In this day and age, is it still right/necessary to experiment on animals to research medical cure for human beings?

I voted for debatable yes.
Without it a lot of what we know today wouldn't be possible.

It's a fine line to draw. I'm all for Animal safety and abolish cruelty. But if they are done in a humane way then I vote yes.

Needless suffering is not required.

So long as the experiments are for the purpose of Human cure and not for stuff like cosmetics, viagra and other 'commercial' products then fine.

I don't like the idea at all on animal cruelty and experiementation. Some of the stories who read about from anti-curelty campaigners are sickening and are quite obviously needless acts of cruelty that serve no benefit to any species - other than the sickening enjoyment of a human being.

However - we owe a helluva how ever much we disagree with it to these animals. Without them various medications, beauty treatments and household cleaners would not be available.

And who here is going to volunteer as guinea pigs?? Who here will allow dr's to test the reactions of a young child to various medications to make sure they are good for millions of other children?

It makes me wonder why they are so keen to get humans cloned. A simple statement from the scientific community would be "well you didn't want us testing on animals so we found another way to make things safe for the public"

All science fiction - but then we are living science fiction to someone from the 20's

Moon

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
And who here is going to volunteer as guinea pigs?? Who here will allow dr's to test the reactions of a young child to various medications to make sure they are good for millions of other children?

Covance in Leeds. They pay volunteers to test drugs. However, they have passed the animal testing stage before they test them on humans.

However, they have passed the animal testing stage before they test them on humans.

:o :lol: Doesn't that sort of defeat the object???

Moon

I know some companies still test on animals, but many companies now-a-days look for an alternative to animal testing and only use animal testing when they can't find a suitable alternative (such as in vitro tests). The John Hopkins Center for the Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) are an organisation who research experimental techniques that do not involve animals. And there are more besides this one. If anyone is interested there's more info here:
http://www.allforanimals.com/alternatives1.htm

Just in case there's any doubt, I'm NOT for animal testing. When i said "a suitable alternative" that's not in my opinion, that would be in the opinion of the company doing the tests.
Just wanted to clarify that before anyone thought I was saying that animal testing is OK!

I think that testing of new medical products on animals will be with us for a time yet because there is no reasonable alternative at the moment. Although far from ideal it is the only way of assessing the safety of new products and if not done there will be no new products. I think that it is still a legal requirement that new medical products and new products applied to the skin are tested on animals. The whole process needs to be well regulated and carried on in a humane way. Over time alternative techniques may be developed which will allow a reduction in, and possibly even an end to, animal testing.

Listening to a debate on radio 2 on animal testing and experiments.

Without making it an ethical debate I think that most of the 'medical' testing can stop as we have moved on so much in the field of medical science that genetic experiments are used with good results and DNA research can find out more than using a dog or monkey. One example was smoking companies still argue that smoking doesn't give you cancer so they still use smoking monkeys and mice which has nothing to do with the interest of human health they're just trying to cover their backs.
Now with the variations in human and animal DNA with a false disease put into it wouldn't the animal react differently to what we would ( although I will admit without some testing in the early days we 'may' not have some of the cures we have today)

In the interest of cosmetics and domestic it should be totally banned as don't we have enough bleaches and make ups, plus surely technology can help out with that more than a rabbit ever could now!

We wouldn't have any medicines if we didn't test on animals so I voted a confident yes. I would prefer though if beauty products etc. were tested some other way if possible.

Originally posted by fnkysknky
We wouldn't have any medicines if we didn't test on animals so I voted a confident yes. I would prefer though if beauty products etc. were tested some other way if possible.

I don't think we wouldn't have any medicines without testing, but a number would have taken longer to be produced although it can work the other way round. Diabetes was belived to be in the liver, so whilst testing on dogs it was discoverd in a human that it was in the pancreas, granted that was a long time ago but a diagnosis could have been made sooner because the test were not showing anything on the dogs.

By the way I voted a debatable yes, i meant to vote debatable no:blush: could someone change it please:D

We wouldn't have an LD50 for anything either so we wouldn't know how toxic stuff was...

I say ban animal testing altogether immediately.

