|
Post by millis on Jul 12, 2008 13:17:23 GMT -7
Just a general interest poll n my part, with the hope of a debate for the yes and no sides...
|
|
Light
Inquisitor
Posts: 59
|
Post by Light on Jul 12, 2008 17:07:02 GMT -7
Either we test it on animals, we test it on humans, or we risk putting something dangerous on the market. Animals tend to be cheaper, more numerous, and less prone to suing.
|
|
|
Post by Pem on Jul 13, 2008 10:14:59 GMT -7
Personally I'm all for animal testing, why? Well the ideal test subject for new drugs for humans would be humans, but being that we ethically and morally cannot do such things we have to rely on human analogues such as mice and chimps, however they should be raised and breed for this purpose exclusively. It's wrong to pull a happy animal from the wild or someones home and try dangerous experiments on them, those that have been bred for that purpose at least had it coming the whole time. Unfortunatly if the animal rights activists had there way there would be no more drug testing or any other forms of testing and some advancements effecting humans would cease.
It's a complicated subject when you get right down to it.
|
|
|
Post by kiiper on Jul 24, 2008 5:40:13 GMT -7
I believe that as long as the animal is classed a nuisance or breeds incredibly fast (such as rats) it is better to test on them then on humans. I also believe it should only be used for the most important things vaccines and new drugs on top of the list.
|
|
|
Post by Pem on Jul 24, 2008 6:49:36 GMT -7
To Everyone:
What if the testing done is to test whether or not a new substance such as make up or hygiene product is safe for human use? Is it still ok to test on animals?
|
|
|
Post by millis on Jul 28, 2008 12:51:16 GMT -7
If they get past the design stage and actually get manufactured to the point where it needs testing, wouldn't it be better to use humans? It'll quieten the activists, and yes it'll cost a little more, but animals aren't the same as humans, what can give a rat no effect can give a human a nasty rash reaction or something. Stuff that isn't a major benefit for us bu more for cosmetic reasons are not essential to improving health of the population, so i feel should be tested on humans themselves.
|
|
|
Post by electroshock on Aug 16, 2008 18:36:49 GMT -7
i my opinion, i do believe that it is not necessary for human survival to test everything on animals. medicines and the like are important for human survival and necessary. things like lipstick, make-up and the like are not. you're ugly. deal with it. i say test ion stages of animal life. like start with mice/rats, then birds, lizards(?), dogs, then the rhesus monkey. then if it works on everything else, test on humans. but we humans are so fascinating in our behavior. we create laws and ethics et cetera all because we need to feel safe inside our "logical" minds.
but i digress. to sum the above: medicines on animals- good. cosmetics on animals- bad test in stages, the humans.
|
|