The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
For well over one hundred years now, the need for animal testing has been fiercely debated and I am writing this piece in the hope of persuading people that vivisection is not cruel, bloodthirsty and callous.
The main problem that people appear to have with animal testing is that it is cruel to harm animals in “pointless” experiments. Actually, according to the 1986 animals act, licences for testing are only granted if the experiment reaches certain standards. Firstly, the licence will only be granted if the potential results are important enough to warrant the use of animals. Also, the smallest number of animals possible must be used. Dogs, cats and primates are only to be used if absolutely necessary. Anaesthetics and painkillers must be used. Researchers, technicians and scientists must have been sufficiently trained. For extra protection, inspectors randomly, and unannounced, visit the laboratories twelve times per year. Since 1999, there has been the use of the local ethical review, which works along side the Government to help protect the animals.
Animals are only used for testing when there is no other way of obtaining the required information. Animals are used in only a mere 10% of all medical research and 84% of those animals are rats and mice, all of which are specially bred. Just 0.45% of the animals are cats, dogs and monkeys. Dogs are important though, for studying surgical techniques used on the heart and lungs because of the highly similar structure to humans and cats have similar ears and their brains function in the same way as ours. Primates are only used to research diseases like AIDS and Alzheimer’s disease. Stray cats and dogs are protected by law so are not tested on. Law also protects gorillas, orang-utans and chimpanzees. The percentage of each type of animal used is stated below.
1. 84% rats mice and fish
2. 12% fish, amphibians, reptiles and birds (with many fertilised hen’s eggs)
3. 1.5% rabbits, ferrets and some other small mammals
4. 2.1% sheep, cows, pigs and other large mammals
5. 0.3% specially bred dogs and cats
6. 0.15% monkeys
There are five main areas in which animal testing is used for. They are:
1. Finding new treatments for diseases and creating new treatments for preventing diseases. 32%
2. Essential biological and medical research. 32%
3. Breeding of laboratory animals. 29%
4. Safety testing of non-medical products*. 5%
5. Developing new methods of diagnosis. 1.5%
*This does not include testing of toiletries and cosmetics because that has been banned since 1998.
In 2002, 2894880 animals were used in tests. 2431699 of those animals were rats or mice, creatures with small brains and few emotions. Only 86846 of the animals were cats or dogs and you do have to remember that the animals used are rarely killed and painkillers are used on all animals.
Another common argument against vivisection is that the tests used on animals are irrelevant to humans because humans and animals suffer from different illnesses. This is not entirely true. All mammals have similar ancestors so they all have the same vital organs; a heart, lungs, liver, etc. The organs are all controlled in the same way too, so it is possible for humans to have transplants with animal hormones. Also, almost all human diseases can be found in at least one other species of animal and a man named Charles Cornelius has listed over 350 human diseases and the animals that can also get the illness.
Another argument against testing is that the drugs that are formulated through tests will have different effects on humans. This is not true. By testing drugs on animals, the researchers are able to see how they affect the body and if any side effects occur. Since 1961, only 2% of the drugs put on the market have had to be withdrawn because of problems. That leaves 98% of the drugs doing their job.
Once a drug has been tested on an animal and no terrible side effects have been spotted, then, by law, the drugs are tested on a group of volunteer humans so as to spot any minor side effects. Animals are used to spot fatal problems with the drugs.
Some people claim that animal testing has not produced any progress, medically. These people are wrong. Just one example is the discovery of insulin. It was discovered that if pancreatic cells containing the hormone insulin were injected into dogs, it would relieve them of diabetic symptoms. This was soon to be used on humans and it worked. Since this discovery in the 1920s, many, many other drugs have been derived from the insulin treatment. It is expected that more advances in cancer and cystic fibrosis will be made soon. Surely that’s a good thing?