If scientists are so smart (which they are) then they will find a way to test drugs without using animals - they're just taking the easy way out right now based on economics... we're planning to send people to Mars - with that kind of scientific investment planned why do we need to cut corners for drug testing?

I believe drugs are only properly tested when they're released into the population over a long period of time... then you wait for the reported deaths by side effects and the 'reported side effects' list starts to grow on the side of the bottle!

Originally posted by fnkysknky
We wouldn't have an LD50 for anything either so we wouldn't know how toxic stuff was...

Agreed, but my point is times move on and i'm really on about the old methods that are no longer needed but seem to be going on still even in medicine, i'm no animal rights campaigner but I belive there are plenty of viable alternatives instead of animals, is it animals are cheaper to use and no-one will pump the money into the reaserching new technologies? because it seems that way!

Sorry Alert_bri, you said something similar on the economics but I didn't read yours before I posted apologies!

The compantys mustthink there products are dangerous or they wouldnt test them on animals

Originally posted by f_g
The compantys mustthink there products are dangerous or they wouldnt test them on animals

What companies are we on about? the medical,cosmetic or domestic? because cosmetic and domestic companies have other ways to test if products are dangerous to humans.

Originally posted by duffman
Agreed, but my point is times move on and i'm really on about the old methods that are no longer needed but seem to be going on still even in medicine, i'm no animal rights campaigner but I belive there are plenty of viable alternatives instead of animals, is it animals are cheaper to use and no-one will pump the money into the reaserching new technologies? because it seems that way!

Sorry Alert_bri, you said something similar on the economics but I didn't read yours before I posted apologies!

Yeah but realistically unless you can build a computer simulation that models the human body perfectly and all the drugs that you want to test then testing on a living thing is the only option, well as far as I see anyway. It would be great if we didn't have to use animals but for certain things we still do.

I work in the Pharmaceutical industry and know what goes on. I don't agree with cosmetic testing and I thought this was illegal in this country although I could be wrong.
I do believe animal testing is necessary to protect humans when they are taking drugs. I work at the far end of the scale on clinical trials where human volunteers are consenting to take the drugs and these drugs will have gone through years of testing before going into the human.
What I would like to point out is that every effort is taken to use as little animal work as possible. Drug development usually begins in the lab in vitro. Thats basically outside of the body, so using cells, parts of the body, enzymes, etc etc. When a drug is looking promising it'll go to the next stage, then the next. Drugs get eliminated through these processes of testing. Eventually the animal is used. This is so scientist can see how the drug will work in a body system and normally rats and mice are used. Dogs, cats, monkeys etc are not used at this stage. Any scientist or lab assistant working on animals has to have a home office licence. These consist of different modules that you must pass in order to even handle an animal let alone give it a drug. In order to do an experiment on an animal the home office has to approve it. They will decide on the amount of discomfort to the animal versus the results that you are looking for and whether it is necessary to do the experiment. The home office supports the 3 Rs. (Replacement, refinement and reduction). So they have targets to reduce the number of animals used each year, replacement of methods used and refinement to cause the least discomfort possible. Any home office licence holder, if found to be breaking the rules and mistreating an animal or not following the guidelines will have their licence revoked and can be sent to prison. The guidelines that are followed are extremelly strict.

Now I'm not saying that I am majorally for animal testing but I do agree with it while there is no other alternative. There may never be an alternative. All I am trying to say is that scientists are not bad people and it winds me up when scientific animal experimentation is put in the same bracket as cosmetic testing and animal cruelty. The process is not cruel, it is the opposite. The animals are looked after very well.

Very interesting Foxxx!
On the cosmetics and domestics, it is illegal for cosmetic testing in the U.K but domestic uses are not.

I never had the impression that scientist were bad, it's a job at the end of the day. But can you see a time where we don't have to test on animals? Do you know what the targets are for reduction of animal use?

Now I'm not saying that I am majorally for animal testing but I do agree with it while there is no other alternative. There may never be an alternative. All I am trying to say is that scientists are not bad people and it winds me up when scientific animal experimentation is put in the same bracket as cosmetic testing and animal cruelty. The process is not cruel, it is the opposite. The animals are looked after very well. [/B]
I agree entirely - scientists are not bad people - and the best way to find alternatives to animal testing is to ban it altogether right now - then all the necessary scientific resources and efforts will have to be directed to finding the alternative!

