animal testing wrong or not

Feel free to debate any issues you wish here. Warning: The topics discussed and their content may on occassion offend some.

what do you think of animal testing

wrong
14
74%
fine
5
26%
 
Total votes : 19

animal testing wrong or not

Postby intowiz » Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:13 pm

what does everyone think of animal testing. im tottaly against it. im against how they treast those poor animals. i also think that these scientist should be more checked up on. today i found out that scientist in japan have created and breed a glow in the dark pig.
"Dance on, lads, you're young; I was once."
Old manx sailor, Moby dick
User avatar
intowiz
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1498
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:43 am

Postby chocolatefudgecake » Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:20 pm

What is the point in breeding glow in the Dark pig???

And I'm against it. 2 of my friends have put up a display at school, against animal testing.
-ChocFC-
A badger! a badger! My Kingdom for a Badger!
User avatar
chocolatefudgecake
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:13 pm
Location: Hampshire, England

Postby Danni » Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:44 pm

It depends what is being tested. If it's medicines, I think of it as a necessary evil. Cosmetics and stuff I'm totally against.
Purple penguin resistance member
User avatar
Danni
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1229
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:39 pm
Location: Gateshead, England

Postby madame_tigre » Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:45 pm

I think animal testing is okay if it's used for medical reasons.

I'm not keen on the idea of scientists breeding glow in the dark animals such as pigs and fish. I think it's meddling with nature. But then again, it is only being used to help find cures for diseases. I wish they could find another way to find cures.
User avatar
madame_tigre
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1756
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 10:40 am
Location: Leeds

Postby kitty_cute » Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:57 pm

I think using animals for beauty products is awful, its not right at all. However, if its medicen which is very important then I agree on it, but I still dont like the concept of an animal getting hurt for it... good debate.
Japan ! ^_^ <super kawaii>

No PM'S please unless it's urgent =]
User avatar
kitty_cute
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1047
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:46 pm
Location: UK

Postby chocolatefudgecake » Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:59 pm

The thing is, Animals can react differently to some medicins, so just because an animal doesn't react to a medicin, It doesn't mean that we won't be harmed by it.
-ChocFC-
A badger! a badger! My Kingdom for a Badger!
User avatar
chocolatefudgecake
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:13 pm
Location: Hampshire, England

Postby intowiz » Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:10 pm

normally when they find medicines its all by luck. thousands of animals a year are killed over nothing. there are alternatives now days that can be more effective. i think these scientists are just sick twisted assholes who get off on hurting defensless creatures. hurting other creatures is wrong. animals cant stay stop or no.
"Dance on, lads, you're young; I was once."
Old manx sailor, Moby dick
User avatar
intowiz
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1498
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:43 am

Postby parnassus » Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:36 pm

I do not believe that researchers hit on the correct chemical components for a medicine just by luck. If it were all down to luck, the chances of finding those components would be anorexically thin - just imagine how many permutations the periodic table can give! It takes hard work, scientific study, and logical deduction to create cures. In some cases, human beings do have totally unpredicted reactions when taking a new medicine, but in the vast majority of cases they do not. If they did, we would not have millions of different medicines on our market - we would have about six.

I'm not keen on the idea of scientists breeding glow in the dark animals such as pigs and fish. I think it's meddling with nature.


The embryonic pig was injected with the green protein for medical reasons, not just for fun. It is hoped that the pig will aid stem cell research; the doctors need the fluorescence for that. Once again, I think that modifying a pig embryo is much better than modifying a human embryo - and if you're going to do stem cell research (vital) that's the only option.

Like Danni, I am adamantly opposed to animal testing for cosmetic reasons only. But if it is a choice between a seven-year-old girl who is dying of AIDS and the life of an orang-utan, I would take the child - even though I do feel very upset over having to make such a choice. It bothers me that animals are in pain. But it bothers me more that there is no cure for that deadly disease.
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
User avatar
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5924
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Postby chocolatefudgecake » Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:49 pm

Animals weren't tetsed on to find a cure for smallpox - and that has been wiped out. All the Scientist did was look at why some people were immune. and He figured it out and tested it on a boy. And it worked.
-ChocFC-
A badger! a badger! My Kingdom for a Badger!
User avatar
chocolatefudgecake
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:13 pm
Location: Hampshire, England

Postby parnassus » Tue Jan 17, 2006 11:12 am

Animals were used in the development of the smallpox vaccine - cows, to be precise. Here is an excerpt from an online encyclopaedia article:

Fascinated by the old wives tale that milkmaids could not get smallpox, he [Edward Jenner] theorized that the pus in the blisters which milkmaids received from cowpox (a disease similar to smallpox, but much less virulent) protected the milkmaids from smallpox.

