Animal testing: For or Against?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2008 3:34 AM GMT
    I just wanna know how many people are pro animal testing.

    I was researching the other day and came across some graphs. These graphs were all from the 60s and 70s. The specimen was a cat and the stimulus was a tone presented from 0 dB SPL all the way to 140 dB SPL. Yikes. .

    Granted this would never happen anymore, but we still insert probes into cinchillas and guinea pigs all the time.

    So who's for it?
  • cowboyathlete

    Posts: 1346

    Nov 22, 2008 5:15 AM GMT
    How about inserting the guinea pig into the chinchilla?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2008 5:17 AM GMT
    mp-animal-testing.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2008 5:24 AM GMT
    Let's put it this way: If scientists found a cure to AIDS but had to test 50 variations of the cure on rats first knowing that some of the rats would die from some of the variations, would you throw up your stupid liberal signs and say "waaaaa no testing on animals," or would you want a cure to AIDS?

    Sacrificing animals to our benefit is something you should take as a case-by-cases basis.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2008 5:29 AM GMT
    I agree....

    Even though I love animals to death, there are certain cases where tests are needed. Yeah it's f'd up but those rats will either be tested or being feed to pet snakes.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2008 5:35 AM GMT
    It's sometimes needed....for both medical and environmental reasons...until we find an alternative. When I worked at a waste water treatment plant in Berkeley, we injected sea urchins with a solution that induced egg and sperm release so we could then watch to see if proper fertilization took place under the microscope. Each batch was from a specific location. If there were problems (abnormally high failures) then we would alert teams that would do further water analysis from the site. This was to make sure that contaminants were kept in check and to find how they got there and put a stop to it. Although the creatures were killed, it was to the benefit of the species as a whole and to the entire ecosystem. Legal, Illegal and toxic dumping still occurs everywhere and only through constant monitoring are such things kept in check. Trace amounts of toxins can be found almost anywhere, so computer analysis is not always trustworthy, sometimes we need an animals model to see what kinds of damages, if any, are going on with organisms. The same with amphibians that are dying all over the world, they have to kill some of them to find out what is killing them all off.

    But, testing for shampoos and cosmetics on animals, I think is bad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2008 6:04 AM GMT


    Poor amphibians - pollution is killing them globally and not just directly, ozone depletion is allowing gamma radiation among other types to penetrate the atmosphere. Currently there are 3 mile high clouds of dense particulate that are travelling the globe and reducing sunlight in huge areas. (yahoo news)


    They're (frogs) the 'canary in the mine' in predicting what's up for us next.

    As for animal testing, the 50s 60s and 70s were terrible years. Being in our 50s we rmember it well. The great revolt came in the 80s and then early 90s. Cosmetic companies had to scramble for cover.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2008 6:17 AM GMT
    Chop em up...who cares!!
    We eat them and so why not do what the fuck we want to them.


    When my dog dies....I am going to have him stuffed so I can pat him on the head everydayicon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2008 6:17 AM GMT
    Honestly, I'm not for testing on animals, but at the same time I do realize that many breakthroughs in medical science that has saved hundreds of lives are tested on the animals first. In a perfect world we could do all the testing in virtual reality or on computers, but even those can't perdict every single possible outcome.

    Also...if it was the animals that had the big brians and domination over the earth, don't you think WE would be the test "rats" then. Hmmmm
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2008 6:18 AM GMT
    Instead of animals, they should use the rapists and murderers

    We are just wasting money on them anyways, might as well let them pay for what they have done.

    Did you know they grow ears on rats backs. They do so much fucked up things to them. I was gonna work at some place before I figured out it was an animal testing place. I was about ready to kill some people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2008 6:26 AM GMT
    I can honestly say, if I ever actually SAW animals getting tested on personally, I would probably loose it and pimp slap the people doing the testing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2008 6:49 AM GMT
    flex89 saidmp-animal-testing.jpg


    AWESOME!!!