Here is the link to the Home Office site on this subject should anyone need it :

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/comrace/animals/index.html

There is a page concerning alternatives here :

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/comrace/animals/faq.html#ALTERNATIVES

Stats regarding numbers of animals used :

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/animalstats.html


Hope the links are of help... always best to have all the info available when talking about things such as this :thumbsup:

Debatable Yes for me. Medical purposes only.

Debatable Yes for me also, again as long as its for needed science reasons

:D No i mean NO NEVER experiment on animals:mad: if we have to lets do it on Banned Forum Members

Originally posted by Jon
:D No i mean NO NEVER experiment on animals:mad: if we have to lets do it on Banned Forum Members

Well do you want to volunteer to be a guinea pig then as they need testing in something/ones body.

apologies if slightly off topic...

A Short History of Medicine

I have an earache:

2000 B.C. -Here, eat this root.
1000 A.D. -That root is heathen. Here, say this prayer.
1850 A.D. -That prayer is superstition. Here, drink this potion.
1920 A.D. -That potion is snake oil. Here, swallow this pill.
1965 A.D. -That pill is ineffective. Here, take this antibiotic.
2000 A.D. -That antibiotic is artificial. Here, eat this root

I think the issue of whether we experiment on animals for new drugs is an ethical one - not one of necessity - people have been suffering from diseases for years and will continue to do so - make the right ethical decision not to test on animals now and find the alternative... think of it as an investment in human integrity - if we can learn how to treat animal life with respect then who knows? one day we even may move on to treating human life with respect ;)

There are companies which specialise in non-animal experiments. There are some interesting facts and opinions here:

Dr Hadwen Trust (http://www.drhadwentrust.org.uk/)

They also sell a good selection of ethical goods to fund their research.

Originally posted by alert_bri
I agree entirely - scientists are not bad people - and the best way to find alternatives to animal testing is to ban it altogether right now - then all the necessary scientific resources and efforts will have to be directed to finding the alternative!

Interesting hypothesis BUT it does rather assume that there is an alternative. What if there isn't? Years of research time lost in chasing a holy grail. Potentially unnecessary deaths caused because a new treatment could not be adequately tested.

The focus of this thread so far in refering to animal experimentation has unsurprisingly focused on their use in cosmetic testing and drug testing. I'd be interested to hear peoples views on another form of scientific animal experimentation, namely their use in biological/physiological discovery.
For example, we know that the brain and the liver are 2 very complex organs and we know very litltle about how they work. How can we ever hope to understand how these organs (for example) work without animal experimentation?

Nomme

Name me something you categorically know will never be discovered, invented or explained given enough time and human exploration?

I believe there is an alternative - I also believe we are not looking hard enough... do you believe a cure will never be found for AIDS for example?

It's all just a matter of time, motivation and focus... if you're not focused sufficiently on finding a viable alternative to animal experimentation then guess what? one isn't going to fall into your lap ;)

Originally posted by alert_bri
Name me something you categorically know will never be discovered, invented or explained given enough time and human exploration?

Sorry I can't see into the future can you? How about a perpetual motion machine? I'm fairly confident no one is ever going to invent one of those. There are plenty of historical things we wll never know too - the evidence has long since been destroyed. Your question also implies that humans will one day know everything about everything. Sorry, I don't think we will.

Originally posted by alert_bri
I believe there is an alternative - I also believe we are not looking hard enough...
I admire your faith. People believe lots of things. For example a lot of people believe in a god (or gods) and having been looking very hard for proof of such for a very long time. I also admire their faith. However, just because someone believes something doesn't make it true.

Originally posted by alert_bri
do you believe a cure will never be found for AIDS for example?

Like I said, I can't see into the future so why on earth should I believe that?


Originally posted by alert_bri
It's all just a matter of time, motivation and focus... if you're not focused sufficiently on finding a viable alternative to animal experimentation then guess what? one isn't going to fall into your lap ;)

Perhaps, but blind faith that there is an alternative doesn't mean there is one - how can you categorically say that there is?
Could you also tell me how you are going to explain to all those people and their families who will die of AIDS and cancer etc.etc. that research into cures for such diseases will cease until such an alternative (if it exists) is found?

