Is it right to test for new drugs on animals?

Question

I think it is, though I think their use should be restricted to only those things that are absolutely necessary. For example testing shampoos etc on the eyes of rabbits or mice I think is cruel. I do believe people have greater rights than animals and I do not think it is wrong to eat meat.

Well we do have a wide spectrum of views. I wouldn't test them on criminals - too much like the Nazis. As for those that say no - what alternatives are there that will produce as good results? Computer modelling only gets us so far. Also would you, if your life were threatened, refuse to take medecines developed by testing on animals?

Answer 1

Yes the animals are treated as humanely as possible. Would anyone other than a fanatic want these drugs tested first on humans? It is bad enough that bad side effects show up after release of the drugs.

Answer 2

One of the things I do for money is test drugs [seriously ] . I am usually in the first or second human trials. St. John's in London does world wide trial's and they do one test on animals first to look for toxic side effects because with new drugs or new combinations of drugs you can never be sure what the effects will be and why risk human lives when there are animals bred specifically for the reason? They can control the genetic make up of the lab animals where as in the human population our genetics are random. I am currently on a drug for people with a certain kind of genetic lung condition, it looks very promising! It has improved my quality of life a great deal! I have been on this drug for about 4 months and will remain on it for another 5 months! I just wish it did not take so long to get on the market. It will be another 4 to5 years before it will be available on the market. I will not be able to get it again till then!

Answer 3

Yet again, Yahoo shows an excellent sample of the intelligent versus the moronic. I would like to know just how many of you that have said it is wrong to test drugs on animals will refuse them when you're life is at stake. Jesus.

For those saying "lets test them on criminals" perhaps you wanted the Nazi's to win WW2, or consider that the Chinese government taking organs from prisoners is acceptable? How would you feel if a prisoner was wrongly incarcerated and then subjected to this?

On the subject of we only do it because we are the dominant species - well YES, we are. If you are religious then God intended it that way. If not, then it is the survival of the species. Saying it is wrong because we are more dominant is like telling a Lion off for killing a Wilder-beast!

Testing on animals for things we do not need to do anymore (as mentioned shampoo) is ludicrous - balanced ethics is the key here. A few hundred guinea pigs versus saving thousands of human lives is no choice at all.

And on the frankly ignorant point of saying animals are different to humans and therefore there is no point in testing on them - again, JESUS, ever taken aspirin? Or HIV inhibitors? Or any form of cancer treatment? The animals chosen are 99%+ in genetic code exactness to a humans make up - we're not testing on aliens here guys. .............

Answer 4

The line always blurs with this issue. While I do not believe, personally, in testing on animals I worked at a company that did just that. The reason I was able to bend my beliefs is because we tested medical suppiles.

After a round of "in-vitro" (non-animal testing) proves the equipment to be safe enought to test on animals then the lab bred (meaning these animals have never seen the outside world they are bred simply for testing. Many of them have birth defects or are sterile and cannot be kept as pets. They would not survive a day out of thier cages without the supervision of the lab techs)

The animals are treated well and cared for. They are kept clean and healthy and given drugs to prevent them from feeling any sort of pain. Although I don't feel that putting plastic under the skin of a Rat is necessarily a good practice - I know that the plastic being tested is being tested because it will eventually be used in the making od a false bone or pace maker that could save someone's life one day. Without testing it first how would we know it was safe for them?

I don't like that the animals are being used for this purpose but It has to be tested in animals before it can go to clinical (Human) trials. I prefer they test on lab rats then my grandma before they know what kind of effects it will have.

Answer 5

Wow the old shampoo and bunny rabbits cliche!
When my husband had dementia I agreed that they did a trial with him taking pills. It meant that although we didn't know if it was the drug or a placebo, we received extra attention in our home during that time, from psychologists, who were very helpful. It turned out he was on the placebo, at the end of the trial he was put on the drug, which gave him projectile vomiting, so we ended that straight away. We also helped in tests for predicting the type of dementia, since they couldn't give a clear diagnosis and when he died his brain was donated. It turned out the illness he had was quite a rare one. I was sad when he died and it was a bit strange donating his brain, but I knew if I had been ill he would have done the same thing, and we had the pleasure of his being at home virtually to the end of his life. So do I agree with experiments on animals, well humans are animals you know, we aren't that special. I think we have to take care to inflict as little pain and suffering as possible, but I think all medical research that helps bring better treatment and possible cures should be carried out. Do the poor in Africa worry that AIDs and malaria treatments are tested on animals? I doubt it, they just want treatment and to see their children live.

Answer 6

Yes it is wrong to test or experiment on animals.

However - when it comes to "us" versus "them" being tested on with new medical procedures, drugs, etc - I vote to treat them as well as possible, yet do the initial testing on them.

Nature designed three types of animals - herbivores, carnivores, and the mix of the two. Homosapiens have a body that requires a mix of the two food sources in order to acquire the essential 20 amino acids necessary for life.

SO - as a creature of nature, I most certainly do eat meat - and love a good steak. Medium rare works for me! :)

Answer 7

I think new drugs, chemicals and medical procedures should be tested on animal rights activists.

Seriously, I have no problem with testing all these things on animals. It prevents having problems with humans, who, IMO, are infinitely more valuable. The way I see it, for the life of my child, the death of 10,000 dogs would be a small price to pay. To protect humans from harm, the alleged cruelty is a small price to pay.

Answer 8

The only reason we have greater rights than animals is because we are the dominant species. I don't think they should test things on animals they should test them on all the rapists, murderers and peadophiles in prison instead.

Testing make up on animals etc has already been banned in the UK.

Answer 9

Since most of the testing on animals is for medical reasons - yes.

However are humans always likely to react to a drug the same way an animal reacts?

Since most of our murder's and rapists behave like animals - lets test the drugs on them. That way we are certain about the end results. :)

Answer 10

Right? I don't know. That's a moral question. Necessary? Absolutely. All the computer models in the world can't tell you exactly what a drug will do in the body.

Remember, either the guinea pig is the guinea pig, or you are.

Which would you prefer?