Animal Experimentation

For many centuries people have experimented on animals. There are two main reasons for doing this: first, to find out more about the animals themselves, and, secondly, to test substances and procedures to see if they are harmful (with a view to deciding whether or not they can be used on human beings). In the second category fall cosmetic products as well as medicines and surgical techniques. There is a growing consensus that it is not acceptable to test cosmetic products on animals.

I think animals have the right to be treated as beings of value in themselves, not as the means to human ends; this principle must be applies in order to guarantee the end of cruelty to animals. The application of this principle means that animals should never be experimented upon whatever the potential gain for humanity. To infect monkeys with the AIDS virus or to expose rodents to toxic chemicals and radiation is simply not acceptable, whatever the supposed benefits.

On the other hand, some Christians may argue against this and use the knowledge that God has given us these animals to use as we like. Here are a couple of Biblical quotes that suggest these animals have been created for us human beings to rule over and to use as a resource:

Genesis 1:26. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, and let them rule
over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the
earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

"You eat the curds,
clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you did
not take care of the flock! You have not strengthened the weak or healed the
sick or bound up the injured."

Do you not believe that finding a cure for cancer and saving millions of lives is worth testing on a few animals? Would you rather have disease and sickness in the world, instead of being able to increase the quality of life amoungst people all around the world, especially those who live in 3rd World Countries?

These quotes tell us that in order to use these animals to suit our needs, we must consider stewardship. Stewardship means acknowledging the fact that God is the ultimate owner of everything, and therefore those things must be treated with care and respect. A good example to use would be the environment; we are told to look after the earth by treating it in a rightful manner, ensuring that it lasts long and is not damaged by evil and sin.

As humans, we are never satisfied with the amount of information we have; we always want to find out more, even if it means going to the extremes. For the large time that Scientists have experimented on animals, there have always been ethical views that aim to fight against this form of research. It's not to say that there hasn't been any improvement in the quality of living conditions allowed for those animals who are tested on though, as there have been dramatic improvements upon the standards and rights of the animals. The majority of scientists now make sure that the animals are kept in the correct conditions, and are applied to as minimal threats as possible with the exception of whatever side effects they may be prone to experience whilst testing on them with certain drugs.

You need to see it from another point of view. Lets say, for example, that someone very close to you was very ill and has not got long to live. Now, the only possible way of coming up with a quick cure is to test on a group of animals until the right requirements are met and the virus/problem can be destroyed or cured. The only other option would be to advertise and carry out a drug trial on a group of humans, therefore being much more costly, and time consuming. You know that by testing on animals, you can obtain a drug that will be able to slow down/stop the problem from killing the person, but will mean that the animals may have to be put down, or held under very strict and controlled environments; the other option would be to test on humans, but would carry the risk of killing those test candidates, and the drug may take too long to produce that the person you were originally creating it for is now dead or too ill to treat. The question is: Would you rather that the tests were carried out on the animals with a more minimal chance of something bad happening, or on the humans with the much bigger chance of a negative problem occurring, such as death?

I am a massive supporter of animal rights movements. But the thing is: so long as there is minimum or no harm to the animals, then testing on them is A-OK. Problems only seem to arise, from an ethical point of view, when the animals are harmed in the process. But this still poses a problem because if we don't test things like drugs, then how will we cure diseases?
On a whole though, animal testing in medicine isn't always an accurate test because of the differences in the biological make-up of humans and other animals; which means that something that is fine on an animal could kill a human; resulting in this undesired effect.
This issue is a dilemma that is likely to never be solved, we can't test on humans because of possible deaths and we can't test on animals for the same reason. In a perfect world, nothing would need to be tested and everybody would be happy, but we don't live in such a place, therefore, we must all just grit our teeth and bear with it until a new testing method is discovered.

Riolu wrote:

On the other hand, some Christians may argue against this and use the knowledge that God has given us these animals to use as we like. Here are a couple of Biblical quotes that suggest these animals have been created for us human beings to rule over and to use as a resource:

Genesis 1:26. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, and let them rule
over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the
earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

"You eat the curds,
clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you did
not take care of the flock! You have not strengthened the weak or healed the
sick or bound up the injured."

