Who thinks animal testing is necessary for medical progress, and why?

Question

Considering that there are alternatives which do not use animals, and a high %%% of the experiments done on animals is curiosity-driven research.

statistics from the years 2001-02 in US, Canada, and the United Kingdom: United States, there were “103,272 animals exposed to pain without pain relief.....In the year 2001 in Canada 59% of the research was curiosity-driven, 26% for medical veterinary research, 3% for teaching and 12% on testing and there was 96,000 animals subjected to experiments which caused pain above their pain tolerance….in United Kingdom a total of 2.73 of experiments were conducted, 32% were curiosity-driven, 31% medical/veterinary research, 1% teaching, and 18% on testing.” Peta.org
HERE ARE SOME OF THE ALTERNATIVES:the vitro methods that use human tissue and living cells. There exists also the testing of reactions on a microscopic layer of cells grown on a membrane. A lot of alternatives are out there, and apart from these listed, there exists also these: Lifelike dummies, simulators, int

, interactive videodiscs, human cadavers, specially designed computer software, and computer-modeled organs

Why after knowing about these alternatives do scientists still choose to test on animals, and to use these methods? And their answer would probably be, ‘because the animals are like us, and if somebody were to ask them, why it is morally ok to experiment on animals? They would answer, because the animals are not like us” Professor Charles R. Magel
Their philosophy is based on a contradiction.

and plus there are a lot of factors that may bring out different test results in the animals, like diet, stress,gender, isolation, age, and crowding.

There was a time when rats were being used for cancer research, and it was pointless because” their gene repair system makes them vulnerable to cancer but there are differences in which humans and rodents repair genes, damaged by chemicals, radiation, or other agents that mutate DNA. ”
Members.iinet.net.au.

Answer 1

I don't think its necessary.
There was a lab not too far from where I live.
They were testing cosmetics on rabbits..
But theres no need,
I think bunnies are cute enough already

Answer 2

Testing on animals is necessary in some cases. For instance, testing on lab-grown tissue samples does not always give an accurate result. It also doesn't show how a certain drug etc would affect an organism as a whole e.g. could have an adverse effect on the lungs while treating blood vessels. Even tests on micro-organisms are not conclusive enough for testing to be performed on human subjects and, as a result, animal testing becomes a necessary step in the progress of things such as drug testing

Answer 3

I am the biggest animal lover out there. I have rescued numerous dogs and cats over the years. I think animal testing is barbaric and I couldn't do it. But, because of animal testing they found out that they can use a bovine's artery and heart in order to save my mother's. So even though some pigs were tested on out there I would have done anything to keep her alive.

You mentioned alternatives to doing animal testing. What alternatives? How can we really find a cure for AIDs or cancer if we don't test new drugs on lab mice? The vaccine for polio was found by testing it on monkeys who have almost the same genetic make up humans do. They have saved billions of people world wide with that vaccine.

Answer 4

Actually, in many cases, there are not alternatives. Now, in high school biology, certainly a computer simulation is as good as a real dissection, but this isn't the case with pharmaceutical testing.

We have to test procedures and medications on actual living systems to evaluate the safety and efficacy. Think of it this way; you've just found a compound that kills cancerous cells in a test tube. That's one step, but now you need to find out if it only works in that tube, or works in a living body, and whether it has terrible side effects. A computer model still can't do that. Would you rather try it on some mice, or a person?

I'd pick the mice, myself.

Answer 5

What alternatives did you have in mind?

I'm all for using alternatives when they are available
(as long as they aren't more destructive than
animal testing).

However, we've gained an awful lot by testing
on animals in the medical industries.

You say there are alternatives. What did you have
in mind?

Answer 6

I do not think it is that necessary, the drugs they are making are just poisons anyways. with good eating habits you can prevent a lot of the diseases these drugs are used for and put the animal testers out of business

Answer 7

"Not tested on animals, you will be the first."
"curiosity driven"?? Considering the high cost there better be a good reason.