Is Animal Testing OK?

Question

I saw this question up on Yahoo's main page, and the answers were awful, so i thought I would re-post.

Answer 1

No, no it is not.
Here is a response to the 'best answer' on yahoo's main page asked by 'snookalicious' and best answered by SkateKad47:

For one thing, animals are NOT very much like humans, and so they are not representative of how a chemical will react in a human body.

For instance, Anaesthetic, when tested on cats, was thought to cause hyper activity. When tested on Rats, it had the relaxant effect it has on humans. It is very hard to predict the different responses different animals have to chemicals which are introduced to their bodies.

Another example: We have discoverd something in the order of 1500 cures for cancer in rats - 17 of those affect human cancers, and not nearly so effectively as they are on rats.

The truth is differences in physiology across species make it impossible to know if a drug is safe for one animal by testing it on another. Even within our own species there are drugs that men and women react differently to. Testing on animals is simply ineffective in determining how a chemical will react in a human being. In fact, because animal testing is assumed to be effective, many drugs are released that are harmful to humans after being thought to be safe from their tests in animals. I would not be surprised if this was the actual case in the mascara incident, but it is often the reason for those drug-recalls you always hear about. "But we tested it! It was safe!!" . . . ."uh huh, safe for rats, but you gave it to humans, you big smart old scientist, did you not know that humans are not rats?"

Now to the rest of Skate's nonsense. Some animals are overpopulated - yeah, humans! There are 6 Biliion humans on this planet and we are the most widely spread animal on earth. The truth is animal populations regulate themselves naturally - If there are too many plant eaters, the preditors thrive. Then there are too many preditors, they eat all the prey, and die off. Then the cycle continues. We do not need to worry about this, and furthermore, we do not use wild animals in lab testing, it introduces too many uncontrollable variables into the experiement, actually, I don't even see how this comment was relevant.

Finally, animals are treated well in Labs - from who's perspective? Labs generally don't have a whole lot of space. Animals aren't left free to roam, nor are they ever let outside. They have to be confined so that the researchers can controll what they are eating / what they are exposed to in case one of these factors interferes with the effectiveness of the drug being tested. On top of that - they are having drugs tested on them, which can never be fun. We often cause them to have diseases such as cancer, AIDS, or whatever we are studying so that we can then try to cure them.

So Skate, if you consider being kept in a cage, never being allowed outside, infected with diseases and then subjected to harsh treatments being treated well, then we have some cause for concern.

So there we have it - Animal testing IS harmful for animals (did I actually have to argue that?), it does not combat some imaginary over-population problem, and finally, it is entirely ineffective at finding cures for human diseases. Ultimately, animal testing causes far more harm than good, and is a waste of resources, the most important of which is life.

Answer 2

In my opinion no. I went to a rally in Boston against animal testing years ago with my mother who I am proud to say fought for animal rights and became very ill and was told by her doctor that she needed to stop this mission. The things she saw are to me unspeakable. The rally was a rude awaking for the cruel things human beings do to see if a product is safe to use I mean horribly cruel. I dont know why our government allows things like I saw that day allowed. That was 30 years ago and it still goes on.It is something I will never forget. I beleive with all of todays technology there has to be a better way. In my opinion it takes a not so special human being earning a pay check to do the cruel things I saw being done. There is a list of companies that do animal testing for there products and to this day I wont purchase any of them. I wonder if there was a species above ours how these folks that do this testing would feel having products ingested, sprayed in their eyes, skin etc. would feel. It isnt fair and hooray for animal rights groups for trying to change this.

Answer 3

No, animal testing is not right. It's immoral and downright cruel. If humans want cures for diseases, then THEY need to be the guinea pigs (and yes, I have volunteered for medical study groups, etc. This was a personal choice and I UNDERSTOOD the consequences). Animals are not here to serve humans, or be our test subjects. Just because we are stronger, smarter, etc, does not give us the right to torture them. Many companies are actually putting an end to testing due to pressure from PETA. Although I don't completely agree with PETA's policies, at least they are forcing changes.

Animals are the innocents in this corrupt world. They don't understand what's being done to them, or why. If they did, how many of them would volunteer for the job? Would you?


*Edited note for posting above*
ALL animal testing is cruel, regardless of whether it is painless or not. Simply put: Animals don't understand what's being done to them and are frightened. How would you like it if you were trapped in a cage, subjected to loud music, temp changes, forced to eat foods that could possibly make you ill, and poked at prodded at any given time? Seriously.

Answer 4

It depends on what kind of animal testing you are referring to. There are a great many research projects that are ongoing that do not harm the animal in any way. For example, a great many animals are used to test the differences in foods - to see if animals show an overall improved health with organically grown foods as compared to the readily available non-organically grown foods.

Dogs are frequently used in research laboratories to test the claims of dog foods - to see which actually promotes healthy teeth, shinier coat, more energy, etc. These are not at all harmful to the animals and instead of being kept in laboratory cages, they are generally loved, cared for, groomed and taken out for walks by a whole slew of people who eagerly volunteer to interact with them.

There are a great many laboratories using rats and mice to see if there is a direct corelation between certain types of music that they are subjected to and their increased or decreased ability to concentrate as a result - such as how fast they can figure out a maze.

Don't read something into this that isn't here. These are tests to measure how music MIGHT similarly affect people - so it is not loud or blaring 24/7. Also, dog foods that are tested by dogs are educational for consumer reports. Dedicated dog lovers want to know which prepared foods "test dogs" preferred with the best overall results.

By the way, classical music is usually associated with promoting the concentration ability of white rats. Those that listen to hard rock tend to be clueless. Later, the studies included dogs and cats and music is now generally played at animal shelters across the globe.

These studies are applied to people with canned music in the workplace, in doctor's waiting rooms, in business lobbies, in malls, etc.

So please be specific when you say "animal testing" as not all animal testing involves such horrid things as intentionally injuring them to see which products will heal them better or faster.

Answer 5

Personally i think it makes more sense than it been tested on humans! i think everyone who thinks its not okay and protests and all that stuff should save the animals by putting themselves up for testing! sorry if that hurts anyones feelings, just a point of view!

Answer 6

No! animals do not desrve to suffer for the sake of humans.

Answer 7

Well, it depends on people's opinion. My sister and I think it is awful. She's found pics of it and it is cruel.

Answer 8

no it's not,it's cruel,they should do the testing on death row inmates,not animals

Answer 9

no its cruel its very bad....

Answer 10

no it is not it is very mean
#:-(