Anti-vivisectionists say that there is no need for animal testing because the results can be found in other ways but as was briefly mentioned before, animals are only tested on when absolutely necessary and many experiments are performed without animal tests but sometimes animals must be used. For example, mice and children have the same symptoms when they have cystic fibrosis so mice can be used to study the genes of a living body with cystic fibrosis. All researchers have to follow rules known as the three Rs:
1. Refinement = make sure that the animals suffer as little as possible
2. Reduction = minimise the number of animals tested on
3. Replacement = use non-animal methods whenever possible
You may argue that vaccines, drugs and antibiotics aren’t really that important and that clean water and clean streets are the answer to exterminating disease. It is undeniable that this helps but in Britain, for example, there has been clean water for in all homes for many decades but there are still many diseases going around and diseases that have been eradicated, since the introduction of clean water, using vaccines. TB, for example, has become easily treatable and preventable thanks to animal testing. You have to agree that sparing the lives of a few mice is worth doing when it resolves in being able to save the lives of millions of humans.
It is not only the well off countries that benefit from the drugs and vaccinations that are created by animal testing. Third world countries also get to benefit. Many doctors make several trips to them each year and offer cheap or free medication to those who need it most. This would not be possible without animal testing.
Another common belief is that there are many unnecessary tests being carried out by researchers. This is definitely a foolish statement. Firstly, it is stated in the 1986 animals act that animals can only be used if there is no other method of obtaining the information; secondly, tests are very expensive and slow to perform so researchers would have no interest in performing unnecessary tests; and thirdly, funds are limited and are given out by a panel of experts. They only fund experiments that are totally necessary.
If you were to say that animal research is done for profit you would be making a stupid statement. Obviously the researchers make some profit, you can’t expect them to work hard for months or years and not get paid. The primary reason for the tests is of course to find cures for illnesses. If we were to be honest then we could say that the producers of hospital beds are looking for profit more than animal researchers because the bed makers don’t strive to create a perfect bed but the researchers are constantly attempting to make more effective drugs. Also, if animal researchers where just doing their jobs for research then they wouldn’t use animals for research because of the cost involved.
There are many laws protecting laboratory animals. National, international, and local laws protect them. The UK has probably got the strictest laws for animal protection and researchers must have their plans checked by experts before they can go ahead.
Animals are well looked after by the researchers. The researchers have no reason to want to hurt the animals. They are normal humans who probably have pets of their own. All the animals are fed and housed well and are given anaesthetics before any potentially painful tests.
Many medicines that you take for just a normal cough will have been tested on animals but you wouldn’t be without them, would you? We all know people have been seriously ill or have been seriously ill ourselves. Ill with diseases that can easily kill if not treated properly. How do you think many treatments are found? By testing on animals. How would you feel if one of your family members or friends was diagnosed with a disease but because you had campaigned against animal testing it had now been banned and there had been no time to finish making a treatment for the disease your friend or family member had been diagnosed with. This disease then led to this person dieing. Isn’t that murder? You’d be at the funeral and deep inside you would know that you had led to this person’s death. It could have been your mother. You would have let your mother die just to spare the lives of a few rats and mice. Some of the most unpopular creatures on Earth and creatures that spread disease themselves. Are you saying that you prefer dirty, disease spreading vermin to your own mother? Are you saying that creatures you would run away from are more important than the woman who brought you up, fed and clothed you? I didn’t think so. I think I’ve made it quite clear that vivisection is an important medical tool and is in no way barbaric like fox hunting. When fox hunting, the foxes are killed purely for the fun of the hunters. That is barbaric. Vivisection is a pain free way of researchers being able to study diseases and find cures for millions of people. That is virtuous, appropriate and honourable.
Has anyone actually read this all the way through? I wouldn't blame you if you didn't. Just read the title. I'm quite proud of that.
The main problem that people appear to have with animal testing is that it is cruel to harm animals in “pointless” experiments. Actually, according to the 1986 animals act, licences for testing are only granted if the experiment reaches certain standards. Firstly, the licence will only be granted if the potential results are important enough to warrant the use of animals. Also, the smallest number of animals possible must be used. Dogs, cats and primates are only to be used if absolutely necessary. Anaesthetics and painkillers must be used. Researchers, technicians and scientists must have been sufficiently trained. For extra protection, inspectors randomly, and unannounced, visit the laboratories twelve times per year. Since 1999, there has been the use of the local ethical review, which works along side the Government to help protect the animals.
Animals are only used for testing when there is no other way of obtaining the required information. Animals are used in only a mere 10% of all medical research and 84% of those animals are rats and mice, all of which are specially bred. Just 0.45% of the animals are cats, dogs and monkeys. Dogs are important though, for studying surgical techniques used on the heart and lungs because of the highly similar structure to humans and cats have similar ears and their brains function in the same way as ours. Primates are only used to research diseases like AIDS and Alzheimer’s disease. Stray cats and dogs are protected by law so are not tested on. Law also protects gorillas, orang-utans and chimpanzees. The percentage of each type of animal used is stated below.
1. 84% rats mice and fish
2. 12% fish, amphibians, reptiles and birds (with many fertilised hen’s eggs)
3. 1.5% rabbits, ferrets and some other small mammals
4. 2.1% sheep, cows, pigs and other large mammals
5. 0.3% specially bred dogs and cats
6. 0.15% monkeys
There are five main areas in which animal testing is used for. They are:
1. Finding new treatments for diseases and creating new treatments for preventing diseases. 32%
2. Essential biological and medical research. 32%
3. Breeding of laboratory animals. 29%
4. Safety testing of non-medical products*. 5%
5. Developing new methods of diagnosis. 1.5%
*This does not include testing of toiletries and cosmetics because that has been banned since 1998.
In 2002, 2894880 animals were used in tests. 2431699 of those animals were rats or mice, creatures with small brains and few emotions. Only 86846 of the animals were cats or dogs and you do have to remember that the animals used are rarely killed and painkillers are used on all animals.
Another common argument against vivisection is that the tests used on animals are irrelevant to humans because humans and animals suffer from different illnesses. This is not entirely true. All mammals have similar ancestors so they all have the same vital organs; a heart, lungs, liver, etc. The organs are all controlled in the same way too, so it is possible for humans to have transplants with animal hormones. Also, almost all human diseases can be found in at least one other species of animal and a man named Charles Cornelius has listed over 350 human diseases and the animals that can also get the illness.
Another argument against testing is that the drugs that are formulated through tests will have different effects on humans. This is not true. By testing drugs on animals, the researchers are able to see how they affect the body and if any side effects occur. Since 1961, only 2% of the drugs put on the market have had to be withdrawn because of problems. That leaves 98% of the drugs doing their job.
Once a drug has been tested on an animal and no terrible side effects have been spotted, then, by law, the drugs are tested on a group of volunteer humans so as to spot any minor side effects. Animals are used to spot fatal problems with the drugs.
Some people claim that animal testing has not produced any progress, medically. These people are wrong. Just one example is the discovery of insulin. It was discovered that if pancreatic cells containing the hormone insulin were injected into dogs, it would relieve them of diabetic symptoms. This was soon to be used on humans and it worked. Since this discovery in the 1920s, many, many other drugs have been derived from the insulin treatment. It is expected that more advances in cancer and cystic fibrosis will be made soon. Surely that’s a good thing?
Anti-vivisectionists say that there is no need for animal testing because the results can be found in other ways but as was briefly mentioned before, animals are only tested on when absolutely necessary and many experiments are performed without animal tests but sometimes animals must be used. For example, mice and children have the same symptoms when they have cystic fibrosis so mice can be used to study the genes of a living body with cystic fibrosis. All researchers have to follow rules known as the three Rs:
1. Refinement = make sure that the animals suffer as little as possible
2. Reduction = minimise the number of animals tested on
3. Replacement = use non-animal methods whenever possible
You may argue that vaccines, drugs and antibiotics aren’t really that important and that clean water and clean streets are the answer to exterminating disease. It is undeniable that this helps but in Britain, for example, there has been clean water for in all homes for many decades but there are still many diseases going around and diseases that have been eradicated, since the introduction of clean water, using vaccines. TB, for example, has become easily treatable and preventable thanks to animal testing. You have to agree that sparing the lives of a few mice is worth doing when it resolves in being able to save the lives of millions of humans.
It is not only the well off countries that benefit from the drugs and vaccinations that are created by animal testing. Third world countries also get to benefit. Many doctors make several trips to them each year and offer cheap or free medication to those who need it most. This would not be possible without animal testing.