    How about not using chemical crap in our products and they wont have to do testing, not to mention destroy our planet and bodies even if it makes it past the 'pig didn't have the squirts' test? As you can probably tell, I'm against animal testing!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2008 6:54 AM GMT
    I'm for standardized tests for all animals. There's far too little accountability in the animal kingdom.

    No Kitten Left Behind!

    ;-)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2008 7:00 AM GMT
    Personally I think there is a time and place for everything, and certainly for animal testing. Yes, it should be done humanely and should be avoided when possible, but I also don't think we should avoid advancing merely because it might involve animal testing.

    As for monkeys, I think we romanticize them too much. They're not particularly pleasant even when not on concaine -- mean and bitchy even at their best; they put gay men to shame. They can get PTSD though, or at least I've known a monkey that got flashbacks after having encountered a rabid dog.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2008 7:03 AM GMT
    wrerick saidPersonally I think there is a time and place for everything, and certainly for animal testing. Yes, it should be done humanely and should be avoided when possible, but I also don't think we should avoid advancing merely because it might involve animal testing.

    As for monkeys, I think we romanticize them too much. They're not particularly pleasant even when not on concaine -- mean and bitchy even at their best; they put gay men to shame. They can get PTSD though, or at least I've known a monkey that got flashbacks after having encountered a rabid dog.


    If another monkey ten times my size started jacking with my monkey-peace I'd turn into a bitch as well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2008 7:18 AM GMT
    XruggerATX saidIf another monkey ten times my size started jacking with my monkey-peace I'd turn into a bitch as well.


    Actually they're quite good at jacking with each other as in the youtube snatch below:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYFtcfAYnUQ&feature=related

    For your enjoyment from the damn horny little buggers.

  • dfrourke

    Posts: 1062

    Nov 22, 2008 7:27 AM GMT

    Generally, I am against it...I believe when it comes to testing...they should use ex-boyfriends...

    - David icon_wink.gif
  • phill

    Posts: 117

    Nov 22, 2008 7:43 AM GMT
    I typed up a deep heartfelt response with tons of facts and my browser crashed so while i write up my response i will post this:

    50 DISASTERS OF ANIMAL TESTING
    1. Benzene was not withdrawn from use as an industrial chemical despite clinical and epidemological evidence that exposure caused leukemia in humans, because manufacturer-supported tests failed to reproduce leukemia in mice.[1]

    2. Smoking was thought to be non-carcinogenic because smoking-related cancer is difficult to reproduce in lab animals. Consequently many continued to smoke and to die from cancer.[2]

    3. Animal experiments on rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice, monkeys, and baboons revealed no link between glass fibers and cancer. Not until 1991, due to human studies, did OSHA label it carcinogenic.[3][4][5]

    4. Though arsenic was a known human carcinogen for decades, scientists still found little evidence in animals to support the conclusion as late as 1977.[6] This was the accepted view until it was eventually possible to produce in animals.[7][8][9]

    5. Many humans continued to be exposed to asbestos and die because scientists could not reproduce the cancer in laboratory animals.

    6. Pacemakers and heart valves were delayed in development because of physiological differences between animals on which they were designed and humans for whom they were intended.

    7. Animal models of heart disease failed to show that a high cholesterol/high fat diet increases the risk of coronary artery disease. Instead of changing their eating habits to prevent the disease, people continued their lifestyles with a false sense of security.

    8. Patients received medications that were harmful and/or ineffective due to animal models of stroke.

    9. Animal studies predicted that beta-blockers would not lower blood pressure. This withheld their development.[10][11][12] Even animal experimenters admitted the failure of animal models of hypertension in this regard, but in the meantime, there were thousands more stroke victims.


    Used with kind permission
    of The Covance Campaign

    10. Surgeons thought they had perfected radial keratotomy, surgery performed to enable better vision without glasses, on rabbits, but the procedure blinded the first human patients (The rabbit cornea is able to regenerate on the underside, whereas the human cornea can only regenerate on the surface). Surgery is now performed only on the surface.

