Is vivisection and animal testing really necessary?

Question

I believe much of it isn't - but is instead fuelled (and justified) by medical researchers as a means to encourage businesses and governments to keep them in business. Surely there are better ways, these days, to test the majority of new drugs.

Answer 1

I answered a similar question on this a few weeks ago. It isn't necessary in this day and age, and many of the tests that have and ARE still being used by some companies, have been replaced with scientifically validated alternatives - so there really is NO excuse to continue such horrific and unnecessary tests - such as the LD50 and Draize Eye tests, which cause horrendous and excruitiating suffering. There is NO excuse for drugs to still be tested in such a manner, and anyone who gives the old 'if my child was dying' excuse is VERY ill-informed, particularly because animal testing gives many false-positive results.

Some particularly good factsheets can be found at: http://www.peta.org.uk/factsheet/files/factsheet-vivisection.asp

These don't just present the 'animal rights' argument, they are thoroughly backed up by science, in particular, by some of the worlds leading authorities into medicine and animal testing. You should also check out the following below. They name the scientifically approved alternatives to many of the still used animal methods.

Answer 2

Vivisection, the act of cutting open live animals to see how everything works, is not really done anymore.

Scientists, contrary to what some people believe or want to believe, do not enjoy animal testing. If there were suitable alternatives, they would be used all of the time. However, as of right now, most everything still needs to be tested using live animals.

Some people have proposed the use of computer models for drug testing. The problem is that for a computer model of a mouse to be accurate, we would have to know absolutely everything about the mouse, including all signaling pathways, all possible immune responses, all receptor-drug affinities, etc... We do not know all of this yet. Hence, we cannot really use computer models to predict how various treatments will work.

As for the validity of testing on animals for drugs to be used on humans, it is true that a drug may work differently in a mouse than it will in a human. However, it does not happen very often. Despite huge differences in DNA between humans and animals such as mice or rats, there is really very little difference on the level of cells and receptors, which is where most drugs act.

One day, we may not need to do any more animal testing, but it will probably not happen for a very long time. The only other way is to test directly on humans. Most people, however, will not volunteer to receive potentially dangerous, even fatal treatments. This means all human volunteers would have to be paid, which means human testing would attract people who need money desperately. In essence, this would mean testing drugs on lower class citizens. As you can see, this is not a good option either.

Again, if scientists could do it another way, they would. There is really no incentive to keep using animals if there are good alternatives. Maybe one day...

Answer 3

I've been searching the BBC website to try to capture the name of a programme I watched a couple of months ago. Using animals in research is not soley about drug testing. This particular programme focused on the research of one man who uses the animals to help him pioneer treatments for those with brain damage. The results on a young lad of, I think, about 12 was amazing. Contrary to what you may think the technicians who look after the animals feel much affection toward them. So, I don't subscribe to the view that it is all about business and government keeping those businesses. Do not subscribe to animal testing for cosmetics, etc but I do believe there is a place for testing if it can help people like that young lad. If you hd a brain damaged child.....or a relative with, say, cancer and animal testing was the way forward to a treatment to ease the ailment or even a cure would you still thing the same way?
The alternative is to abolish all animal testing and thereby cause more human suffering........okay, that may be preferable, except that as far as we know humans are the only thinking animals on this planet. So, my question to you is........is it helpful to test on animals who are then 'put out of their misery' after a relatively short while or to allow a child, brother, mother, father to suffer for years on end when reseach can improve their life? Would you prefer that research was undertaken on a child or adult human being?
Yes, know those are emotive questions.........but so was yours and, you know, there is never a crystal clear answer to any dilemma.
Out of curiousity.........do you feel as vehemently about......fox hunting, for example? Which still happens despite legislation, as far as I know.
Oh and before you ask...I am not involved in either medical research or fox hunting. I just work in an office.

Answer 4

at the start, vivisection isn't a similar difficulty as animal attempting out. Secondly, there are actually not any rational arguments against animal attempting out. unquestionably the necessity of animal attempting out, from a scientific, ethical, ethical and legal attitude is so obtrusive that no emotional argument will sway any thinking individual. the only option to animal attempting out is human attempting out. If a sparkling drug is given to a individual without first being thoroughly examined in animals, it makes the human beings the try animals wherein any severe or deadly area consequences would be got here across.

Answer 5

To be honest I don't think they do it for the fun of it. Those boffins probably know what they are doing, and have good insider information on why it is right to test on animals before testing on actual human beings. However I remember hearing somewhere that in some cases it is absolutely useless, because the human body is so different to even monkeys that we may receive very different side-affects or benefits from the thing they are testing. etc

What I want to know is why do they bother half the time! I mean the brands that you buy that are tested on animals seem to sting my eyes more so than the brands that don't. and cleaning products are still irritate you skin, so whats the point!

Answer 6

Well, would you be happy buying something that said "Not tested on animals, you will be the first?"
Animal testing is such a small portion of the medical research community that your suggested motivation is silly. The need to test on animals is considered vital in certain areas because it takes far too long to see results in humans because we live so long and take so long to have kids.
Of course, some of the people criticizing the process also believe in separate creation of humans and thus believe that animal testing has no relation to human disease. And then there are those who believe that animal testing is only done to find ways to kill off people we don't like by spreading the disease while pretending to treat it. It takes all kinds.

Answer 7

It is still necessary. I, as a scientist and no speciest would prefer using psychopaths for drug testing. Unfortunately, some speciest clod says I can't do that. I am an ethologist for basically that reason. I only need to observe animal behavior. The majority of animals used for testing are breed for that purpose. They are very inbreed to assure homozygous organisms. So, animal testing will go on, because, not necessarily is it right, but that this is still a " human " world.

Answer 8

Sometime it is. The above posters have made that clear.

You are probably right that it's overused. But who is going to make the decision on when it's justified?

Public opinion has caused things like the cosmetic industry cutting back on animal testing, advertising that their products are not tested on animals. That's an imperfect solution, but I don't know of anything better.

Answer 9

I'm not a scientific expert - and neither are you. Yet, it's people like us who say testing on animals is not necessary. We say things like, "There's little scientific merit in testing mice or apes, since they're not the same animal as us."

Most scientists seem to think it's valid and that we can learn lessons from, for instance, how mice react to substances, and apply these to humans.

Real scientists need to get involved with the debate. On the other hand, as with global warming, scientists disagree!

Answer 10

It is only necessary if you want safe products, drugs lotions and potions etc to use on yourself or your children.
Products like shampoo that won't burn the hell out of your head when you use them or eye drops that won't blind you. Or perhaps you want baby products that won't harm your baby.
It comes down to what is more important. Human safety or an animals' comfort or indeed life.
If it were a choice between my child and some monkey, I know which I'd choose. Sorry Cheetah no choice there.