Now, I'm for animal testing, for medical research. I've been told and have read that about 90% or so of modern medical research relies on information found through testing on animals, and hundreds of vaccines, treatments, and other medicines have come about because of animal testing.
But, since I don't have that great of a grasp on biology (all I have under my belt is a highschool class, and that was several years ago) I do not exactly know WHY testing on animals works. I'm under the impression that it has something to do with sharing chromosomes with humans (I'm told that monkies share 99% of the same chromosomes as humans, for instance), and other similarities, like having BLOOD and ORGANS, I guess. But because I don't know enough about biology myself, I just have to put faith in /sci/entists and assume they're correct in using animal testing.
I'm told by people against animal testing that it is inaccurate and misleading because it is testing on different species. I'm told that it causes unneeded harm to animals and provides no real benefit to medical science, and other 'bad' things.
So, /sci/, my question today is: Am I wrong in my assumption that animal testing is right? Is it really essential to medical science? Are there better alternatives?
And why the fuck is peta so goddamn annoying, and why do people think they're a reliable source of information, I mean srsly. fucking hypocrites, omfg.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 17:59
Holy shit, monkeys. Spelling error.
Now I fear /sci/ won't take me seriously because I didn't spellcheck.
fuck.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 19:35
Peta is disease. Humans are animals and by right of natural selection we have right to do what we want with other animals, because we can. I know it sounds bit cruel, but that's how it guess in nature. It's not like those monkeys(or any other species) wouldn't be dominating us if they could.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 20:22
>>3
Ape domination is my sexual fetish, do not speak of what you do now know.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 21:27
>>1
There is no better alternative to animal testing, because we have incredibly strong restrictions (legal, ethical, and otherwise) on human testing worldwide. Simulations and cadavers can only do so much, so stuff has to be tested on *living beings* before you can be confident it works. Given the aforementioned restrictions, the only solution is animal testing.
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 22:21
>>5
People I've talked to have said things about testing using human tissue samples grown in petri dishes, test tubes, etc.
I've also been told (or at least I believe that's what's implied) that more people effectively die from medication brought about through animal testing (due to strange reactions with humans, or just plain not working for some people), than if we never used animal testing to find those medicines and (I assumed) those medicines and treatments never came into existance.
It sounded like a bunch of BS, but still. There are people that think stuff like this is true :[
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-28 22:22
>>5
People I've talked to have said things about testing using human tissue samples grown in petri dishes, test tubes, etc.
I've also been told (or at least I believe that's what's implied) that more people effectively die from medication brought about through animal testing (due to strange reactions with humans, or just plain not working for some people), than if we never used animal testing to find those medicines and (I assumed) those medicines and treatments never came into existance.
It sounded like a bunch of BS, but still. There are people that think stuff like this is true :[
Name:
Anonymous2006-06-29 22:03
>>7
that IS sad, but:
"given the fact we canot even test on cloned organs because of the actual legislature we still need Mr. bunnypuffs to chech if this vaccine will stop the west nile virus before PETA breaks in our lab and ruind 15 years of investigation on the base of perceived psicological harm on the animals"
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-02 19:56
yep
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-02 22:33
Better alternatives? Yeah, use convicts.
Better LEGAL alternatives, no.
It's not done because dogs/bunnies/rats/pigs are genetically similar to humans. It's done because there are no alternatives and it would not be ethical to test brand new drugs on humans when we have no idea the type of reaction we will get.
Medical research goes in stages with different trials. A new drug doesn't reach you, the patient, until many years of research have been done on both animals and eventually humans. And even then they're still not always safe. Often times we've come to find out that a miracle drug is causing birth defects or cancer years after its too late and the harm is done.
As far as testing tissues in petri dishes vs. live organisms, it's not easy to do and it's not the same. A drug may behave one way in a controlled laboratory environment, yet completely different inside the human body. Plus it takes a very long time to grow the tissues out so you can even begin. We're progressing to skin and tissue banks (similar to blood banks), but we're not quite there yet, and those are mainly for burn and surgical patients, not just storage for research needs.
If you want an end to animal testing, you need to get idiot Bush out of office and allow cell therapy programs to progress and remove the ban on cloning.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-03 19:45
Animal testing is for motherfuckers.
Use fucking convicts, if they die that's ok.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-03 20:53
Read above dipshit. Without animal testing there would be no medical treatments for humans. Testing convicts without their permission or as some sort of punishment is unethical and illegal.
Sticking needles into dolphin's brains to see what happens = pointless
Using monkeys to find a cure for cancer = pointful
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-09 14:41
>>16
>Using monkeys to find a cure for cancer = pointful
But obviously this is WRONG, because hypocritical organizations like PETA says so, so obviously we MUST firebomb research centers, killing the animals inside, and causing them to lose years upon years of research, letting all of those poor animals suffer in vain, which will in the end only cause them to conduct more animal research to make up for the research they lost, making our whole cause and idealogy counter-intuitive.
Those who somehow think animal-life as somehow more worthy than human(ironically animal too) lives.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-10 6:38
>>19
Are threat to our species and totally against natural law.
Forgot important part.
Name:
Anonymous2006-07-10 7:12
I'm all for using animals for the advancement of humans.
But human experimentation is also for the advancement of mankind. Sometimes someone has to step up and take the HEAVY fire for the sake of science and humanity.