In 1796, Jenner tested his theory by injecting the cowpox blister pus of Sarah Nelmes, a milkmaid, on James Phipps, a young boy. When Nelmes had milked a cow called Blossom she developed cowpox blisters. Jenner repeatedly injected Phipps with cowpox pus over several days, gradually increasing the dosage. He then injected Phipps with smallpox and the boy became ill. However, after a few days he made a full recovery with no side effects.


The animals were instrumental in the development of the vaccine. This is a form of animal experimentation, too. Anti-vivisectionists portray animal experiments as torture rituals involving butcher knives and needles as long as your arm, but although these images look highly emotive on the campaign leaflets, they are not an accurate representation of the full breadth of the animal kingdom's role in medicine.

Secondly, Jenner's vaccine is quite dangerous - one in a million people die from it, and it is not suitable for everybody. Last year, an alternative vaccine was developed, which required animal testing. I quote from the BBC:

A new smallpox vaccine has produced encouraging results in tests on monkeys and mice. Scientists hope it may provide an alternative to humans who cannot receive the current options.

Research showed the vaccine protected monkeys from the related condition monkeypox. And a Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study suggests it may be better tolerated by people with weakened immune systems...they carried out a second study to examine the effect of the vaccine on immunocompromised mice. They found that mice which were given Dryvax developed severe side-effects such as extreme weight loss and skin sores. Some died.

However, immunocompromised mice remained healthy even when treated with 1,000 times as much MVA.

Lead researcher Dr Bernard Moss told BBC News Online: "Although Dryvax is highly protective, it has serious and life threatening side-effects particularly in those with immunodeficiencies.

"Second generation vaccines that are made under modern conditions are currently being tested. However, these are likely to have similar kinds of complications.

"An alternative vaccine, such as MVA, with improved safety is needed to immunize those at high risk of side-effects with the current vaccine."

The UK has stockpiled supplies of smallpox vaccine for use in an emergency.
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
User avatar
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5924
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Postby Thirteen-thirty-seven » Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:42 pm

I agree with Vicky. Human life is more valuable than animal life, in my view. If an animal has to die to save a human, then that is sad, but it is better than allowing the human to die.

However, cosmetic testing is just terrible. No creature should suffer for our vanity.
User avatar
Thirteen-thirty-seven
Forum God !
 
Posts: 5693
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:37 am
Location: Stoke-on-Trent, England

Postby intowiz » Wed Jan 18, 2006 3:50 pm

what makes humans so much better
"Dance on, lads, you're young; I was once."
Old manx sailor, Moby dick
User avatar
intowiz
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1498
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 10:43 am

Postby Guest » Thu Jan 19, 2006 12:30 pm

THat question could just as easily read, "What makes chimpanzees so much better?"

Millions of people from all age groups die each year from killer diseases such as AIDS and cancer. If scientists stop trying to develop cures in the swiftest and most efficient way they conceivably can (i.e. through animal testing) then they are effectively making a judgement in favour of the chimpanzee: we mustn't hurt this chimp, so millions more people will have to die. That's the way it is. Sorry.

The anti-vivisectionist lobby says it seeks to put other animals on an equality with humans, but in reality it ends up making them superior - because their suffering has to be considered above everything else, even above the lives of terminally ill children. One of the favourite tactics of the anti-vivisectionists is personification - they make out that lab rats are downsized human beings in furry coats, whereas the stark reality is that a terminally ill child has a greater capacity to love (extremely important) and a greater understanding of the world than any animal. This also means that s/he also has a greater appreciation for life, because life for the human means far more than basic survival - eating, sleeping, and reproduction. Our lives are not totally rooted in physicality; they are multi-dimensional. This is why, in my opinion, a human life is of more worth than the life of that chimp.

Animal testing is a necessary evil. It isn't pleasant, but it's necessary. And I can't help thinking that if (and may the Good Lord forbid it) someone from this forum were to develop a life-threatening illness, your opinions on the way that doctors are testing your life-saving medicine might take a U-turn.
Guest
 

Postby parnassus » Thu Jan 19, 2006 12:31 pm

That was me.
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
User avatar
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5924
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Postby pinkparrot » Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:27 pm

Who else could it be? :wink:
User avatar
pinkparrot
As Mad As A Box Of Frogs !
 
Posts: 2611
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:52 pm

Next

Return to Debate Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron