Search Articles
Reproduction permitted for personal use only. For reprints and reprint permission, contact reprints@wistechnology.com.
Animal testing: Beyond the protests, instances of mistreatment are rare
November 21, 2005
Beyond the passion, however, exist facts about animal-based research that run counter to the intimidating tactics of some protesters, such as those who recently targeted the homes of researchers in Madison. Information about the true extent of animal research – and its benefits for humans and animals alike -- deserves to be heard above the bullhorns and protest signs.
Our quality of life has been improved significantly by biological research that sometimes relies on the use of animals in controlled experiments. A generation or more of people has never known what it was like to be unable to swim in the summer for fear of contracting polio, to go blind or deaf because of infections, or to expect that any cancer diagnosis was a death sentence.
Animal-based research has helped provide cures and treatments in those case and many more. Biotechnology companies have depended on animal research to develop more than 160 drugs and vaccines approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, according to the Biotechnology Industry Organization. Those discoveries have helped hundreds of millions of people worldwide and prevented incalculable human suffering.
In addition, BIO has reported, animal research has led to 111 USDA-approved biotech-derived veterinary biologics and vaccines that improve the health of livestock, poultry and companion animals. Biotech veterinary products to treat heartworm, arthritis, parasites, allergies and heart disease, as well as vaccines for rabies and feline HIV, are used daily by veterinarians. Biotechnology has improved the way veterinarians address animal health issues through the use of biotech vaccines and diagnostic kits and improved breeding programs that can help to eliminate hereditary diseases.
Advertisement
The USDA and National Institutes of Health regularly inspect research institutions to verify the well-being and care of animals. With very few exceptions that serve as rallying points for advocates, animals used in research do not suffer more pain or distress than animals outside the lab. In fact, lab animals often receive the best of care because of their value to researchers.
Today, animal research is predominantly research involving rodents and rabbits. At GlaxoSmithKline PLC’s London division, for example, only 5 percent of research and development involves animals – and 99 percent of those animals are mice, rats and rabbits. Protesters may flash disturbing images of monkeys screaming in pain, but primates aren’t at the core of most animal research today.
Computer modeling has reduced the amount of animal research. So has cell-based research. The use of animal embryonic stem cells in drug testing has dramatically improved the quality of such tests, and more quickly provided researchers with information about the safety and efficacy of drugs.
In the future, use of human embryonic stem cells in drug testing could further reduce the use of animals in testing. Perhaps it is time for animal-rights groups to redirect some of their energy to standing up for human stem cell research.
For now and well into the future, animal testing will be a part of scientific research. That research is being conducted safely and humanely by researchers who are a dedicated to finding cures for some of mankind’s worst diseases – as well as conditions that plague animals themselves. Don’t let rare cases of cruelty to research animals drive public opinion about a practice that helps humans and animals alike.
Tom Still is president of the Wisconsin Technology Council. He is the former associate editor of the Wisconsin State Journal in Madison.
The opinions expressed herein or statements made in the above column are solely those of the author, & do not necessarily reflect the views of Wisconsin Technology Network, LLC. (WTN). WTN, LLC accepts no legal liability or responsibility for any claims made or opinions expressed herein.
Comments
Diane McClure responded 3 years ago: #1
While lab animal have been afforded better carer than many humans in out society, all is not working well with self-regulation and oversight of animal use. A recent Inspector General's Audit of the USDA has alluded to problems with the oversight of the USDA. The USDA does not have the man power to inspect adequately. They do not have the power to shut down a facility that is not functioning properly either. As for the NIH inspecting facilities, this is rare. The NIH OLAW Division of Compliance Oversight has one person for the entire country. An institution that is not compliant will be engaged in a dialog of written corespondence that may go back and forth for months. In other words, the institutions on basically on an honor system. Many have recognized that there is very little true accountability if they choose not behave. The fines as small enough that they are considered the cost of doing business. It is not only about the costs of doing things the right way. It can be about the extra time it takes to make accommodations made to reduce pain or distress, but it is more often that faculty do not want to put any restrictions on another faculuty member because it maybe held against them later on in promotion and tenure decisions, etc. Self-monitoring works when the institution can protect those involved in oversight from retaliation.
Rick Bogle responded 3 years ago: #2
Diane McClure's response is a better representation of the realtities of animal use in US labs than Mr. Still's erroneous claims.
The audit which Ms McClure refers to is available on line: APHIS Animal Care Program Inspection and Enforcement Activities http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/33002-03-SF.pdf
It is good that Mr. Still felt so strongly about the issue that he chose to pen a comment. He was, however, confused on a number of points. The debate would be better served by open public discourse between knowledgeable parties. This would best serve the public's interests.
Unfortunately, almost no publicly-funded researchers using animals are willing to participate in public discussions; and so far, absolutely no one at the University of Wisconsin, Madison has been willing to do so.
Mr. Still's motivations are easy to see; his interest is the financial bottom line. The public has an interest in knowing the ethical costs associated with net profits. Only through full disclosure of dollar costs, costs to the animals, and opportunity costs to the taxpayer will a fully informed decision be possible.
It is this discussion, especially in light of the fact that federal oversight is largely a failure, that Mr. Still should be promoting, not more of the same misinfoemation and spin.
The audit which Ms McClure refers to is available on line: APHIS Animal Care Program Inspection and Enforcement Activities http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/33002-03-SF.pdf
It is good that Mr. Still felt so strongly about the issue that he chose to pen a comment. He was, however, confused on a number of points. The debate would be better served by open public discourse between knowledgeable parties. This would best serve the public's interests.
Unfortunately, almost no publicly-funded researchers using animals are willing to participate in public discussions; and so far, absolutely no one at the University of Wisconsin, Madison has been willing to do so.
Mr. Still's motivations are easy to see; his interest is the financial bottom line. The public has an interest in knowing the ethical costs associated with net profits. Only through full disclosure of dollar costs, costs to the animals, and opportunity costs to the taxpayer will a fully informed decision be possible.
It is this discussion, especially in light of the fact that federal oversight is largely a failure, that Mr. Still should be promoting, not more of the same misinfoemation and spin.
Jim Burris responded 3 years ago: #3
How about asking some of the lab animals? I think you will get a different opinion. I suggest you might want to start with some of the Coulson chimps. What a disgrace that operation was and there are many others in the same class.
Robert Bass responded 3 years ago: #4
Many people are sympathetic to the argument that if we have to test on animals to save human lives, then it is not wrong. Knowing how animals in research facilities are made to suffer and die, however, they would add that if the animal experimentation is not necessary, it should not continue. Professional animal-exploiters are quick to assure us that medicine can progress in no other way, and that human lives are at stake unless we vigorously pursue animal research.
There is room for reasonable doubt, however. The animal-exploiters and their spokespeople are unlikely to mention it, but many scientists doubt the value of animal testing. In a recent article, Duncan Campbell and David Adam cite the geneticist, Kathy Archibald, who is the director of Europeans for Medical Progress, commenting upon those who try "to create the impression that there is unanimous support [for animal testing] in the scientific community, and that is not the case. There is enormous doubt about the testing.... Looking at the evidence overall, animal testing is positively harmful."
Further doubt comes from the fact that our evidence is contaminated. Regulatory requirements mean that a new drug cannot go to market without being tested on animals. We do not see, and so cannot judge, what would happen instead if comparable resources, intelligence and skill were devoted to non-animal-based research.
Thus, even in the best case for animal experimentation, we are comparing a doubtful benefit, that some crucially important medical discovery can be made in no other way, to a certain cost, the suffering and death of many millions of animals a year. Rethinking our priorities may be in order.
But that is not all. There is a simple argument that animal experimentation to gain insight into human health, disease and well-being is either morally or scientifically dubious: The animals must be a great deal like us for the results to be scientifically unproblematic, but very different from us in order to be morally unproblematic.
When we want scientifically useful results, the more like us the animals are, the better. When we want clear consciences over causing disease, suffering and death to innocent creatures, the more like us the animals are, the worse. How can we have it both ways?
Perhaps we should grow up and quit trying to have things both ways. When doubtful benefits are purchased at the price of our character, the price is far too high.
There is room for reasonable doubt, however. The animal-exploiters and their spokespeople are unlikely to mention it, but many scientists doubt the value of animal testing. In a recent article, Duncan Campbell and David Adam cite the geneticist, Kathy Archibald, who is the director of Europeans for Medical Progress, commenting upon those who try "to create the impression that there is unanimous support [for animal testing] in the scientific community, and that is not the case. There is enormous doubt about the testing.... Looking at the evidence overall, animal testing is positively harmful."
Further doubt comes from the fact that our evidence is contaminated. Regulatory requirements mean that a new drug cannot go to market without being tested on animals. We do not see, and so cannot judge, what would happen instead if comparable resources, intelligence and skill were devoted to non-animal-based research.
Thus, even in the best case for animal experimentation, we are comparing a doubtful benefit, that some crucially important medical discovery can be made in no other way, to a certain cost, the suffering and death of many millions of animals a year. Rethinking our priorities may be in order.
But that is not all. There is a simple argument that animal experimentation to gain insight into human health, disease and well-being is either morally or scientifically dubious: The animals must be a great deal like us for the results to be scientifically unproblematic, but very different from us in order to be morally unproblematic.
When we want scientifically useful results, the more like us the animals are, the better. When we want clear consciences over causing disease, suffering and death to innocent creatures, the more like us the animals are, the worse. How can we have it both ways?
Perhaps we should grow up and quit trying to have things both ways. When doubtful benefits are purchased at the price of our character, the price is far too high.
Gayle Dean responded 3 years ago: #5
While I can agree with Mr. Still that "information about the true extent of animal research...deserves to be heard above the bullhorns and protest signs", he doesn't offer "information about the true extent". In fact, he offers the same old script that we have heard repeatedly from animal-user industries.
First, the they tell us how indispensible animal research is to human health, then they assure us that the research is conducted "safely and humanely" by responsible and caring researchers. When they're caught red-handed abusing animals, there are two routes they take for damage control. First, they try to suppress the evidence. Then, if that doesn't work, they pretend the abuses are isolated incidents. But this is all just industry PR propaganda.
Tom Regan, Professor emeritus NC State University says the media and the public are fed a carefully orchestrated public-relations script. The industries speak with one voice, tell the same story, even use the same words to denigrate their common enemy: animal-rights extremists. Regan says: "It begins in 1989 with the publication of the American Medical Associations white paper 'Use of Animals in Bio-Medical Research: The Challenge and the Response.' Among the AMAs recommendations: People who believe in animal rights must be seen as 'radicals,' 'militants,' and 'terrorists,' who are 'opposed to human well-being.' By contrast sane, sensible, decent people must be shown to favor animal welfare, understood as humane, responsible use of animals, by humans, for humans."
And Matthew Scully, former deputy director of presidential speechwriting for George W. Bush, had this to say in Dominion. "In its current form...the AWA [Animal Welfare Act] is a collection of hollow injunctions, broad loopholes, and light penalties when there are any at all..." and "...the persistent animal-welfare questions of our day center on institutional crueltieson the vast and systematic mistreatment of animals that most of us never see.
Abuse is widespread and well-documented. Corporations deny abuse in the face of incontrovertible evidence and go to court to silence the whistleblowers. Major universities deny responsibility for abuse, all the while paying the fines and carrying on business as usual. Serious moral questions need to be addressed. Animal activists are asking the questions. Unfortunately for the animals, the answers are coming from a propaganda script!
First, the they tell us how indispensible animal research is to human health, then they assure us that the research is conducted "safely and humanely" by responsible and caring researchers. When they're caught red-handed abusing animals, there are two routes they take for damage control. First, they try to suppress the evidence. Then, if that doesn't work, they pretend the abuses are isolated incidents. But this is all just industry PR propaganda.
Tom Regan, Professor emeritus NC State University says the media and the public are fed a carefully orchestrated public-relations script. The industries speak with one voice, tell the same story, even use the same words to denigrate their common enemy: animal-rights extremists. Regan says: "It begins in 1989 with the publication of the American Medical Associations white paper 'Use of Animals in Bio-Medical Research: The Challenge and the Response.' Among the AMAs recommendations: People who believe in animal rights must be seen as 'radicals,' 'militants,' and 'terrorists,' who are 'opposed to human well-being.' By contrast sane, sensible, decent people must be shown to favor animal welfare, understood as humane, responsible use of animals, by humans, for humans."
And Matthew Scully, former deputy director of presidential speechwriting for George W. Bush, had this to say in Dominion. "In its current form...the AWA [Animal Welfare Act] is a collection of hollow injunctions, broad loopholes, and light penalties when there are any at all..." and "...the persistent animal-welfare questions of our day center on institutional crueltieson the vast and systematic mistreatment of animals that most of us never see.
Abuse is widespread and well-documented. Corporations deny abuse in the face of incontrovertible evidence and go to court to silence the whistleblowers. Major universities deny responsibility for abuse, all the while paying the fines and carrying on business as usual. Serious moral questions need to be addressed. Animal activists are asking the questions. Unfortunately for the animals, the answers are coming from a propaganda script!
marlene thompson responded 3 years ago: #6
Medical progress is the result of human clinical experience,and animal experimnets have delayed important discoveries due to conflicting results which vary from species to species. The bulk of research is funded by the pharmaceutical industry which must producea continual flow of new drugs in order to survive, and revenue from drugs is vital to the economy. Animals are convenient 'tools' to try new methods of developing more drugs under the pretext of finding cures. that strangely never materialise, ensuring a constant demand for 'improved' drugs. Drugs may alleviate or mask symptomss but they do not cure. Curing disease would be commercial suicide to an industry that thrives on sickness. Official scientific sources admit the majority of drugs do not work in most people and are the 4th major cause of human death. They do however generate billions in profits and revenue. Scientists, hospitals, universities -and governments are aware of the failure of animal experiments but afraid to denounce them due to their dependence upon revenue/funding from the big pharmas. If animal research is successful, why are people getting sicker? Wher are the promised 'cures'? In fact years of experiments on billions of animals has not produced a single cure and we have more sickness and disease today than at any time in history, new diseases unheard of before and drug related diseases have reached epidemic proportions. What an appalling testimony to the 'success' of animal research!! (UK)
Alix Fano responded 3 years ago: #7
How many decades have we heard the same party line, again and again: "Animal research saves human lives and it even benefits animals themselves!"
