47 replies to this topic

[Kaddict]

I am all for it. I feel anything will need to be tested, and much better on lab rats than humans. But, I feel there should be research done to minimize probability of problems occurring in animals (including humans) before testing. Torturing animals for no reason is no good.

Edited by Kaddict, 09 July 2014 - 11:28 PM.

[Romy]

As a precursor to human testing? Sure!

 

To test things of negligible importance such as makeup? Fuck no.

[krigz]

Yea.. I dont feel great about it but Humans come first. 

[Kaddict]

ya. oops. can i edit and add a poll, or did I screw the pooch?

 

There. Added it. IDK what poll etiquette is though. Is public the norm?

Edited by Kaddict, 09 July 2014 - 11:29 PM.

[Irradium]

In my mind, do what you want, just treat the animals humanely. Oh, and it'd be nice if they died (or w/e happens to them) for the greater good too.

 

(Also, don't do it on endangered animals) @Dan

 

ya. oops. can i edit and add a poll, or did I screw the pooch?

 

There. Added it. IDK what poll etiquette is though. Is public the norm?

 

It's your thread, so you can pick whichever you feel like. I think that for a potentially controversial topic (like almost everything in the General Debate section), it's probably best to keep it private as opposed to public just in case someone wants to register their opinion anonymously.

[Magical]

Thanks for making this!

 

I voted NEVAAAARRRR!

[Clutch]

I suppose it depends on what animal it is. If it's a dog, or a cat, or something like that, you know like a pet, I have a problem with it. But rodents, like mice, rabbits (I don't know if that counts as a rodent), or rats? I'm fine with that, as long as it's not unnecessarily cruel. We have to be able to learn about stuff someway, and it's better than testing on humans. 

[Sweeney]

Animal testing is currently a necessary evil.

[Waser Lave]

We have an awful lot of prisoners locked up doing nothing...

[Galadriel]

We have an awful lot of prisoners locked up doing nothing...

 

Whenever I bring this fact up people get nervous.

[Waser Lave]

I'd agree with this depending on what their crimes were. People on death row, absolutely.

 

Murder, rape, child abuse, jaywalking, that kind of thing.

[Magical]

We have an awful lot of prisoners locked up doing nothing...

 

People who are found being cruel to animals... Muhahaha. xD

Animal testing is currently a necessary evil.

 

I disagree, it's very possible to eradicate the entire 'necessity' of it. But convenience and financial expenditures won't permit at present. It's certainly viable to produce human-intended products without having to test on animals. Even now, animal-test-free products are available, albeit at a cost.

[Sweeney]

I disagree, it's very possible to eradicate the entire 'necessity' of it. But convenience and financial expenditures won't permit at present. It's certainly viable to produce human-intended products without having to test on animals. Even now, animal-test-free products are available, albeit at a cost.

"Products" like make-up, yes. Medicines and other treatments, no.

[Magical]

"Products" like make-up, yes. Medicines and other treatments, no.

 

Medicines that are intended for humans should be tested on humans, while animals will have 'comparable' responses to medications, it's ultimately going to be humans who will react to a normal. There's also quite a hefty compensation for human testing participants - and drug companies can more than afford it.

[Frizzle]

You don't understand basic science and why animals, like rats, are chosen for scientific study.

[Sweeney]

Medicines that are intended for humans should be tested on humans, while animals will have 'comparable' responses to medications, it's ultimately going to be humans who will react to a normal. There's also quite a hefty compensation for human testing participants - and drug companies can more than afford it.

Yes, which is why medicines undergo human trials before being produced for dissemination.

But you can't develop a drug by testing on humans. It's unfeasible.

[Magical]

Yes, which is why medicines undergo human trials before being produced for dissemination.

But you can't develop a drug by testing on humans. It's unfeasible.

 

It's true to an extent. But the idea is horrific. When push comes to shove (and this comes from developers who aren't money hungry), we could develop drugs and treatment on humans, but like you said, right now, it's unfeasible.

[Magical]

Not true. What if you were testing a compound that has never been tested before? Would you test it on a human not knowing what kind of reactions, good or bad, would happen to the subject?

 

Yes - but it's a cost and worth principle. It comes down to the developers (whether or not they value their test subjects), no matter how unpredictable/dangerous.

 

But lol, don't forget - this is coming from an animal lover, I'll never agree with it

Edited by Magical, 10 July 2014 - 06:26 AM.

[Karyx]

To an extent, I'm not 100% opposed to animal testing.

 

I'm not too keen on the idea of animal testing for cosmetics, because really, we have better things to do with them than making a new tanning lotion. It's not necessary.

 

But if it's between a cute little bunny being tested and my father needing medicine, I'll say thank you to the little bunny but I'd rather have my dad well. 

 

A preliminary human test isn't just unfeasible, it's a waste of resources. If you're testing an entirely new compound, and give it to test subjects (humans) who will keep dying before producing any results, how many times are you going to have to reformulate, test, and potentially kill a person? Again, waste of time and resources when you can have human subjects for final tests to monitor short and long term side effects, rather than them dropping like flies during preliminaries. 

 

Sorry, but I also think it's a necessary evil. I love animals, but I'll be sensible about it. You can't turn your back on the fact that modern medicine was developed through animal testing. "I'm an animal lover" being the basis of your argument likely means you won't use anything tested on animals? Um, good luck, then.

[Sweeney]

It's true to an extent. But the idea is horrific. When push comes to shove (and this comes from developers who aren't money hungry), we could develop drugs and treatment on humans, but like you said, right now, it's unfeasible.

There are more than simple ethical reasons for testing on animals rather than humans.

[Clutch]

We have an awful lot of prisoners locked up doing nothing...

 

Yeah but they're still people  . I don't think you'd like it if you became the local guinea pig for something like Fraud. I just say experiment on the animals and save the humans. 

[Ali]

Yeah but they're still people  . I don't think you'd like it if you became the local guinea pig for something like Fraud. I just say experiment on the animals and save the humans. 

Don't commit crimes, don't get tested on. Simples.