    11. Combined heart lung transplants were supposedly 'perfected' on animals, but the first 3 human patients all died within 23 days.[13] Of the 28 patients operated on between 1981 and 1985, 8 died peri-operatively, and 10 developed obliterative bronchiolitis, a lung complication that the dogs on whom experiments had been conducted did not develop. Of those 10 humans who developed obliterative bronchiolitis, 4 died and 3 never breathed again without the aid of a respirator. Obliterative bronchiolitis turned out to be the most important risk of the operation.[14]

    12. Cyclosporin A inhibits organ rejection, and its development was a watershed in the success of transplant operations. Had human evidence not overwhelmed unpromising evidence from animals, it would never have been released.[15]

    13. Animal experiments failed to predict the kidney toxicity of the general anesthetic methoxyflurane. Many people lost all kidney function.

    14. Animal experiments delayed the use of muscle relaxants during general anesthesia.

    15. Research on animals failed to reveal bacteria as a cause of ulcers and delayed treating ulcers with antibiotics.

    16. More than half of the 198 new medications released between 1976 and 1985 were either withdrawn or relabeled secondary to severe unpredicted side effects.[16] These side effects included complications such as lethal dysrhythmias, heart attacks, kidney failure, seizures, respiratory arrest, liver failure, and stroke, among others.

    17. Flosint, an arthritis medication, was tested on rats, monkeys and dogs; all tolerated the medication well. However, in humans it caused deaths.

    18. Zelmid, an antidepressant, was tested on rats and dogs without incident, but it caused severe neurological problems in humans.

    19. Nomifensine, another antidepressant, was linked to kidney and liver failure, anemia, and death in humans. And yet animal testing had indicated that it could be used without side-effects occurring.

    20. Amrinone, a medication used for heart failure, was tested on numerous animals and was released without any trepidation. But humans developed thrombocytopenia, a lack of the type of blood cells that are needed for clotting.

    21. Fialuridine, an antiviral medication, caused liver damage in 7 out of 15 people. 5 eventually died and 2 more needed liver transplants.[17] And yet it had worked well in woodchucks.[18][19]

    22. Clioquinol, an antidiarrheal, passed tests in rats, cats, dogs and rabbits. But it had to be withdrawn all over the world in 1982 after it was found to cause blindness and paralysis in humans.

    23. Eraldin, a medication for heart disease, caused deaths and blindness in humans despite the fact that no untoward effects could be shown in animals. When introduced, scientists said it noted for the thoroughness of the toxicity studies on animals. Afterwards, scientists were unable to reproduce these results in animals.[20]

    24. Opren, an arthritis medication, killed 61 people. Over 3500 cases of severe reactions have been documented. Opren had been tested on monkeys and other animals without problems.

    25. Zomax, another arthritis drug, was responsible for the death of 14 people and causing suffering to many more.

    26. The dose of isoproterenol, a medication used to treat asthma, was calculated in animals. Unfortunately, it was much too toxic for humans. 3500 asthmatics died in Great Britain alone due to overdose. It is still difficult to reproduce these results in animals.[21][22][23][24][25][26]

    27. Methysergide, a medication used to treat headaches, led to retroperitoneal fibrosis, or severe scarring of the heart, kidneys, and blood vessels in the abdomen.[27] Scientists have been unable to reproduce this in animals.[28]

    28. Suprofen, an arthritis drug, was withdrawn from the market when patients suffered kidney toxicity. Prior to its release researchers had this to say about the animal tests: '...excellent safety profile. No...cardiac, renal, or CNS [central nervous system] effects in any species'.[29][30]

    29. Surgam, another arthritis drug, was designed to have a stomach protection factor that would prevent stomach ulcers, a common side effect of many arthritis drugs. Although promising in lab animal tests, ulcers occurred in human trials.[31][32]

    30. Selacryn, a diuretic, was thoroughly tested on animals, but it was withdrawn in 1979 after 24 people died from drug induced liver failure.[33][34]