Nomme

Originally posted by alert_bri


It's all just a matter of time, motivation and focus... if you're not focused sufficiently on finding a viable alternative to animal experimentation then guess what? one isn't going to fall into your lap ;)

I suggest you look at the home office site links posted above. It states on here how much money the government uses each year to look for these alternatives.

We estimate that between £2 million and £10 million is spent by the UK Government each year. Industry also spends many millions of pounds each year on the search for and development of alternatives.

Don't insult scientists, they are trying their hardest to research alternatives, they aren't just sitting on their arses waiting for an alternative to fall into their lap, and they aren't just using animals for the sheer hell of it.

If you feel that strongly about banning animal experimentation (which is fine and I respect that) stop taking all drugs now. After all it would be rather hypocritical of you wouldn't it.

If you were diagnosed with a disease and there wasn't a cure for it, but a cure could be found by using animals what would you think to that out of interest? Would you sit and suffer or even die while scientists try to come up with an alternative method of research which could take years and years or never happen? By the way, where will the scientists get the funding from to do this? No new drugs would come onto the market in the meantime as they wouldn't have been able to put it into a human without testing it on an animal first. No new drugs, no profit, no research into alternative methods. Catch 22. Of course, we could change the law to allow human testing, but that will have adverse effects. Remember Thalidomide? Wasn't tested properly and resulted in disabled children born without limbs etc. The laws were changed to protect humans and babies after that. The public can't have it both ways. Would you be willing to try a drug if you didn't have a clue what would happen to you when you took it?
I love animals and I would love alternative methods to be around, but until then, I am happy at the top of the food chain. Survival of the fittest, sounds selfish, but that is life.

If we didn't have drugs to cure us and let us get on with everyday life, we would have very short life expectancies. Some might say fine that is natural, but if we all dye young or as children, the world wouldn't have evolved, people wouldn't study and learn and make advances. We probably wouldn't be here on the net today having this debate. We could all be dead from a common cold.

I can't see into the future but I can see a lot of people justifying not doing the right thing now based on the way we got to where we are now.

I imagine scientific knowledge advanced through experiments carried out by the nazi's on death camp Jews - does that mean we should be happy with experimentation carrying on?

And it's not blind faith - I'm just extrapolating all the knowledge that science and human inquisitiveness has given us and expect it to continue... ask a question and give people (including scientists) enough motivation and they will find a workable answer eventually - it's just what's happened throughout history isn't it?

My proposal is for how we move forward - by perhaps taking the hard choice now to spend more money finding alternative ways to test drugs and indeed natural alternatives to drugs(!)

Personally, I'll live in the world we have with as much dignity as possible (given that I pay taxes which finance all sorts of horrors according to Phan) but I can have ideals I'll argue to see happen and not accept that's just the way it is and that's the way it has to be... rubbish! :thumbsup:

p.s. I'm not insulting scientists - some of my best friends are scientists :P Society has to help scientists with the ethics IMHO.

alert_bri,

Just try and do a scientific animal experiment in this country. Then come back and tell us all about ethics. Look into it yourself please as I have neither the time or inclination to educate you about it.(Perhaps someone else might oblige?)

No one is suggesting that we don't search for alternatives but until they are found we will have to stick with what we have. To abandon it (your proposal) means people will die - that mabe ethically acceptable to you since the animals will live, but it isn't to me.

And it is blind faith. You have blind faith that science will find all the answers. I applaud your faith, but I don't think you'll find so many scientiists who share it.

Nomme

Yep - sad but true, people do indeed die every day... even science will have a hard time reversing that trend :P

And I'd rather not do a scientific animal experiment - I don't know much about ethics, except that if it feels wrong then don't do it ;)

Science is bigger than any one scientist - maybe I'm looking at it from a wider perspective?

Who asks the question and what are the rules to finding an answer? imagine playing by different rules for a moment... what if we allowed scientists to experiment on "really bad people" (insert your own definition here) then wouldn't 'scientific knowledge' take huge leaps and bounds towards solving all those nasty diseases you're so worried about? would that be worth it? or should we stick with the less useful mice and monkey subjects?

