I for one, do not like to harm animals, but if we wont experiment on animals... What will we experiment on? Ourselves?! No thanks! And if you tell me we should stop experimenting in the first place, how do you think we got medicines? Also, to make sure a medicine is safe, you have to experiment it. We cant experiment on pants because the plant cells are different to the human and animal cells, therefore, the reaction is completely different. If we experiment on animals, the reaction will be very similar to a human's, sometimes identical!
What do we test on? Try democrats. Try the likes of Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, and Hilary Clinton. Try the likes of Kanye West. If you consider this "inhumane" then you're right; but a damn rat that's just trying to live in your basement is inherently of the same value as the morally destructive, absent-minded people that steal and destroy everything. Either we test on horrible people or we test on rats. Honestly it makes no difference to me.
Animal testing is better than intensive or pure human testing (in which we only test drugs on humans), as, while both can be considered evil, it is our human nature to recoil more when seeing injured humans than animals. RosyRose has posted that "The Food and Drug Administration has noted that 92% of all drugs that have cleared an animal test fail in human trials, because they don't work or are dangerous. The small percentage that are approved for human use, half are relabelled because of side effects not identified in animal tests." However, this is awfully misleading. The truth is is that, through animal testing, we are able to shed away 90% of all the drugs tested because they are not safe on humans, and then we can further shed away 92% of the drugs remaining during human tests (http://speakingofresearch.Com/2008/07/25/92-of-statistics-are-taken-out-of-context/). This shows that, through animal testing, we are able to filter out a large portion of tested drugs that might be unsafe, and through further human testing, we are able to filter out the unsafe drugs even more. Both types of testings are very important, as animal testing can filter in the drugs that are qualified to go into the human testing while taking out the drugs that aren't.
People can't go eat a hamburger for dinner and then complain about rats getting tumors from flu vaccine. This is more humane then the free range animals organic that are still, btw, killed very horrifically. As someone who does eat meat, who grew up on an organic far, and who literally worships nature, I support scientific animal testing.
It is unethical to send drugs out into the world OR to test them on sick humans who have a possible life expectancy much greater then that of a mouse, bred for this specific purpose.
We have labs on chips that can grow and replicate all the different kinds of human and sometimes even animal cells when given one sample of blood etc, so why test on live animals if we can simulate the test on the same cells in half the time by growing them instead of breeding them?
You people say that animal testing has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments. And that is true, it has, but we cannot deny the fact that many chemicals which may prove helpful to humans are being shelved because they proved dangerous in animal tests. This means that other chemicals which may even save lives are being put aside because they failed in animal tests. Aspirin, for example, is dangerous for some animal species, and Fk-506 which is used to lower the risk of organ transplant rejection, was "almost shelved" because of animal test results. Not only that but digitalis (a heart drug), cancer treatments, insulin, penicillin and other safe medicines would have been banned if animal testing's were heeded. You people also talk about it as though it only takes a week to find a cure and as though it doesn't kill hundreds of animals along the way. You are WRONG. At least thirty-three animals die in laboratories each second worldwide and in the UK, one every four seconds. Animal testing EVEN delays possible remedies. For example, Blood transfusions were delayed 200 years by animal studies and corneal transplants were delayed 90 years. Think about all the loved ones who were suffering and dying then, all because we failed to see the massive faults in animal testing.
You people also argue that "if we didn't test on animals we'd have to test on humans". But the fact is that we already do test new drugs on people. No matter how many animal tests are undertaken, someone will always be the first human to be tested on. Because animal tests are so unreliable, they make the human trials all the more risky. The Food and Drug Administration has noted that 92% of all drugs that have cleared an animal test fail in human trials, because they don't work or are dangerous. The small percentage that are approved for human use, half are relabelled because of side effects not identified in animal tests.
If any of you have read the Maze Runner series you'll know what I'm trying to say in this paragraph. You say that it is alright to test on animals. But they suffer. You must understand that they suffer just like us because of it. Through the Glader's journey we can see that they are test subjects just like the animals in laboratories all across the world. When you were reading, did you think it was right what WICKED did. Alright to torture and 'play' with the subjects. If not then think what these animals would be experiencing. Some of them are lucky they died.
There is no justification in subjecting any creature to such a miserable life in the name of scientific progress. Around the point when we're talking about people attaching the head of a dog to another and other stuff that sound completely insane they instead of using some tired excuse on how "it's for the greater good" they should take just a moment or two to reflect on how this is the exact kind of behavior you would expect from a mad scientist.
What do we test on? Try republicans. Try the likes of Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, and Ted Nugent. Try the likes of Kanye West. If you consider this "inhumane" then you've basically revealed the irrational double standard you hold; a rat that's just trying to live is inherently more innocent and valuable than that of selfish, greedy people that rape and destroy everything. Either we test on horrible people or we test on nothing at all. This makes a lot more sense than pretending that we have no alternative than rats, mice, and strays.
This is simply not true. An article published in the esteemed Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine has even evaluated this very claim and concluded that it was not supported by any evidence. Most animal experiments are not relevant to human health, they do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances and many are undertaken simply out of curiosity and do not even pretend to hold promise for curing illnesses. The only reason people are under the misconception that animal experiments help humans is because the media, experimenters, universities and lobbying groups exaggerate the potential of animal experiments to lead to new cures and the role they have played in past medical advances.
Animals are living things just like humans. There are other ways to test drugs and products. When we test drugs on animals it can cause them a lot of pain. We wouldn’t do that to humans, so why is it okay to do to animals? Mice share 99% of their genes with humans. We can make fake tissue in a lab using mice or human DNA to use for testing. If you care for animals then it is your job to protect animals. In the future animal testing won’t be necessary because we will have technology to replace it. If we start putting more effort into making this technology now then we will get it faster and help a lot of animals.