# Animal Testing - Right or Wrong?

## Recommended Posts

I personally don't see what's so wrong with animal testing.

##### Share on other sites

Many people don't

If the topic is to split off to animal rights, will go into it.

Otherwise, my only point was the analogy of using data from unethical experiments, however defined. It is not something I support, certainly would not actively support, and while I personally would be wiling to slow the rate at which information is obtained if dependent on such methods (not being in the field perhaps makes it easier, but would not enter a field requiring it,) I do not reject the information gained from it either

##### Share on other sites
MishMish said in post # :

Many people don't

If the topic is to split off to animal rights, will go into it.

I don't see why it shouldn't; the thread's been dead for a while.

If a mod disagrees, split the following.

The main issue I have with 'animal rights' (more specifically a ban on animal testing) is that it rests on the assumption that animals can undergo a state which can best be termed 'suffering' (ie detached from instant pain, and a reaction to that pain, but over a longer term), something which I haven't seen proven.

If you're opposed to it just because it has the capacity to cause pain, I don't see why that's any different to being opposed to checking computer software for bugs; (in evolutionary terms) they're both just error messages, and without some underlying intellect, they're meaningless.

##### Share on other sites

Well, was a bit disingenuous of me, have thought about introducing the topic, so no doubt played a role in my decision to respond

And yes, it is based on suffering.

Is not particularly refined, but basically I look at degree of nervous development. Figure both pain and awareness correlate, and while I would not know where to draw precise lines and have not seen anyone else draw precise lines, I would certainly place the "higher animals" on the list.

I do not know what sort of evidence of suffering you are looking for. There are definitely problems in evaluating subjective states with non-verbal subjects, a problem which is going to apply to infants as well by the way, and dismissing the subjective states of anyone deemed inferior a priori has been common historically.

Am alternating primarily between psychologists on autism and popular cog-sci works for my reading, and the cog-sci authors I have read to date all allow that consciousness in some form, certainly awareness of emotional states, is present in other species, though not specifying which specifically or where they draw the line. Might add, consciousness is not seen as some single ability which you have or do not but a scaled development

Don't mean to be foisting it off so ungraciously, I have not specifically looked for such evidence and have no idea how one could prove it with non-verbal subjects. But the behavioural similarities and the assumption that the workings of our brain are built on developments of shared features and mechanisms, at a minimum, makes it seem far more plausible to me than that consciousness developed uniquely and full blown in humans

##### Share on other sites

Whilst it has not been proven that animals are capable of suffering, they do display autonomic and behavioural correlates associated with a suffering state (particularly the higher animals used in testing e.g. pigs and primates), and they do posess structures associated with the perception of noxious stimuli.

In reality, it cannot be 'proven' that humans suffer. Pain and suffering are psychological states (non-observable). We can never 'know' the pain of another, we can only observe behavioural responses and make assumptions based upon our own experiences.

In light of this, wouldn't it be more sound ethically to consider reasonable probability, based upon our observations of animal responses, sufficient grounds for caution, rather than requiring proof absolute? If proof absolute is the deciding factor, we could dispense with anaesthetics on mute humans who cannot state explicitly that they are suffering.

Computers do not show any correlates associated with pain states, nor do they have any structures associated with the perception of noxious stimuli.

Just arguing for the sake of it, rather than driven by any strong conviction

##### Share on other sites

Came back as just occurred to me, and not as proof, but am currently reading The Feeling of What Happens, early into it yet. One of the patients Damasio describes had damage to a facial nerve. As treatment, they lesioned a specific region, don't see it better defined than "a specific sector of the frontal lobe," and the patient afterwards reported that the pain was still there but did not show distress and said he felt fine. Do not know specifically what could or could not be done with that for cross-species interpretations of subjective awareness of pain, but provides an avenue for investigation should think

I should also add I do not draw a line specifically at aware or not but use a loose sliding scale. I will not kill the wasps randomly, and certainly would not for general amusement, but I will kill off the ones in the front when my mother visits as she is allergic. The greater the degree of nervous development the greater the need must be before causing harm as I see it (degree of harm would also, of course, be a factor.) When it comes to pigs and primates, to use the example, I think the similarities sufficient that any experiment which would be considered unethical to perform on humans should be equally considered unethical to carry out on them

##### Share on other sites

I don't think we have a right to enforce suffering on another living being. I think it's selfish and unfair. To me, it is like doing testing on a person with disabilities or a baby, where they don't have a say...

