duffman Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Originally posted by fnkysknky We wouldn't have any medicines if we didn't test on animals so I voted a confident yes. I would prefer though if beauty products etc. were tested some other way if possible. I don't think we wouldn't have any medicines without testing, but a number would have taken longer to be produced although it can work the other way round. Diabetes was belived to be in the liver, so whilst testing on dogs it was discoverd in a human that it was in the pancreas, granted that was a long time ago but a diagnosis could have been made sooner because the test were not showing anything on the dogs. By the way I voted a debatable yes, i meant to vote debatable no:blush: could someone change it please:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fnkysknky Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 We wouldn't have an LD50 for anything either so we wouldn't know how toxic stuff was... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alert_bri Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 I say ban animal testing altogether immediately. If scientists are so smart (which they are) then they will find a way to test drugs without using animals - they're just taking the easy way out right now based on economics... we're planning to send people to Mars - with that kind of scientific investment planned why do we need to cut corners for drug testing? I believe drugs are only properly tested when they're released into the population over a long period of time... then you wait for the reported deaths by side effects and the 'reported side effects' list starts to grow on the side of the bottle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duffman Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Originally posted by fnkysknky We wouldn't have an LD50 for anything either so we wouldn't know how toxic stuff was... Agreed, but my point is times move on and i'm really on about the old methods that are no longer needed but seem to be going on still even in medicine, i'm no animal rights campaigner but I belive there are plenty of viable alternatives instead of animals, is it animals are cheaper to use and no-one will pump the money into the reaserching new technologies? because it seems that way! Sorry Alert_bri, you said something similar on the economics but I didn't read yours before I posted apologies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuteWitness Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 The compantys mustthink there products are dangerous or they wouldnt test them on animals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duffman Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Originally posted by f_g The compantys mustthink there products are dangerous or they wouldnt test them on animals What companies are we on about? the medical,cosmetic or domestic? because cosmetic and domestic companies have other ways to test if products are dangerous to humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fnkysknky Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Originally posted by duffman Agreed, but my point is times move on and i'm really on about the old methods that are no longer needed but seem to be going on still even in medicine, i'm no animal rights campaigner but I belive there are plenty of viable alternatives instead of animals, is it animals are cheaper to use and no-one will pump the money into the reaserching new technologies? because it seems that way! Sorry Alert_bri, you said something similar on the economics but I didn't read yours before I posted apologies! Yeah but realistically unless you can build a computer simulation that models the human body perfectly and all the drugs that you want to test then testing on a living thing is the only option, well as far as I see anyway. It would be great if we didn't have to use animals but for certain things we still do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxxx Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 I work in the Pharmaceutical industry and know what goes on. I don't agree with cosmetic testing and I thought this was illegal in this country although I could be wrong. I do believe animal testing is necessary to protect humans when they are taking drugs. I work at the far end of the scale on clinical trials where human volunteers are consenting to take the drugs and these drugs will have gone through years of testing before going into the human. What I would like to point out is that every effort is taken to use as little animal work as possible. Drug development usually begins in the lab in vitro. Thats basically outside of the body, so using cells, parts of the body, enzymes, etc etc. When a drug is looking promising it'll go to the next stage, then the next. Drugs get eliminated through these processes of testing. Eventually the animal is used. This is so scientist can see how the drug will work in a body system and normally rats and mice are used. Dogs, cats, monkeys etc are not used at this stage. Any scientist or lab assistant working on animals has to have a home office licence. These consist of different modules that you must pass in order to even handle an animal let alone give it a drug. In order to do an experiment on an animal the home office has to approve it. They will decide on the amount of discomfort to the animal versus the results that you are looking for and whether it is necessary to do the experiment. The home office supports the 3 Rs. (Replacement, refinement and reduction). So they have targets to reduce the number of animals used each year, replacement of methods used and refinement to cause the least discomfort possible. Any home office licence holder, if found to be breaking the rules and mistreating an animal or not following the guidelines will have their licence revoked and can be sent to prison. The guidelines that are followed are extremelly strict. Now I'm not saying that I am majorally for animal testing but I do agree with it while there is no other alternative. There may never be an alternative. All I am trying to say is that scientists are not bad people and it winds me up when scientific animal experimentation is put in the same bracket as cosmetic testing and animal cruelty. The process is not cruel, it is the opposite. The animals are looked after very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duffman Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Very interesting Foxxx! On the cosmetics and domestics, it is illegal for cosmetic testing in the U.K but domestic uses are not. I never had the impression that scientist were bad, it's a job at the end of the day. But can you see a time where we don't have to test on animals? Do you know what the targets are for reduction of animal use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alert_bri Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Now I'm not saying that I am majorally for animal testing but I do agree with it while there is no other alternative. There may never be an alternative. All I am trying to say is that scientists are not bad people and it winds me up when scientific animal experimentation is put in the same bracket as cosmetic testing and animal cruelty. The process is not cruel, it is the opposite. The animals are looked after very well. [/b] I agree entirely - scientists are not bad people - and the best way to find alternatives to animal testing is to ban it altogether right now - then all the necessary scientific resources and efforts will have to be directed to finding the alternative! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.