Welcome to Gaia! ::

Animal testing is both necessary and justified--necessary in that it is vital for the development of new medical technologies and procedures, justified in that there is no reasonable alternative. There are alternatives, but none of them are viable as of yet; should they become viable, then I will likely support them; however, as of now animal testing is the only reasonable option.

"But we can test on artificial tissue or use computer simulations!"

Nope. Doesn't work. Why? Because in order to effectively test something, scientists need to observe how it affects all tissues of the body, not just a sample of one type.


"But the animals are tortured!"

Tell that to the FDA, since they have regulations governing testing procedures and all labs are subject to random inspections. In fact, here's what they say.


What's more, it would be incredibly stupid to torture test animals. Physical or mental stress could skewer the test results, making any data gathered unreliable.

"Animals are too different!"

Not as different as you think--well, the mammals. That's why scientists test on smaller animals first, like rats, then test on animals more genetically similar to us like chimps. In fact, the UK has laws stating that a new drug must be tested on at least two animals, one of which must be a higher mammal. The US has no such laws in place, but it is still procedure to do the same.


"We can test on humans!"

No, we can't. Really.

You see, lab animals are bred uniformly. There's little to no difference between one lab rat and another. Because of this, scientists are able to easily keep track of and moniter the control groups and experimental groups. As for humans, well, we're too different from each other. We cannot be bred uniformly, so all human subjects bring different resistances, different weaknesses, different medical histories, and different genotypes to the table. That's why drugs are tested on animals first--to see the "normal" effect, since humans will have a range of reactions.

What's more, rats breed often and age quickly. This makes it possible to see the effects of a drug over time and over future generations, something that isn't possible with humans, as it would take several lifetimes. Would you argue that this isn't necessary? I wouldn't.

And testing on humans wouldn't help the field of veterinary medicine either. You didn't really think they only tested human drugs, did you? While it's true that animals can benefit from human drugs, a dog will react differently than a chimp, and animal testing is still necessary to see how pets will react to a drug.

NOTE: I hope you didn't choose the second poll option if you've ever willingly been vaccinated for anything (as in, not as a child). I also hope you never take any medication, including over-the-counter drugs. Because if you do you're a liar.

ON COSMETICS:
If you've read everything prior to this, I hope you've noticed I focused on animal testing. The reason is this: I do not support cosmetic testing on animals when alternatives are avaliable, and there are multiple alternatives. Alternatives to cosmetic testing don't have the same problems alternatives to medical testing has.

However, if no alternatives to test a product are avaliable (note: if absolutely none are avaliable), then I still support animal testing. I would rather a minimal number of animals be tested on than have a potentially unsafe formula on the market.
DISCLAIMER: I suck at intros. So a better intro is in the works.

I dislike cosmetic testing, but I support it nonetheless. In a lab environment, cosmetics can be tested in a controlled manner, and if the formula is safe, no harm done. If it is not, then any animals used can be painlessly euthanised. Were we to abolish cosmetic testing on animals, then we would have to use humans for testing or release potentially unsafe formulas.

The problem with humans for testing is, just like medical testing, not all humans react the same way. A formula that irritates one person's skin may be perfect for another's, and test results may not be reliable. What's more, if a formula has nasty side-effects--let's say, a shampoo that causes blindness--humans cannot be euthanised and have to live with the effects.

To be frank, I value human life and health above that of animals. It sounds cruel, but that's how I feel about it.

The problem with cloning humans to test on is it still would take lifetimes to accomplish what could be done in years on animals. It's not a feasible solution, although it would probably make a good sci-fi novel.
Not especially, since we need to study and experiment in order to stamp out anything. So long as animals are treated in a humane manner--which they are, as required by law--I see no problem with it. I would much rather a thousand animals be euthanised than a single person die.

So we should just make kill animals because we want a better eyeshadow? That's a rather uncaring position to take. Maybe you shouldn't be so concerned about your own species and care for other, more helpless animals.

You keep saying, "Not all humans react the same way." That's true. What you seem to fail to realize is that those natural variations won't be taken into account if you always get the same results because you tested on animals. If you test on a wide range of people, almost all possible reactions should be discovered, better than if you just tested on something that will ensure the same results. People aren't "normal" so getting the "normal" results logically won't be as good as getting results from real people.



Everything's a book with you, isn't it? ^^



Again, with caring for your species over others. Don't we have a responsibility, as the dominant species on our planet, to take care of other animals?


And really, calling it "animal testing" could be a bit misleading. Humans are animals as well, after all.

Also you fail to realize that for animal testing, to find out how it would react in people we would need many differen t genetic strands, because how will we know how a medicine effects a bad heart if it is only tested on rats with good hearts? Or livers, or intestines, or sickle cell enemia? There are too many disorders to test them all on rats, you would need human testing too.

That's your opinion, but I would say it's rather selfish and shortsighted to apply it to other people.


I'd like to see proof of this, please.

You are aware that not all people take painkillers for the recommended period of time, I'm sure? I do not take painkillers at all, despite my migraines.

Also, I hope you're aware that chiropractic techniques still qualify as "medicine."

Heart transplants? Cancer treatment? Diabetes medication? Insulin shots?

All animal tested. I challenge you to call that "unnecessary."

I'd like to point out that you can still say "I refuse to support it and do not use any products tested on animals," and have been vaccinated for two reasons. 1) Many vaccines are giving to people when they are too young to consent. If I am vaccinated without my consent, I can still be refusing to support it or use it. It's just done to me against my will. If I am a vegetarian and someone shoves meat down my throat, I am in no way hypocritical. 2) The statement is present tense. I can have used animal products in the past and still both refuse to support it and not use any now.

Note: This is not my personal view. I do use products that are tested on animals. Willingly.

That's honestly more directed at people who say "No, animal testing is ALWAYS WRONG!" while taking diabetes drugs. Like, say, the president of PETA. I'll edit it, and thank you.

Also, I confess I did a little fangirl-squee when I saw you had posted. 4laugh