Another common belief is that there are many unnecessary tests being carried out by researchers. This is definitely a foolish statement. Firstly, it is stated in the 1986 animals act that animals can only be used if there is no other method of obtaining the information; secondly, tests are very expensive and slow to perform so researchers would have no interest in performing unnecessary tests; and thirdly, funds are limited and are given out by a panel of experts. They only fund experiments that are totally necessary.
If you were to say that animal research is done for profit you would be making a stupid statement. Obviously the researchers make some profit, you can’t expect them to work hard for months or years and not get paid. The primary reason for the tests is of course to find cures for illnesses. If we were to be honest then we could say that the producers of hospital beds are looking for profit more than animal researchers because the bed makers don’t strive to create a perfect bed but the researchers are constantly attempting to make more effective drugs. Also, if animal researchers where just doing their jobs for research then they wouldn’t use animals for research because of the cost involved.
There are many laws protecting laboratory animals. National, international, and local laws protect them. The UK has probably got the strictest laws for animal protection and researchers must have their plans checked by experts before they can go ahead.
Animals are well looked after by the researchers. The researchers have no reason to want to hurt the animals. They are normal humans who probably have pets of their own. All the animals are fed and housed well and are given anaesthetics before any potentially painful tests.
Many medicines that you take for just a normal cough will have been tested on animals but you wouldn’t be without them, would you? We all know people have been seriously ill or have been seriously ill ourselves. Ill with diseases that can easily kill if not treated properly. How do you think many treatments are found? By testing on animals. How would you feel if one of your family members or friends was diagnosed with a disease but because you had campaigned against animal testing it had now been banned and there had been no time to finish making a treatment for the disease your friend or family member had been diagnosed with. This disease then led to this person dieing. Isn’t that murder? You’d be at the funeral and deep inside you would know that you had led to this person’s death. It could have been your mother. You would have let your mother die just to spare the lives of a few rats and mice. Some of the most unpopular creatures on Earth and creatures that spread disease themselves. Are you saying that you prefer dirty, disease spreading vermin to your own mother? Are you saying that creatures you would run away from are more important than the woman who brought you up, fed and clothed you? I didn’t think so. I think I’ve made it quite clear that vivisection is an important medical tool and is in no way barbaric like fox hunting. When fox hunting, the foxes are killed purely for the fun of the hunters. That is barbaric. Vivisection is a pain free way of researchers being able to study diseases and find cures for millions of people. That is virtuous, appropriate and honourable.
Has anyone actually read this all the way through? I wouldn't blame you if you didn't. Just read the title. I'm quite proud of that.
For well over one hundred years now, the need for animal testing has been fiercely debated and I am writing this piece in the hope of persuading people that vivisection is not cruel, bloodthirsty and callous.
The main problem that people appear to have with animal testing is that it is cruel to harm animals in “pointless” experiments. Actually, according to the 1986 animals act, licences for testing are only granted if the experiment reaches certain standards. Firstly, the licence will only be granted if the potential results are important enough to warrant the use of animals. Also, the smallest number of animals possible must be used. Dogs, cats and primates are only to be used if absolutely necessary. Anaesthetics and painkillers must be used. Researchers, technicians and scientists must have been sufficiently trained. For extra protection, inspectors randomly, and unannounced, visit the laboratories twelve times per year. Since 1999, there has been the use of the local ethical review, which works along side the Government to help protect the animals.
Animals are only used for testing when there is no other way of obtaining the required information. Animals are used in only a mere 10% of all medical research and 84% of those animals are rats and mice, all of which are specially bred. Just 0.45% of the animals are cats, dogs and monkeys. Dogs are important though, for studying surgical techniques used on the heart and lungs because of the highly similar structure to humans and cats have similar ears and their brains function in the same way as ours. Primates are only used to research diseases like AIDS and Alzheimer’s disease. Stray cats and dogs are protected by law so are not tested on. Law also protects gorillas, orang-utans and chimpanzees. The percentage of each type of animal used is stated below.