##### Share on other sites

I feel that it's either them or us. if the testing has to be done for the benifit of mankind, and the researchers are unable to obtain volunteers, and it's not possible to aquire them, and the testing is necassary, then do it. It all comes down to survival of the strongest. we need the research to survive. i believe that most, if not all, would agree that animals would be subject before humans on dangerous testings.

i do have a problem with unnecassary testing.

##### Share on other sites

I think Animal testing is dreadfull! and WELL WRONG! when it comes to testing things for humans!

WHY should they have to suffer? half the tests done arent acurate anyway as their physiology is different!

we have a load of a$$holes on death row that have been proven guilty and yet they get to die with no data gained, its a total complete and utter waste of potential, I say we use these rapists and child molesters and murderers/terrorists etc... and exploit their physiology, ok, maybe theyre a little less humane than animals with the behaviour that got them there, but the results should be alot more compatible, and who cares if they die??? theyre gunna get fried anyway!? NO! to animal testing! #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites I think Animal testing is dreadfull! and WELL WRONG! when it comes to testing things for humans! WHY should they have to suffer? half the tests done arent acurate anyway as their physiology is different! we have a load of a$$holes on death row that have been proven guilty and yet they get to die with no data gained' date=' its a total complete and utter waste of potential, I say we use these rapists and child molesters and murderers/terrorists etc... and exploit their physiology, ok, maybe theyre a little less humane than animals with the behaviour that got them there, but the results should be alot more compatible, and who cares if they die??? theyre gunna get fried anyway!?

NO! to animal testing![/quote']

great point. why not make that a sort of sentencing, or even an option similar to serving in the military as an alternate form of punishment. hell, even a non-voluntary form of punishment. im there with you.

ultimately though, i believe humans are priority and animals would need to take a back seat to ensure our survival. if it became that critical.

i also dont agree with pointless testing. i dont know the kinds of testing done to animals but i wouldnt condone them if they were pointless or innacurate.

##### Share on other sites

My mom did a degree last year in wildlife photography, and one of the main projects that she did was on vivisection and other animal testing. I saw some of the images (not hers, I don't think she got any, they were from other photographers). Things like tied-down rabbits with L'Oréal shampoo in their eyes until they were puffed up and red and bleeding, and chimpanzees with electrode skullcaps screwed into their heads, with all the wires hanging out the top. I don't have links to them if she put them online, nor would I if she did, but those were two examples out of a selected dozen or so on one side of A4 she showed us.

Whereas Glider is right that we can't prove as such that these animals are suffering, just think about what these animals are going through to ensure that the words "dermatologically tested" get on L'Oréal shampoo bottles, and then consider that the probability of these animals feeling pain is, realistically, about 1. Is it really worth it, you think?

Obviously there are certain areas of research that couldn't go vrey far without some form of experimentation. For example, people might still think that the brain was a cooling device for the body like they did centuries ago if it weren't for people sticking their fingers in it (so to speak). It's just that now people use electrodes to stimulate areas of rat brains to remotely control them. In a large number of cases the need for experimentation is small or should be completely outweighed by the suffering it causes. And yet the cat food company Iams has killed hundred of cats in experiments, the end result being that they can now justifiably claim that their cat food is good for cats's livers, hence a rise in profits. Also, some researchers have to do a certain about of experimentation to keep their research grants, even if that experimentation is unneeded.

These are my personal beliefs now, but I don't actually think that there is such a thing as conciousness, at least not in the sense that it's either there or not (as MishMish pointed out). If you think about it, the idea of a "conciousness" was probably invented a long time ago as a way of placing humans above animals as the God-given rulers of the Earth or something, and it's something which continues to influence the scientific community even today. There is no way to determine whether certain animals (dolphins, say) are "self-aware" in the sense that people think of, and since we can only communicate with other humans it's only other humans that we can say are actually self-aware (though there's no solid definition of the word). I wonder what would happen if/when we make contact with an alien species but couldn't understand them. By science's current rules we couldn't classify them as intelligent (except for the spaceships their sending out being evidence). The funny thing is that every species on Earth is exactly the same, minus the spaceships. If there's a person who's stranded on a desert island as a child and is alone their whole life, speaks no language and lives alone, are they self-aware? They probably wouldn't think about themsleves in that way too much, and nor would animals in the wild that people capture to conduct tests on. People in society today probably do because it's practically a pasttime, and it makes us feel better than regular animals because such confidence and need for security is basic psychology, according to science. That way we can justify our actions and more comfortably secure the survival of our species, otherwise we'd have qualms about killing something, and cavemen wouldn't have gotten very far with that attitude. But by that logic we shouldn't have a problem with killing anything that's not a human (as most do not), and then we'd have to say that there's nothing wrong with animal testing because they're not human.

