![]() |
Animal testing
Most of us wouldn't be here had medicines not been tested on animals, yet so many are against it. Are you? Or should animal testing continue? Are you OK with some animals? Say mice, rats? But others are a no no like monkeys or rabbits?
Debate |
Animal testing brings progress so yes I do support it, maybe not when it's being used to test cosmetics and things though.
|
I think animal testing is necessary to help advance medical science. Half of the world's drugs probably wouldn't be here without the use of animal testing. I really would like to know how those who are against this expect science to advance. Its stupid, what are we going to test a, for example, a potential cure for cancer if we can't use animals? On bricks?
I think that if a drug is unstable and unsuitable for human trials then it should be tested on an animal first as I'm quite sure there would be outrage if pharmaceutical companies tested all their products exclusively on humans first - what if one of them were to die? Its a no-brainer to me. |
The thing that prompted this is remember the mouse with the ear grown on it's back? It's just been on a documentory I'm watching. It's a shocking image to see yet is breakthrough medicine/treatment. Where would we be without such experiments? Plus it never harmed the mouse
|
Test it on murderers and paedophiles instead.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
i dont agree with it at all.
animal testing isn't all about medicine.. they can kill animals just to "attempt" to make a perfume, which might not even be released, so murdering animals for a chance to make a new perfume its wrong |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Problem with that would be though, if someone had been wrongly convicted and they found out like years later. And they had 40 eyeballs or something due to medical research, when they did nothing wrong in the first place D: |
yeah but what i was saying is animal testing for things like perfumes is wrong. whereas animal testing for things like medicine i supose could be acceptable
|
Quote:
Imagine if Calvin Klein released a brand new fragrance without animal testing. They miss out a side effect and so when its released the perfume causes skin diseases in people. Surely a couple of mice is worth more than disfiguring potentially thousands of people? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I get mm&is point. I dont agree with it for cosmetic stuff. If the people making the perfume/whatever who are going to profit from it want to test it, test it on themselves. Why put an animal through potential pain? I do think sometimes animal testing can sometimes be necessary though, to test out medication and things like that. |
They do do medical trials on people too MM&I
I remember one person in the news who was injected with something and never went back for the antidote - Never heard anything after that :/ |
Quote:
|
Testing on animals for cosmetic reasons is wrong but I agree with animal testing for medicinal purposes. Without it, we'd be without important, potentially lifesaving medicines. The only people I can genuinely believe would be against it are the narrow-minded do-gooders who, if were in charge, would actually do more harm than good, and naive animal lovers who can't see the benefits.
I'd propose testing on volunteers in exchange for money when it comes to cosmetics, something which I believe does exist but alongside animal testing. |
Quote:
|
Tyrone on Corrie volunteered to be a "human guinea pig" once I think, it does happen
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Did about Animal Testing in E&P last year, quite an interesting topic. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 07:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging (Pro) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.