1. 84% rats mice and fish
2. 12% fish, amphibians, reptiles and birds (with many fertilised hen’s eggs)
3. 1.5% rabbits, ferrets and some other small mammals
4. 2.1% sheep, cows, pigs and other large mammals
5. 0.3% specially bred dogs and cats
6. 0.15% monkeys
There are five main areas in which animal testing is used for. They are:
1. Finding new treatments for diseases and creating new treatments for preventing diseases. 32%
2. Essential biological and medical research. 32%
3. Breeding of laboratory animals. 29%
4. Safety testing of non-medical products*. 5%
5. Developing new methods of diagnosis. 1.5%
*This does not include testing of toiletries and cosmetics because that has been banned since 1998.
In 2002, 2894880 animals were used in tests. 2431699 of those animals were rats or mice, creatures with small brains and few emotions. Only 86846 of the animals were cats or dogs and you do have to remember that the animals used are rarely killed and painkillers are used on all animals.
Another common argument against vivisection is that the tests used on animals are irrelevant to humans because humans and animals suffer from different illnesses. This is not entirely true. All mammals have similar ancestors so they all have the same vital organs; a heart, lungs, liver, etc. The organs are all controlled in the same way too, so it is possible for humans to have transplants with animal hormones. Also, almost all human diseases can be found in at least one other species of animal and a man named Charles Cornelius has listed over 350 human diseases and the animals that can also get the illness.
Another argument against testing is that the drugs that are formulated through tests will have different effects on humans. This is not true. By testing drugs on animals, the researchers are able to see how they affect the body and if any side effects occur. Since 1961, only 2% of the drugs put on the market have had to be withdrawn because of problems. That leaves 98% of the drugs doing their job.
Once a drug has been tested on an animal and no terrible side effects have been spotted, then, by law, the drugs are tested on a group of volunteer humans so as to spot any minor side effects. Animals are used to spot fatal problems with the drugs.
Some people claim that animal testing has not produced any progress, medically. These people are wrong. Just one example is the discovery of insulin. It was discovered that if pancreatic cells containing the hormone insulin were injected into dogs, it would relieve them of diabetic symptoms. This was soon to be used on humans and it worked. Since this discovery in the 1920s, many, many other drugs have been derived from the insulin treatment. It is expected that more advances in cancer and cystic fibrosis will be made soon. Surely that’s a good thing?
Anti-vivisectionists say that there is no need for animal testing because the results can be found in other ways but as was briefly mentioned before, animals are only tested on when absolutely necessary and many experiments are performed without animal tests but sometimes animals must be used. For example, mice and children have the same symptoms when they have cystic fibrosis so mice can be used to study the genes of a living body with cystic fibrosis. All researchers have to follow rules known as the three Rs:
1. Refinement = make sure that the animals suffer as little as possible
2. Reduction = minimise the number of animals tested on
3. Replacement = use non-animal methods whenever possible
You may argue that vaccines, drugs and antibiotics aren’t really that important and that clean water and clean streets are the answer to exterminating disease. It is undeniable that this helps but in Britain, for example, there has been clean water for in all homes for many decades but there are still many diseases going around and diseases that have been eradicated, since the introduction of clean water, using vaccines. TB, for example, has become easily treatable and preventable thanks to animal testing. You have to agree that sparing the lives of a few mice is worth doing when it resolves in being able to save the lives of millions of humans.
It is not only the well off countries that benefit from the drugs and vaccinations that are created by animal testing. Third world countries also get to benefit. Many doctors make several trips to them each year and offer cheap or free medication to those who need it most. This would not be possible without animal testing.
Another common belief is that there are many unnecessary tests being carried out by researchers. This is definitely a foolish statement. Firstly, it is stated in the 1986 animals act that animals can only be used if there is no other method of obtaining the information; secondly, tests are very expensive and slow to perform so researchers would have no interest in performing unnecessary tests; and thirdly, funds are limited and are given out by a panel of experts. They only fund experiments that are totally necessary.
