Is it morally acceptable to experiment on non-human animals to develop products and medicines that benefit human beings?
Off Topix: Embrace the Unexpected in Every Discussion
Off Topix is a well established general discussion forum that originally opened to the public way back in 2009! We provide a laid back atmosphere and our members are down to earth. We have a ton of content and fresh stuff is constantly being added. We cover all sorts of topics, so there's bound to be something inside to pique your interest. We welcome anyone and everyone to register & become a member of our awesome community.
Animal Experimentation
- Thread starter The Dragon Master
- Start date
Morally? Not really.
Out of necessity? Perhaps, though there're enough desperate/suicidal humans around...
Based on intelligence? I hope not, suppose some super intelligent alien race found us and decided we were just lower life forms and used us for these kinds of things...
Out of necessity? Perhaps, though there're enough desperate/suicidal humans around...
Based on intelligence? I hope not, suppose some super intelligent alien race found us and decided we were just lower life forms and used us for these kinds of things...
Evil Eye said:
I thought we were the results of those experiments.
So, would you volunteer to find out if a new formula of shampoo instantly blinds you if it accidentally gets in your eyes?
The problem is that drugs react differently in some animals than in humans. Morphine and Tylenol (acetaminophen) can be fatal even in small doses in cats. Whereas it'll just make a dog puke. So what do you test on which?
The problem is that drugs react differently in some animals than in humans. Morphine and Tylenol (acetaminophen) can be fatal even in small doses in cats. Whereas it'll just make a dog puke. So what do you test on which?
Temerit said:
Why? Like DrLeftover said the problem is that drugs react differently in some animals than in humans.
You could test something on an animal and it could work fine on them then start killing a bunch of humans.. Or the other way around.
I disagree with it, and I support groups of all 'color' who oppose it as well. I don't think that we should put animals through lives of being test dummies for whatever products we put out next. As was pointed out, it doesn't give solid proof that the products will be all right for humans to use, and we should probably try to look for methods that don't in involve animals anyways.
I don't think this is right. Drugs can work differently on animals than they do humans. There was this drug to stop morning sickness for pregnant woman. They thought it was ok after animal testing, but then it was found out that it caused limb deformaty in the foetus's.
They have alternatives and should use them whenever possible.
They have alternatives and should use them whenever possible.
Nebulous said:
Scientists aren't idiots though. For drug testing they usually use mice, rats, rabbits because they're the closest to us on the evolutionary ladder (well apart from monkeys of course). That way the effect can be compared to when it's used on humans and won't be useless. In any case they can find out if it will kill us or not.
I also doubt it's not a necessity, lab tests can only get you so far, at one point you need to put your theory into practice and there's no way of knowing some of the side effects without testing it on animals.
Kasynlie said:
While that's sad for the dog, it doesn't really matter. You guys are generalizing it too much, yes some animals react differently, that doesn't mean the tests on animals aren't accurate at all. If the tests were really as useless as you are all trying to depict it, do you honestly think there would even be animal testing? Scientists aren't bad guys, they're just doing their jobs.