Notice how many questions I have and no answers but blind faith in "doing what feels right"? ;)

Originally posted by alert_bri
Notice how many questions I have and no answers but blind faith in "doing what feels right"? ;)

Yes I have noticed. I've also noticed no one else agreeing with your extreme and idealistic opinion on this matter.
Yes it would be good if we didn't have to experiment on animals. Unfortunately we live in the 'real world' where hard, difficult, and unpopular decisions have to be made for the good of people now and the future.

Nomme

Originally posted by nomme
Yes I have noticed. I've also noticed no one else agreeing with your extreme and idealistic opinion on this matter.
Yes it would be good if we didn't have to experiment on animals. Unfortunately we live in the 'real world' where hard, difficult, and unpopular decisions have to be made for the good of people now and the future.

Nomme

Admitted we live in the hard real world but it would be nice of we didn't have to experiment on animals for whatever reason. Leaving the issue of medical experimentation to one side, for the time being, I think there is pretty much universal agreement on banning using animals for testing cosmetics and non-medical products. Unfortunately, companies such as L'Oreal have so much money that they can use their political clout to prevent measures to stop the practice of animal testing for new cosmetics.

The major cosmetic companies have even gone so far as to threaten legal action against any companies which claim that their products haven't been tested on animals. Their legal argument being that the actual ingredients have, at one time or another, been tested on animals.

The moral here is avoid all products by companies such as L'Oreal.

Back to medical experiments, the way I read alert's posts is that not enough effort is being expended finding alternatives to using live animals for experiments. A tightening of the regulations may put pressure on the pharmateutical companies to spend a proportion of their massive r&d budgets on alternative methods of research.

Originally posted by max

Back to medical experiments, the way I read alert's posts is that not enough effort is being expended finding alternatives to using live animals for experiments. A tightening of the regulations may put pressure on the pharmateutical companies to spend a proportion of their massive r&d budgets on alternative methods of research.

It may be alert's opinion that not enough effort is being expended on finding alternatives. Unfortunately his opinion seems to be based on his 'feelings' rather than any evidence.
Pressure on pharmateitical compainies may indeed force them to do MORE research into finding alternatives, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will find them.

alert_bri said this (my emphasis):

the best way to find alternatives to animal testing is to ban it altogether right now

Sorry, but I can't agree that suspending all current medical R&D work involving animal experimentation whilst we search for something that may or may not be found is such a good idea.

Nomme

Its all relative anyway, if the animals were above us they'd not think twice about testing on humans :lol:

anyway, on a serious note. If you lived your life not using products which arent animal tested you may as well go live in a cave.

Those panadols you have for your headache, they wernt just used, they were tested.

Same goes for all medical breakthroughs, if you (alert_bri) were dying of a disease and the only way to save you was to test on a monkey or mouse or something would you die to save some animals' lives?

Is it OK to butcher and eat animals or wear their skins ... but not OK to test stuff on them !?

Let's face facts ... human beings on the whole (our species) are self centered and barbaric killers ... that's nature for you ... and you're nothing more than an animal yourself (a sophisticated ape) ... why do we have to moralise about everything and think that we're somehow seperate (above) from animals / nature ... moralising somehow stinks a little of hypocracy.

Yes, it is OK to butcher and eat animals and to wear their skins - if you do it yourself at least once! (how many vegetarians would we have then?)

Experimenting on them any more for debatable benefits is not OK in my own personal oppinion... Yes it may seem extreme but extreme measures are sometimes necessary to make change happen.

Come on! it's not as if medical experimentation is widespread and common - it's been squeezed into a corner and noone likes the idea (even the scientists) so why not stamp it out once and for all?

It's not hypocrytical to have ideals you wish and strive to make happen - while at the same time enjoying the benefits (and enduring the consequences!) of scientific methods and practices leading to the present state of play.

And I'm a human being + I'm not a self centered barbaric killer - are you? would you like our kind to be in the controlling majority?

I think it's right to moralise because it gives you the ability to have peace of mind that you support good things happening and bad things stopping... it's as simple as that.

