Why are animals the main targets for testing chemicals and other substances?

Question

Millions of animals of all kinds are tourtured and murdered every year. Why animals?Is it because they do speak?Or maybe because they are helpless to us.

Answer 1

Because animal systems operate in a very similar manner as that of humans (after all, we're animals, too), testing on animals reveals the most information about how a chemical will work inside our body. Animal testing results in products such as vaccines, medicines, and other materials to be marketed safely to improve the lives of the people that use them. Animal "torture" and "murder" is practically unheard of in a professional lab, and many regulations ensure this. Animal research cannot be conducted by just any person off the street.



PS- Notice how all the web sites against testing are PETA-sponsored????

Answer 2

Jennifery, it was wrong for you to say that most animal testing is for curiosity. When submitting a proposal for an experiment you must first explain how your research will further science and our knowledge of science. If government appointed people do not feel your research is ethical or valuable then you will not be able to continue with the project. Also going back to the original question the number of animals sacrificed for science is no longer in the millions, at least not in the US. This is because institutions can preserve and ship tissues more efficiently, and we now have many genetically modified species.
Most of the laboratory animals used nowadays are genetically modified and are no longer anything like their wild ancestors. This limits how many animals we need to use and allows researchers to be more specific in their experiments. The care the animals receive before they are sacraficed is better than the care that many elderly get in nursing homes, there are very strict regulations on these matters.
Although it would be more beneficial to test humans (because it is much more accurate), it is def. easier to maintain a colony of mice or rats. Not to mention from the point of conception it is only 18 days until you get 8 pups (in mice) which would be impossible to get from one woman in 18 days. How nice it would be to always use computer models and programs, but what about the pathways that we have yet to discover? How can we predict that a drug will kill if we have not found the way it will do it yet? Better safe than sorry...

Answer 3

Animals are used because their physiology is similar to that of human beings, so the effect of a drug on an animal can usually provide information about the probable effects of the same drug on a human being. There is NO other way to adequately test a new drug or surgical procedure to ensure as much as possible its safety for human beings. Who could be naive enough to believe that scientists would waste their valuable research funds doing incredibly time-consuming and expensive procedures that are "not efficient and do not produce accurate results"? If scientists could get by with much simpler and far less expensive testing on cell cultures, they would most certainly do so. However, if the drug causes cardiac arrest, a cell culture won't tell you that, because a cell culture doesn't have a heart. If the drug causes pulmonary thrombosis, a cell culture won't reveal that because a cell culrure doesn't have lungs. If a drug causes brain aneurysms, a cell culture won't reveal that because a cell culture doesn't have a brain. If a drug causes blood pressure to go shoot dangerously high, a cell culture doesn't have blood, let alone blood pressure. New drugs are always thoroughly tested on cell cultures first, as a preliminary screening process. If the drug doesn't kill cancer cells, or kills normal cells along with the cancer cells, then there is no reason to waste money and valuable animals on animal testing. Only those drugs which show great promise during the cell culture phase ever go on to animal testing. It would be utterly unethical and immoral to give a human being any new drug that had not been tested as thoroughly as possible in animals.

I never met a PETA member who refused medical treatment when sick, on the grounds that all such treatments have been developed through animal testing. I wonder why?

.

Answer 4

sunrise this can be a tremendous question...the difficulty the following with rather restore the following and there is that that's a momentary intense. also that those chemical fixes keeps us residing in a pretend experience of residing! (now to not mentions chemical addictions for some) ....which contained in the right would not make "any experience". i ought to far rather stay contained in the "presence" of the Spirit of God taking section in this presence as "MY experience!". And nicely proper intense! he's the residing God! i'm not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ! he's the residing God! The charm isn't being kept as a lot as feeling and understanding God! reward! :))

Answer 5

Paul CYp maybe you should do some research on what you are talking about before you try answering peoples questions.

the comment made earlier is completely correct. testing on animals is outdated and wrong. the sacrifice is far too high and there are more alternatives than just cell cultures and cadavers.

Some examples:

Pharmagene Laboratories in Royston, England, has rejected all animal studies because they are unnecessary and outdated. The pharmaceutical company uses sophisticated computer technologies that show the effects of chemicals on the human body. Says Pharmagene cofounder Gordon Baxter, "If you have information on human genes, what's the point of going back to animals?"

Physiome Sciences in New Jersey has developed software programs that simulate the human body's organs and processes. Its computer model of the heart is so advanced that it can be used to predict the heart's reaction to pharmaceutical compounds, eliminating the use of animals.

PETA persuaded the U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT) to stop using animals to test corrosive substances. Now, the DoT uses Corrositex, a test in which substances are applied to a protein membrane instead of being smeared onto rabbits' backs and eating through their skin.

The Irritation Assay System has spared millions of animals from blinding eye- and skin-irritation tests. This simple test-tube procedure is used by many personal-care product manufacturers.

Most importantly, animals are not primarly used for testing in medicine. Most animals that are tested on is for curiousity. Animals are not just tested for medical reasons, curiousity is the primary reason for animal testing THIS IS A FACT check it out at my source. they are used for testing cosmetics also.

You may not know any PETA members who have refused medical treatments but most of us who care about animals rights do whatever we can in our power to stop their suffering. We boycott as many products tested on animals as possible by buying alternatives that are tested in humane ways. LEARN THE FACTS AND MAKE AN EFFORT.



You think animals don't feel pain, don't hurt, don't suffer. Anesthetics aren't always used, they don't always last, and don't always work. But why is it necessary to still test cosmetic products on animals when it is not needed. Proven fact that equal results can be achieved by other means, so why are we then so cruel? Watch these and tell me if you think it is morally ethical, all things aside, would you do this to a fellow man?

http://www.stopanimaltests.com/feat/testing123/

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=animal_testing&Player=wm&speed=_med

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=columbia_primates&Player=wm&speed=_med

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=covance_main&Player=wm&speed=_med

http://www.petatv.com/viv.html

Answer 6

Because testing on plants and fungi wouldn't provide reliable results for the effects of said chemicals on humans.

Answer 7

because we need something to test chemicals on. we don't want to harm a fellow human, but don't get me wrong... I'm against animal testing... but we need to find something soooooo similar to us that we are allergic to the same things. we feel the same way. that's why we test stuff on animals. we need another solution. I can't come up with one... Can you?

Answer 8

Because people are CRUEL and IGNORANT and dont realize that testing on humans tissue samples and donated cadavers is much more accurate, cost effiecient and humane. Testing on animals is cruel and should be boycotted. Thalidomide was tested on animals and "said" to be safe and look how many pregnant women gave birth to deformed children because of that drug.

PS: Boomer is a direct example for IGNORANT people. He has no clue what hes talking about and hes making things up. Testing on animals is not effiecient and does NOT produce accurate results. go to www.peta.org for more information. Testing Labs are cruel and inhumane places.

Answer 9

because it's as close to testing on people (which is illegal) as science can get. It is cruel, but so is the meat industry, or the sweat shop industry.

Answer 10

Because it is really hard to get enough people to do the tesing on.