Who thinks that animal testing is fair?

Answer 1

I believe that medical research using animals is both necessary and saves lives.

Sometimes no other alternative to using animals. Non-animal methods - tissue culture, computer modelling, patient and population studies - are very widely used (the word alternatives, often used to describe these non-animal methods, can be confusing because these methods are used alongside animal studies, NOT instead of them). All these techniques have their place, and it is rarely possible to substitute one for another.

At the end of the day there just isn't an artifical multi-cellular system that can come close to replicating the millions of processes that go on inside the organs and systems of both animal and human bodies. There is no computer in the world that can yet accurately model the processes that go in the liver or kidney, let alone all of the process that go on in a mulit-cellular, multi-organ system (ie. inside the body). It is difficult to even imagine what range of in-vitro techniques and the complexity of computer systems that would be necessary to mimic the amazing events that occur during the development and birth of a new baby. With present day technology, and even in the foreseeable future, this is simply not possible. By contrast, appropriate whole animal tests can detect potentially harmful effects of new treatments on foetal development and other events during pregnancy.

Most tests do not cause significant pain or distress, as they involve only procedures such as a single injection, taking a small blood sample, or a change of diet. In most of the remainder, anaesthetics or pain-killing drugs are used to prevent discomfort. In the very few experiments which could cause significant discomfort and for which the use of anaesthetics is not appropriate, every precaution is taken to minimise distress.In the UK, all experiments must be approved by Home Office Inspectors, who are doctors and vets with the knowledge and experience to weigh any distress involved in an experiment against the potential benefit for science and for humanity.

It is not even possible to say that medical researchers are only in it for money because no one could say that it is cheaper to maintain the facilities needed to keep animals, maintain the animals in perfect health (it would be useless to test on an unhealthy animal), feed them, pay **** loads of staff and pay for applying for 100s of Government licences every year to go so, than to drip drugs on to a lab grown dish of cells? If researchers were motivated by the desire for profit, rather than the desire to establish scientific fact, then animal experimentation is the last technique they would adopt, since it is much more expensive than other, non-animal methods.

The animal rights fanatics who attack researchers involved in medical research are only showing that they care more about rats and mice than they do about people. Is it fair to condemn millions of people to death from diseases like HIV, malaria, TB and measles for the sake of a small number of rodents?

On the other hand though, anyone who tests cosmetics on animals is a sick **** because it is totally unnecessary (although putting lipstick on a hamster - funny!).

Answer 2

Well considering I don't see a line of people lined up out side any testing facilities to be tested themselves. I think it is nesscary. It is sad at the same time. But if humans were to volunteer we wouldn't have to test animals and to so against the animals will. Plus animal facilites have strict regualtions. I know because I work right next to one. Plus 80 percent of all the animals tested have the opportunity for adption once testing is completed.

Answer 3

Generally, It is fair.
But remember, animals have life too, They are just like us, they don't want to be hurt....so, the best practice is, just test the animals with kind heart.

Answer 4

On this issue, I agree wholeheartedly with comedian Nick DePaolo. He observed "Look, if hooking a monkey up to a car battery is going to cure cancer in five years, then I only have two things to say: The red is the positive and the black is the negative."

Answer 5

i agree with the testing on convicts idea. also, i think that something has got to be done about the conditions that the animals are kept under- same with meat. does anyone ever think about the life that their sunday roast had?

Answer 6

#a million: on no account. Animal attempting out is lots worse than a lot of people think of. Many agencies attempting out their products on animals carry out harsh and barbaric tests alongside with rubbing chemical compounds interior the eyes of animals or tension feeding them ingredients till they die. almost all of animal attempting out leads to fatality for the animal in touch, and an excellent style of animals are mistreated/overwhelmed with the aid of the people working the 'experiments'. #2: No, no longer in any condition. there are suggestions attainable that many agencies are at present making use of. Animal attempting out is a dated, very nearly relic-like approach that shouldn't exist interior the society we live in right this moment. Many agencies pay people for irritant attempting out. additionally, in lots of fields it is not proper to objective on animals as their bodies and reactions could be thoroughly diverse to that of a people. that's a painful, neanderthal-esque waste of time. #3: I have not got any acquaintances and kinfolk who strongly have self assurance that's incorrect, and my ideals come from scientific examine and journals among different components. people who have self assurance animal attempting out is proper and precious, ask your self this: while became into the final time a significant ailment became into cured?

Answer 7

no if they want to know full efects they should test on humans! animals have simmaler body chemistry but its different none the less... the best i think would be to test on convicts in for life or more... so thats my view hallr fo a dallr

Answer 8

i think its horrible to animal testing to any creature such as cats ,dog , mice etc , they should do the testing on crooks in prison who have got life sentences .

Answer 9

when you're dying of cancer in hospital and they offer you chemotherapy then see if you think animal testing is fair.
It's not right, it's not wrong. It's something that has to be done to save lives.

Answer 10

I don't think it's fair
they should be using the criminals for testing that are just sititng
in jail