Limits of Animal Testing?

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Thought I'd chuck this one in as well.

I'm completely for animal testing in the arenas of medicine, surgery etc. If there's a way to reduce the suffering, go for it, but if not - meh, inject the cancer into the kitten's eyes if it might save people in the future.

I'm completely against the testing of health and beauty products on animals. Inject shampoo into the kitten to see if it bursts? Nonsense. I think that side of things is completely ridiculous.

Thoughts on my perspective and your own perspective? Is it ok to test medicines and surgical procedures on animals for the benefit of mankind? Should we put perfume on them to see if they melt?

SPEAK YOUR BRAINS

 

[Aught3]

I'm not sure about this. Some tests require a live body in order to give useful information. If you can't (or mayn't) use a human then you need to find an animal volunteer.

 

[CosmicSpork]

I agree totally with the testing for the good of humanity. Testing costmetics on the other hand is just utterly ridiculous. It serves no real use to human kind.

Obviously I would want any experiments to be done as humanely as possible, and never to be done unnecessarily.

God isn't going to cure all these horrible diseases that people don't deserve to have, so it's our place to take the initiative to make life better for those who are suffering, or to remove/prevent the suffering altogether.

Like the growing of the ear on a mouse, that kind of research is necessary in order to develop techniques for future uses. Eventually animals won't be needed, but it has to start somewhere.

 

[WolfAU]

I disagree about testing cosmetic products, because it is often an issue of testing to make sure these products do not have any adverse affects (ie better 20 kittens get rashes then 500 humans).

The problem with vague or absolute statements like 'is it ok...?' (or moral, or good etc), We cannot assume to have or attempt the moral high ground on this issue, our choice is between intentional animal suffering to eleviate unintentional human suffering, neither outcome is ideal, and when a valid alternative presents itself we should take it. Its like matters like triage, we do what is necessary and do our best to put morality and philosophy out of our minds.

A good example of this is double blind trials on humans with terminal diseases. If the treatment works the people with the placebo will die while those on the treatment may recover, yet this is necessary to determine if the treatment is actually effective. Many doctors will do the same in times of crisis (ie in a pademic, a doctor may give different individuals different treatments to trial their effectiveness). Its unconscionable, but these are the tough choices doctors are faced with.

'Is there validity in animal testing?' Often yes, especially when researchers are held to strict standards. 'Where do we draw the line between weighing human benefit with animal suffering?' this is a hard question which I can add little too, it feels far too subjective. 'Would it be better to ban animal testing?' No, and few (intelligent) people take this stance, except for those who may hope that if forced to find an alternative, one may present itself (which hey, if we can clone human tissues using stem cell technology, that may work.

I have done experiments with animals as part of my studies, most have been fairly humane, causing no physical harm to the animal (testing responses/choices etc), some have caused some discomfort (ie regularly bleeding sheep to test for changes in hormones/kidney function) and some have necessitated the animal be killed during/after the experiment. Research heads at my uni answer to an ethics board, which require that any experiment have a clear goal, where any animal suffering is limited, and necessary to achieve the goal (ie no valid alternative is available). I am told however that many universities have simply stopped during animal experiments all together rather than try to balance the associated issues.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

The problem with vague or absolute statements like 'is it ok...?' (or moral, or good etc), We cannot assume to have or attempt the moral high ground on this issue, our choice is between intentional animal suffering to eleviate unintentional human suffering, neither outcome is ideal, and when a valid alternative presents itself we should take it.

I wasn't looking for anything other than personal opinions anyway - certainty on the moral standing of the issue is impossible.

 

[Nemesis]

I'm not sure about this. Some tests require a live body in order to give useful information. If you can't (or mayn't) use a human then you need to find an animal volunteer.

Animals can volunteer? How?

 

[Aught3]

^Vivisection humour.

 

[Daealis]

Is it ok to test medicines and surgical procedures on animals for the benefit of mankind? Should we put perfume on them to see if they melt?

Yes, yes and yes. These are all done in order to keep mankind safer from his own creation. I think all of these are ok for now.

I don't consider animal tests immoral or ethically questionable for one reason: There is no viable alternative. It is the most reliable and cost-efficient way of getting the info.
- Tissue-farming, growing a sample of cells: Expensive and the results between dead mater and living organisms vary.
- Micro-dosing, testing in very small amounts: The reaction, even in living test subjects, isn't at first bodywide. Increasing the dosage little by little will still mean animal testing in the end.
- Simulations on a computer: The most humane as far as living organisms and their suffering goes. However, in order to know how the body reacts to chemicals, animal tests are required to gather the base data.
All of these cost multiple times more than animal tests and usually take longer in duration. Of course, the pain of the animals should be reduced to a minimum, but until a real substitute is given animal testing is the way to go.

 

[nasher168]

Until we have computers which can simulate the human body's reaction flawlessly (including psychological effects) then I am for animal testing. Having said that, however, I am also against the idea of allowing them to feel pain unnecesarily. They should be anaesthetised (have I spelt that right?) for all tests that could be painful unless it is unavoidable.

 

[ebbixx]

They should be anaesthetised (have I spelt that right?) for all tests that could be painful unless it is unavoidable.

Anesthesia is never risk-free.

And if the object of this discussion is merely to probe for opinions, I guess I'm missing the point entirely.

My opinion would tend to shift based on the particulars of the testing, not whether the testing were done to "save human lives" vs. "test cosmetics" since a bad reaction to a cosmetic product could just as well cause some life threatening reaction as the latest stab at a treatment for some type of cancer.

