you would think that they would have found another way to do things by now.
2007-10-19 10:38:51 · 8 answers · asked by LOST_fanatic:)! 4 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
i have read some real horror stories about animal testing!
2007-10-19 10:40:01 · update #1
Sadly enough, the answer is simply "no". And there is not much hope that it will be different anytime soon.
I don't know if it is any solace, but the rat that died for a pharmaceutical experiment was probably kept under much more humane conditions than the chicken which laid the egg you had for your breakfast. And let's not even talk about those hamburgers we like to eat and where they come from.
It sucks. Welcome to the real world. :-(
2007-10-19 10:45:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Scientists use aimals to model humans. So for instance... a mouse genome is 95% similar to a human genome so scientists use mice to test theories that could potentially lead to breakthrough treatments for humans.
So scientists can, for instance, create a heart attack in a mouse that has been genetically enginerred. If the mouse seems immune to the injury... this tells scientists what gene to target for future therapeutics. If they are able to target that gene they could potentially reverse the effects of a heart attack or even prevent them!
Now a days... research involving animals is EXTREMEMLY regualted. All institutes have internal regulatory agencies and all scientists must provide evidence annually of their attempt to reduce the amount of animals used and the evasiveness of their procedurs for ALL protocols. Any institute who wishes to publish results also voluntarily subjects themselves to scrutanity from outside regulatory agencies in order to be accredited. Without this accredidation, their work will be viewed as invalid by the community.
You also need to understand that alot of the pictures and videos you may have viewed are used as propaganda against the honest hard work that scientists put in every day (even on weekends and after 5p) to produce one drug. It takes years of hard work, persuverance, and money and you may STILL come up with nothing.
The exciting thing about being a scientist is that you have the power to potentially help more people than a medical doctor could touch in his/her lifetime. If you are able to find a therapy that can help people you will have acheived your goal. Scientists are not bad people. They are actually dedicated people trying to improve the quality of life for all. Unfortunately their are some nut cases out there that do not see the bigger picture.
2007-10-19 17:56:26 · answer #2 · answered by Janelle V 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Not even theoretically close. You can be mesmerized by technology, but science is by its very nature humble. To follow the scientific method, one must assume things aren't going to work out as expected. Even if there were wonderful models to substitute for animal testing, it would still be hard to make a moral justification for human testing without a preliminary round of animal testing.
2007-10-19 17:49:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Nope. It's that or people. If we stopped testing on animals, we would lose more than 90% of our medical research. And there's a very good chance you're only alive today because of that testing, whether you know it or not. Keep in mind that about 50% of children died before they reached age 10 one hundred years ago due to diseases we've all but wiped out today with vaccines. Vaccines that are tested first on, yep, animals.
2007-10-19 18:06:09 · answer #4 · answered by eri 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Um... no.
There is no substitute for a living biological system for some testing.
Of course there are many regulations in place to prevent/drastically reduce unnecessary cruelty.
As for animal testing in general. If electrocuting a couple of monkeys will keep me or someone I care about from dying of a hideous disease several years in the future, all I can say is "red is positive and black is negative..."
2007-10-19 17:44:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Have they cured cancer no.
Have they even found a cure for the common cold, no. So until then they need some kind of species that is closely related to us.
2007-10-19 18:56:24 · answer #6 · answered by Joe 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes it has, but too much ignorance and vested interest prevents many scientists from moving forward
2007-10-19 17:45:50 · answer #7 · answered by Andy D 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Science probably has.
The desire to go the cheapest way possible has not.
It is horrific.
2007-10-19 17:44:11 · answer #8 · answered by Lady Geologist 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