If you were to say that animal research is done for profit you would be making a stupid statement. Obviously the researchers make some profit, you can’t expect them to work hard for months or years and not get paid. The primary reason for the tests is of course to find cures for illnesses. If we were to be honest then we could say that the producers of hospital beds are looking for profit more than animal researchers because the bed makers don’t strive to create a perfect bed but the researchers are constantly attempting to make more effective drugs. Also, if animal researchers where just doing their jobs for research then they wouldn’t use animals for research because of the cost involved.
There are many laws protecting laboratory animals. National, international, and local laws protect them. The UK has probably got the strictest laws for animal protection and researchers must have their plans checked by experts before they can go ahead.
Animals are well looked after by the researchers. The researchers have no reason to want to hurt the animals. They are normal humans who probably have pets of their own. All the animals are fed and housed well and are given anaesthetics before any potentially painful tests.
Many medicines that you take for just a normal cough will have been tested on animals but you wouldn’t be without them, would you? We all know people have been seriously ill or have been seriously ill ourselves. Ill with diseases that can easily kill if not treated properly. How do you think many treatments are found? By testing on animals. How would you feel if one of your family members or friends was diagnosed with a disease but because you had campaigned against animal testing it had now been banned and there had been no time to finish making a treatment for the disease your friend or family member had been diagnosed with. This disease then led to this person dieing. Isn’t that murder? You’d be at the funeral and deep inside you would know that you had led to this person’s death. It could have been your mother. You would have let your mother die just to spare the lives of a few rats and mice. Some of the most unpopular creatures on Earth and creatures that spread disease themselves. Are you saying that you prefer dirty, disease spreading vermin to your own mother? Are you saying that creatures you would run away from are more important than the woman who brought you up, fed and clothed you? I didn’t think so. I think I’ve made it quite clear that vivisection is an important medical tool and is in no way barbaric like fox hunting. When fox hunting, the foxes are killed purely for the fun of the hunters. That is barbaric. Vivisection is a pain free way of researchers being able to study diseases and find cures for millions of people. That is virtuous, appropriate and honourable.
Has anyone actually read this all the way through? I wouldn't blame you if you didn't. Just read the title. I'm quite proud of that.
The main problem that people appear to have with animal testing is that it is cruel to harm animals in “pointless” experiments. Actually, according to the 1986 animals act, licences for testing are only granted if the experiment reaches certain standards. Firstly, the licence will only be granted if the potential results are important enough to warrant the use of animals. Also, the smallest number of animals possible must be used. Dogs, cats and primates are only to be used if absolutely necessary. Anaesthetics and painkillers must be used. Researchers, technicians and scientists must have been sufficiently trained. For extra protection, inspectors randomly, and unannounced, visit the laboratories twelve times per year. Since 1999, there has been the use of the local ethical review, which works along side the Government to help protect the animals.
Animals are only used for testing when there is no other way of obtaining the required information. Animals are used in only a mere 10% of all medical research and 84% of those animals are rats and mice, all of which are specially bred. Just 0.45% of the animals are cats, dogs and monkeys. Dogs are important though, for studying surgical techniques used on the heart and lungs because of the highly similar structure to humans and cats have similar ears and their brains function in the same way as ours. Primates are only used to research diseases like AIDS and Alzheimer’s disease. Stray cats and dogs are protected by law so are not tested on. Law also protects gorillas, orang-utans and chimpanzees. The percentage of each type of animal used is stated below.
1. 84% rats mice and fish
2. 12% fish, amphibians, reptiles and birds (with many fertilised hen’s eggs)
3. 1.5% rabbits, ferrets and some other small mammals
4. 2.1% sheep, cows, pigs and other large mammals
5. 0.3% specially bred dogs and cats
6. 0.15% monkeys
There are five main areas in which animal testing is used for. They are:
1. Finding new treatments for diseases and creating new treatments for preventing diseases. 32%
2. Essential biological and medical research. 32%
3. Breeding of laboratory animals. 29%
4. Safety testing of non-medical products*. 5%
5. Developing new methods of diagnosis. 1.5%
*This does not include testing of toiletries and cosmetics because that has been banned since 1998.
In 2002, 2894880 animals were used in tests. 2431699 of those animals were rats or mice, creatures with small brains and few emotions. Only 86846 of the animals were cats or dogs and you do have to remember that the animals used are rarely killed and painkillers are used on all animals.