Do you not believe that finding a cure for cancer and saving millions of lives is worth testing on a few animals? Would you rather have disease and sickness in the world, instead of being able to increase the quality of life amoungst people all around the world, especially those who live in 3rd World Countries?

These quotes tell us that in order to use these animals to suit our needs, we must consider stewardship. Stewardship means acknowledging the fact that God is the ultimate owner of everything, and therefore those things must be treated with care and respect. A good example to use would be the environment; we are told to look after the earth by treating it in a rightful manner, ensuring that it lasts long and is not damaged by evil and sin.

As humans, we are never satisfied with the amount of information we have; we always want to find out more, even if it means going to the extremes. For the large time that Scientists have experimented on animals, there have always been ethical views that aim to fight against this form of research. It's not to say that there hasn't been any improvement in the quality of living conditions allowed for those animals who are tested on though, as there have been dramatic improvements upon the standards and rights of the animals. The majority of scientists now make sure that the animals are kept in the correct conditions, and are applied to as minimal threats as possible with the exception of whatever side effects they may be prone to experience whilst testing on them with certain drugs.

You need to see it from another point of view. Lets say, for example, that someone very close to you was very ill and has not got long to live. Now, the only possible way of coming up with a quick cure is to test on a group of animals until the right requirements are met and the virus/problem can be destroyed or cured. The only other option would be to advertise and carry out a drug trial on a group of humans, therefore being much more costly, and time consuming. You know that by testing on animals, you can obtain a drug that will be able to slow down/stop the problem from killing the person, but will mean that the animals may have to be put down, or held under very strict and controlled environments; the other option would be to test on humans, but would carry the risk of killing those test candidates, and the drug may take too long to produce that the person you were originally creating it for is now dead or too ill to treat. The question is: Would you rather that the tests were carried out on the animals with a more minimal chance of something bad happening, or on the humans with the much bigger chance of a negative problem occurring, such as death?

I don't believe in the bible, therefore in my view these "quotations" are invalid.

99% of these experiments are repetitive and are only conducted to justify research grants and sponsorship, or to publish results and gain some standing within the scientific community. These researchers spurn the significant accumulation of existing knowledge that renders any further replications of experiments and tests useless, the majority of which are not applicable to humans. In certain cases, these experiments impede scientific progress.

In other cases, after having sacrificed thousands of animals, tested products have proved dangerous for humans despite animal testing, due to secondary effects or absolute contraindications for some patients. These faulty conclusions have led to the deaths of many people, but not to a reassessment of the utility (or inutility) of these methods. Other scientists use animal testing to indulge a sick form of curiosity. At Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, USA, scientists play at being God, with head transplants being carried out by Robert J. White, a professor of neurosurgery. The primates survived a mere 96 hours after the effects of anesthesia. When is he planning to begin experiments on humans?
Society closes its eyes to these facts in order to benefit from experimental results without knowing what they are and how they are conducted. While speaking of respect for animals and denouncing animal cruelty, some believe that we are opposed to medical progress to the detriment of human beings. For many, in the name of science and human health, anything is justified.

Here are some pictures I found a few months ago:

Spoiler:

Tell me if you'd like me to continue.

I can't belive they would do something like that to animals.

If I find the people who did that then...

Actually, it's very uncommon to find scientists treating animals like that these days. Of course, there are still going to be people who to not abide by the rules, but I can safely say that most people do. The evidence you are using to support your points is old, or either does not apply to the other 95% of animal testing and should therefore not be used. You are basically speaking for the whole of the scientific "community", as you put it, which is basically just like saying every elderly person is grumpy, miserable, aggressive, and always moaning; it does doesn't make sense to do that.

Quote :

Society closes its eyes to these facts in order to benefit from experimental results without knowing what they are and how they are conducted. While speaking of respect for animals and denouncing animal cruelty, some believe that we are opposed to medical progress to the detriment of human beings. For many, in the name of science and human health, anything is justified.

Well, I don't know what society you're talking about, because there is absolutely no such one that I know of who allow animal testing, or do not care about the consequences of the experiments. If there was anyone from the "outside world" who found out about a group of scientists/people treating animals like this, they would most definitely be reported and taken care of; no-one would just stand back and allow it to happen, other than the group themselves who don't give a damn.