The truth slaps us in the face again and again however. How many animals was Vioxx tested on and declared safe before it went on to kill people? How many animals were sacrificed to test the artificial heart or the birth control patch, both of which have killed countless people? How many rats have been poisoned to legitimize the continued pollution of our water supplies with "acceptable" or "safe" levels of arsenic, which are slowly poisoning humans? Oh yes, let's not forget the biotech revolution which has increased animal use exponentially.
Remember Jesse Gelsinger, the 18-year-old who was killed by a gene therapy that had been proven "safe" in monkeys? Remember that the NIH hid the fact that there had been over 600 side-effects in clinical trials of the therapy? Who do you think would benefit from such a lie? Certainly not the public.
Let's not kid ourselves. As I've written in my book, Lethal Laws: Animal Testing, Human Health and Environmental Policy, animal research is done because it is profitable, because it is an alibi for countless products that would not be marketed otherwise, (hence for legal and regulatory reasons), and because of a lack of creativity. It is part of "tradition".
It's crazy when you think about it: humans have invented countless sophisticated space, computer, and medical technologies, but we continue to rely on an archaic method of research that is hundreds of years old to solve modern medical problems.
The bottom line is: animals are not humans and they are not appropriate models of human disease. FDA scientists have acknowledged that even baboons are poor models for humans in xenotransplantation research because they react differently to drugs, among other things.
If it is such a wonder, as Mr. Still claims, let's open the laboratory doors and let the public see exactly what their tax dollars are paying for. Let us have open public debates. Let's end the secrecy that allows these one-sided editorials to go unchallenged.
The truth slaps us in the face again and again however. How many animals was Vioxx tested on and declared safe before it went on to kill people? How many animals were sacrificed to test the artificial heart or the birth control patch, both of which have killed countless people? How many rats have been poisoned to legitimize the continued pollution of our water supplies with "acceptable" or "safe" levels of arsenic, which are slowly poisoning humans? Oh yes, let's not forget the biotech revolution which has increased animal use exponentially.
Remember Jesse Gelsinger, the 18-year-old who was killed by a gene therapy that had been proven "safe" in monkeys? Remember that the NIH hid the fact that there had been over 600 side-effects in clinical trials of the therapy? Who do you think would benefit from such a lie? Certainly not the public.
Let's not kid ourselves. As I've written in my book, Lethal Laws: Animal Testing, Human Health and Environmental Policy, animal research is done because it is profitable, because it is an alibi for countless products that would not be marketed otherwise, (hence for legal and regulatory reasons), and because of a lack of creativity. It is part of "tradition".
It's crazy when you think about it: humans have invented countless sophisticated space, computer, and medical technologies, but we continue to rely on an archaic method of research that is hundreds of years old to solve modern medical problems.
The bottom line is: animals are not humans and they are not appropriate models of human disease. FDA scientists have acknowledged that even baboons are poor models for humans in xenotransplantation research because they react differently to drugs, among other things.
If it is such a wonder, as Mr. Still claims, let's open the laboratory doors and let the public see exactly what their tax dollars are paying for. Let us have open public debates. Let's end the secrecy that allows these one-sided editorials to go unchallenged.
sheila edwards responded 3 years ago: #8
Tom Still would have us believe animal researchers' motives are totally altruistic and that we have to make a choice between rats and babies.
In that case, diseases of childhood should take priority, but childhood cancer, for example, although on the increase is still rare and therefore not an attractive proposition for drug companies. They would rather waste precious research dollars on experiments on animals, which do not suffer from 'lifestyle' diseases resulting from smoking, overeating, alcoholism and drug addiction.Many illnesses stem from pollution and the effects of toxic chemicals deemed 'safe' via animal tests, then more animal experiments are carried out in an attempt to find drugs and therapies! The emphasis should be on preventive medicine and health education and resources directed towards ensuring we have clean air, food and water.
In that case, diseases of childhood should take priority, but childhood cancer, for example, although on the increase is still rare and therefore not an attractive proposition for drug companies. They would rather waste precious research dollars on experiments on animals, which do not suffer from 'lifestyle' diseases resulting from smoking, overeating, alcoholism and drug addiction.Many illnesses stem from pollution and the effects of toxic chemicals deemed 'safe' via animal tests, then more animal experiments are carried out in an attempt to find drugs and therapies! The emphasis should be on preventive medicine and health education and resources directed towards ensuring we have clean air, food and water.
Bina Robinson responded 3 years ago: #9
There is no scientific justificatiion for conducting experiments on one species to assess the effects of a treatment on another. Every species is unique and correlations occur only by unpredictable coincidence. Furthermore, artificially induced disease, like that often inflicted on animals for the purpose of assessing the effects of a treatment on humans, is not the same as a disease that has arisen within an organism. The symptoms may mimic those of the disease, but they are not a valid model for the disease itself, especially in another species. Interspecies discrepencies have resulted in treatments that don't work because they are directed against symptoms rather than the disease itself. They have also blocked research that could have been helpful for humans because of unfavorable reactions in test animals. Penicillin is a good example of this phenomenon. It was discovered by Alexander Fleming's observation that a mold growing in a petri dish in his lab inhibited the growth of bacteria around it. Had there been guinea pigs in the lab at that time, penicillin would have killed them and the development of antibiotics delayed. As it happened, ony mice were available for testing. Because mice happen to tolerate pemicllin well, Fleming's discovery went on to usher in the era of effective life-saving antibiotics.
Do the ends justify the means? responded 3 years ago: #10
Tom's article was directed at the abuse issue surrounding animals used for testing. The issue concerning the morality of testing on animals is another thing, and that is certainly a gray area; anyone who thinks the morality issue of animal testing is black and white needs to ask themselves if they are mimicking opinions based on emotion or did they take the time to research the issue and come up with their own informed opinion.
Back to the actual issue of the article which states that abuse in animal testing is rare. The argument that capitalist entities would engage in abusive animal testing for profit is illogical. Why would anyone want to spend money to test animals in an abusive manner? What kind of results would be derived from abusive testing on animals?" Answer? Abusive animal testing would result in garbage data and garbage data would incur profit lose or debt. Thus, that argument is also garbage.
I think we can all agree that it will be nice when testing does not have to be done on animals, and that day is coming thanks to the needs of both the animal activist and the capitalist.
Back to the actual issue of the article which states that abuse in animal testing is rare. The argument that capitalist entities would engage in abusive animal testing for profit is illogical. Why would anyone want to spend money to test animals in an abusive manner? What kind of results would be derived from abusive testing on animals?" Answer? Abusive animal testing would result in garbage data and garbage data would incur profit lose or debt. Thus, that argument is also garbage.
I think we can all agree that it will be nice when testing does not have to be done on animals, and that day is coming thanks to the needs of both the animal activist and the capitalist.
sheila edwards responded 3 years ago: #11
Covance recently dropped a lawsuit against PETA
after undercover video footage taken by a PETA U.S. investigator exposed the companys cruel treatment of animals. Unable to convince a court to prevent the public from seeing how monkeys are systematically abused in its laboratories, Covance dropped its lawsuit against PETA Europe, an action that marks the latest in a string of legal victories for lab animals. Covance must also pay Peta Europes legal costs associated with the case.
A historic legal victory gained on public
interest grounds by UK animal protection group Uncaged has allowed the
publication of hundreds of unique confidential documents that expose
horrific and futile suffering for monkeys and baboons in
genetically-modified pig organ transplant experiments.
Despite a supposed ban on severe suffering and a requirement that the
experiments should only be allowed if the benefits to humans outweigh the
suffering to animals, some five hundred primates endured lethal poisoning
and mutilation. Researchers describe how the animals died in fits of
vomiting and diarrhoea. Symptoms included violent spasms, bloody discharges,
grinding teeth and uncontrollable, manic eye movements. Other animals
retreated within themselves, lying still in their cages until put out of
their misery.
The Government's own advisors have since admitted that the research led up a blind alley due to the enormous incompatibilities between
pig organs and the human body. There are also serious concerns about the
safety of pig organ transplants due to the viruses carried in them.
Furthermore other methods for providing more organs have been, and are
available.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this is the evidence of Government
collusion with the company responsible in order to evade the regulations.
One Inspector talks of "rubber-stamping" an application to transplant pig
kidneys, another speaks of trying to get the experiments presented as of
"moderate" severity, contrary to the published guidelines. This evidence of
official misconduct was at the heart of Uncaged's legal victory over hugely
more powerful opponents.
Uncaged are campaigning for an independent inquiry to look into the matter
properly. The documents have been published on their website at
www.xenodiaries.org .
after undercover video footage taken by a PETA U.S. investigator exposed the companys cruel treatment of animals. Unable to convince a court to prevent the public from seeing how monkeys are systematically abused in its laboratories, Covance dropped its lawsuit against PETA Europe, an action that marks the latest in a string of legal victories for lab animals. Covance must also pay Peta Europes legal costs associated with the case.
A historic legal victory gained on public
interest grounds by UK animal protection group Uncaged has allowed the
publication of hundreds of unique confidential documents that expose
horrific and futile suffering for monkeys and baboons in
genetically-modified pig organ transplant experiments.
Despite a supposed ban on severe suffering and a requirement that the
experiments should only be allowed if the benefits to humans outweigh the
suffering to animals, some five hundred primates endured lethal poisoning
and mutilation. Researchers describe how the animals died in fits of
vomiting and diarrhoea. Symptoms included violent spasms, bloody discharges,
grinding teeth and uncontrollable, manic eye movements. Other animals
retreated within themselves, lying still in their cages until put out of
their misery.
The Government's own advisors have since admitted that the research led up a blind alley due to the enormous incompatibilities between
pig organs and the human body. There are also serious concerns about the
safety of pig organ transplants due to the viruses carried in them.
Furthermore other methods for providing more organs have been, and are
available.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this is the evidence of Government
collusion with the company responsible in order to evade the regulations.
One Inspector talks of "rubber-stamping" an application to transplant pig
kidneys, another speaks of trying to get the experiments presented as of
"moderate" severity, contrary to the published guidelines. This evidence of
official misconduct was at the heart of Uncaged's legal victory over hugely
more powerful opponents.
Uncaged are campaigning for an independent inquiry to look into the matter
properly. The documents have been published on their website at
www.xenodiaries.org .
Susan responded 3 years ago: #12
Animal testing is dead wrong! There are other ways of dealing with it! We humans are cruel to animals!
love
Susan
love
Susan
Gayle Dean responded 3 years ago: #13
In "Do the Ends Justify the Means?" November 30, an anonymous commentator wrote: "anyone who thinks the morality issue of animal testing is black and white needs to ask themselves if they are mimicking opinions based on emotion or did they take the time to research the issue and come up with their own informed opinion."
Since this sort of "emotionalism" charge is one often used unjustifiably against animal rights advocates, I feel this needs addressing.
There is a large body of work done by serious philosophers in the area of animal rights and more is produced every day. Most of these philosophers present carefully thought out and detailed logical arguments for their positions and emotion has nothing to do with them.
Additionally, there is an ever-growing abundance of highly respected scientific literature on animal intelligence, cognition, and culture, which should demonstrate to any rational person that man's anthropocentric views about his superiority to other animals are misguided to say the least.
Further, there is so much serious literature written about this issue, that its hard for me to believe that anyone who considers themselves informed enough to proffer an opinion, could be unaware of it. Therefore, I must conclude that people who make the "emotionalism" charge against animal rights advocates are either themselves, carelessly negligent in reading the literature, or wantonly negligent. Either way, they are the ones who should ask themselves if they are "mimicking opinions" and "did they take the time to research the issue and come up with their own informed opinion."
Below is a short list of some of the serious philosophical books that I've
read and recommend.
"Animal Rights and Moral Philosophy" Julian H. Franklin
"Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights" Steven Wise
"The Moral Status of Animals" Steven R. W. Clarke
"Moral Status" Mary Anne Warren
"Introduction to Animal Rights" Gary Francione
"Animal Rights & Human Morality" Bernard Rollin
"Animals Like Us" Mark Rowlands
"Animal Rights" Mark Rowlands
"Rain Without Thunder" Gary Francione
"Created from Animals" James Rachels
"Brute Science" Hugh LaFollette & Niall Shanks
"The Case For Animal Rights" Tom Regan
"Animals and Ethics" Angus Taylor
"Empty Cages" Tom Regan
"Food for Thought" Steve Sapontzis
"Eternal Treblinka" Charles Patterson
"Specious Science" C. Ray Greek, MD and Jean Swingle Greek, DVM
"Animal Rights-Current Debates and New Directions"
Edited by Cass Sunstein & Martha Nussbaum
"Morals, Reason, and Animals" Steve Sapontzis
"Beyond Prejudice: The Moral Significance of Human
and Non-Human Animals"- Evelyn Pluhar
"Animal Rights": A Historical Anthology- Andrew
Linzey & Paul Barry Clarke
"Dominion" Mathew Scully
"Animal Liberation" Peter Singer
"In Defense of Animals- The Second Wave" Peter Singer
"Slaughterhouse" by Gail Eisnitz
And the above list doesn't even include all the articles written by academics and legal scholars across the country.