Judgements of whether a given test is cruel or unnecessary would have to be made based on the specifics of the study design, and whether a better, more humane alternative existed. In most cases I don't have the time to investigate that fairly or thoroughly, and tend to defer to regulatory safeguards, imperfect though they may be.

If they ARE badly flawed, then the fix would seem to be needed in how regulation is done, rather than in blanket declarations that some types of testing are out of the question. Granted, those who feel otherwise are also free to engage in boycotts and other means of bringing pressure on those they regard as bad corporate citizens.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Anesthesia is never risk-free.

It's hardly a poorly-understood field either.

 

[AntiSkill42]

These discussions are useless unless somebody expresses an opposite opinion.

Don't make me do it. I'm not a good advocatus diaboli.

 

[Ozymandyus]

I think chimp testing is immoral! Chimps have been shown to be capable of higher thought, decent communication skills and clearly exhibit complex emotional responses. They are really not all that different from us! Just think, your great great... great grandmother was perhaps also their great great .... great grandmother! They are practically your cousins! Would you inject lethal doses of tylenol into your cousin?

But go ahead and test on that mouse. Unless Douglas Adams was right and they are secretly in control of this whole thing! They could kill us all!

Okay, I'm not a very good DA.

 

[AntiSkill42]

But you made nice point there ~User-maat-Re"

But there Is research that I'ld rather do on my distant cousin, than on my brother.
Especially neurological research has greatly benefittet from experiments with apes.

Even though these experiment can hardly be called humane...

 

[Abi]

But there Is research that I'ld rather do on my distant cousin, than on my brother.
Especially neurological research has greatly benefittet from experiments with apes.

Even though these experiment can hardly be called humane...

Yes, but forcibly? They have emotions, they have intelligence, they have will. What's the difference between forcing a 8 year old to go through experimentation and a chimp? Not much, except your a little more related to one.

I don't understand this whole "well humans > animals" mentality. The whole reasons a lot of humans consider themselves "higher" than other animals is because of our supposed higher moral capacity. How is forcing experimentations that would benefit us on them a moral high ground? If people want humanity to find a cure for a disease but isn't willing to pay the price then I suppose we should just die out. Forcing another animal to take on our burden for our sole benefit is completely wrong, I don't care out much or little your related. Take some responsibility.

 

[Th1sWasATriumph]

Forcing another animal to take on our burden for our sole benefit is completely wrong, I don't care out much or little your related. Take some responsibility.

Completely wrong? Are you advocating objective morality?

I'd also be interested in hearing your proposed alternatives. "Take some responsibility" . . . well, sometimes the best way is the least palatable. You'd rather we die out than use animals to perfect cures and medicine?

 

[Abi]

Completely wrong? Are you advocating objective morality?

I'd also be interested in hearing your proposed alternatives. "Take some responsibility" . . . well, sometimes the best way is the least palatable. You'd rather we die out than use animals to perfect cures and medicine?

No, I'm not a moral objectivist, but I usually argue as if I were. It's kinda hard to debate something with "it's okay, we're both right" in the air.

My proposed alternatives would be humans test what is going to benefit humans. Please don't think I'm some PETA freak, I'm not, but I'm very critical of humans (as I am with everything else).

 

[WolfAU]

Th1sWasATriumph; Agreed, I hardly see it as responsible to begin basic clinical trials on humans first (then you're essentially playing Russian rhoulette with people financially desperate), nor is it responsible to not test these products... So untill a fourth option presents itself, I'll stick with animal testing.

Ozymandus; I think your response sounds semi-speciest, as you seem to be arguing you value chimp welfare more than that of a rat because you find it easier to empathize with them (their body language and behaviour more closely resembles our own) rather than anything of more substance (ie communication skills or intelligence don't really factor into it in terms of what animal deserves suffering more, by that logic its better to torture kiddies than grown adults).

 

[Ozymandyus]

Oh, it certainly was speciesist - as is our current method of testing (we won't test on our species but we will on others). The argument is meant to ridicule our current stance and like I mentioned I was just playing devil's advocate. We make all these moral distinctions about animal testing, when it is all clearly a completely gray area. No one WANTS to do it, or at least few people do.

My main problem is a lot of animal testing is not even truly Necessary. Certainly we mostly agree that cosmetics testing isn't necessary. I would love us to stop spending as much money on new slightly better cholesterol lowering drugs and put it instead into genetic engineering research or food research on how to get people to eat more healthily. Or instead of spending billions on cancer research, maybe spend billions on looking into and cleaning our environments and food supply that seems to be causing more and more cancer every year?

It seems like we have a lot of options, and while I am not against animal testing I think we should look seriously at the situation and say, are we spending our science dollars in the right places? Can't we limit the animal testing we do?

 

[WolfAU]

Well as I (and others) have mentioned above, cosmetics testing can be important to prevent severe allergic reactions and other serious side effects of use. Though it is not as important as testing if a new treatment actually does what it claims to do.

I also agree that we need to analyse how we spend our money, however you make the assumption the ultimate goal is good health, sadly the ultimate goal is profit, and there is more money in treatments than preventing diseases. This is particularly apparent when talking about resistant strains of diseases, with a disregard for careful use of antimicrobial drugs getting us into alot of problems and the latest drugs basically becoming a temporary solution (ie 5-8 years before it becomes resistant to the next drug, then we start all over again).

The main alternative to animal testing is technology that lies ahead of us, such as testing on cloned organs/tissues and developing highly accurate modelling programs which can predict possible reactions.

I am in favour of tougher restrictions in terms of animal testing, and as I said above, my university operates under a large number of strict guidelines, many self imposed and self regulated.