The Bloggers With The Most To Say
Should animals be used in research?
Why or why not? Are there some cases where is it alright?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew G on -
Yes, scientific research. Not cosmetic/commercial testing. One helps society, the other makes it look ridiculous.
-
Permalink Reply by Mr. Apron on -
I think animals should only be used to make my wingtips and my Lo Mein.
-
Permalink Reply by Oats on -
Anyone who disagrees with animal research should stop taking any medications they take, including aspirin and ibuprofen, never go in for any kind of medical procedure, nor get vaccinated against dangerous and deadly viruses, etc. because all of these things have undergone rigorous animal testing before bringing to human clinical trials. People don't freak out when a controlled experiment doesn't work out on an animal, but when a person dies because there were unpredictable factors, then people are up in arms about how that should have been tested for.
Lately people are arguing that we can use models to simulate such responses in the body. Models are good for predicting things, but there is still a lot about the body that we don't know.
Animal research has brought us most of our medical advancements that keep people alive today. Some people agree with animal research but have stipulations on what kind of animals, such as primates, are to be used.
An inside note: The animals used for research are usually given better care, better food, clean water, a comfortable living space, purified air, and controlled day/night hours. Also, in order to even get approved to do animal research, one has to submit a buttload of paperwork justifying the use of each animal, also estimating how many animals will be needed over the course of a year, and what kind of results they expect to see and if things aren't working, at what point will they cease their use of animals. It's not just a whim kind of thing where someone decides they want to do animal research and orders up some rats... You have to get approval from the University/Company first, then present the revised and approved protocol to the animal vendor before they will send animals.
There are rules about everything. About how to handle them, feed them, administer drugs, and even euthanize them. All to minimize the amount of pain the animal is in during any part of a procedure.
Without animal testing, not only would we lose many important breakthroughs in the pharmaceutical industry and medical field, but many many many people would lose their jobs. Just thought I'd throw that in there.
PETA can suck it.
-
Permalink Reply by Peppers on -
I totally agree with all this. Good points. I also have always thought animals who were involved in studies were better off because they are being fed and kept alive! Most of them aren't harmful to the animal anyways. They just watch the animal. Plus, I think killing a rat for the good of the human race is no biggie.
However, I don't think it's right to use more "advanced" (smarter) animals, like dogs. Pigeons? Maybe. But dogs? That is just brutal. I think it was Skinner who did the inescapable shock study with dogs, and when I read about it I wanted to cry. Basically they just kept shocking this dog over and over again and there was nothing he could do to make it stop. It was a study on learned helplessness. I don't think knowing about learned helplessness is THAT important that we need to torture dogs!
-
Permalink Reply by Lena Triskey on -
:( That is awful!
My least favorite experiment-for-no-reason is Watson's "Little Albert" experiment in which a little baby was classically conditioned to have a phobia of rats. I always wondered how that poor kid ended up!
Thank goodness we have RULES now!
-
Permalink Reply by Peppers on
-
Yes! He was even afraid of men with white beards, and cotton balls! Poor thing. As interesting as it is, it definitely was not that important.
-
Permalink Reply by Jie Hua Yee on -
Amen brother! People are pretty ignorant about the way things work. As if some scientist somewhere magically shit disease curing pills every night after dinner, the modern golden goose if you will.
Dated a real cute girl once; main reason I was interested. She was an vegan animal activist and I, well, I was working in a research lab that studied spinal cord injuries using rat models. She was also fucking crazy and took a handful of head pills daily. Didn't have the heart to break it to her, that she was living a contradicting lifestyle.
PETA is incredibly ignorant. I lose respect for anyone who believes in their cause, immediately.
-
Permalink Reply by Lena Triskey on
-
I agree with Oats2. Any research entity (academic, pharma, etc.) has to follow very strict ethical policies. It doesn't make the reality prettier, but the other options are much worse- testing dangerous early-phase drugs on humans, or returning to the dark ages (medically).
Many assumptions about animal research are now incorrect- with better technology and techniques I think we have minimized the problems seen in past decades.
-
Permalink Reply by Coyote Tits on -
I pretty much agree with everyone above. If its for medical testing purposes i'm all for it. If they need to tests monkeys to cure diabetes or puppies to cure cancer, I have no problem with it.
However, i will not stand for companies sticking lipstick in a poor little bunny rabbits eye to test it. That's just inhuman.
-
Permalink Reply by Jie Hua Yee on
-
But bunnies need to be pretty too...
I kid. I kid.
I move to test beauty products on the consumers. I mean, the cost of superficial beauty shouldn't be painless.
-
Permalink Reply by Miss Krimson on -
its a topic that has good and bad points on either side...... I personally think NO!
I went to a school for a cosmetic company and questioned them on this.... check out my post http://vividfusion.blogspot.com/2010/05/so-i-went-the-p-proctor-gam... to find out what they had to say.
Maricela
vividfusion.blogspot.com
© 2012 Created by Lisa.