I suggest that those who are inclined to make baseless charges of emotionalism against animal rights advocates should spend more time in the philosophy section of the library.
Gayle Dean
Since this sort of "emotionalism" charge is one often used unjustifiably against animal rights advocates, I feel this needs addressing.
There is a large body of work done by serious philosophers in the area of animal rights and more is produced every day. Most of these philosophers present carefully thought out and detailed logical arguments for their positions and emotion has nothing to do with them.
Additionally, there is an ever-growing abundance of highly respected scientific literature on animal intelligence, cognition, and culture, which should demonstrate to any rational person that man's anthropocentric views about his superiority to other animals are misguided to say the least.
Further, there is so much serious literature written about this issue, that its hard for me to believe that anyone who considers themselves informed enough to proffer an opinion, could be unaware of it. Therefore, I must conclude that people who make the "emotionalism" charge against animal rights advocates are either themselves, carelessly negligent in reading the literature, or wantonly negligent. Either way, they are the ones who should ask themselves if they are "mimicking opinions" and "did they take the time to research the issue and come up with their own informed opinion."
Below is a short list of some of the serious philosophical books that I've
read and recommend.
"Animal Rights and Moral Philosophy" Julian H. Franklin
"Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights" Steven Wise
"The Moral Status of Animals" Steven R. W. Clarke
"Moral Status" Mary Anne Warren
"Introduction to Animal Rights" Gary Francione
"Animal Rights & Human Morality" Bernard Rollin
"Animals Like Us" Mark Rowlands
"Animal Rights" Mark Rowlands
"Rain Without Thunder" Gary Francione
"Created from Animals" James Rachels
"Brute Science" Hugh LaFollette & Niall Shanks
"The Case For Animal Rights" Tom Regan
"Animals and Ethics" Angus Taylor
"Empty Cages" Tom Regan
"Food for Thought" Steve Sapontzis
"Eternal Treblinka" Charles Patterson
"Specious Science" C. Ray Greek, MD and Jean Swingle Greek, DVM
"Animal Rights-Current Debates and New Directions"
Edited by Cass Sunstein & Martha Nussbaum
"Morals, Reason, and Animals" Steve Sapontzis
"Beyond Prejudice: The Moral Significance of Human
and Non-Human Animals"- Evelyn Pluhar
"Animal Rights": A Historical Anthology- Andrew
Linzey & Paul Barry Clarke
"Dominion" Mathew Scully
"Animal Liberation" Peter Singer
"In Defense of Animals- The Second Wave" Peter Singer
"Slaughterhouse" by Gail Eisnitz
And the above list doesn't even include all the articles written by academics and legal scholars across the country.
I suggest that those who are inclined to make baseless charges of emotionalism against animal rights advocates should spend more time in the philosophy section of the library.
Gayle Dean
Rick Bogle responded 2 years ago: #14
An anonymous response to Tom's article states:
"The argument that capitalist entities would engage in abusive animal testing for profit is illogical. Why would anyone want to spend money to test animals in an abusive manner? What kind of results would be derived from abusive testing on animals?" Answer? Abusive animal testing would result in garbage data and garbage data would incur profit lose or debt. Thus, that argument is also garbage."
This is a commonly heard claim, and on the surface it makes some sense. Unfortunately it is a false claim and must be based on ignorance or else intended to mislead.
Recently received (after a 2-year wait) federal inspection reports from the Yerkes National Primate Research Center indicate that perhaps as many as 70% of the monkeys at the main station show evidence of deleterious over-grooming. Many of them are nearly totally bereft of hair. This is considered a sign of neurosis and known to be caused by social isolation. Most of these animals are individually housed, a known cause of depression and ensuing ill health. See:http://www.primatefreedom.com/centeryerkes/yerkesins032000.pdf
Recently reviewed documents from the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center reveal that monkeys have been left unattended during highly invasive experiments and have died as a result. See: http://www.primatefreedom.com/news/news081905uwbustedbyusda.shtml
These two recent cases are just parts of the pattern. The California National Primate Research Center was just fined by the USDA after seven monkeys died from overheating. The University of California San Francisco recently paid a $90,000 plus fine for multiple violations of the Animal Welfare Act.
A court case has been sceduled in New Iberia, LA to hear allegations of monkeys dying from exposure and other various violations of the AWA.
The above situations all deal with monkeys, the most expensive animal use in research.
The people hurting the animals and neglecting the animals don't pay for them; you and I do.
We can make claims about the illogic of abusing animals in labs, but like it or not, the system is completely out of control. It is so out of control that even the USDA AG's office has said so, and that's an indication that things are even worse than the publicized problems suggest.
Honest people demand change. Vested interests claim all is well.
"The argument that capitalist entities would engage in abusive animal testing for profit is illogical. Why would anyone want to spend money to test animals in an abusive manner? What kind of results would be derived from abusive testing on animals?" Answer? Abusive animal testing would result in garbage data and garbage data would incur profit lose or debt. Thus, that argument is also garbage."
This is a commonly heard claim, and on the surface it makes some sense. Unfortunately it is a false claim and must be based on ignorance or else intended to mislead.
Recently received (after a 2-year wait) federal inspection reports from the Yerkes National Primate Research Center indicate that perhaps as many as 70% of the monkeys at the main station show evidence of deleterious over-grooming. Many of them are nearly totally bereft of hair. This is considered a sign of neurosis and known to be caused by social isolation. Most of these animals are individually housed, a known cause of depression and ensuing ill health. See:http://www.primatefreedom.com/centeryerkes/yerkesins032000.pdf
Recently reviewed documents from the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center reveal that monkeys have been left unattended during highly invasive experiments and have died as a result. See: http://www.primatefreedom.com/news/news081905uwbustedbyusda.shtml
These two recent cases are just parts of the pattern. The California National Primate Research Center was just fined by the USDA after seven monkeys died from overheating. The University of California San Francisco recently paid a $90,000 plus fine for multiple violations of the Animal Welfare Act.
A court case has been sceduled in New Iberia, LA to hear allegations of monkeys dying from exposure and other various violations of the AWA.
The above situations all deal with monkeys, the most expensive animal use in research.
The people hurting the animals and neglecting the animals don't pay for them; you and I do.
We can make claims about the illogic of abusing animals in labs, but like it or not, the system is completely out of control. It is so out of control that even the USDA AG's office has said so, and that's an indication that things are even worse than the publicized problems suggest.
Honest people demand change. Vested interests claim all is well.
Liz Paul responded 2 years ago: #15
There is a viable alternative to animal testing. If those people truly care about saving animals, then they would demonstrate their concern by offering themselves in place of the animals. How long does anyone think that animal testing would go on if human beings insisted on replacing animals, and were willing to sign a waiver?
Another serious action would be to get together, sponser the development of a , and with NO animal testing, get it through the FDA rules and regulations. ANYONE can pontificate. The REAL hero is the one who PROVES the theory by the scientific method and is able to demonstrate that it can be replicated. So, quit blah blahing, find a new or substance, write a testing protocol, and get it through the FDA with no animal testing. PROVE the theory and stop wasting precious time with talk - talk doesn't prove anything.
Another serious action would be to get together, sponser the development of a , and with NO animal testing, get it through the FDA rules and regulations. ANYONE can pontificate. The REAL hero is the one who PROVES the theory by the scientific method and is able to demonstrate that it can be replicated. So, quit blah blahing, find a new or substance, write a testing protocol, and get it through the FDA with no animal testing. PROVE the theory and stop wasting precious time with talk - talk doesn't prove anything.
s. edwards responded 2 years ago: #16
Let's not forget the cruelty meted out to lab animals at notorious Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS contract testing company) details which can be found on the SHAC website.
Also, the 'Oxford Two', two macaque monkeys imprisoned for over 15 years
in a barren cell at Oxford University's department of experimental psychology, never seeing the sunlight, never feeling the breeze and
for those 15 years they were forced to undergo horrific brain experiments.
Examples like these, far from being rarities are just the tip of the iceberg.A leading Oxford professor, who holds a key position
in the department was investigated by the police for cruelty to a monkey
he was experimenting on. A university vet pleaded with him to put the monkey
out of its misery but he refused, as he saw the monkey not as a sentient
creature in extreme pain but because he viewed this poor creature as an
'asset'.
Details of horrific experiments on animals are frequently to be found in the published papers of the vivisectors themselves.Those who would experiment on animals would not hesitiate to lie about the supposed benefits of their research, nor to experiment on humans, who are always the real guinea pigs.
Also, the 'Oxford Two', two macaque monkeys imprisoned for over 15 years
in a barren cell at Oxford University's department of experimental psychology, never seeing the sunlight, never feeling the breeze and
for those 15 years they were forced to undergo horrific brain experiments.
Examples like these, far from being rarities are just the tip of the iceberg.A leading Oxford professor, who holds a key position
in the department was investigated by the police for cruelty to a monkey
he was experimenting on. A university vet pleaded with him to put the monkey
out of its misery but he refused, as he saw the monkey not as a sentient
creature in extreme pain but because he viewed this poor creature as an
'asset'.
Details of horrific experiments on animals are frequently to be found in the published papers of the vivisectors themselves.Those who would experiment on animals would not hesitiate to lie about the supposed benefits of their research, nor to experiment on humans, who are always the real guinea pigs.
Gayle Dean responded 2 years ago: #17
January 12, 2006 the FDA issued a press release in which Health and Human services Director Mike Leavitt made the following statement:
"Currently, nine out of ten experimental drugs fail in clinical studies because we cannot accurately predict how they will behave in people based on laboratory and animal studies."
The full text can be found at: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2006/NEW01296.html
"Currently, nine out of ten experimental drugs fail in clinical studies because we cannot accurately predict how they will behave in people based on laboratory and animal studies."
The full text can be found at: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2006/NEW01296.html
Bree-Ana responded 2 years ago: #18
Its easy to think about, but its harder to write/type it down with words.
Vciki McGreaves responded 2 years ago: #19
i think animal testing is horrible. Thats all vicki xxx
laura a responded 2 years ago: #20
I dont agree with this at all! well http://www.peta.org/
seems to think different... WATCH THE VIDEO if u dare, Its not right and shows that he lie's and its not rare its more common nowadays... it had better stop!
seems to think different... WATCH THE VIDEO if u dare, Its not right and shows that he lie's and its not rare its more common nowadays... it had better stop!
Lauren responded 2 years ago: #21
Animal testing is abosolutely HORRIBLE. Over 115 million animals per year die because of it!
sophie responded 2 years ago: #22
i think they should start doing people testing and see how they like it...
danielle responded 2 years ago: #23
I think animal testing is WRONG and INHUMANE.
Mary responded 2 years ago: #24
In late nineteen hundreds Landsteiner established the cure against Rh factor by using macaques. The monkeys helped him with the cure of many babies dying who did not contain Rh factor (protein on red blood cells.)
Dan Rothenburger responded 2 years ago: #25
Animal testing should be banned for life.
anonymous responded 2 years ago: #26
why animal test when you can only see an animal but not know what it is feeling...for all yu know,it could feel ill.
no responded 2 years ago: #27
would you tell a little kid in africa that is paralized from the waist down that he could walk one day, but we think that some rats lives are more important than his own? think about that, peta.
someone responded 2 years ago: #28
95% of drugs passed by animal testing are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans.
no responded 2 years ago: #29
animals were tested for the making of anesthesia. How many people that you know have had surgery? do you think that, if they had no anesthesia and were open on the table, thought "well, the lives of some animals were really worth the pain i am in right now"? probably not.
Kelster23 responded 2 years ago: #30
It's wrong and imhumane... the only reason why they get better care is so that they can die later, through pain that they would recieve only through these labs. An animal in a family's care can recieve better love, and a longer, less painful life. Think about it, if there is reincarnation, you could doing this practice on your dead brother.
Abi responded 2 years ago: #31
If you think about it if animal testing did not happen what would happen to us?
Joseph Laughon responded 2 years ago: #32
People talk of how inhumane it is to test on animals. How inhumane is it (and note that the core part of humane is the word human) is it to leave people in perfectly curable disases to die in the name of animal rights?
My own father contracted Hepatitis C. He was treated through Ribavarin, a drug made using animal testing on mice. Had it not been for this drug my father would of died. My sympathies go to human beings first. Animals second.
My own father contracted Hepatitis C. He was treated through Ribavarin, a drug made using animal testing on mice. Had it not been for this drug my father would of died. My sympathies go to human beings first. Animals second.
Gayle Dean responded 2 years ago: #33
Joseph Laughon wrote:
"How inhumane is it...to leave people in perfectly curable disases to die in the name of animal rights?"
My sympathies and best wishes go out to your father whom, I assume contracted Hep.C through no fault of his own. But what about those who self-inflict the killer diseases?
Animal researchers insist that animal-testing is vital for finding treatments for the millions of people with chronic diseases like cancer, diabetes, and heart disease.
They believe animal sacrifice is morally required to save these sick people. Setting aside whether animal-testing yields good results for treating human disease (and there is a lot of doubt about it), many people accept this moral justification without question.
Inevitably, they will say: "I'll bet you sing a different tune when you have cancer!"
But there is a big ethical problem:
The diseases that cause most of the illnesses and death in the United States are chronic diseases like cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. And these diseases are most often due to lifestyle choices, which means they are largely preventable.
