Animal Experimentation

[Joan of Ark]

Do you think animal experimentation should be done or not? (I have to do a persuasive essay on this, so give me your reasons too for chosing either way)

[mrbiggs]

Yes, it should. Cruel animal experimentation should not, but for the advancement of science and medicine, it is abosolutely necessary, both for the animals' sake, and our own.

[Sarah]

It depends, I think that it should be allowed as long as it does not seriously harm the animals in question, and they should be in humane environs throughout the whole process. Now, human experimentation should be allowed as well, but only with permission from the human in question.

[mrbiggs]

It depends, I think that it should be allowed as long as it does not seriously harm the animals in question, and they should be in humane environs throughout the whole process. Now, human experimentation should be allowed as well, but only with permission from the human in question.

What if they're testing an AIDS vaccine, and the last 10 times they tested it the animals died, but this time they made a few modifications, so they might or might not live?

Then, what if the animals turn inside out or something painful?

[Sarah]

Then, I would have to say that they should be testing on humans.

Well, as I said before, it depends. I suppose that we could be testing on cats for AIDS, but I still believe that humans made the stupid disease to begin with...

[mrbiggs]

Then, I would have to say that they should be testing on humans.

Well, as I said before, it depends. I suppose that we could be testing on cats for AIDS, but I still believe that humans made the stupid disease to begin with...

On humans? With a potentially, even probably, lethal vaccine? Not going to be allowed by the government, even if there were volunteers, AND the public supported it.

[Sarah]

Thus my hating governments.

[mrbiggs]

Thus my hating governments.

I don't think that the government is bad in that case. We shouldn't be able to take advantage of the poor by offering them money to die so we can get a vaccine.

[Sarah]

They already do. I've read up on so many cases such as this -because- of the government.

[mrbiggs]

They already do. I've read up on so many cases such as this -because- of the government.

Well, I think it's a bad thing if the government has done it in the past, but that doesn't mean that we should say that it's OK from now on.

[Sarah]

Oh, but I'm not saying that it's ok. I'm saying that it should be up to the people to judge how they want to live their lives. As long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, why stop it?

[mrbiggs]

Oh, but I'm not saying that it's ok. I'm saying that it should be up to the people to judge how they want to live their lives. As long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, why stop it?

Because it does hurt them. There's a certain point after which we have to help the less fortunate, and giving them money to die isn't helping them. If they need the money that badly, we should give it to them.

[JEC]

Then, I would have to say that they should be testing on humans.

Well, as I said before, it depends. I suppose that we could be testing on cats for AIDS, but I still believe that humans made the stupid disease to begin with...

No, Sarah that is incorrect. AIDS was not made up by human or human behavior. Humans have contributed to the propagation of the disease including to unborn children who have nothing to do with this problem or their mothers/fathers lifestyle. Furthermore, there are other forms of transmission. I had a cousin, a talented pediatrician, who died from AIDS early on because he was a hemophiliac and received multiple transfusions.

[JEC]

I have an invested interest on this issue.

Firstmost, I am an academic physician who takes care of people with incurable conditions who suffer every day because inadequate or toxic treatments.
Second, I do research in humans and we can not study some questions adequately in humans.
Lastly, I do research in experimental animal models of disease.

Before I do an experiment in animals, I have to justify the use of animals, the number of animals, the species that I use and why I am doing it. This is reviewed and approved by a panel of scientists and lay people. We then conduct the research. There are many things that we can not ethically study in humans. For example, you need to prove that a vaccine works, so you make the animal model of the condition and you trat about half of the animals with the vaccine and the other half is treated with either serum (vehicle) or not treated. Then, you can compare whether the treatment alters the natural history of disease. However, if there is a mediocre treatment for humans, you can not ethically withold treatment for humans. Clearly, we are also concern about the welfare of animals, and there are treatments that are given to minimize pain, etc.

[Flagrant da Nut]

Because it does hurt them. There's a certain point after which we have to help the less fortunate, and giving them money to die isn't helping them. If they need the money that badly, we should give it to them.

bravo
mr biggs will grow up to be a mature responsible and caring adult

[MikeHarm]

I think that experimenting on animals that were people's pets are wrong. But I think its better to test on animals in general before trying it out on humans, though sometimes its necessary to take shortcuts in an emergency situation.

When it comes to food.. the food where people are screaming about people being mean to the animals before turning them into food tastes really really good, much better than the cruelty free products.

[Saber-Psycho]

Yes, it should. Cruel animal experimentation should not, but for the advancement of science and medicine, it is abosolutely necessary, both for the animals' sake, and our own.

I agree with you.
Even though it absolutely abhorrent, testing for AIDS and massive death disease's really need testing.
But for revoltingly trivial matters, such as make-up, sunscreen and shampoo, it's morally reprehensible.

[jeff]

Animal experimentation? How many animals do you know that are qualified to conduct an experiment? I mean, really. They don't even have opposable thumbs to hold a pencil and write down their results. How would they even apply for a grant. Boy, what a silly idea....

[jeff]

Seriously now: many, many advances in medicine were first proven on or otherwise used animals. From insulin treatment for diabetes to the advent of anesthesia, to the use of tamoxifen for cancer, it has been an essential part of medical advances. Without them, we would have very little effective medicine today.

[Gav]

I'm all for it. I wouldn't be alive today without at least some experimentation on animals. My coach may be alive but I guarentee that his quality of life would be extremely poor (he's diabetic).

Perhaps it would be easier on those against it if the animals weren't 'cute' or featured prominently in Disney movies.