There's this funny single-frame comic I once saw in a book... in it there are two dolphins swimming through the ocean, and one says to the other: "Although humans make sounds with their mouths and occasionally look at each other, there is no solid evidence that they actually communicate amongst themselves."

Oh dear, I've gone off-topic now, haven't I? Okay, to answer the thread name clearly, I do think animal testing is wrong.

##### Share on other sites

it IS wrong if these "medicines" are for us, its not wrong if the medicines are for the animals under test.

thats where I draw the line, fine , is a bunny raddit wants to use Loreal shampoo on its head then test it by all means!

if a dog wants to smoke 40 cigs a day then try it out!

the list is endless! penecillin will kill a rat (we use it though)

Morphine would pacify and make you painless and sleepy, itll send a horse absolutely balistic!!!

Aspirin will lower your temp and reduce inflamation and some headaches, but will kill a Cat?

Go Figure and do the math!

##### Share on other sites
Whereas Glider is right that we can't prove[/i'] as such that these animals are suffering, just think about what these animals are going through to ensure that the words "dermatologically tested" get on L'Oréal shampoo bottles, and then consider that the probability of these animals feeling pain is, realistically, about 1. Is it really worth it, you think?

My actual point was that whilst we can't prove suffering in animals, they have the neurological structures associated with pain and suffering, and show behavioural and autonomic correlates to the suffering state, therefore the safest conclusion is that they probably do suffer. As I said, we can't actually prove suffering in humans either.

##### Share on other sites
we have a load of aholes on death row that have been proven guilty and yet they get to die with no data gained' date=' its a total complete and utter waste of potential, I say we use these rapists and child molesters and murderers/terrorists etc... and exploit their physiology, ok, maybe theyre a little less humane than animals with the behaviour that got them there, but the results should be alot more compatible, and who cares if they die??? theyre gunna get fried anyway!?

![/quote']

There's not enough of them.

I feel that it's either them or us. if the testing has to be done for the benifit of mankind' date=' and the researchers are unable to obtain volunteers, and it's not possible to aquire them, and the testing is necassary, then do it. It all comes down to survival of the strongest. we need the research to survive. i believe that most, if not all, would agree that animals would be subject before humans on dangerous testings.

i do have a problem with unnecassary testing.[/quote']

I absolutey agree.

Do we test on animals, or do we test on humans?

##### Share on other sites

While we are on the subject, I hope none of you use Lynx products.

They are suspiciously devoid of any "not tested on animals" logo.

##### Share on other sites

I don't know ANY researchers who have a gung-ho attitude to testing anything on animals (whether it's responses to drugs or neurological response to stimuli) and I have worked alongside many of these people in the past. What I will say is this....those of you out there who say "there's all sorts of other models we can use other than animals" please tell us what they are??? Are you talking about tissue culture....because if so, you are never going to recreate the situation that exists in a real living organ, such as cell-to cell-communication between different cell types. Not unless you have somehow managed to create an incredibly complex co-culture of cells such as that which exists in the brain. And in addition, those of you who are dead set against animal testing are obviously not undergoing ANY medical treatment EVER. Because just about any treatment you can think of (even surgical) has been tested on animals. So the anti-vivisectionists/anti-animal testing lobby, think about this....there is no modern medical treatment that hasn't been tested on an animal at some stage (even if it was hundreds of years ago) so if you are totally serious in your beliefs, you better not benefit from any of it. And another thing (just by the way) for those of you who think cell culture/tissue culture is the way forward....where do you think the cells and tissue come from....sacrificed animals usually.

##### Share on other sites

Products that claim to be "not tested on animals" - how are they tested?

##### Share on other sites

I personally think it’s sick that people would put animals at the same level as humans. Even if they can suffer, they are ANIMALS. How could you possibly choose an animals life over a humans. I wouldn't mind slaughtering a thousand animals to save one human life.

Sometimes it seems like people think humans should be running through fields naked being chased by lions. Kill or be killed.

If a rabbit has to suffer puffy eyes so I don’t have to then so be it.

Animal testing has saved millions of lives and I think the people who would try to change that are sicker than the people doing the testing.

Of course I'm not talking about the useless testing, but you guys are making generalizations that animal testing is bad.

##### Share on other sites
I personally think it’s sick that people would put animals at the same level as humans. Even if they can suffer' date=' they are ANIMALS. How could you possibly choose an animals life over a humans. I wouldn't mind slaughtering a thousand animals to save one human life.

Sometimes it seems like people think humans should be running through fields naked being chased by lions. Kill or be killed.

If a rabbit has to suffer puffy eyes so I don’t have to then so be it.

Animal testing has saved millions of lives and I think the people who would try to change that are sicker than the people doing the testing.

Of course I'm not talking about the useless testing, but you guys are making generalizations that animal testing is bad.[/quote']

i agree completely. but naturally, the next questionh would be ok, 1000 animals is acceptable for one human life, what about 2000? 3000, 4000? where do you draw the line? once this question is asked, you revert to the original problem.

##### Share on other sites

i'm kind of divided on this issue.

basically, if the testing done has a purpose to help find a cure or ease someone's biological or physiological problems, then it's all fine.

but if it's done for the purpose of sex appeal, say cosmetics, shampoo, etc then it's wrong.

##### Share on other sites
I personally think it’s sick that people would put animals at the same level as humans. Even if they can suffer' date=' they are ANIMALS. How could you possibly choose an animals life over a humans. I wouldn't mind slaughtering a thousand animals to save one human life.

Sometimes it seems like people think humans should be running through fields naked being chased by lions. Kill or be killed.

If a rabbit has to suffer puffy eyes so I don’t have to then so be it.

Animal testing has saved millions of lives and I think the people who would try to change that are sicker than the people doing the testing.

Of course I'm not talking about the useless testing, but you guys are making generalizations that animal testing is bad.[/quote']Well, we weren't saying that animals are the same as humans (though assuming that they are definitiely below humans in terms of intelligent and "sentience" does help to prove my point in the previous post). The fact that they're animals doesn't mean that they should have to suffer at all when it's unnecessary though. I don't know where you're going with the note about running through fields chased by lions being prevented by doing violent tests for cosmetics on rabbits. Sure, "kill or be killed" applies in some cases, but we're not at risk of being killed off by lions without our L'Oréal products. I know you say that you weren't talking about the unnecessary cases, but that's the example you used.

Animal testing has certainly saved millions of lives, but bear in mind that it had also probably killed billions of animals, and that since we don't know how intelligent or "concious" certain animals are it's not right to decide that it's okay to kill thousands of animals per person, and you haven't secified an upper limit. It depends on which animals we're talking about... I assume that most people here would not have a problem with killing a thousand house flies to save someone's life, but what about a thousand higher primates? For one human? If you put a value on the intelligences of animals and humans, I really do think that a chimpanzee for example is more than 0.001 as compared to a human's 1, and they do tests on chimpanzees.

##### Share on other sites
I personally think it’s sick that people would put animals at the same level as humans. Even if they can suffer, they are ANIMALS.

So are we. But being human, we are supposed to have some level of humanity.

If a rabbit has to suffer puffy eyes so I don’t have to then so be it.

A rabbit doesn't have to suffer being chemically blinded. This is the point. Animal testing for medical science is one thing, but to satisfy human vanity, that's another thing entirely. Killing something just so you can have 'squeaky-clean hair', don't you think that's a bit much?

Of course I'm not talking about the useless testing,...

Like the testing shampoo kind of thing?

##### Share on other sites
What I will say is this....those of you out there who say "there's all sorts of other models we can use other than animals" please tell us what they are???

Products that claim to be "not tested on animals" - how are they tested?

Anyone?

##### Share on other sites

Here, you hold it down, whilst I blind it.

..I just wonder if that green rat with the ear on its back will ever get laid.

Aside from that, I'm sure as hell thankful to all the rats that sacrificed their lives to save more than one of my family members from cancer.

##### Share on other sites
Anyone?

http://www.tierrechte.de/european-coalition/standard_details.html

trying to find some more details...... but i think this linky may have a partial answer:

The International Standard will not effect product innovation, as there is no legal requirement for finished products to be tested on animals. Companies will still be allowed to develop new, innovative products using the thousands of established ingredients known to be safe through years of use.