According to the American Cancer Society:
"Tobacco use, physical inactivity, obesity, and poor nutrition are major preventable causes of cancer and other diseases in the US. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2006, more than 170,000 cancer deaths will be caused by tobacco use alone. In addition, scientists estimate that approximately one-third (188, 277) of the 564, 830 cancer deaths expected to occur in 2006 will be related to poor nutrition, physical inactivity, overweight, and obesity."
This means that roughly two-thirds of all cancer deaths are due to lifestyle choices, and thus are preventable. The American Heart Association concurs, holding that heart disease is "mostly preventable." The American Diabetic Association publishes similar estimates and analysis. In other words, the major killer diseases are largely self-inflicted. And those estimates don't even include less deadly afflictions like arthritis, ulcers, cataracts, or common ailments like flus, colds, and allergies, etc. -- many of which are also caused or exacerbated by diet and lifestyle.
People know all this, but still refuse to stop smoking, change their diets, lose weight, or make other beneficial lifestyle changes. Doctors suggest all these "cures" in a casual way, but they know most people will not make the recommended changes. As members of the instant-gratification generation, people would rather abuse themselves now, and call on doctors later, to prescribe the newest little purple pill or perform the latest heart-bypass procedure to treat problems that could have been prevented in the first place.
The serious ethical question is: why should millions of innocent animals be tortured and sacrificed to find treatments for largely self-inflicted diseases in people who refuse to take responsibility for their own choices?
Granted, some people make responsible lifestyle choices and still get disease. But if we accept scientists' estimates that two-thirds of the major diseases are preventable, we could at least significantly reduce animal testing. The majority with self-inflicted chronic diseases must face the moral dilemma. It should not just be accepted without question that when people are irresponsible, animals can be tormented and sacrificed to save them.
We never hear researchers or animal-testing advocates address this ethical question. Why not? Well, one answer is that there is not a lot of money in seriously promoting prevention, so doctors and pharmaceutical companies are happy to oblige their patients. An entire mega-industry is built upon this kind of irresponsibility and greed, and it rides on the backs of animals.
Gayle Dean
"How inhumane is it...to leave people in perfectly curable disases to die in the name of animal rights?"
My sympathies and best wishes go out to your father whom, I assume contracted Hep.C through no fault of his own. But what about those who self-inflict the killer diseases?
Animal researchers insist that animal-testing is vital for finding treatments for the millions of people with chronic diseases like cancer, diabetes, and heart disease.
They believe animal sacrifice is morally required to save these sick people. Setting aside whether animal-testing yields good results for treating human disease (and there is a lot of doubt about it), many people accept this moral justification without question.
Inevitably, they will say: "I'll bet you sing a different tune when you have cancer!"
But there is a big ethical problem:
The diseases that cause most of the illnesses and death in the United States are chronic diseases like cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. And these diseases are most often due to lifestyle choices, which means they are largely preventable.
According to the American Cancer Society:
"Tobacco use, physical inactivity, obesity, and poor nutrition are major preventable causes of cancer and other diseases in the US. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2006, more than 170,000 cancer deaths will be caused by tobacco use alone. In addition, scientists estimate that approximately one-third (188, 277) of the 564, 830 cancer deaths expected to occur in 2006 will be related to poor nutrition, physical inactivity, overweight, and obesity."
This means that roughly two-thirds of all cancer deaths are due to lifestyle choices, and thus are preventable. The American Heart Association concurs, holding that heart disease is "mostly preventable." The American Diabetic Association publishes similar estimates and analysis. In other words, the major killer diseases are largely self-inflicted. And those estimates don't even include less deadly afflictions like arthritis, ulcers, cataracts, or common ailments like flus, colds, and allergies, etc. -- many of which are also caused or exacerbated by diet and lifestyle.
People know all this, but still refuse to stop smoking, change their diets, lose weight, or make other beneficial lifestyle changes. Doctors suggest all these "cures" in a casual way, but they know most people will not make the recommended changes. As members of the instant-gratification generation, people would rather abuse themselves now, and call on doctors later, to prescribe the newest little purple pill or perform the latest heart-bypass procedure to treat problems that could have been prevented in the first place.
The serious ethical question is: why should millions of innocent animals be tortured and sacrificed to find treatments for largely self-inflicted diseases in people who refuse to take responsibility for their own choices?
Granted, some people make responsible lifestyle choices and still get disease. But if we accept scientists' estimates that two-thirds of the major diseases are preventable, we could at least significantly reduce animal testing. The majority with self-inflicted chronic diseases must face the moral dilemma. It should not just be accepted without question that when people are irresponsible, animals can be tormented and sacrificed to save them.
We never hear researchers or animal-testing advocates address this ethical question. Why not? Well, one answer is that there is not a lot of money in seriously promoting prevention, so doctors and pharmaceutical companies are happy to oblige their patients. An entire mega-industry is built upon this kind of irresponsibility and greed, and it rides on the backs of animals.
Gayle Dean
andy responded 2 years ago: #34
I totally agree with you.
Sue responded 2 years ago: #35
It is high time we realize this HAS TO BE STOPPED. It's cruel, inhumane, and all for the love of MONEY!! PLSE STOP.
Kallie responded 2 years ago: #36
To everyone who is so concerned that if we don't test on animals, then humans will die from lack of pharmaceuticals to repair their diseases: These pharmaceutical drugs are toxic and have proven deadly to many people. If you want to live a long, healthy life, adopt a largely raw, vegan lifestyle. Stop being lazy and expecting diet pills and cholesterol medication to solve your problems. Many of the health epidemics faced in American Society today can be CURED from aggressive diet and lifestyle changes. There! We saved human AND animal lives!
Logan Debate team responded 2 years ago: #37
All of you people against animal testing are selfish pricks who are trying to pretend they have a consience. animal testing could potentially save the lives of every single frikkin person on this planet plus all of their quadrillions of ancestors. If we have to test chemicals on a few mice, that that is a preeeeety small price to pay for saving the planet. I suggest that you rethink your agendas and agree that animal testing is necessary to save all of our lives.
Frankiln Yllesma responded 2 years ago: #38
I think that we should get rid of animal testing forever. We are hurting poor creatures by doing this harmful things to them. STOP!!! testing today.
T. responded 2 years ago: #39
Testing on animals is DISCUSTING! And anyone thinks that it is okay, is sick in the head.
I've watched a couple of video's of cruelty, abuse, testing with drugs etc... When I watch them, I feel like I am going to throw up, and I pray to God to help all of the animals that suffer. This world is becoming sicker, and sicker everyday with terrible acts among humans.
It is possible to live a world of happiness. The problem is, is that people don't believe that it's possible. They may go, "Well, what if I do my part, but there are still cruel people, it won't change the world." Think about it, there are people out there that think the same way you do. Just believe, and do your best to stop animal testing. And spread the word for parents to educate there children about the importance of animals, and why you should respect them.
Humans are not the only ones here on earth. Animals are a part of this world, too. So we should stop acting like we rule the planet. We are one species among many!
The terrible part is hearing the animals suffer in pain. While the humans are swearing, and abusing the animals more, and more. I 100 percent think that locking people up for life in jail should be the consequence of animal testing, because many people go back to doing this when they get out of jail, (or whatever their punishment may be.)
God provided us with everything we need on earth, we just haven't realized it yet.
If this isn't convincing you at all, maybe you should go onto the Internet, and find a video to see what the "scientists" do, and what they are capable of.
I've watched a couple of video's of cruelty, abuse, testing with drugs etc... When I watch them, I feel like I am going to throw up, and I pray to God to help all of the animals that suffer. This world is becoming sicker, and sicker everyday with terrible acts among humans.
It is possible to live a world of happiness. The problem is, is that people don't believe that it's possible. They may go, "Well, what if I do my part, but there are still cruel people, it won't change the world." Think about it, there are people out there that think the same way you do. Just believe, and do your best to stop animal testing. And spread the word for parents to educate there children about the importance of animals, and why you should respect them.
Humans are not the only ones here on earth. Animals are a part of this world, too. So we should stop acting like we rule the planet. We are one species among many!
The terrible part is hearing the animals suffer in pain. While the humans are swearing, and abusing the animals more, and more. I 100 percent think that locking people up for life in jail should be the consequence of animal testing, because many people go back to doing this when they get out of jail, (or whatever their punishment may be.)
God provided us with everything we need on earth, we just haven't realized it yet.
If this isn't convincing you at all, maybe you should go onto the Internet, and find a video to see what the "scientists" do, and what they are capable of.
Lizzie responded 2 years ago: #40
I have to use this info for a class presentation. I think that animal testing is wrong, but I have to admit it has made our quality of life much better. Thanks for the info.
T. responded 2 years ago: #41
This is to the Logan Debate team.
One day you will learn... you probably don't know what I am talking about, but God will punish you for saying those cruel things.
Maybe you should rethink your agendas.
Also, you said that if we have to test chemicals on a few mice, that that is a preeeeety small price to pay for saving the planet. You don't get it though - people are not just testing on a few mice... they are testing on millions, and the animals aren't just mice. I really think you should watch an animal suffering video, to see what I mean. Poor innocent animals, (just like our own pets) suffer.
I know that animal testing has discovered medicines, but there is other cures. If the world just stopped all of this maddness with pollution, war, and other problems, we wouldn't have to compete against each other, and could live in a world of peace.
P.S.
I bet you haven't won any debates.
One day you will learn... you probably don't know what I am talking about, but God will punish you for saying those cruel things.
Maybe you should rethink your agendas.
Also, you said that if we have to test chemicals on a few mice, that that is a preeeeety small price to pay for saving the planet. You don't get it though - people are not just testing on a few mice... they are testing on millions, and the animals aren't just mice. I really think you should watch an animal suffering video, to see what I mean. Poor innocent animals, (just like our own pets) suffer.
I know that animal testing has discovered medicines, but there is other cures. If the world just stopped all of this maddness with pollution, war, and other problems, we wouldn't have to compete against each other, and could live in a world of peace.
P.S.
I bet you haven't won any debates.
vanessa responded 2 years ago: #42
For the person who said that a few mice die: So what it is actuallty 500 million animals per year. You have to admit that is a lot @!!!!!!!!!
kw responded 2 years ago: #43
2 many animals die this needs to stop!!!!!!!
krista responded 2 years ago: #44
Too many animals die this needs to stop!!!!!!! it's not right.
kialah responded 2 years ago: #45
I think animal testing sucks. It's mean and immature. Each time you buy makeup, a liitle animal has the chance of dying, so make a petition.
Craig Beird responded 2 years ago: #46
I LOVE KILLING ANIMALS! GO ANIMAL TESTING!!!!!!!!!!!!
B responded 2 years ago: #47
Bleep you, Craig Beird. All of you people that think animal testing is okay need a reality check. Animals shouldn't have to suffer from our dumb habits.
People that think it is okay are probably those sick freaks that need help. Grow up, and think of what it is doing to God's creatures. Just a note to the people that don't think about this...you know pet's in the pet store...Probably not all of them go to good homes...Animal testers probably get some of the animals from a shop...you never know. Just think...they could be grabbing animals right infront of you, and you don't even know it...
That's why people need to start realizing that it is wrong, and laws should be more strict to do whatever it takes to make sure it stops!
People that think it is okay are probably those sick freaks that need help. Grow up, and think of what it is doing to God's creatures. Just a note to the people that don't think about this...you know pet's in the pet store...Probably not all of them go to good homes...Animal testers probably get some of the animals from a shop...you never know. Just think...they could be grabbing animals right infront of you, and you don't even know it...
That's why people need to start realizing that it is wrong, and laws should be more strict to do whatever it takes to make sure it stops!
kelly d responded 2 years ago: #48
I have to write a 5,000 word essay on animal testing. I think it's so wrong but I know without it we would have to test the medication perfume ect. Anyway, the info given by you is great and thanks.
Dereck responded 2 years ago: #49
I’ve taken a quick look at your postings, which are very interesting. Lots of material and ideas! Congrats on being so focused!
The advice given in your blog is fantastic and very complimentary to my site, check it out http://instahost.org/
The advice given in your blog is fantastic and very complimentary to my site, check it out http://instahost.org/
Jim Lucas responded 2 years ago: #50
All of you people who are writing about the suffering of lab animals, have you ever been in a lab that uses animal testing? Are any of you scientists, or even educated? I guess not because most of this information is just something some animal freak made up. Lab animals, even mice, are treated like kings in most experiments. Although some are euthanized, it is done painlessly, and in exchange for cures that can save BILLIONS of human lives. Rarely are animals beaten, or tortured, and when they are photos and videos are taken and the lab is condemmed forever as a group of animal abusers. What the videos don't show you are the thousands of labs that treat their lab animals humanely and do necessary research to find cures and save human lives.
Anyway, people eat animals, which is much more cruel, how do you think those animals are treated?
Anyway, people eat animals, which is much more cruel, how do you think those animals are treated?
kaylah responded 2 years ago: #51
Animal testing is wrong.
Debrah responded 2 years ago: #52
I'm using this information on a class debate...even though I think animal testing is extremly wrong, I have to say the opposite...so far I don't have much information.
This is wat i think of Animal cruelity.
It takes the life of millions of animals in exchange for saving lives of millions of humans. We all actually used a product tested by animals before, like drugs or even our pets used it...I know it's wrong, and I feel really bad for those animals, but aren't these animals listed as pests and dont they breed alot. Like Rats and mices, they carry heaps of diseases and people actually just kill them, so why nt just use their lives for the better of both humans and animals.