This is why we have groups like the RSPCA and PETA are in place - to end cruelty to animals.

I'm not gonna lie. I cried when i saw thoose pictures.

There there, Storm, it's alright. I don't blame you though, I expect many other people would cry too.

I mean how could somebody even think about doing that and if i ever get my hands on anyone who has then they would wish that they never existed. >:O

Storm, dont be silly. I was on a plane a few weeks ago back from a holiday in greece. I was sitting next to this lady on a plane, whp had done this before or had soething to do with it and I asked her 'what do you think about aminal experimentation, and do you think it is necessary?'
I can tell you the following will not be the exact words she said however it was someting along the lnes of the following paragraph:

Animal experimentation the animals are treated better than they used to, and the point is, we are testing medicines and important cures on them, as they are the closest living forms to humans. I f you think about it, Storm, Psyneku etc, whp or what else would you test the cures etc on? They dont necessaarily like doing it at all, but there have been many succesful incidents, which have saved many people, and at the end of the day, who would you rather test these on? People, or animals?


Personally they do not like it however it does help us alot.
Oh and those photographs that you have kindly shown to us, are somewhat some of the worst that could possibly be of animal experimentation. Thats just my opinion. Let it be.

Trojan Horse wrote:

Oh and those photographs that you have kindly shown to us, are somewhat some of the worst that could possibly be of animal experimentation. Thats just my opinion. Let it be.

All cases of animal experimentation are cruel. Those photos were just a mere example of some of the things that animals have to endure for the benefit of humans.

As I said before, those photos were old; things have improved greatly from back then, and no, not all forms of animal experimentation are cruel.

All off it is cruel. How would you like to be forced to wear makeup that could damage your skin or give a rash or...

Testing make-up on animals is just ridiculous. What seriously possesed people t do that, it's not like people are going to die from wearing make-up. Drugs I can sort of get over, but not make-up. It's just pointless.

Riolu wrote:

As I said before, those photos were old; things have improved greatly from back then, and no, not all forms of animal experimentation are cruel.

very true. I hope/know/estimate that those photos are NOT what animal expremintation is all about

Randomer19934 wrote:

Testing make-up on animals is just ridiculous. What seriously possesed people t do that, it's not like people are going to die from wearing make-up. Drugs I can sort of get over, but not make-up. It's just pointless.

Im estimating an EXTREMELY small percentage of animal experimentation is devoted to teseting makup, if at all.

Storm wrote:

I mean how could somebody even think about doing that and if i ever get my hands on anyone who has then they would wish that they never existed. >:O

What are you going to do? Bore them to death with crappy jokes? If so then they would wish they never existed but i would laugh forever if i saw you try to fight an adult, they could just blow on you and you'd fly away.

Serious time, I think animal experimentation is cruel, in most cases but not all, anyway we have more things to worry about like Global Warming, running out of fossil fuels and litter, and try as they might, without a long scenario the government wouldn't be able to get rid of 100% of those animal experiments, and unless some people want to get a job of testing these projects, then i guess they may have to. Trying on make up is just stupid, and most of the tests are, but there are some which we would need to test on, unfortuneatly.

yes, but i suppose the good aspects of testing the make up on animals is that it in most cases wont kill em

Trojan Horse wrote:

yes, but i suppose the good aspects of testing the make up on animals is that it in most cases wont kill em

But it won't kill humans either, so it makes no sense to test it on animals at all.

It does make sense, it makes much more sense. It would take longer to gather a group of voluntary humans who would like to test it out than it would to breed some mice or something. Also, those humans would have to be paid in order to carry out the testing, whereas the animals would be either free, or at little cost.

Anmail experimation is bad ok.

You're only seeing on side of it; you've got to see both sides in order to form coherent arguments, Storm.

true. it is and it isnt. However animal expermentation isnt entirely bad...

Looking at both sides:
Animal testing is ok so long as it's humane and for a good cause, such as a cure for illnesses such as diabetes. However, for pointless things like make-up and that guy who grew an ear on a mouse, that's just idiotic and I don't agree with it.

Randomer19934 wrote:

Looking at both sides:
for pointless things like make-up and that guy who grew an ear on a mouse, that's just idiotic and I don't agree with it.

yes, i agree. that is raher idiotic