Are People For Animal Rights Against All Animal Research?

Question

It is one thing when the research does not benefit human society; such as the testing of cosmetics on animals. What about when it can save human lives? Heart transplant would not be around if not tested on the dogs first. Various medicines would not be around such as insulin and penicillin. I don't understand why some would be against it even when human lives are saved by it. I will glady see the death of 10 dogs if it can save one human life.

Are animal rights activists against ALL animal research?

Answer 1

This always baffles me; the portrayal of scientists as these crazies who want to kill animals and derive some sort of pleasure from it. This is far from the truth.

Some myths about animals in research:

- Animals are necessary for biomedical research. So are humans, but FDA regulations state that before human clinical trials can take place, a procedure or drug must be tested on animals. There are no effective substitutes to the use of animals. Computerized simulations can be used to supplement these tests, but not to supplant them.

- Labs, contrary to popular belief, are not driving down suburban streets scooping up pets to use as research animals. Almost all animals used in research are bred for research purposes.

To answer the question, most animal rights activists are opposed to the use of animals in any sort of testing. But just as public opinion in the US has shifted towards support for the use of unwanted embryos in stem cell research, attitudes can change if people are well-educated about the topic and work for positive change to the system. Acts of terrorism do not contribute to such change.

Answer 2

Let me first point out the irony of your statements within your question, "Heart transplant would not be around if not tested on the dogs first. Various medicines would not be around such as insulin and penicillin." You don't know this! Heart transplants could have been utilized sooner had they been used on an animal (humans) that they actually applied to. Same for the medicines. You clearly do not know much about animal testing and its unapplicability to human animals.

Secondly, I am not against ALL animal research. I am for research on human animal volunteers. It's their choice to make, their bodies, and supposedly their species who benefits.

Answer 3

I don't believe testing on animals is right.

Medical testing on animals is an outdated practice(may have been the only choice at one time, but not now) that is flawed. If animal test were reliable than there would not be so many recalled drugs.

Animals systems are far different than humans. Human diseases do not happen in animals, they are artificially created, therefore not the actual disease. Saying that animals are similar is not enough. If you were in a room and were told the air outside was similar to oxygen, but not quite, would you risk you life and go out? Or if I told you my lottery numbers were similar to the winning ones, would you start congratulating me?

Animals are different in many ways, arsenic can be ingested in great amounts by sheep, but would kill any human.

Animals testing lies, Animals and humans differ in medically important ways, and often animal experiments can produce misleading results. For example, repeated animal studies failed to demonstrate a correlation between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. As a result, public warnings about the dangers of cigarette use were delayed, despite a wealth of compelling human data. Likewise, animal experiments in stroke research led to false conclusions, misleading researchers and wasting time and research funds. Of the 25 drugs which appeared to reduce the effects of stroke in rodents, not a single one worked in human patients.

Species are different and result differ among humans and animals. For example, liver tumors can be induced via chemicals in mice, but the same chemicals do not induce cancer in rats or hamsters. Benzedrine causes bladder tumors in humans, liver tumors in hamsters and middle ear tumors in rats

Animal experimentation has not helped people nearly as much as it has thwarted progress in the life sciences. Because animal research often gives false or misleading results, it wastes valuable time, often delaying life-saving treatments while rushing questionable and possibly harmful therapies to the marketplace. Some of our most significant breakthroughs in medicine have been made without animals. These include x-rays, MRIs and CT scans.

What needs to be done is focus on the people that have developed the disease. Computer technology has come a long way. There are models, programs, etc. The choice here is not between babies and dogs, it's about real science and fake science

Answer 4

YES! The bodies of animals aren't even like that of man! The test results aren't right when it comes to humans because a man and a dog don't even have similar bodies. You can research it. Animals are different it doesn't help anyone, and even if it did it's wrong.

Answer 5

Yes...it is never ok to treat any person or animal with cruelty and believe me those animals being used for experiments are not being treated well or with any great care. As the other poster said they are not even the same species.

Answer 6

To answer your question, yes. Animal rights is animal rights. It's about eliminating the suffering of the animal. Period.

Penicillin was lethal to the first animal it was tested on!

Answer 7

so apparently their answer is yes they would rather die than cause an animal some discomfort, I'm sure if it came down to it all of them would hold their dog between themselves and a guy with a gun.

Answer 8

its not wrong if it save peoples lifes but testing stupid stuff like makeup is wrong

Answer 9

Yes, they are because it is morally wrong.