But i also think animal testing is wrong...cruel and just plain wrong.
Debrah
This is wat i think of Animal cruelity.
It takes the life of millions of animals in exchange for saving lives of millions of humans. We all actually used a product tested by animals before, like drugs or even our pets used it...I know it's wrong, and I feel really bad for those animals, but aren't these animals listed as pests and dont they breed alot. Like Rats and mices, they carry heaps of diseases and people actually just kill them, so why nt just use their lives for the better of both humans and animals.
But i also think animal testing is wrong...cruel and just plain wrong.
Debrah
Jennifer responded 1 year ago: #53
Even though animal testing is mainly preformedon rodents it still to me seems extremely wrong. I have recently read an article explaining what tests are preformed on rabbits to test for eye and irritancy. For products such as house hold cleaners the restrian a rabbit while they take a drop of the chemical and drop it in the rabbits eye. Results are recorded over a period of three to twenty one days. Afterwards the rabbits are either destroyed or recycled into toxicity tests.
Anonimous responded 1 year ago: #54
Even though animal testing is mainly performed on rodents, it still to me seems extremely wrong. I have recently read an article explaining what tests are performed on rabbits to test for eye and irritancy. For products such as household
cleaners the restrain a rabbit while they take a drop of the chemical and drop it in the rabbits eye. Results are recorded over a period of three to 21 days. Afterwards, the rabbits are either destroyed or recycled into toxicity tests. Anyone who says that this is all right or okay is insensitive. How would you like it if your life was made to serve the pupose of seeing if something is safe or not, and then waiting to die. Also, how many people do you think truly get household cleaners in their eyes???
cleaners the restrain a rabbit while they take a drop of the chemical and drop it in the rabbits eye. Results are recorded over a period of three to 21 days. Afterwards, the rabbits are either destroyed or recycled into toxicity tests. Anyone who says that this is all right or okay is insensitive. How would you like it if your life was made to serve the pupose of seeing if something is safe or not, and then waiting to die. Also, how many people do you think truly get household cleaners in their eyes???
Nicole responded 1 year ago: #55
Animal testing is wrong plain and simple. There is nothing any one can say that can make it seem humaine because it isn't. Animals have no way of defending themselves or asking anyone for help, and forcing them to live a life in isolation and behind cold steel bars isn't right. Anyone who abuses or hurts an animal or feels that animal testing is right has serious issues and needs to think of the pain an animal has to go through everyday - and for doing absolutly nothing wrong. Anyone who agrres with it is sick and needs serious help.
Jesica responded 1 year ago: #56
I totally agree with animal testing it sounds completely logical to test on animals instesd of humans for the cures that we humans need.
Jesica Abbott responded 1 year ago: #57
I think that the protestors need to see it both ways. They wouldn't want to be tested on; that's why we have animals tested on.
Jessica Palmer responded 1 year ago: #58
I totally agree with Jesica. she is so right!!
Jessica Palmer responded 1 year ago: #59
OMG, I totally agree with Jesica. She is so right!!
philip hampton responded 1 year ago: #60
I am a 14-year-old boy and I hate the fact that animals are being treated this way. Please help me stop this. E-mail me with your views on philiphampton92@yahoo.co.uk
Kimberly Sedberry responded 1 year ago: #61
Animal testing is totally wrong and I believe that if anyone wants to kill an animal by testing human products on it.. is wrong. What do you think happenes to the happy baby animals when YOU take their parents for a stupid test??
Amanda & Elisha responded 1 year ago: #62
Just think about how you would feel if you were trapped in a lab with people testing their new products on you, which may physically hurt you. We don't think that you'd like it very much. You may get paid, but do the animals get paid? No, we don't think so.
megan responded 1 year ago: #63
Why do we have to do it on animals why can't we just do it on hummans who are sent to die and test it on them? Then, if it works, we can keep on doing that.
Thankzzzzz
Megan
Thankzzzzz
Megan
sam durdle responded 1 year ago: #64
Consider these figures for a moment:
100 million animals are killed by hunting each year; 150 million large mammals are used in agriculture each year. Hundreds of millions of rats are involved in pest control. Over seven million dogs and cats are euthanized from animal shelters each year, and a million animals are killed each day by automobiles. However only 100 million animals are used each year for animal testing.
Would you not agree that a minimal amount of experimentation carried out on animals does not benefit the human race for the greater good? Without these treatments, many people would die long, afflictive, agonising deaths full of trauma and continual suffering.
Later, dudes
100 million animals are killed by hunting each year; 150 million large mammals are used in agriculture each year. Hundreds of millions of rats are involved in pest control. Over seven million dogs and cats are euthanized from animal shelters each year, and a million animals are killed each day by automobiles. However only 100 million animals are used each year for animal testing.
Would you not agree that a minimal amount of experimentation carried out on animals does not benefit the human race for the greater good? Without these treatments, many people would die long, afflictive, agonising deaths full of trauma and continual suffering.
Later, dudes
Heather responded 1 year ago: #65
Animal testing is wrong, it should be illegal. No animal deserves to suffer that way. Put yourself in their place, how would you like it? Exactly, you wouldn't.
AllForAnimals responded 1 year ago: #66
Mr. Still, I understand what you're saying. But is it really worth one human's life to kill the lives of innocent animals who have no say in testing? The pain of one species God made is not worth the benefit of another. All for animals!
nelly responded 1 year ago: #67
It is absolutely inhumane. Think... if we kill animals, then this is just as bad as hunting. It's not fair that they have to die so that we live, and without any say! Anyone on my side, go to www.animalcruelty.com and read. It's all true. Maybe one day we can be on the animals' side and actually consider others before us. Thank you.
plz stand up for animals responded 1 year ago: #68
Be truthful. Be on their side.
Electris responded 1 year ago: #69
Although animal testing may be cruel at times, but it is used for the better good. Why would scientists that dedicate their lives to saving the lives of humans do something like that if it wasn't for a good reason? People all have their own opinions, but mine is that animal testing is actually okay. Most of these tests are on mice and rats. People kill them all the time anyways.
Wilson responded 1 year ago: #70
Animal rights? I am at the top of the food chain.
drew responded 1 year ago: #71
I think animal testing should be illegal because what have the animals done to us humans?
kayla responded 1 year ago: #72
I think we should put the science people in the cages and test on them... and see how much they like it!!!!!
Lauren responded 1 year ago: #73
I think animal testing is wrong. There may be other ways to treat this. The animals have a right to live as we do. We as a community need to stop this and start new ways for testing.
ANIMAL TESTING IS DEAD WRONG!
ANIMAL TESTING IS DEAD WRONG!
Keri responded 1 year ago: #74
99 percent of animals being tested on are mice. You all are saying how cruel testing is but how many of you use mouse traps in you home, or worst yet poison or maybe you let the exterminator do the dirty work. That is alot more inhumane to me. The mice in your homes die do to starvation, muscle convulsions, asphyxiation, or broken necks which most don't die imediately from. Hypocrates.
Seacrest out
Seacrest out
STUDENT responded 1 year ago: #75
ANIMAL TESTING IS WRONG AND THE SCIENTISTS SHOULD HAVE THE EXPERIMENTS DONE ON THEM, AND IT IS SICK AND GROTESQUE.
Tiffany Wong responded 1 year ago: #76
For those of you who oppose animal testing and call supporters names, don't you think you're acting a bit immature? "Animals shouldn't be made to live behind steel bars." How about people who own pets? Aren't pet birds kept behind steel bars? Nobody's protesting against them.
"Animals did nothing to us, why do we have to hurt innocent animals?" It's not like animals don't hurt us either. There are shark incidents, diseases spread by animals, coyote attacks, dog bites, cat claws. Besides, we kill insects without a second thought. Scientists aren't even viciously harming the animals and you're down their throats. Why not use that energy against people who actually harm animals for their enjoyment, instead of hacking away at people who are trying to find a better and healthier future for us?
"What have animals done to humans?" Exactly. What have they done to us? Nothing. But we, we domesticate them, we feed them, we care for them, we protect them from bigger beasts with our technology.
Really, if you want to dispute against animal testing, go completely vegan, then come back and talk. Besides, all the gross pictures of animal testing you see are usually for cosmetics and such, at their worst. If you're so into stopping animal testing, go boycott them. Don't use toothpaste, don't use makeup, don't use shampoo, don't use face cleansers.
"Animals did nothing to us, why do we have to hurt innocent animals?" It's not like animals don't hurt us either. There are shark incidents, diseases spread by animals, coyote attacks, dog bites, cat claws. Besides, we kill insects without a second thought. Scientists aren't even viciously harming the animals and you're down their throats. Why not use that energy against people who actually harm animals for their enjoyment, instead of hacking away at people who are trying to find a better and healthier future for us?
"What have animals done to humans?" Exactly. What have they done to us? Nothing. But we, we domesticate them, we feed them, we care for them, we protect them from bigger beasts with our technology.
Really, if you want to dispute against animal testing, go completely vegan, then come back and talk. Besides, all the gross pictures of animal testing you see are usually for cosmetics and such, at their worst. If you're so into stopping animal testing, go boycott them. Don't use toothpaste, don't use makeup, don't use shampoo, don't use face cleansers.
Deidra responded 1 year ago: #77
Many people find this inhumane and cruel. I myself feel this way when I see what can happen, but would you rather everything die of some unknown disease because they succumbed to society and stopped their research? Through this testing they assure us, the consumer, that were not going to take or use something that could potentially kill us or our pets.
Before you think about the cruelty of animal testing, think about what we do to our pets, the cruelty of true animal abuse, and the fact that we ourselves trap and kill animals by more painful ways.
Before you think about the cruelty of animal testing, think about what we do to our pets, the cruelty of true animal abuse, and the fact that we ourselves trap and kill animals by more painful ways.
anonymous stundent number 3 responded 1 year ago: #78
Animal testing is absolutely ridiculous and should not be tolerated. How would silly scientists like it done on them. They are "nutters" if it goes ahead. Absolutely shocking.
student2 responded 1 year ago: #79
What is the point in doing the animal testing? How would you like to have a life in a chamber sticking needles in you and having wires atached to you? Just think about it. It's cruel.
confused responded 1 year ago: #80
I think animal testing isn't too bad if it is for medical research and there is something gained from it... but if they are testing animals from something unnessasary like cosmetics, then I think that it is totally wrong!
All for animal testing[[for medical research]] responded 1 year ago: #81
Animal Testing has beniffited us in so many ways. To the people who say it is wrong, you are sooo immature!!!!! The animals used for animal testing are abundant and are expendable! You don't even know if you think it is wrong do some research! Animal testing is the only reason diabetics are alive to this very day, so STOP complaining!
So if you are a diabetic and you're against animal testing, then you really need to change your ideas cause the reason you live is from animal testing. Animal testing has helped us soooo much! Sure it's bad for cosmetics, but for medical research it is sooo way good! I am very young, but I do a lot of research. So far, medical researchers have to keep animals in a safe, clean environment, and feed them daily and not abuse them to get efficient results.
So many lives have been saved due to testing, so please just rethink and really focus on how much it has benifited human welfare. Who knows what life today would be without it?
So if you are a diabetic and you're against animal testing, then you really need to change your ideas cause the reason you live is from animal testing. Animal testing has helped us soooo much! Sure it's bad for cosmetics, but for medical research it is sooo way good! I am very young, but I do a lot of research. So far, medical researchers have to keep animals in a safe, clean environment, and feed them daily and not abuse them to get efficient results.
So many lives have been saved due to testing, so please just rethink and really focus on how much it has benifited human welfare. Who knows what life today would be without it?
gemma responded 1 year ago: #82
Animal testing is completely wrong. The goverment has no right to treat animals in a way no human would be treated. The protests so many activist groups do surely have by now have been closely looked at by the leaders of the socitey and they should have by now banned animal testing for good.
jade louise responded 1 year ago: #83
Millions of animals are killed each year for us to eat... what is the diff! if you were an animal, would you rather die knowing that you might have saved millions of suffering or even death, or would you rather know that somebody engoyed eating you for their dinner!?
How about we just stopped animal testing altogether... and your mum or dad or who ever close to you had caught a new disease that we had no cure for and therefor they died! Then what... then it's okay to test on animals again!?
We are at the top of the food chain people! Do you think that if they had the chance, they wouldn't do to us what we are doing to them!?
Seriously... we need to do the tests for us to survive in this world.
How about we just stopped animal testing altogether... and your mum or dad or who ever close to you had caught a new disease that we had no cure for and therefor they died! Then what... then it's okay to test on animals again!?
We are at the top of the food chain people! Do you think that if they had the chance, they wouldn't do to us what we are doing to them!?
Seriously... we need to do the tests for us to survive in this world.
sam responded 1 year ago: #84
There are still animal cruelty cases involved with animal testing. Even though this is rare, it is still wrong. I look forward to a future without this and hope people will help make this a thing of the past SOON!!
danny kim responded 1 year ago: #85
All yall shut up. Animal testing saves lives. 95 percent of animals used are rats or mice who are specifically breeded for testing.
tiffany schindler responded 1 year ago: #86
I hate that they test on little poors animals. I don't care that they test on rats and mice. I could care less about them but other than those animals, I dont like it.
Margaret responded 1 year ago: #87
Wow, maybe you should look at the facts of other animal testing centers and not just at one place.
Also, if you think about it, since "only 5 percent" of testing at GlaxoSmithKline PLCs London division is on animals, why not just get rid of it? there isn't that much, and it would make the animal rights' activists (like me) stop bugging you about stuff like that.