    31. Perhexiline, a heart medication, was withdrawn when it produced liver failure which had not been predicted by animal testing. Even when the particular type of liver failure was known, it could not be induced in animals.[35] 32. Domperidone, designed as a treatment for nausea and vomiting, made human hearts beat irregularly and had to be withdrawn. Scientists were unable to reproduce this in dogs even with 70 times the normal dose.[36][37]

    33. Mitoxantrone, a treatment for cancer produced heart failure in humans. It was extensively tested on dogs, which did not manifest this effect.[38][39]

    34. Carbenoxalone was supposed to prevent formation of gastric ulcers but caused people to retain water to the point of heart failure. After vivisectors knew what it did to humans they tested it on rats, mice, monkeys, rabbits, but could not reproducing this effect.[40][41]

    35. Clindamycin, an antibiotic, causes a bowel condition called pseudomenbraneous colitis. And yet it was tested in rats and dogs every day for a year; moreover, they were able to tolerate doses ten times greater than h
  • phill

    Posts: 117

    Nov 22, 2008 7:44 AM GMT
    35. Clindamycin, an antibiotic, causes a bowel condition called pseudomenbraneous colitis. And yet it was tested in rats and dogs every day for a year; moreover, they were able to tolerate doses ten times greater than humans are able to.[42][43][44]

    36. Animal experiments did not support the efficacy of valium-type drugs during development or subsequently.[45][46]

    37. The pharmaceutical companies Pharmacia and Upjohn discontinued clinical tests of its Linomide (roquinimex) tablets for the treatment of multiple sclerosis after several patients suffered heart attacks. Of 1,200 patients, 8 suffered heart attacks as a result of taking the medication. Animal experiments had not predicted this.

    38. Cylert (pemoline), a medication used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, caused liver failure in 13 children. Eleven either died or required a liver transplant.

    39. Eldepryl (selegiline), a medication used to treat Parkinson's disease, was found to induce very high blood pressure. This side effect has not been seen in animals.

    40. The diet drug combination of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine was linked to heart valve abnormalities and withdrawn although animal studies had never revealed heart abnormalities.[47]

    41. The diabetes medication troglitazone, better known as Rezulin, was tested on animals without significant problems, but caused liver damage in humans. The manufacturer admitted that at least one patient had died and another had to undergo a liver transplant as a result.[48]

    42. The plant digitalis has been used for centuries to treat heart disorders. However, clinical trials of the digitalis-derived drug were delayed because it caused high blood pressure in animals. Fortunately, human evidence overrode and as a result, digoxin, an analogue of digitalis, has saved countless lives. Many more people could have survived had the animal testing been ignored and digitalis been released earlier.[49][50][51][52]

    43. FK 506, now called Tacrolimus, is an anti-rejection agent that was almost abandoned before proceeding to clinical trials due to severe toxicity in animals.[53][54] Animal studies suggested that the combination of FK 506 with cyclosporin might prove more useful.[55] In fact, just the opposite proved true in humans.[56]

    44. Animal experiments suggested that corticosteroids would help septic shock, a severe bacterial infection of the blood.[57][58] However, humans reacted differently. This treatment increased the death rate in cases of septic shock.[59]

    45. Despite the ineffectiveness of penicillin in rabbits, Alexander Fleming used the antibiotic on a very sick patient since he had nothing else to try. Fortunately, Fleming's initial tests were not on guinea pigs or hamsters because it kills them. Howard Florey, the Nobel Prize winner credited with co-discovering and manufacturing penicillin, stated: 'How fortunate we didn't have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably never been granted a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized'.

    46. Fluoride, a cavity preventative, was initially withheld because it caused cancer in rats.[60][61][62]

    47. The notoriously dangerous drugs thalidomide and DES were tested in animals and released for human usage. Tens of thousands suffered and/or died as a result.

    48. Animal experiments misinformed researchers about how rapidly HIV replicates. Based on this false information, patients did not receive prompt therapies and their lives were shortened.