I believe in taking personal responsibility for my beliefs and actions - your milage may differ
:thumbsup:

Originally posted by alert_bri


Notice how many questions I have and no answers but blind faith in "doing what feels right"? ;)

Yes I have noticed that you have no answers, you still haven't answered any of my questions, or anyone elses!

Here were a couple of them:
Do you take drugs when not well?

Would you prefer to be living in a world where we die young and haven't made any of the advancements that we have today?

If you were diagnosed with a disease and there wasn't a cure for it, but a cure could be found by using animals what would you think to that out of interest? Would you sit and suffer or even die while scientists try to come up with an alternative method of research which could take years and years or never happen?

Where will the scientists get the funding from to find alternative methods? No new drugs would come onto the market in the meantime as they wouldn't have been able to put it into a human without testing it on an animal first. No new drugs, no profit, no research into alternative methods.

Would you be willing to try a drug if you didn't have a clue what would happen to you when you took it?

You then state

My proposal is for how we move forward - by perhaps taking the hard choice now to spend more money finding alternative ways to test drugs and indeed natural alternatives to drugs(!)

Where will this money come from??


Personally, I'll live in the world we have with as much dignity as possible

Only made possible by the medical knowledge we have available, which has come at the cost of animal experimentation.


what if we allowed scientists to experiment on "really bad people" (insert your own definition here) then wouldn't 'scientific knowledge' take huge leaps and bounds towards solving all those nasty diseases you're so worried about? would that be worth it? or should we stick with the less useful mice and monkey subjects?

Yes, fine experiment on convicted murderers, rapists etc, is that ethically right?? you may have noticed that due to science, evidence has come to light that some of these 'really bad people' weren't actually bad and have been wrongfully convicted. Oh and some of these cases have been overturned due to scientific advancements that have come about through animal experimentation!

Then max says:

Back to medical experiments, the way I read alert's posts is that not enough effort is being expended finding alternatives to using live animals for experiments. A tightening of the regulations may put pressure on the pharmateutical companies to spend a proportion of their massive r&d budgets on alternative methods of research.

There already are very tight regulations enforced by the home office which have already been mentioned. Plus the policies of the 3 R's. Reducation, refinement and replacement. Pharmaceuticals are already spending millions on replacement each year. ie. researching alternative methods. I suggest facts are gotten straight here! If you don't think they are spending enough, I suggest you ask them to spend more. If they do that, then you had better expect that all the drugs they sell will go up in price to cover the costs, which inturn costs the NHS more and in turn will end up putting our taxes up. The government could contribute more money too, but it'll cost the tax payer. As long as you don't mind all that, then that's fine.

Alert says:


Yes, it is OK to butcher and eat animals and to wear their skins - if you do it yourself at least once! (how many vegetarians would we have then?)

Hypocrit!


Experimenting on them any more for debatable benefits is not OK in my own personal oppinion... Yes it may seem extreme but extreme measures are sometimes necessary to make change happen.

debatable benefits? What's debatable, is is a fact that through animal experimentation we have discovered soooooo much. We still are.


Come on! it's not as if medical experimentation is widespread and common - it's been squeezed into a corner and noone likes the idea (even the scientists) so why not stamp it out once and for all?

Well that show's how much you know! Medical research is a global business. Pharmaceuticals have huge labs all over the place and there are 1000s of employees. So it is widespread and common! Please get your facts straight before making random comments as such! :P

I know this is a very sensitive subject and look forward to your side of the debate :)

Foxxx, you seem to be very agitated by some of alert's posts, and one of mine. Have you actually read any of the information on Dr Hadwen's website, I posted the link earlier? Here are some examples of the arguments found there:

It is possible to obtain human cells and tissues from biopsies, post-mortems, placentas, or as waste from surgery, and grow them in the laboratory. Cell cultures are used in many medical fields, and have contributed enormously to our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of cancer, Parkinson's disease, and AIDS. Cell cultures are routinely used in vaccine production, toxicity testing, drug development and to diagnose disease.

It is important that human cells, rather than animal cells, are used for medical research, to avoid the problem of relating results from one species to another.

Research at the molecular level is being used to understand the biochemistry and genetics underlying various illnesses, and leading to better treatments.....This approach is an alternative to modelling the illness in animals such as genetically modified mice.