Next argument, I hate the fact that people think that the pros are outweighing the cons for animal experiments. For the last 30 years, those scientists that have been experimenting on those animals have not found any clue that will lead them to a "cure" for cancer. You know what i think? I think we should go back to eating a better diet and not smoking, and we wouldn't have to worry about it. I highly doubt that people that lived in ancient Greece died of cancer because this is an issue has only come up in the last 50 years. You know why? They ate a better diet than we do now. there should be no reason to test on them for this lack of human understanding.
Also, what does a rat have in common with a human? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Why should we test on a species that has nothing in common with us? The best species we can test on is ourselves. Even monkeys and apes, whom we think have a lot in common with us, are very different from us in the fact that a lot of the diseases that humans can get, apes cannot get. We have to try to give them the virus or disease first, when we shouldn't have to. These apes deserve to be free, and we are taking advantage of the fact that we are the most powerful species on the planet.
Lastly, there are new technological advances that make animal testing obsolete in commparison to the advatages in similarity. Things like human cell testing are growing in popularity and for good reason: because it doesn't hurt animals, it is more similar to the effects that it would have on humans instead of trying to compare animals to humans, and it is a lot cheaper to perform.
Thanks for listening,
Margaret :)
Also, if you think about it, since "only 5 percent" of testing at GlaxoSmithKline PLCs London division is on animals, why not just get rid of it? there isn't that much, and it would make the animal rights' activists (like me) stop bugging you about stuff like that.
Next argument, I hate the fact that people think that the pros are outweighing the cons for animal experiments. For the last 30 years, those scientists that have been experimenting on those animals have not found any clue that will lead them to a "cure" for cancer. You know what i think? I think we should go back to eating a better diet and not smoking, and we wouldn't have to worry about it. I highly doubt that people that lived in ancient Greece died of cancer because this is an issue has only come up in the last 50 years. You know why? They ate a better diet than we do now. there should be no reason to test on them for this lack of human understanding.
Also, what does a rat have in common with a human? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Why should we test on a species that has nothing in common with us? The best species we can test on is ourselves. Even monkeys and apes, whom we think have a lot in common with us, are very different from us in the fact that a lot of the diseases that humans can get, apes cannot get. We have to try to give them the virus or disease first, when we shouldn't have to. These apes deserve to be free, and we are taking advantage of the fact that we are the most powerful species on the planet.
Lastly, there are new technological advances that make animal testing obsolete in commparison to the advatages in similarity. Things like human cell testing are growing in popularity and for good reason: because it doesn't hurt animals, it is more similar to the effects that it would have on humans instead of trying to compare animals to humans, and it is a lot cheaper to perform.
Thanks for listening,
Margaret :)
william athey responded 1 year ago: #88
Is there any other methods besides killing animals for experimental use? Why don't animal testing facilities use more technology rather than the real thing. I understand that it's not the same thing, but when it comes down to it, is it really worth seeing animals suffer, die, or live in agony.
If you can answer these questions for me, I would really like to know, for my senior English paper.
If you can answer these questions for me, I would really like to know, for my senior English paper.
Jade responded 1 year ago: #89
Animal testing is just plain wrong...I would do nothing to stop it ... how would you feel if you were being put into tiny tubes? Being stabbed with whatever drug it is, ect.. every time I think about it I cry and I REALY hate it. Why can't we just try the products on us because more animals are dying and is killing them for meat is enough!!! (In a vegetarians point of view like myself).... so some thing should be done about it[[!]]
danielle responded 1 year ago: #90
Animal testing is wrong and whoever thinks it's okay to put stuff in animals' eyes and let them sit there and die, and we just watch and say, "oh, that's interesting and watch them squirm and die and scream for their lives. Wow! Humans have some big problems. Like seriously testers, do you want me to come take you from a loving home and test on you. Put you in a cage then lock you up. Nobody there with you or to talk to? Will you die and just scream in pain? I think you would hate it, so why do you think it's right to do it to animals? Hmmm.
danielle responded 1 year ago: #91
What the heck are these testers thinking? You are torturing poor littel animals, God's creatures. Other people go to jail for toturing animals but the testers don't. Why is it any diffrent?
Jennifer responded 1 year ago: #92
What would you say if Granny came home and said that she had heart valves that didn't work anymore and the only thing that would save her life was heart valves from a pig? Would you say, "Well, Granny, we had some good times together, the pig's life is worth more than yours, I'll miss you." Hell no! Or if Daddy came back from the doctor's office with diabetes and he needed pork insulin to live? Or how about Buster, the beloved family dog, has arthritis in his legs and he can have implants to make him more comfortable and able to enjoy life again? Would you really say no, you shouldn't use that or do that because it was tested on or from animals? I'm a first semester nursing student doing a report on the pro's of animal testing. I thought, what would be a pro of THIS??? Well, I did my research and found out that there are MANY pros. Nothing in this world is perfect and it never will be, but with animal testing, Granny, Daddy, and Buster are all living longer lives.
pimpin responded 1 year ago: #93
Animal testing sucks, man, but it is necessary.
poopdick mgee responded 1 year ago: #94
Mgoooo, animal testing is baaaaaaaaaaaadddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd!
amanda responded 1 year ago: #95
Yeah animal testing helps to save lives. It is done for a reason. Would you rather your child die in testing than an animal? You people who choose animals over people are SICK. I read a poll the other day and it said that when asked, 3 out of 10 people would choose saving their drowning dog over a drowning person. That DISGUSTS me!!!!
You are all the same who agree with animal testing, saying it's better to hurt a human is NOT the answer. But anyway, I'm doing a debate for my speech class over animal testing and it's nice to hear everyone elses opinions!
You are all the same who agree with animal testing, saying it's better to hurt a human is NOT the answer. But anyway, I'm doing a debate for my speech class over animal testing and it's nice to hear everyone elses opinions!
m4c responded 1 year ago: #96
Animal experimentation in medicine is an absolute necessity! Should you people pen a comment, do some serious research first. Read BOTH sides! Do you really think animal organizations have no economic interest at all? Everyone has! Doing some real research you will be surprised to find out that less than a half of animal experiments in medicine are replaceable! WE DONT LIKE KILLING ANIMALS, OF COURSE NOT! BUT I'D KILL ALL THE ANIMALS IN THIS WORLD TO SAVE MY CHILDREN FROM DEATH! WOULDN'T YOU PEOPLE?
Ashley responded 1 year ago: #97
Amanda- You clearly are not educated enough to win your debate...check out more than just a few websites my friend. It's a deep rooted issue beyond drowning dogs. People who don't research all the facts DISGUST me.
INSIGHTS responded 1 year ago: #98
i hate animal testing!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is wrong. God made these creatures and now you are destroying them. I can't believe you would kill animals just to save maybe five lives. Think if you were the one in the lab. Getting soap in your eyes and being shocked. I wish y'all would read the Bible and see what you are doing wrong. We are doing the same thing as in the Bible. I wouldn't be suprised if God melted the earth. If only you would see this. If you truly believed in the trinity and how he created everything, then you WOULD STOP THIS RIGHT NOW.
Danni responded 1 year ago: #99
Animal testing is so wrong.........it it inhumane and wrong! That's why we have technology! TO USE IT! DUH! People are just greedy nowadays.
Christie xXx responded 1 year ago: #100
I think we just test on people like Jesica Abbott and Lauren. Hahaha
kathy responded 1 year ago: #101
I think animal testing is wrong and if people need to test something, then they can test in on themselves also people don't like other people testing products on animals, but turn around and think it's okay if they have surgery in animals. I think thoes people are just as bad and anybody who is testing on animals is jacked.
amanda responded 1 year ago: #102
INSIGHTS,... I am a Christian, and I believe that it is inhumane the way they are treating the animals, but I don't think it says anywhere in the Bible that we shouldnt test on animals. I agree that it is very wrong the way they're treating the animals in the laboratories, but you have no right to tell people who are saving thousands of lives, NOT 'maybe five,' that they are going to make God so angry that he will melt the
Earth!! And I also think you have no right to test people's belief in the trinity!! That's betweent them and God, not you and them!!!!!
Earth!! And I also think you have no right to test people's belief in the trinity!! That's betweent them and God, not you and them!!!!!
TORI [[COBHC]] responded 1 year ago: #103
ok so I'm reading all of these comments but one really sticks out to me....it was posted in 2005 buy a guy named Alix Fano. I'm not going to repeat it because if you want to see it you can go look at it yourself...I just felt I should point his out because I think he really put in words what all of us knew and were thinking. Now, for my opinion; I think that even though people say that "majority of the time they only use it on mice, rats and rabbits," dosen't make it okay. If a rabbit is going through enough pain that they're breaking their necks and backs trying to get out of their restraints, theres a problem.
Yeah sure, its helped human life but its getting out of hand...big time. How about I lock you in retraints and put poison in your eyes and watch you break your neck and back trying to get it off. im sure you'd all love that! So anyone that thinks animal testing is okay can shove it so far up their ass it'll come out their mouth.
Yeah sure, its helped human life but its getting out of hand...big time. How about I lock you in retraints and put poison in your eyes and watch you break your neck and back trying to get it off. im sure you'd all love that! So anyone that thinks animal testing is okay can shove it so far up their ass it'll come out their mouth.
joe responded 1 year ago: #104
I lost my cousin to a disease that was cured by testing it on animals. God save the Queen.
anonymous responded 1 year ago: #105
This may all me true for medicinal procuts, but millions of animals are tortured, blinded, or even killed each year from products like cosmetics. THIS IS WRONG!!! They are hurting animals just so people can put new stuff on their face or in their hair!!!1
anonymous responded 1 year ago: #106
I don't have a comment, just a question. If any of you people who have pets and your house was on fire, which would you bring out of the house first- your pet or your family member?
I love animals and my response would be both if it was possible.
I love animals and my response would be both if it was possible.
animal lvr responded 1 year ago: #107
Guess what Amanda? I understand your views but there are better alternatives to animal testing than people. Test tube, computer simulation- all better alternatives to animal and people testing. I can understand your views but testing animals is just as wrong as testing on humans. They are HELPLESS creatures and they can't defend or stand up for themselves like we can. Just check ALL the facts before you decide your side of the argument.
Debate team 2 responded 1 year ago: #108
Hey, Logan debate team - guess what? Right back at ya!
Shelly responded 1 year ago: #109
I'm doing a project On animal testing and I think it's terrible and wrong.
alyssa responded 1 year ago: #110
Dude, this is so wrong. Someone please email me with the link for animal testing debates for people who are against it. I have to do it for a class and can't find anything.
jaylene responded 1 year ago: #111
Even if are lives are longer and better with animal testing, it gives us no right to torture animals for our sake because animals deserve the same rigths we do. Just cause we are smarter and have thumbs, it does not mean we are better than animals because they also can do things we can't such as fly, breath under water, or run on four legs and technically we are animals. But I don't agree with the protesters' violent acts because it only gives them a bad name.
elena responded 1 year ago: #112
Have any cures for anything even been found with animal testing???
Trina responded 1 year ago: #113
I think animal testing if fair. What I mean by this is that if you think about it saying "animal testing is inhumane" is completely nonsense. For example, what makes a mouse being tested on so different then a mouse being eaten by a snake? Well for one, it may be the mouse that helps find the answer to a curable disease, and as for the second mouse... well, he feeds the snake! My point is, is that no matter what we do everyone dies whether because of being tested on, being eaten, dying of old age, dying in a war, or even from some unknown disease. I think animal testing is just a part of life, like it or not. If you want to save a mouse or rat so bad, then go to the pet store and buy one because it's probably going to be used as food for something bigger.
Christopher Wilson responded 1 year ago: #114
Probably animal testing is inhuman but it is much more inhuman to test on children or adults. Also, the lapse of time needed for results is much faster in animals such as rats and rabbits than the one on humans.
Sam responded 1 year ago: #115
IT'S WRONG. STOP IT NOW.
Marilyn Manson....x_O responded 1 year ago: #116
Did you guys know that testers only use animals that are overpopulated, and ten times of the animals die more than testing, by road kill, or hunting...and you guys are trying to ban something that might end up saving your lives?....
SHAME ON YOU MY FRIEND.....
Some people here say animal testing is wrong... but yet there stupid enough to use products tested by animals.., what a bunch of hypocrites.....
ARGGGG........
SHAME ON YOU MY FRIEND.....
Some people here say animal testing is wrong... but yet there stupid enough to use products tested by animals.., what a bunch of hypocrites.....
ARGGGG........
lindsy responded 1 year ago: #117
m4c is an idiot. He said he would kill all the animals in the world to save his children. If all the animals in the world were dead, your children would be too. Along with everyone else on Earth.
fhhghgfs responded 1 year ago: #118
Did you guys know that testers only use animals that are overpopulated, and ten times of the animals die more than testing, by road kill, or hunting...and you guys are trying to ban something that might end up saving your lives?....
Anonymous responded 1 year ago: #119
We need animal testing in order to cure major diseases and without it. Many people would die and it can also save animals lives too.
Jgirl responded 1 year ago: #120
Yeah, I am so against animal testing. It is wrong.
Nanatel responded 1 year ago: #121
If you're going to say animal testing is wrong, give reason to it. Those who say that animal testing should be banned are, in my opinion, ignorant. Everyday products that we may not even think about require animal testing, including shampoo and toothpaste. Companies who claim that they do not use animal testing are lying; animal testing is required by law. There are many alternatives out there to animal testing, but the truth is that they only decrease the animals used; they can not really replace it.
It is wrong to abuse animals; it is not wrong to use them humanely.