    49. Animal-based research delayed the development of the polio vaccine, according to Dr. Albert Sabin, its inventor. The first rabies and polio vaccines worked well on animals but crippled or killed the people who tried them.

    50. Researchers who work with animals have succumbed to illness and death due to exposure to diseases that while harmless to the animal host (such as Hepatitis B) are potentially or actually deadly for humans.


    Endnote:
    Time, money, and resources devoted to these experiments could have gone to human-based research. Clinical studies, in vitro research, autopsies, post-marketing drug surveillance, computer modeling, epidemiology, and genetic research pose no hazard to humans and provide accurate results.
    Importantly, animal experiments have exhausted resources that could have been dedicated to educating the public about health hazards and health maintenance, therein diminishing the incidence of disease that require treatment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2008 7:45 AM GMT
    Test on animals, in the most humane way as possible, and only when there is no other option. It is, or should be, the lesser of two evils. But it should only be the last best option. Shampoos, no. Vaccines, or the like, yes. But otherwise, no. I hope we have moved on beyond gratuitous use of animals for research. Maybe not. But I would hope so. If it is absolutely necessary, OK. Otherwise, it makes me sick. I am also against zoos or any other use of animals for human enjoyment. It sickens me to see an elephant doing tricks in a circus or a tiger jumping threw flaming hoops in Vegas. Not the better side of humans.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2008 5:21 PM GMT
    I think we should teach and test human children before we even begin to think about animal testing. I don't think it's important for animals to know the square root of three.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2008 5:54 PM GMT
    looknrnd said
    flex89 saidmp-animal-testing.jpg


    AWESOME!!!

    How about not using chemical crap in our products and they wont have to do testing, not to mention destroy our planet and bodies even if it makes it past the 'pig didn't have the squirts' test? As you can probably tell, I'm against animal testing!!!


    Actually, I'm all for the testing. I do like kajakark's suggestion, too!

    I don't think "everything" gets tested on animals. For the most part, it's probably the experimental medicines involving hormones and radical treatments. Hell, I wouldn't allow any person to have their liver removed and then injected with "Miracle Gro: Liver Edition" when a small rodent works just as well and is largely expendable. If the main side effect is "head explodey", I'd recommend further testing on al Qaeda suspects.

    I'm gonna go get myself a big, bloody, 24oz cut of steak and eat it with nothing but my bare hands now. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2008 6:10 PM GMT
    Triggerman saidTest on animals, in the most humane way as possible, and only when there is no other option. It is, or should be, the lesser of two evils. But it should only be the last best option. Shampoos, no. Vaccines, or the like, yes. But otherwise, no. I hope we have moved on beyond gratuitous use of animals for research. Maybe not. But I would hope so. If it is absolutely necessary, OK. Otherwise, it makes me sick. I am also against zoos or any other use of animals for human enjoyment. It sickens me to see an elephant doing tricks in a circus or a tiger jumping threw flaming hoops in Vegas. Not the better side of humans.


    I agree, could not have said it better myself.
  • phill

    Posts: 117

    Nov 24, 2008 12:27 AM GMT
    I am against animal experimentation, In fact i am an animal rights actvist in utah. No thinking feeling sentient creature shoudl be allowed to be experimented on in any progressive society.

    Triggerman saidTest on animals, in the most humane way as possible, and only when there is no other option. It is, or should be, the lesser of two evils. But it should only be the last best option. Shampoos, no. Vaccines, or the like, yes. But otherwise, no. I hope we have moved on beyond gratuitous use of animals for research. Maybe not. But I would hope so. If it is absolutely necessary, OK. Otherwise, it makes me sick. I am also against zoos or any other use of animals for human enjoyment. It sickens me to see an elephant doing tricks in a circus or a tiger jumping threw flaming hoops in Vegas. Not the better side of humans.


    I am curious as to what in animal testing are you so against yet not so against to allow it in certain instances?