Tests with simple microorganisms, such as bacteria and yeasts, are being used as early indicators of chemicals likely to be harmful, and are frequently faster, cheaper and more humane than animal tests.

Computers are increasingly being used to model the structure and actions of new drugs, and to predict their safety. Computer models of whole biological systems are now being developed on which experiments can be conducted, as alternatives to experiments on animals.

My point in posting these quotes, other than they are more intelligible than my normal ramblings, is that all this is being done by a charity. Imagine how many more animal lives could be saved if the major pharmaceuticals sacrificed even 0.0025% of their profits towards an alternative to killing creatures such as mice whose physiology is so different from our own.

Originally posted by Foxxx
Yes I have noticed that you have no answers, you still haven't answered any of my questions, or anyone elses!

I'm sorry Foxxxxxxx - I'll do my best to answer your questions :)

Here were a couple of them:
Do you take drugs when not well?

I'm rarely unwell - take care to get good nutrition, water and a reasonably healthy diet every day! Only take drugs / antibiotics when totally necessary :thumbsup:

Would you prefer to be living in a world where we die young and haven't made any of the advancements that we have today?
Nope, and I'd rather not be living in a world with AIDS, CJD, ebola, Chernobyl fall-out and the constant threat of terrorism - I had no control of them either - but I do enjoy all the benefits of modern science thanks!

If you were diagnosed with a disease and there wasn't a cure for it, but a cure could be found by using animals what would you think to that out of interest? Would you sit and suffer or even die while scientists try to come up with an alternative method of research which could take years and years or never happen?
Get real! there'll be no mad dash by scientists to find a cure for my disease in time to cure me personally - the pharmaceutical industry is profit motivated. I'd do what everyone else does - make the best of what's available!

Where will the scientists get the funding from to find alternative methods? No new drugs would come onto the market in the meantime as they wouldn't have been able to put it into a human without testing it on an animal first. No new drugs, no profit, no research into alternative methods.
Good point - if no new drugs were possible what do you think scientists would spend their time investigating? How about all the alternatives which do the job more naturally? and do all new drugs require animal experimentation??? I didn't realise the problem was that serious!

Would you be willing to try a drug if you didn't have a clue what would happen to you when you took it?
Doesn't this happen every time anyone tries an off-the-shelf drug today? Have you read the possible side-effects of the drugs you take? it'll scare you to death :P

Where will this money come from??
People working... paying taxes and politicians sharing the cash out to the best lobbyists. (the $1Bn+ pharmaceutical industry can look after itself)


Only made possible by the medical knowledge we have available, which has come at the cost of animal experimentation.
Then isn't it about time we moved on from the old methods?

Yes, fine experiment on convicted murderers, rapists etc, is that ethically right?? you may have noticed that due to science, evidence has come to light that some of these 'really bad people' weren't actually bad and have been wrongfully convicted. Oh and some of these cases have been overturned due to scientific advancements that have come about through animal experimentation!

I'm argueing against experimenting on animals by saying it's almost as bad as experimenting on humans - you seem to have missed my point, sorry if I wasn't clear :)

Hypocrit!
I try not to be :P

debatable benefits? What's debatable, is is a fact that through animal experimentation we have discovered soooooo much. We still are.
I'm not sure about the validity of comparing results in animals with a completely different species... just doesn't make sense to me comparing mice and monkeys with humans.

Well that show's how much you know! Medical research is a global business. Pharmaceuticals have huge labs all over the place and there are 1000s of employees. So it is widespread and common! Please get your facts straight before making random comments as such! :P
I stand corrected - perhaps the problem is much worse than I feared and there are loads of these ghastly experiments going on all over the planet! Nightmare!

I know this is a very sensitive subject and look forward to your side of the debate :)
I feel quite detached myself - I wish I could do more about stopping it right now!

I can't see the necessity to experiment on animals when we've got Jeffrey Archer, the Soham killer and his bird, Saddam Hussein,
and several thousand assorted muggers, rapists, child molesters and abusers at our disposal. After all, the results of the experiments would give a more accurate idea of the effects on humans.

Sorry if this offends, but cuddly bunny or child killer? No contest.