It is wrong to abuse animals; it is not wrong to use them humanely.
gfsdfsd responded 1 year ago: #122
It's not easy to talk about animal testing in 2 or 3 minutes because it is a big topic, but on the whole I'm for animal testing because it saves lives and, excuse me, how many animals died each year for animal testing for us!?!?
Rachel responded 1 year ago: #123
I think animal testing one of the most redundant, illogical, useless things in the modern world. If it had been relied on in many experiments, we wouldn't have penicillin (it poisoned rats) or digitalis (a drug used by heart patients but which was withheld for a long time because it was found to raise blood pressure in dogs). You people talk about how wrong it is that PETA members would rather have a child die from some horrible disease than test on animals and my question to you is this: where on the PRTA website did you read that information? Or, what PETA members have you been talking to? Because I am completely against animal testing, but i am completely FOR animal testing ALTERNATIVES. I for one am tired of my tax dollars going towards this reprehensible practice, and I am tired of the government hiding these things from us. Some government regulated tests kill more than 2,000 animals every time they are conducted. And NOT A SINGLE ONE of these tests has EVER been formally proved to be relevant to or able to accurately predict human health effects. This is because ANIMALS ARE NOT HUMANS. Therefore, these tests are NOT "saving the planet" or even curing any diseases. It has been DECADES if not more than that since animal testing has cured a disease, and I do not see that changing anytime soon.
Andi Hayes responded 1 year ago: #124
Animal testing is not only cruel to animals but cruel to humans as well. It is a chain reaction: first animals suffer in the labs; then humans suffer from the toxic side effects of the FDA-approved drug or vaccine; then finally the drug is pulled off the market after enough people die; then the lawsuits begin.
Some say one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result; I'd say this would apply to scientists testing drugs on animals and expecting to one day find a magical cure for humans! How many decades and centuries has this been going on?
Drugs do not "cure" nor do they promote health; they merely suppress symptoms, driving the disease deeper. If you believe animal testing "works," I challenge you to name just one disease that has been really cured! (Hint: if you say "polio" you will be wrong -- it has now morphed into the even more horrendous "muscular dystrophy.")
Aspirin for headaches? It causes stomach bleeding! (try white willow bark instead -- the plant from which this "miracle drug" was pilfered.)
Heart transplants? These were only perfected after many human trials failed and many animals died. Even then, after an organ transplant, many toxic drugs must be taken to keep the person "alive" -- but never again "healthy" or "cured." Like someone else said, humans are the real guinea pigs.
Some current examples: Has poor Michael J. Fox been cured simply because he is still alive? Was Christopher Reeves ever "cured?" Is it really only because scientists "need more money" to find a cure? How much more time and money and animal lives do they need?
I challenge scientists to start using live human cells, computer simulations, and completely non-toxic plant-based medicines in human clinical trials! I would be more than happy to volunteer! Teach people what proper nutrition and adequate exercise will do to the body; replace the junk food with whole foods; change your sedantary, toxic lifestyle!
Only then will we truly begin to see REAL cures...and meanwhile, leave the innocent, suffering animals out of the toxic mess we humans have made of our health and our world!
--Andi Hayes
Some say one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result; I'd say this would apply to scientists testing drugs on animals and expecting to one day find a magical cure for humans! How many decades and centuries has this been going on?
Drugs do not "cure" nor do they promote health; they merely suppress symptoms, driving the disease deeper. If you believe animal testing "works," I challenge you to name just one disease that has been really cured! (Hint: if you say "polio" you will be wrong -- it has now morphed into the even more horrendous "muscular dystrophy.")
Aspirin for headaches? It causes stomach bleeding! (try white willow bark instead -- the plant from which this "miracle drug" was pilfered.)
Heart transplants? These were only perfected after many human trials failed and many animals died. Even then, after an organ transplant, many toxic drugs must be taken to keep the person "alive" -- but never again "healthy" or "cured." Like someone else said, humans are the real guinea pigs.
Some current examples: Has poor Michael J. Fox been cured simply because he is still alive? Was Christopher Reeves ever "cured?" Is it really only because scientists "need more money" to find a cure? How much more time and money and animal lives do they need?
I challenge scientists to start using live human cells, computer simulations, and completely non-toxic plant-based medicines in human clinical trials! I would be more than happy to volunteer! Teach people what proper nutrition and adequate exercise will do to the body; replace the junk food with whole foods; change your sedantary, toxic lifestyle!
Only then will we truly begin to see REAL cures...and meanwhile, leave the innocent, suffering animals out of the toxic mess we humans have made of our health and our world!
--Andi Hayes
bob amser responded 1 year ago: #125
Bob Amser needs to be stopped and soooooo does animal testng. It's sick!
Looking at all the poor animals in cages and being tested on, I think they need to find a better solution because it's just downright cruel and it's very upsetting to see pictures of all them nice lovely animals that are being used so we can have shampoo. We are doin research in our ICT class on something you are against, and I'm against ANIMAL TESTING and I've found out a lot about it over the last few weeks in my ICT lesson in school! Please can't you stop the animal testing or help to!
Looking at all the poor animals in cages and being tested on, I think they need to find a better solution because it's just downright cruel and it's very upsetting to see pictures of all them nice lovely animals that are being used so we can have shampoo. We are doin research in our ICT class on something you are against, and I'm against ANIMAL TESTING and I've found out a lot about it over the last few weeks in my ICT lesson in school! Please can't you stop the animal testing or help to!
ashleigh, hinshaw responded 1 year ago: #126
Okay, if you think it is so RIGHT to test on ANIMALs, let's see how you would feel having your skin CUT off and them digging into you. Would you like that? I didn't think so. I am a teen still but I know plenty about this stuff and you think God will accept you the same?
Um, no sweetie, I don't think so. Animals - you might as well call them human because God made them just like he made us. So whoever reads this commment, you really needs to think about your living so-called job if you can kill HARMLESS animals. Who would want do this. You know God wouldn't like PEOPLE KILLING HIS creatures for just a test. These words, I hope, get to you.
Um, no sweetie, I don't think so. Animals - you might as well call them human because God made them just like he made us. So whoever reads this commment, you really needs to think about your living so-called job if you can kill HARMLESS animals. Who would want do this. You know God wouldn't like PEOPLE KILLING HIS creatures for just a test. These words, I hope, get to you.
Katy responded 1 year ago: #127
Animal testing is wrong! My friends and I have even started a charity fund for helping people stop it. Animals should have about the same rights we do! I'm sick of people saying its okay to kill animals just for make-up and drugs. People should test things on their selves instead of other creatures.
Alex responded 1 year ago: #128
I HATE animal testing! its SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO wrong! And the boys in my homeroom class are all laughing at me b/c they think its funny! JERKS!!!! Animal testing is so wrong. I mean it's sort of okay for medicine, but they say let's see if this mascara burns. Why make something that burns! If you think about it, we're animals too! How would they like it if dogs tested kibble on them?
annette responded 1 year ago: #129
I am completly against animal testing. If everyone says that people are more valuable and important then animals but then how could you say they still have the same insides as us. They dont. They aren't mini humans. So many other companies sell and test perfectly fine products with out using animals. Remember they feel just like we do. STOP ANIMAL TESTING!
rebecca responded 1 year ago: #130
Animal testing is cruel and mean to animals!!! All the animals do day after day is sit in cages and waiting to finally die!!! Animals have feelings too!!
Tony responded 1 year ago: #131
God made animals for man to do what ever he pleases with them. (Genesis 1) If you are going to try and help humans with animal research to better the quality and longevity of the human life, than we have no reason not to.
bec responded 1 year ago: #132
I agree with Tony.
puppy paws responded 1 year ago: #133
i think animal testing is soooooooooooooo wrong!!!!!!!!!!!! it hurts the poor little animals. There's other ways to do this without hurting anyone!!
lolo responded 1 year ago: #134
Animal testing is definately bad!
chris responded 1 year ago: #135
The question is do we need any more products for our own comfort?
kaytlyn responded 1 year ago: #136
I understand it to a point but not to extremes!!! I'm researching cons and pros to testing for our debate. This will be a difficult one from the evidence!!!
hmm....... responded 1 year ago: #137
I dont think animal testing is wrong at all, i mean it has help society know alot of thing like how to fight diseases and stuff i mean if it wasnt for animal disease probly people would die alot from heart disease and other really serious health problems. People i know its cruel and w/e but thx to it many people have been save ^.^
Brett responded 1 year ago: #138
I wonder if this debate has an end in sight. This weeks announcement that stem cell research can be replicated without the use of embryonic cells poses an interesting question in this ethical tussle. Given that we'll have the ingredients to "grow" an arm, organ, skin, or eyeball, that is in every way derived from human DNA (not animals), many ethical debates will virtually subside. Perhaps animal testing will become obsolete and unnecessary if we can cook us up specific body parts to conduct scientific and medical research. Both ethical camps will be appeased.
A very interesting thought.
A very interesting thought.
Dar Ryed responded 1 year ago: #139
For all you morons that feel that animal testing is wrong, just do the world a favor and shoot yourself in the head. Your stupidity is creating chaos in our society and you would probably be dead anyway if not for testing. If it means a little girl's life or a hundred monkeys suffering to death, I will alway choose the little girl. Anyone who thinks otherwise deserves to rot in the darkest pits of tartaros.
tammi responded 1 year ago: #140
i think that animal reaseach is needed cause would you rather test on you!!i think as long as the animals arent exisenked i think is ok!!
tammi responded 1 year ago: #141
i think that animal reaseach is needed cause would you rather test on you!! i think as long as the animals aren't extinct, it's ok!!
Caroline responded 1 year ago: #142
Does it really matter if animals are tested on anyways? I mean sure, it's sad to see them die and such, but what else do they have to contribute other than being pets, or food? Plus, animals don't have the mental capacity to recognize that they have "rights" anyways.
lucy responded 1 year ago: #143
riight,
i know animal testing has helped to cure some things
but why let the animals suffer,
they cant say when things hurt
they have to suffer in silence!
its just not right!
why cant they test it on something else
like people who have been in prison
who actually deserve the pain,
not the innocent animals
im 14 years old and have been a vegetarian for over a few years now
i hate animal cruelty
and animal testing should be stopped NOW!
i know animal testing has helped to cure some things
but why let the animals suffer,
they cant say when things hurt
they have to suffer in silence!
its just not right!
why cant they test it on something else
like people who have been in prison
who actually deserve the pain,
not the innocent animals
im 14 years old and have been a vegetarian for over a few years now
i hate animal cruelty
and animal testing should be stopped NOW!
Bethany responded 12 months ago: #144
Personally I'm grateful for Animal Research.
I am for Animal Welfare and am firmly against Animal Rights.
PETA tries to come off as a "we love animals!" organization, however they actually don't care about animals.
read for yourself on their FAQ page, they explain what Animal Rights is.
basically what P.E.T.A. wants is to let all the animals loose in the wild, Have no contact with them. Let the endagered species die.
while you are sitting there with no kitten or dog to pet wearing plastic eating cereal with out milk, alone.
Animal Testing is necessary, there is no alternative to a living organism.
I am for Animal Welfare and am firmly against Animal Rights.
PETA tries to come off as a "we love animals!" organization, however they actually don't care about animals.
read for yourself on their FAQ page, they explain what Animal Rights is.
basically what P.E.T.A. wants is to let all the animals loose in the wild, Have no contact with them. Let the endagered species die.
while you are sitting there with no kitten or dog to pet wearing plastic eating cereal with out milk, alone.
Animal Testing is necessary, there is no alternative to a living organism.
kirsten responded 11 months ago: #145
if your dying child would be cured because of animal testing, would you agree with it then?
K C responded 11 months ago: #146
You know what? I am an avid animal lover but in no case should an animal's life be held in higher priority than a human's. ANyone who thinks diferently can jump off a cliff for all I care.
Celinee <33 responded 11 months ago: #147
Animal testing is so wrong and unfair! I espeacially hate cosmetics being tested on animals.. there are alternatives the only questions i have is why don't we use them?
Celine<33 responded 11 months ago: #148
Ohhh btw Kirsten there are alternatives!!! Ever hear of the 3 r's??Reduction, Replacement, and Refinement! Do your research.
Em responded 11 months ago: #149
animals , should not have to , got through suffering pain , it is wrong imagine if YOU had to go though this , and have knees slit open for selfish reasons , how would you feel .
kirsten responded 11 months ago: #150
i AM doing my research Celine<33, im writing a 20 page paper on this actually.
paige xxxxx responded 11 months ago: #151
hiya
even though in the bible god said that he made animals to use he definetley contridicks himself by telling people the ten commandments treat others as you would like to be treated well im sure you wouldn't like to grow a third ear or be tortured for info or to be kiled im sure you would not want to die for some lip stick that a stupid bimbo is going to wear im sure thats what god really wanted
STOP TESTING ON ANIMALS ITS CRUEL,EVIL,UNKIND and much worse murder.!!!!!
even though in the bible god said that he made animals to use he definetley contridicks himself by telling people the ten commandments treat others as you would like to be treated well im sure you wouldn't like to grow a third ear or be tortured for info or to be kiled im sure you would not want to die for some lip stick that a stupid bimbo is going to wear im sure thats what god really wanted
STOP TESTING ON ANIMALS ITS CRUEL,EVIL,UNKIND and much worse murder.!!!!!
chloe responded 11 months ago: #152
i think that animal testing is horrible and should not
happen its like murdering your pet dog and cat
happen its like murdering your pet dog and cat
faye responded 10 months ago: #153
I think animal testing is wrong!
i cant believe you people thinks it acceptable to treat animal in that kind of manor. as that girl commented above, i think she is right and that they should test it on people who are in prision eg: rapist & pedos as they deserve to be punished for there actions. as i am researching this for my college coursework. i am discusted in the way that people think about this subject. you wouldnt like it if they came and took your pets away and tested on them would you ?? have you even seen the pictures of what they do, it is disterbing and all people that are for animals need to think clearly on what they are putting animals threw !!!!!!
i cant believe you people thinks it acceptable to treat animal in that kind of manor. as that girl commented above, i think she is right and that they should test it on people who are in prision eg: rapist & pedos as they deserve to be punished for there actions. as i am researching this for my college coursework. i am discusted in the way that people think about this subject. you wouldnt like it if they came and took your pets away and tested on them would you ?? have you even seen the pictures of what they do, it is disterbing and all people that are for animals need to think clearly on what they are putting animals threw !!!!!!
