yet another case of a woman sleeping with a guy and then regretting it afterwards and thus labeling it rape? Or what if a guy 'rapes' a woman who turns out was abusing him herself before hand and he just did it after finally snapping? Or what if some 'serial killer' was actually just a person who killed to avenge someone? Do they deserve to grow a third leg? Or die from a new virus?

    • @ThisDudeHere like Miss Nowhere said before, people who do crimes in cold blood and without a doubt commited the crime should be tested on. If they kill and rape people without a doubt then fuck human rights for them. They don't even care about human life.

      An eye for an eye. Why should tax payers pay for such people to sit on the bone of their ass in prison?

What Guys Said 12

  • let me put it like this.
    there are 4 options
    1. Simulations
    2. Human testing
    3. Animal testing
    4. no testing

    Simulations hoes no harm to anyone, BUT they rely on 100% acurate data. Without that, they might fail. Problem is, nobody has 100% acurate data. Thus it's no good on their own. But still, they can be and in fact ARE used when developing medicine. They use simmulations until they get as acurate results as possible.

    So about the last three? Would you rather take a drug knowing they have only been tested in not entirely acurate simmulations? Test it on humans? Test it on animals?
    Seeing as how several medicines HAVE proven to be completely fuckign different than during simulations, it's clear we can't just throw them out on the market (you'd harm tens or even hundreds of thousands people, and possibly kill some too). So we need to test them.

    Animals or humans? What's the lesser of the two evils?

    That is why we test on animals. Sometime in the future we may have acurate enough simulations, but atm we don't. And believeing testing is unnecesary is just plain naive

    0|2
    0|0
    • i'm not saying it's right to do it, but it's the least wrong.
      In medicine you need 100% acurate data. And atm the ONLY way to get that is by testing

    • Show All
    • The German drug company Chemie GrĂ¼nenthal started selling thalidomide under the brand name Softenon, without proper testing, relying on documents in pre WW2 archives about testing. We all know what the consequences were. 5I hope we know)
      Insufficient testing...
      Then there was the Diethylstilbestrol (DES) synthetic hormone , insufficiently tested (tests running to the next generation are nearly impossibly on humans) I knew a young woman who died because her mother had taken it 'DES-daughters', they named the victims.
      In France there was fenfluramine (Mediator) marketed by Lab Servier, after insufficient testing:
      more than a thousand deaths.

      There will NEVER be a test too many where it concerns our health.

    • @jacquesvol

      EXACTLY! That's why we need the lab rats.

      Now, tell that to the OP of this post.

  • I think it's barbaric but the mouse has contributed more to modern medicine than any animal

    1|0
    0|0
  • @missnowhere @cinderelli this HAWT body is rdy for testing đŸ‘™đŸ˜˜

    0|1
    1|0
  • Animal testing isn't good but the alternatives are human testing or no testing: the lesser of three evils thus.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Like I repeat many times, there ARE other ways, especially with the advanced technology we have, there are UNHARMFUL ways to test products we use.

    • Show All
    • I'd have to believe and animal lovers and the industry. I think both are capable of lying grossly.

    • @ Asker, the real danger of D. E. S. only shows up in the second generation: www.cancer.gov/.../des-fact-sheet
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethylstilbestrol
      How do you imagine testing that in an unharmful way without animal testing (animals who breed faster than humans).

  • Better than human testing.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I think it is the best we have. everyone who bashes it fails to see that. if we had a better option we would do it

    0|0
    0|0
  • For whatever reason, scientific or make-up, it's sick. Why let animals suffer just because we won't let ourselves suffef? They don't deserve that.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Most animal testing is useless, and certainly cruel. I am not a fan.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I do not really see it as a necessary evil. In fact I see it as a benefit that we have the technology to know what animals closely relate to us on certain aspects.

    0|0
    0|0
  • We are where we are because of animal testing. Like it or hate, you have benefited from it.

    0|0
    0|0
  • We wouldn't have healthcare without animal testing, it is a necessary evil.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I'm not a big fan, but what should we be doing instead? Human testing?

    1|1
    0|0
    • Actually, some pay humans to be tested on. But with our generation's advanced technology, there must be alternatives!

What Girls Said 8

  • It's a lot less worse than people imagine it as being. It's not like the animals are kept in horrible conditions prior to testing. Their environment is way worse on farms than in a lab. On the contrary, in a lab they have pretty damn good conditions. Scientists ensure that their lab animals are in prime condition, well-fed, good shelter, well-groomed if appropriate, etc., to eliminate any external variables from affecting the dependent variable and aim of of their study.

    Not all testing is horrible in itself. I'm mostly aware of cognitive/psychological testing as that's what my major is in but that consists mostly. of behavioural testing, a bit of drug use as well. For testing pharmaceutical/cosmetic type things, it's usually pretty safe beforehand. It's not like companies give a total rough draft of their product to hte FDA to get tested. The testing is mostly for safe measures, to eliminate the risk of companies getting potentially sued for adverse reactions.

    0|0
    1|0
  • Its not good and they could do better. They should test on serial killers and cold blooded murders instead.

    1|0
    0|0
  • I think if you have something like pet food or pet shampoo it's a pretty fabulous thing.

    I remember a friend of mine was really happy because she had made her cats go vegan. And on the website it said "not testing on animals" (which brought her more joy?). Anyway, both her cats now have kidney failure. I wonder what could have caused that...

    0|1
    0|0
    • Well yes, because the food is meant for animals, but like I said, there are UNHARMFUL ways to test.

    • Show All
    • Well I agree but it's ONLY for the animals food. But they torture millions of animals every year.

    • What about animal cleaning products and animal medication?

  • some might argue its a necessary evil, but by the 21st century, we should have a different method. its wrong to preform such cruel acts on innocent beings.

    2|0
    0|0
    • Our generation is very technology advanced, and there must be something else, but they decided to hurt animals.

  • Hell no! I don't agree with it but it still happens.

    1|0
    0|0
  • I get why they do it but that doesn't mean I have to approve😡 What they do to some of those poor things is torture.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Is that a real question? It's obvious that animal testing is a bad thing ! Thousands and thousand animals are killed just so you can wear makeup (for example) !

    0|0
    0|0
  • I completely disagree with the use of animals for testing cosmetics but when it comes to the testing of animals for medical advancements, It's hard because animal testing has saved so many people :/ hopefully with advancements with possible other routes for drug testing we won't need to harm any more animas:)

    0|0
    0|0
Loading...