Animals Australia Unleashed
Change the World Who Cares? Videos Take Action! The Animals Community Forum Shop Blog Display
1 2 3
Your E-Mail: O Password:
Login Help     |     Join for Free!     |     Hide This

Post a Reply

Animal Testing

(formerly 'meat eaters')

31 - 32 of 32 posts   1 | 2 | 3 | 4  

FrancisM FrancisM VIC Posts: 62
31 2 May 2011
Abbiesaurus said:
There is some good information about the success and failure rates of animal  testing here:
I have not checked the validity of the references, so if anyone doubts the information supplied then they will have to check that themselves happy

Without a doubt cosmetics, food products etc. can successfully be tested without the use of animals. But what would be a replacement for animal testing in medical research? I am referring to the more dangerous testing they do which often causes instant fatality. Clearly they would not be allowed to do this kind of testing on humans and would need another way to carry out this kind of experimentation.

Even if there was no ideal alternative, I still don't believe that humans should be treating animals so horrifically to achieve minimal gain.
The question of what is 'horrific treatment' is an important one; and it is the responsibility of ethics committees and researchers to minimise the pain and stress an animal is under during research to the extent possible without compromising the experiment (in which case the animals would be wasted, which is worse). If the gains really are going to be minimal, then the experiments should not be getting approved. Certainly at the university I am at, you are required to justify why the project is important for either human and animal wellbeing.

Regarding that website, it may be informative to browse the reference list and look at the years in which the publications took place. There has been a lot of reigning-in since the 60s, 70s and even 80s.
There is one very valid statement on the site, though:
Vivisection Information Network website said:
If animal testing were abandoned today, there would be hundreds of methods we could use.  The American National Cancer Institute alone uses 100 cell culture tests to identify cancer-causing chemicals.  As technology progresses we are able to develop more accurate methods.  Gene therapy and computers are just two examples of areas where massive advances have been made using ingenuity and good science.
The American National Cancer Institute does indeed use 100 cell culture tests. Technology (e.g. computers) are indeed helping us move forward and improve science. Not only is the field of science using alternatives to animals where possible, its techniques have improved vastly (partially through technology) over time and are continuing to do so. Better technology -> better results -> using less animals, and getting more valid results from them.

I'll be honest though; as soon as a website is using the term 'vivisection' then I am biased against it. It's connotation well captured by Google in its response to 'define vivisection':
Google said:
viv-i-sec-tion /ˌvivəˈsekSHən/  Noun
1. The practice of performing operations on live animals for the purpose of experimentation or scientific research (used only by people who are opposed to such work).
2. Ruthlessly sharp and detailed criticism or analysis.

sophxx sophxx NSW Posts: 169
32 5 May 2011
Mean people wear fur said:
Maggie said:
christi said:
if animals aren't the same as us than why do animal testing seriously  confused
I've been wondering the same thing...
"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is:  "Because the animals are like us."  Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is:  "Because the animals are not like us."  Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. " ~  Charles R. Magel
Yes, but an interesting counter to that would be that in terms of physiology we are similar enough for experiments to teach us things, but we are not alike enough in terms of intellectual capability, emotions or "worth" for these experiments to be wrong.

Not that I agree with that, but I haven't heard anybody say it before.

Next >
 [ 1 ]  [ 2 ]  [ 3 ]  [ 4 ]