Another common argument against vivisection is that the tests used on animals are irrelevant to humans because humans and animals suffer from different illnesses. This is not entirely true. All mammals have similar ancestors so they all have the same vital organs; a heart, lungs, liver, etc. The organs are all controlled in the same way too, so it is possible for humans to have transplants with animal hormones. Also, almost all human diseases can be found in at least one other species of animal and a man named Charles Cornelius has listed over 350 human diseases and the animals that can also get the illness.
Another argument against testing is that the drugs that are formulated through tests will have different effects on humans. This is not true. By testing drugs on animals, the researchers are able to see how they affect the body and if any side effects occur. Since 1961, only 2% of the drugs put on the market have had to be withdrawn because of problems. That leaves 98% of the drugs doing their job.
Once a drug has been tested on an animal and no terrible side effects have been spotted, then, by law, the drugs are tested on a group of volunteer humans so as to spot any minor side effects. Animals are used to spot fatal problems with the drugs.
Some people claim that animal testing has not produced any progress, medically. These people are wrong. Just one example is the discovery of insulin. It was discovered that if pancreatic cells containing the hormone insulin were injected into dogs, it would relieve them of diabetic symptoms. This was soon to be used on humans and it worked. Since this discovery in the 1920s, many, many other drugs have been derived from the insulin treatment. It is expected that more advances in cancer and cystic fibrosis will be made soon. Surely that’s a good thing?
Anti-vivisectionists say that there is no need for animal testing because the results can be found in other ways but as was briefly mentioned before, animals are only tested on when absolutely necessary and many experiments are performed without animal tests but sometimes animals must be used. For example, mice and children have the same symptoms when they have cystic fibrosis so mice can be used to study the genes of a living body with cystic fibrosis. All researchers have to follow rules known as the three Rs:
1. Refinement = make sure that the animals suffer as little as possible
2. Reduction = minimise the number of animals tested on
3. Replacement = use non-animal methods whenever possible
You may argue that vaccines, drugs and antibiotics aren’t really that important and that clean water and clean streets are the answer to exterminating disease. It is undeniable that this helps but in Britain, for example, there has been clean water for in all homes for many decades but there are still many diseases going around and diseases that have been eradicated, since the introduction of clean water, using vaccines. TB, for example, has become easily treatable and preventable thanks to animal testing. You have to agree that sparing the lives of a few mice is worth doing when it resolves in being able to save the lives of millions of humans.
It is not only the well off countries that benefit from the drugs and vaccinations that are created by animal testing. Third world countries also get to benefit. Many doctors make several trips to them each year and offer cheap or free medication to those who need it most. This would not be possible without animal testing.
Another common belief is that there are many unnecessary tests being carried out by researchers. This is definitely a foolish statement. Firstly, it is stated in the 1986 animals act that animals can only be used if there is no other method of obtaining the information; secondly, tests are very expensive and slow to perform so researchers would have no interest in performing unnecessary tests; and thirdly, funds are limited and are given out by a panel of experts. They only fund experiments that are totally necessary.
If you were to say that animal research is done for profit you would be making a stupid statement. Obviously the researchers make some profit, you can’t expect them to work hard for months or years and not get paid. The primary reason for the tests is of course to find cures for illnesses. If we were to be honest then we could say that the producers of hospital beds are looking for profit more than animal researchers because the bed makers don’t strive to create a perfect bed but the researchers are constantly attempting to make more effective drugs. Also, if animal researchers where just doing their jobs for research then they wouldn’t use animals for research because of the cost involved.
There are many laws protecting laboratory animals. National, international, and local laws protect them. The UK has probably got the strictest laws for animal protection and researchers must have their plans checked by experts before they can go ahead.
Animals are well looked after by the researchers. The researchers have no reason to want to hurt the animals. They are normal humans who probably have pets of their own. All the animals are fed and housed well and are given anaesthetics before any potentially painful tests.