    This rant is not intended for the poster I quoted but it is certainly applicable:

    Most animal rights advocates, including myself, view the testing on sentient species especially primates akin to testing on their equals or humans. Because we can attribute the emotional and mental intelligence to that of a child it is in essence testing on a child. If society were to raise and designate a class of children for research we would also see a violent struggle for the ending of their suffering.

    We have lost a fundamental respect for the natural world in our quest for human advancement subverting all who would stand in our way. I often hear the argument, would you allow one primate to suffer for the salvation of one thousand humans, and my answer is no. Often times the legal system seeks to protect those that cannot protect themselves but often times due to lack of precedence this is not possible. Take for example the notion of equality amongst the races, this was something that has to be fought, sometimes violently, for what was right, and I doubt few would argue that this was not necessary. Someone has to stand up for those without a voice who are suffering as if they are in a permanent Tuskegee experiment unable to break the cycle because of their inability to communicate clearly their needs. So we animal rights advocates march and protest and scream until we are hoarse in the hopes that someone will understand that the pain inflicted on any living creature for our advancement is a price to high to pay.

    Often times the proponents for animal experimentation will tought that the fda has put into place basic care laws in order to treat animals humanely, but what is not understood is that those rules are easily able to be overturned. If a scientist can show that treating an animal humanely would effect negatively the experiments they are trying to run, they then can overturn these basic care procedures.

    Using this exuse of basic care and humane treatment is akin to me saying that if i were to pet your nicely and perhaps feed you well and hold you i could force you to get pregnant and smoke a pack of cigarettes in 3 hours time to see the negative effects of the experiment, and it would be okay because I "treated you well" This is an extreme example and i know that some lab animals are not mistreated like rats that are not operated on for behavioral observations based on qualitative conditions. But this is not the norm. While i appreciate that lab workers adhere to some basic care regiments for animals it does not excuse the abuse of the animal in times that it is not being "treated like a family pet" because i doubt that you would allow sparky to test a potentially lethal new drug especially if you knew that the LD50 tests were around the corner and your family dog was going to be giving injections with the express purpose of death.

    Which brings me to the crux of the argument. We are socially conditioned to accept three levels of animal welfare and being. One being the assertion that companion animals are to be protected and any abuse can be lawfully punished upwards to a felony abuse charge. Animals for food in factory farming are exempt from all but the most basic rights to live humanely. And animals to be experimented on have no such rights. What is the difference between the classes? Is it attributed to the level of animal intelligence? social grouping? ability to feel pain? The only difference is the socalization of what is acceptable. It comes down to what is considered propety. Interestingly enough even though we have companion animal laws there are exceptions to these as well. Huntingon life sciences which is the largest company to test on animals routinely purchases animals at shelters who are going to be put to sleep in order to experiment on them. They also purchase puppies from puppy mills when those born are not of breeding stalk. This is permissible even though the beagle you own and the beagle bought from a shelter may be similar, because of the idea of ownership.

    for me it would be a hard decision to say that since my niece is dear to me i should exhaust all means to save her including the death of another in the course of this treatment. It is my love for her that would not allow me to do this not because she is not more important than anything else in the world but simply because one death cannot excuse another. I do not live in an eye for an eye environment. The point of moving towards more lasting models of animal research is to stop these ethical questions. There should be no raised moral objectives for the saving of a child yet because of our lack of respect for animals as well as one another we see the argument polarized what would you give to save the one you love, classically we are conditioned to say anything but in reality would you kill your friend to save your family? Most likely not because they are human and as human are deemed worth the value but as an animal you are seen as fodder or food or a commodity to be traded. So it comes down to a simple matter of perspective.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2008 12:53 AM GMT
    The way i feel on the issue is this... I do not believe that companies such as P&G should be able to test cosmetics and house hold chemicals on animals however if it is to advance medical science then I am for it.

    I'm still sketchy in the area thou. Why should we use other living animals to advance the human race? we are all living beings able to feel. Why should one be better than the other? We all serve a purpose, why should other beings suffer? It just doesn't seem right at all.