Animal Testing: Where do you draw the line?

[literati]

When it comes to animal testing and research, where do you draw the line? I figure there are four positions: not opposing testing at all, opposing testing that is superfluous (e.g. cosmetics), opposing testing which is helpful but not essential to the product/research (e.g. better pharmacological drugs) or opposing all testing including that which is essential to the product/research(e.g. new pharmacological drugs, genetic testing).

Are there any other alternatives?

If I were to draw a line, it would be between testing/research that is superfluous and that which is helpful but not essential.

[ejs]

You listed four positions, not three. :p

[jesvet]

It's a very complicated question. :D

[whos that girl]

It's very problematic. The scientific method dictates comparative study. In other words, effectiveness of a given therapy has to be contrasted with the results of alternate treatments and no treatment. When dealing with humans, you can't just say patient A gets the new pill, pateint B gets the old one, and patient C gets nothing. Common sense is not science, they can't just say, "well, surely this is better than nothing" A human patient must be given the best available treatment at all times. This is the philosophical bargain that modern medicine has made. A test animal can be given a specific illness in the exact same manner as it's control group couterpart - all things being equal, the variant is clear, the results solid.

It would be nice if this were not so. I care about animals, and I abhor all forms of suffering, but I realize that the issue is complex, and cannot be boiled down to simple plattitudes. Try to imagine what it would have been like during the black death, to live in fear of smallpox, or just remember that not too long ago, you could die from diahrrea or a simple cut that gave you blood poisoning.

It is therefore incubent on us to ensure that animal research is done with maximum efficiency and in as humane a manner as possible. That includes, in my view, sharing what might be considered "proprietary data" by some of the pharmaceutical conglomerates. I don't think it's right that studies should have to be duplicated in the interest of profit margin, etc.

Testing for cosmetics should be severly restricted, if not banned...

[ysolde]

I do not use beauty products that have been tested on animals, although sometimes, it is hard to figure out what has and has not been tested on animals. I believe we should be looking for more effective, alternative methods to animal testing of pharmaceuticals, wherever possible, and I have great respect for those in the medical community who show compassion and kindness to their animal subjects.

[MLA]

Hijack: Ysolde -- the lyric in your signature was actually written by Dave Frishberg /hijack

*********************************


It's a difficult question for me. I try not to use anything that's been tested on animals unless it's a pharmaceutical. And in the case of pharmaceuticals, I believe the testing should be done in the most humane way possible.

I really wish there were more viable alternatives to animal testing in the medical world. But right now there just don't seem to be.

[AHammer]

It's a difficult question for me. I try not to use anything that's been tested on animals unless it's a pharmaceutical. And in the case of pharmaceuticals, I believe the testing should be done in the most humane way possible.

I really wish there were more viable alternatives to animal testing in the medical world. But right now there just don't seem to be.[/QUOTE]

I really agree with this. While I don't think it's great to test drugs/etc on animals, I'd assume that many current drugs that save lives were tested on animals because that's more humane than testing on humans... right?

This is a hard question to answer.

[BlackMagicRose]

I do not like any living being to experience pain for any reason, even though pain is a part of life. We, as human beings, have a resposibility towards living beings that cannot voice an opinion. That is part of what makes us human.

I am not saying that animals should not be tested on at all, because there are plenty of tests that are done without harm to them. I am saying their are very unnecesary tests that are painful to helpless animals (when I say helpless, I am not using it to appeal to emotions. It is just a fact).

I won't go into detail here, but there have been horrible tests done on animals in the past and although there are not as many cruel tests done today, it still happens. I am not saying that people (doctors, researchers ect.) are purposely hurting them for their pleasure and entertainment. It is for the sake of medical advancement. I understand that, I must ask the question: how advanced are we when we still inflict such pain on living creatures. Does that really make us more advanced???

[LalaKini]

I am a former medical researcher that conducted in vivo (whole animal) and in vitro (cell culture and other "petrie dish" methods) studies in animals to investigate estrogen's effects on the development/prevention/treatment of Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) as well as other pharmacologic treatements for CVD.

I think certain testing is superfluous at this point becuase of our basis of knowledge from testing in the past. If we already have good data or an alternative to using intact systems for preliminary studies, etc then I absolutely believe that that should be done. I think preliminary studies should be done with cell culture if at all possible. I think known antibodies should be synthesized from cell hybridomas instead of raised in animals. (I think a lot of this is already being practiced, actually since it's often a lot cheaper than maintining animals - animal experiments are EXPENSIVE because of the regulations and care) I don't like to see animals exploited unnecessarily, nor do I believe animals should be treated inhumanely. I am a HUGE animal lover - my 4 year old Labrador is my baby!

But the bottom line is this: to get a drug approved by the FDA and on the market, you have to have preliminary results that suggest that the drug will be safe and effective in a living/breathing organism - not just in a petrie dish. And before we subject humans to the experiments, we look to systems that are a similar to ours as possible. It's not perfect, and honestly, I don't LIKE it, but I DO believe in research that has the potential to help humans who are suffering. And I do believe in humane treatment of the animals that help us get to that point. I don't think there are many people in the research community that would completely disagree.

ETA: And what do you all think of animal research not for the purpose of approving/investivgating drugs, but for the purpose of...knowledge for the lack of another description. In order to design drugs, you have to understand the system that you are trying to treat. In neurologic systems including models of spinal cord injury, brain injury, and mental illness there is very little known in the grand scheme of things. There is still a lot of research going on in these areas for the purpose of finding out how the system changes/works and adapts in a basic physiologic sense. Is this wrong?

[Foley42]

On beauty products if it says "Not tested on animals" is that 100% true or should we do more research to find out?

If the beauty product doesn't say "Not tested on animals" then should we assume they do test on animals?

[lawyerlee]

On beauty products if it says "Not tested on animals" is that 100% true or should we do more research to find out?

If the beauty product doesn't say "Not tested on animals" then should we assume they do test on animals?
That's the way I view it. If they weren't testing on animals, I feel certain they'd let us know instead of avoiding the issue.

PETA is a good source for finding information about companies and their policies so you can make a decision you feel comfortable with.

Caring Consumer (http://www.caringconsumer.com/)

[msnicolea]

I was going to recommend the same link Di did--I refer to that a lot!

[Niobe]

On beauty products if it says "Not tested on animals" is that 100% true or should we do more research to find out?

If the beauty product doesn't say "Not tested on animals" then should we assume they do test on animals?

One thing to keep in mind, from my understanding, a product that says "not tested on animals" means the product wasn't, but it doesn't mean the ingredients in the product weren't tested individually on animals. Or that other products from the same company weren't tested on animals.

[literati]

ETA: And what do you all think of animal research not for the purpose of approving/investivgating drugs, but for the purpose of...knowledge for the lack of another description. In order to design drugs, you have to understand the system that you are trying to treat. In neurologic systems including models of spinal cord injury, brain injury, and mental illness there is very little known in the grand scheme of things. There is still a lot of research going on in these areas for the purpose of finding out how the system changes/works and adapts in a basic physiologic sense. Is this wrong?

For me, testing with the intent to develop a therapeutic purpose is essential. Since the knowledge is necessary for the drug development, it wouldn't be wrong or superfluous.