Many medicines that you take for just a normal cough will have been tested on animals but you wouldn’t be without them, would you? We all know people have been seriously ill or have been seriously ill ourselves. Ill with diseases that can easily kill if not treated properly. How do you think many treatments are found? By testing on animals. How would you feel if one of your family members or friends was diagnosed with a disease but because you had campaigned against animal testing it had now been banned and there had been no time to finish making a treatment for the disease your friend or family member had been diagnosed with. This disease then led to this person dieing. Isn’t that murder? You’d be at the funeral and deep inside you would know that you had led to this person’s death. It could have been your mother. You would have let your mother die just to spare the lives of a few rats and mice. Some of the most unpopular creatures on Earth and creatures that spread disease themselves. Are you saying that you prefer dirty, disease spreading vermin to your own mother? Are you saying that creatures you would run away from are more important than the woman who brought you up, fed and clothed you? I didn’t think so. I think I’ve made it quite clear that vivisection is an important medical tool and is in no way barbaric like fox hunting. When fox hunting, the foxes are killed purely for the fun of the hunters. That is barbaric. Vivisection is a pain free way of researchers being able to study diseases and find cures for millions of people. That is virtuous, appropriate and honourable.
Has anyone actually read this all the way through? I wouldn't blame you if you didn't. Just read the title. I'm quite proud of that.
I got about half way through before i'd had enough, damn my short attention span.
I'll say this, it's a necessary evil.
I'll say this, it's a necessary evil.
I reckon you got further than most people will.
I read all of it :)
But I ask you this:
Is your mother really better than a mouse? I don't mean this in a derogatory way, but mice and men both have a right to live.
Do you really care more about some kid in Brazil more than a dog in the same place? Of course you don't. And nor should you. They're not affecting you in any way shape or form, and if you can chuck 50 in a landfill to save a friend you'd do it with no hesistation.
I say, if it helps science more, why should animals be tested any more than humans? Surely they both have a right to exist? And if humans help more, which they surely would, then the efficient thing to do would be to test on humans. This should in theory reduce the amount of living things which medical research is based on.
But I ask you this:
Is your mother really better than a mouse? I don't mean this in a derogatory way, but mice and men both have a right to live.
Do you really care more about some kid in Brazil more than a dog in the same place? Of course you don't. And nor should you. They're not affecting you in any way shape or form, and if you can chuck 50 in a landfill to save a friend you'd do it with no hesistation.
I say, if it helps science more, why should animals be tested any more than humans? Surely they both have a right to exist? And if humans help more, which they surely would, then the efficient thing to do would be to test on humans. This should in theory reduce the amount of living things which medical research is based on.
Humans have more right to live because they're more intelligent. Our understanding of life and death is much more advanced than that of any animal's.
But do we know that for sure?
Some would say that the average yank is stupider than an animal. How do you know how intelligent animals are?
Some would say that the average yank is stupider than an animal. How do you know how intelligent animals are?
long and boring, cant be arsed to read it. sorry.
JFH wrote:
> Humans have more right to live because they're more intelligent. Our
> understanding of life and death is much more advanced than that of
> any animal's.
How do you know we have a much more vast understanding of life and death of any animal.
We onlyknow things because the first 15 years of our life are spent being taught how to do things, I'm sure if animals could talk, and had the ability to utilise things like we can, if we taught them for 15 years, they'd be intelligent too.
I don't see animals nuking random areas of the world just to see if their nukes work.
Who's more stupid? The Nuke testers or animals who can't make them?
I'd say the animals.
> Humans have more right to live because they're more intelligent. Our
> understanding of life and death is much more advanced than that of
> any animal's.
How do you know we have a much more vast understanding of life and death of any animal.
We onlyknow things because the first 15 years of our life are spent being taught how to do things, I'm sure if animals could talk, and had the ability to utilise things like we can, if we taught them for 15 years, they'd be intelligent too.
I don't see animals nuking random areas of the world just to see if their nukes work.
Who's more stupid? The Nuke testers or animals who can't make them?
I'd say the animals.
On the who's more intelligent thing - it's all a matter of evolution.
(B*gger off, FF.)
(B*gger off, FF.)
Aha, compare a snail to FF.
Who's more intelligent?
No contest.
Who's more intelligent?
No contest.