Should all animal testing be banned?

What about testing by large drug companies in the search for new drugs?

Is all animal testing bad?

Nomme

I voted NO - but only allowed for nedical research.
It's a controversial topic and notone I relish putting my ore into, but I must stress my opinion.

I do hate the fact that animals are tested on for cosmetic purposes and think this sort of testing should be banned everywhere.

However with out medical tests for disease, virus, bacterial and other medical requirements we would not be where we are today.
We have a lot of cures for disease as well as antibiotic treatments for flu etc that would have been impossible without this necessary research.

Medical - No Ban
Cosmetic - Ban

Agree with DB.

If medical advances can be made by testing on animals then we have to go for it. It may be cruel but I feel the end does justify the means in these cases.

As for cosmetic testing, I don't believe that should happen. Cruelty for the sake of vanity is disgusting really.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
I voted NO - but only allowed for nedical research.
It's a controversial topic and notone I relish putting my ore into, but I must stress my opinion.

I do hate the fact that animals are tested on for cosmetic purposes and think this sort of testing should be banned everywhere.

However with out medical tests for disease, virus, bacterial and other medical requirements we would not be where we are today.
We have a lot of cures for disease as well as antibiotic treatments for flu etc that would have been impossible without this necessary research.

Medical - No Ban
Cosmetic - Ban

Good post. Agree to the letter.

It's unfortunate but it's either that or test on humans. In the long run it's for a worthy cause.

Perhaps we could introduce testing on prisoners instead of animals - i.e.: get an ear grafted to your back and get probation quicker!



:P

I'm split between the 'Yes' option and the 'Medical research' option so I'm abstaining. I don't agree with vivisection, especially for cosmetics. Wether it's right for medicine I am undecided.

I agree with Sidla on this. I disagree with testing for cosmetic reasons, no issue with that. However, on the subject of testing for medical purposes I don't feel it's a black and white case. There are certainly areas where testing for medical purposes is unavoidable but there are also a large amount of tests which serve no other purpose than to show that testing has been done irrespective of the validity of the results. There doesn't seem much point in testing medicines or procedures on creatures with vastly different physiologies, for instance rats. More and more evidence is emerging which shows that the results obtained are invalid due to this disparity.

In addition computer models are being developed which give far better indications of the possible reaction of humans to drugs.

:D Geoff's idea sounds great!!! :D

Animal testing thread here (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?threadid=3424)

With this in the news today I thought I'd bring it back up.

I do support testing on animals, but then again I think what's the point when there are already drugs that can extend lives that the NHS is refusing to supply to people dying of cancer?

If they're going to test on animals they should at least use the fruits of it.

I voted it should be banned.

Humans are animals, arrogance and poor, very poor (and largely outdated) philosophical arguments say we are 'more' or 'better' than other animals.

Will it be banned? Unlikely.

Am I going to get on a high horse and rage from the rooftops that it's wrong? No.

With this in the news today I thought I'd bring it back up.

I do support testing on animals, but then again I think what's the point when there are already drugs that can extend lives that the NHS is refusing to supply to people dying of cancer?

If they're going to test on animals they should at least use the fruits of it.

I heard some startling statistics regarding testing on animals. Do you know they are now really good at curing cancer in mice? That alone tells me we don't benefit from animal testing as much as we like to think we do.

I heard some startling statistics regarding testing on animals. Do you know they are now really good at curing cancer in mice? That alone tells me we don't benefit from animal testing as much as we like to think we do.

Aye I just listened to two pieces on radio 4 about it and...I can't be bothered to look back at exactly what it said but, it said something like...we test more on animals now than we ever have, and we get fewer treatments from it.

Something like that.

So what though, if a hundred thousand mice have to be tested on for a few human lives to be saved I have no issue with it.

it was debated on radio 2 today, they had a scientist on who argued very sincerely that no we no longer need to carry on doing it, it does more harm than good, theres about a 95% failure rate going from the animal side to the human side of testing and he listed 5 or 6 more upto date techniques which he says are a lot safer, humane and upto date.
most of the callers who called in who were in favour of animal testing seemed to be living in the past, bringing up drug successes from 30/40/50 years ago such as penecillin and insulin. forgetting one vital thing......back then we had no choice, these days weve advanced with technology so much there now is plenty of viable alternatives rathert han just doing it because weve always done it.

So what though, if a hundred thousand mice have to be tested on for a few human lives to be saved I have no issue with it.
the thing is.......mice and us are completely different, what works on mice doesnt work on us
theres reasons why certain animals are used in certain experiments and its got nothing to do with how close to human anatomy and physiology they are

it was debated on radio 2 today, they had a scientist on who argued very sincerely that no we no longer need to carry on doing it, it does more harm than good, theres about a 95% failure rate going from the animal side to the human side of testing and he listed 5 or 6 more upto date techniques which he says are a lot safer, humane and upto date.
most of the callers who called in who were in favour of animal testing seemed to be living in the past, bringing up drug successes from 30/40/50 years ago such as penecillin and insulin. forgetting one vital thing......back then we had no choice, these days weve advanced with technology so much there now is plenty of viable alternatives rathert han just doing it because weve always done it.

Except legally we have to.

Except legally we have to.
but thats the subject of the thread innit?, should animal testing be banned? :suspect:

in other words it wouldnt be a legal requirement to do it

but thats the subject of the thread innit?, should animal testing be banned? :suspect:

in other words it wouldnt be a legal requirement to do it

I was replying to the bit you put. I'm aware of the thread title and have commented on that also.

It could still be a legal requirement. The requirement could state "No drugs to be used on humans unless trialled on animals first". We could ban the practice but whilst that law applies, anyone taking a drug can be certain it will have been tested on an animal. I get your point but it's a matter of the law.

I was replying to the bit you put. I'm aware of the thread title and have commented on that also.

It could still be a legal requirement. The requirement could state "No drugs to be used on humans unless trialled on animals first". We could ban the practice but whilst that law applies, anyone taking a drug can be certain it will have been tested on an animal. I get your point but it's a matter of the law.

the things the scientist was saying tho was testing on "grown" human organs, skin tissue, dna etc etc before full human testing, without any animal testing involvement

Thalidomide was tested on animals for years. It was also tested on disabled children without their parents being informed. Despite that it was still marketed as being a safe drug because the impact it had on foetuses hadn't been though of.

the things the scientist was saying tho was testing on "grown" human organs, skin tissue, dna etc etc before full human testing, without any animal testing involvement

That's my point. It doesn't matter how many tests we do that don't hurt animals. The law states that the drug can't be used in practice unless animal tested.

I think it should be banned. but I know that animal rights activists have been ranting and raving for years about it being banned and they haven't had any success, so for the time being at least, it will be legal, shouldn't be IMO, but that's life.

That's my point. It doesn't matter how many tests we do that don't hurt animals. The law states that the drug can't be used in practice unless animal tested.
i know, im saying IF animal testing was banned then obviously that law would have to be changed as you cant enshrine in law that people must do something that is banned.
im not up on these 5 or so modern techniques that this scientist reeled off or knowing how safe / dangerous or feasible in reality they are, obviously that all needs looking into, whether they are of a similer nature to testing on animals pre human testing or not
i do think they do need to be checked out a little more than just blindly saying yes we must keep animal testing full stop
maybe their could be a transition period if they are viable, where animal testing slowly gets phased out AND the law gets changed as well

I think it should be banned. but I know that animal rights activists have been ranting and raving for years about it being banned and they haven't had any success, so for the time being at least, it will be legal, shouldn't be IMO, but that's life.

Perhaps you should look into the good that it has done for sufferers of ailments that have been cured or at least made bearable by drugs testing on animals before jumping in at the deep end Rich ? Meh !
You dont see do you ?

I think it should be banned. but I know that animal rights activists have been ranting and raving for years about it being banned and they haven't had any success, so for the time being at least, it will be legal, shouldn't be IMO, but that's life.

thats why this debate has popped up again rich, they HAVE had some success, carriers have stopped transporting animals from abroad

what gets me tho why do so many come from abroad?? cant they rear animals in this country? :suspect:

immigrant animals as well as people :o

That's my point. It doesn't matter how many tests we do that don't hurt animals. The law states that the drug can't be used in practice unless animal tested.

The question being debated is, should that law be changed? Pointing out that it exists is achieving precisely nothing.

i know, im saying IF animal testing was banned then obviously that law would have to be changed as you cant enshrine in law that people must do something that is banned.


And I'm saying not necessarily. There's nothing wrong with us allowing all the testing to be done in other countries. Granted it would kill the pharmaceutical industry but it would keep the campaigners happy.

Perhaps you should look into the good that it has done for sufferers of ailments that have been cured or at least made bearable by drugs testing on animals before jumping in at the deep end Rich ? Meh !
You dont see do you ?

again, the majority of these drugs created due to testing on animals were created when we had no choice, its unfair to compare, its like comparing oranges and apples
new modern humane techniques SHOULDNT be poopood simpley to keep the status quo, who says it wont lead to even greater success, if it aint been tried we dont know

The question being debated is, should that law be changed? Pointing out that it exists is achieving precisely nothing.

There is a separate law though. That's what I'm stating. You can ban animal testing but unless we change the law that says, we can't use a drug unless animal trials have been done, it's pointless. The two laws are separate. I agree that removing the latter law would work but just banning animal testing "technically" won't fix anything.

There is a separate law though. That's what I'm stating. You can ban animal testing but unless we change the law that says, we can't use a drug unless animal trials have been done, it's pointless. The two laws are separate. I agree that removing the latter law would work but just banning animal testing "technically" won't fix anything.
ive always been saying the law would obviously need altering too, you cant just ban something yet keep a law stating you must do it, thatd be silly, then again i dont put anything past the great british government

I think it is disgusting!! We wouldn`t just grab a random person off the street against their will and test things on them, that would just be sick.
so why do it on a poor defencless animal???
It sickens me to know anyone could do anything to an animal when they have no say about it.

It is classed as animal craulty in my book and should be stopped!!!

Also whats to say that something is going to work for us if it works on an animal, we are not animals so Its not always going to have the same effect!!!

Yes ban it and find alternatives to this, if the Scientists got their thinking caps on I am sure that they could come up with something. They are supposed be clever aren`t they?? so surely they can think of something I love animals and think it is immoral and wrong if they test on animals like that why not start testing on humans use us as guinea pigs they feel pain same as we do??. :rant: :rant::mad: :mad::confused::confused: :sad::sad:

we are not animals
Yes we are.

Yes we are.

Yes people that test on animals are also animals, a nasty ones!
We as humans should protect the defencless creatures and leave them to live in peace as they would us.
The only time an animal attacks us or tries to hurt us is when they feel thretened and that is a natural instinct, would we or would we not do the same?!?
The answer: YES WE WOULD!

They wouldn`t do tests on us if unless you were trying to join (for example) a pack of wolfs.
Then they would see if we are worthy to be a part of the pack.
Not if we can with stand a raw peice of meat with experimentary drugs or creams in.

We as humans should protect the defencless creatures and leave them to live in peace
Why? Too short.

I saw a documentary a couple of years ago by an oxford professor who experiments on monkeys and lives in a world of personal security because of death threats from anti vivsectionists.

it started with a famous image on an animal rights poster of a monkey with its head in a frame having stuff injected into its brain, then we met a teenage boy with motor neurone disease and the last image was of the boy in exactly the same position benefitting from the procedure developed on the monkeys.

it showed that modern medicine can be cruel but beautiful, the child's life is worth a thousand monkeys

Why not? Like i said before they wouldn`t hurt us unless we threten them.
Would you test products and drugs on a cat, dog hamster or rabbit yourself?
Could you really watch them suffer right infront of your eyes?

the child's life is worth a thousand monkeys
Why? Too short again.

Could you really watch them suffer right infront of your eyes?
I eat meat, so I tacitly do condone suffering. I'd love to support animal rights, but if I eat meat then I undermine my own position. I like eating meat, so I value my own pleasure above animals.

Do I like animal testing? No, I hate it. It's ugly and it makes me feel sad. Yet I recognise that it may be a neccessary part of something that is beneficial to mankind, and thus I can't dismiss it so easily.

This is where i am in two minds about it all.
I agree that a child is priceless and a monkey isn`t, perhaps yes to save a childs life or anyones life is vital but must it be done in such brutal ways?
Like to test for cancer, must they inject things into animals in such craulty?

This is where i am in two minds about it all.
I agree that a child is priceless and a monkey isn`t, perhaps yes to save a childs life or anyones life is vital but must it be done in such brutal ways?
Like to test for cancer, must they inject things into animals in such craulty?

in order to practice microsurgery, you have to do it first on something that resembles a human - in the case of neurosurgery, that's a primate. It's nasty, but absolutely right in my opinion.

If you or a loved one needs medical help, the monkeys rats and dogs who have suffered to make it possible become irrelevent - there might be animal rights fundamentalists who refuse to have a drug or surgical procedure that's been developed with animal suffering, but I reckon you could count them on one hand

my mum had heart stents put in a couple of years ago, the procedure was perfected on dogs and primates - thank god.