Stephanie Barela responded 10 months ago: #154
i believe that animal testing if HORRIBLE!!! we know what chemical are Poisonous to our bodies nad when chemical dont mix with other chemicals! if you are a Scientist's, get you head out of all those chemical and have a brain not built on logics for once.
Aubrie responded 10 months ago: #155
animal testitng is awful. Who would you like it if your OWN pet was chained down and cadged!
Jerry Ricks responded 10 months ago: #156
Most people eat animals. If we can eat them why can't we use them for medical research. If you really oppose animal testing then you must never go to the doctor, never take any medicine or any vaccine or undergo any surgery--and that goes for your children, too.
If you get medical care, you are supporting animal testing, because every meeicine and procedure was first tested in animals.
And thank goodness.
I wouldn't want to give my kid a medicine or vaccine or surgery that hadn't been tested on animals. Fortunately, the law doesn't permit untested medicine to be prescribed to us.
Animal testing--it's not just a good idea--It's the law.
If you get medical care, you are supporting animal testing, because every meeicine and procedure was first tested in animals.
And thank goodness.
I wouldn't want to give my kid a medicine or vaccine or surgery that hadn't been tested on animals. Fortunately, the law doesn't permit untested medicine to be prescribed to us.
Animal testing--it's not just a good idea--It's the law.
Lassie responded 10 months ago: #157
Animal testing is a cruel thing to do to all of the poor animals! Animals have feelings just as humans do and they should not be treated in this manner.
Charlotte responded 10 months ago: #158
Animals do have feelings and are just as important as humans. But would you rather a member of your family die of a cause which would be cured by the products of animal testing or harm a few animals.
In most cases the treating of the animals are fair, it's only a small percentage of the animals that get treated badly or overdosed with drugs e.c.t.
In most cases the treating of the animals are fair, it's only a small percentage of the animals that get treated badly or overdosed with drugs e.c.t.
Sara responded 10 months ago: #159
okay i have a few things to say. first of all i think animal testing is wrong. It may benefit mankind but what about those that are cruelly used for makeup? or cruel experiments? i am a girl that loves her mascara...and im sure alot of you are. but enough animals have died for needless reasons. And for you idiots that think animals are nearly useless to our environment, they RUN the environment. animals to humans 10000000000 to 0.01, just to throw a number out there because im sure there is an extremely larger number than that. And those of you that are so self-centered that you would be willing to say that its "rather them than me" well you need to put yourself in anothers' shoes! Animals have not only shaped my life but SAVED my life. When I was younger, high school and middle school were absolute heck and it felt like no one was on my side. But when i got home, guess who would love me no matter how much i had yelled at her, or how i looked, or how i dressed? My dog. Always. And now that shes been killed by a drunk driver, now its my turn to stand up to animals' rights. And being treated better is where im to start. Not only do they benefit mankind, but they saved us, through medicine AND loyalty. Those who say they have no real feelings, then why do they show love? or pain? or loss? If I needed to give my life to cure cancer, I would in a heartbeat. But for makeup? Id rather die fighting it.
Kiki responded 10 months ago: #160
since we all ready know what chemicals react with others to cure things why do we need to keep testing on the animals?!chemicals arnt going to change each time and besides whats the point to test on animals when theres no guarantee that the animal will have the same reaction...so whats the point? and who ever said it was immature how about if we stuff you in a cage and put stuff in your eyes and make you eat poison just to see another reaction that we have already done hundreds of times just to see if anything has changed!!!!
kk responded 10 months ago: #161
hey im only 14 and i get more about animal testing then most of you i just think you should look up your sorces before you say something like calling us hypocrites because you dont care about animals as much as we do. you wright me something and i can turn it around in a second. so pull your head out of your ***** and realize whats going here
email me
superflychik6@yahoo.com
superflychik6@hotmail.com
email me
superflychik6@yahoo.com
superflychik6@hotmail.com
lollz!! responded 9 months ago: #162
Hey guess wat>.. animal testing is like killing people on a daily bases.Have you ever heard one of those poor little creatures crying, just screaming for help, well guess wat i have and it is the worst thing in the world.it makes me so sad to know that they do this to Gods creations its is just terrible and i would like to stick a tube full of stuff in those scientists mouths the way the do to those tiny baby animals!!!!!
Kerrack Bellwynn responded 9 months ago: #163
I believe that if testing is performed in a humane and compassionate way, then it is not mistreatment. If the animal is not in any pain, say for instance, it is being operated on, but has anaesthesia, then it should not be considered cruel. As long as the animal is not harmed, emotionally or physically, then the testing is morally sound, but if the animal is distressed or injured in any way, then the testing should cease and the animal allowed to recuperate without further tests.
Jim Harold responded 9 months ago: #164
The Conclusion is that Animal Testing is both good and bad. No one likes to see animals suffer, but let me ask you, would you like to see a fellow human being suffer from a disease that could have possibly been cured due to a finding from Animal Testing? Many Animals are also treated better than they would have been in wild life. Scientists treat them well because they are very valuable! What else is there to test on? Technology has not reached the limit where we can use computers to find cures yet, plants and tests on organs by itself don't show the full effect on the body! What would you like to do? Test on criminals? That is perhaps the most cruel and UN-humane way humans can go! We should not stoop that low and we all know it.
awal responded 9 months ago: #165
why..??!why must we use animals to be tested in finding cure...??is there no other alternative ways..??
Jim Harold responded 9 months ago: #166
Not yet there aren't... But eventually, we WILL come up with technology so that we'll no longer need to test on animals. I'm not trying to be bias but some of you are sounding like you think that the scientists actually LOVE and ENJOY testing on animals. You could not be more wrong. people, stop being stubborn and do the research. Some of you keep on using the SAME arguments about how animal testing doesn't work! Well, then, how come there are over 160 medicines and vaccines used today? If you want, I can name a whole list of them. Plus, some of you may be thinking of those poor monkeys that animal protesters flash at you... today, on FIVE, 5, percent of experiments are done on animals and 99% of them are rodents like mice. Many people already use mouse traps to get rid of mice so really, what can they say? Also, all you meat lovers out there, millions of animals are killed a year for meat, if anything, medical research is a more worthy death. Now don't get me wrong, i LOVE animals.. i really do! But before all you animal lovers stand up and protest, please, try to look at this topic from the OTHER side. You might be surprised at the facts. o and last thing, animals have benefited A LOT from animal testing! here's the list...heartworm, arthritis, parasites, allergies and heart disease, as well as vaccines for rabies and feline HIV plus much more. Have a good day! :)
Luke Feaster responded 9 months ago: #167
God has ordained man to be over animals. That is what he created us for, to rule over the earth. I agree that animals shouldn't be tortured ,but animals are animals. We should use the animals to help mankind until God returns and creates a new heaven and a new earth.
Bina Robinson responded 8 months ago: #168
Except for Kiki (bless her) recent posters don't seem to realize that the results of tests on other species are not reliable for humans - or each other for that matter. Results obtained on mice, for instance are not reliable for rats. The drug TGN1412 that came close to killing the human test volunteers had been given high safety credentials as a result of earlier animal tests.
Dwelling on the suffering of test animals, deplorable as it is, merely obscures the fact that these tests are unreliable, and therefore dangerous for the humans they are supposed to protect. More reliable scientific methods such as using cultured human tissues and studying the effect of microdoses (too miniscule to cause harm) on human volunteers are already available. So let's encourage drug companies and scientists to protect humans by using these safer methods that yield more reliable results for humans.
Dwelling on the suffering of test animals, deplorable as it is, merely obscures the fact that these tests are unreliable, and therefore dangerous for the humans they are supposed to protect. More reliable scientific methods such as using cultured human tissues and studying the effect of microdoses (too miniscule to cause harm) on human volunteers are already available. So let's encourage drug companies and scientists to protect humans by using these safer methods that yield more reliable results for humans.
eugenia davis responded 8 months ago: #169
i think that animals should have as many rights as people. i think that descrimination against spieces is wrong.
just because they can not tell us what they want us to do and ask us to stop it doesn't mean that they cannot feel pain and cannot enjoy or suffer. they deserve as amny rights if not more than people.
here is an example of ananimal(s)knowing more than people.
in the big tsunami all the animals started to evacuate to high land long before the waves started to pick up and that is why more people lost their lives and animals lost very few.
animals are in tuned with nature and we just aren't acustom to things that the native americans were. if we hadn't done sooooooo much to polute our world and bodys mabe we would be closer to nature.
we think that we neeed all these cures when the truth is if we hadn't poluted so many things we wouldn't have all these harmful diseases. in other words it our fault for pretty much all the things that have gone wrong the last couple of years and G.W. Bush isn't helping
eugenia davis
age 13
just because they can not tell us what they want us to do and ask us to stop it doesn't mean that they cannot feel pain and cannot enjoy or suffer. they deserve as amny rights if not more than people.
here is an example of ananimal(s)knowing more than people.
in the big tsunami all the animals started to evacuate to high land long before the waves started to pick up and that is why more people lost their lives and animals lost very few.
animals are in tuned with nature and we just aren't acustom to things that the native americans were. if we hadn't done sooooooo much to polute our world and bodys mabe we would be closer to nature.
we think that we neeed all these cures when the truth is if we hadn't poluted so many things we wouldn't have all these harmful diseases. in other words it our fault for pretty much all the things that have gone wrong the last couple of years and G.W. Bush isn't helping
eugenia davis
age 13
eugenia davis responded 8 months ago: #170
i think that animals should have as many rights as people. i think that descrimination against spieces is wrong.
just because they can not tell us what they want us to do and ask us to stop it doesn't mean that they cannot feel pain and cannot enjoy or suffer. they deserve as amny rights if not more than people.
here is an example of ananimal(s)knowing more than people.
in the big tsunami all the animals started to evacuate to high land long before the waves started to pick up and that is why more people lost their lives and animals lost very few.
animals are in tuned with nature and we just aren't acustom to things that the native americans were. if we hadn't done sooooooo much to polute our world and bodys mabe we would be closer to nature.
we think that we neeed all these cures when the truth is if we hadn't poluted so many things we wouldn't have all these harmful diseases. in other words it our fault for pretty much all the things that have gone wrong the last couple of years and G.W. Bush isn't helping
eugenia davis
age 13
just because they can not tell us what they want us to do and ask us to stop it doesn't mean that they cannot feel pain and cannot enjoy or suffer. they deserve as amny rights if not more than people.
here is an example of ananimal(s)knowing more than people.
in the big tsunami all the animals started to evacuate to high land long before the waves started to pick up and that is why more people lost their lives and animals lost very few.
animals are in tuned with nature and we just aren't acustom to things that the native americans were. if we hadn't done sooooooo much to polute our world and bodys mabe we would be closer to nature.
we think that we neeed all these cures when the truth is if we hadn't poluted so many things we wouldn't have all these harmful diseases. in other words it our fault for pretty much all the things that have gone wrong the last couple of years and G.W. Bush isn't helping
eugenia davis
age 13
Madison Lyman responded 8 months ago: #171
i am a complete animal lover! i think labs have no right whatsoever so assume that since animals cannot express their pain and suffering in words, that its okay to just waste these helpless animals. :(
madison
age 12
madison
age 12
Tex responded 7 months ago: #172
yall are just stupid.
Emily Bradley responded 7 months ago: #173
Animals testing is abuslutely HORRIBLE i have watched things on animal testing and they were abused mercalisly!
I beleive animal testing sould be ended there is no diffrence between animal testing and animal abuse just 2 diffrences #1 animal abuse is illegal #2 animal testing can be alot! worse!
if you have comments or think you can help this horrible thing then email me at 4animalsrights@gmail.com
also people say animal testing is to improve scientific stuff well guess WHAT its for humane needs so why dont you use people not animals then you will know how it is to be a monkey stuffed in a tube and sufficated with chemicals with no say wether you want to die this way or not! or to be a dog who has chemicals rubbed on it burning of is skin or having your head cut open and horrible things put in your head while your awake with out pain medicine theese animals live they have feelings just like us!
I beleive animal testing sould be ended there is no diffrence between animal testing and animal abuse just 2 diffrences #1 animal abuse is illegal #2 animal testing can be alot! worse!
if you have comments or think you can help this horrible thing then email me at 4animalsrights@gmail.com
also people say animal testing is to improve scientific stuff well guess WHAT its for humane needs so why dont you use people not animals then you will know how it is to be a monkey stuffed in a tube and sufficated with chemicals with no say wether you want to die this way or not! or to be a dog who has chemicals rubbed on it burning of is skin or having your head cut open and horrible things put in your head while your awake with out pain medicine theese animals live they have feelings just like us!
michayla responded 7 months ago: #174
ANIMAL TESTING is supper gross and wrong like people grow the h