Humans and animals have different dnas. It has been proven that over 95%of drugs that claim to pass the animals test, fail when tested on humans. One bit of dna looks much like another but an obvious difference at a larger scale is the number of chromsomes. Humans have 23 pair which is middling kind of number, some animals have more are dogs with 39 pair and shrimp with 43-46 pair.
Over i.4 million animals die each year from animal testing. It is estimated that more than 100 million animals fall prey to animal testing every year.
Animal testing should be banned because is unreliable and consequently dangerous for humans as well as it's immoral and cruel . All species present fundamental differences among them and it's impossible and inconceivable to apply the same principles and standards to all living organisms! For this reason I hope that this unnecessary and outdated method will be banned and replaced with others not using animal models
We are all part of nature dominating others does not bind us to the world but destroys the whole community a time will then also come when we will be dominated by others and we will have no power to overcome this
lets see all living things with due respect to live a fruitful world
People are killing animals when they shouldn't be killed. Most of the diseases humans get animals don't ever get. They are being treated very badly and cant speak for themselves and don't deserve. Animals get deformations from the drugs. 90% to 95% of the tests that work on animals wont work on humans so whats the point of putting them through that pain and suffering.
We should banned animal testing because animals get through a lot of pain and even kill them even making a lot of animal instinct from the hole world even giving drugs to animals and instead of helping them you kill them so animal testing should be banned from those very reasons.
Animal testing is basically like bullying. You are taking advantage of a weaker, inferior being. You wouldn't push a kid off the slide, or punch a girl in the face, so why would you think that testing then killing an innocent, defenseless animal would be alright? We all enjoy the benefits of the results of animal testing but at what price? Shouldn't we, as the more advanced race be more responsible and humble?
So why test on animals when we can test on them instead? This world has far too many Lindsay Lohans, Michelle Bachmann's, and serial murderers/rapists and instead of letting these useless, horrible people live their selfish lives out we should make good use of them to better society. I don't care much for human rights, if these rights happen to go to terrible people who don't deserve them to begin with.
Exactly why is it that we cannot test on rapists, pedophiles, animal abusers, murderers, child abusers, abusers of the elderly, etc...? If we're going to keep scum of the earth alive, then test on them, and leave innocent animals alone! The world would be a much safer, and better place to live in!
If we orient our politics to motivate removing animals from experiments, the science will develop into yet largely undiscovered field of endless possibilities. Transition period will take some time, but after we will be way better of than if we continue to use unreliable animal experiment data. After all, removing animals from science is a widely recognized principle of 3 Rs - reduction, replacement, refinement. So let's take this principle seriously and start working towards that goal.
The uses gained from animals are innumerable; we eat them, we use their furs, we test them and we are even legally allowed to sacrifice them (as long as it is not in a sadistic manner). Yet, people are going to complain that we should not test on them? Doesn't make much sense to me, but people can think what they want of course. As long as it is not painful then I have no problem with those tests.
There are some or many experiments that are unethical to conduct on humans. Currently there are experiments with chemicals in our environment that help us to determine the effects of chemicals. Take BPA, food additives, and potential carcinogens. We cant take humans and use elevated levels of these chemical to see if they will inevitably cause disease or damages. With animals, we can see if there are potential correlations between certain chemical, tasks, or things and the resulting dysfunctions. To wait for this data to be apparent in a human population would be ignorant and dangerous as well as unlikely to provide statistically useful data (due to the vast interactions of many different environmental factors that cant be singled out).
Do you want to be tested on?We have no choice and animals also benefit because we find animal diseases vaccine through the process and we people need to survive and this is our chance it helped some diseases and It will help others some time soon. God bless the U.S.A
Whenever you try to see if you are for or against a certain issue, you have to analyze if the benefits outweigh the costs. As it pertains to animal testing, it is quite clear - they do. Numerous advances in the treatments of diseases and illnesses that were once death sentences have been linked to animal testing of medical treatments. Here, the good of the human species outweighs the good of animals.
Animal testing is an important way for scientists to advance their research. It is important to use legitimate research methods to find medical breakthroughs. Although it is not always ethical to cause animal suffering, if testing animals can lead to the cures for human diseases, we should pursue these methods.
No, animal testing should not be banned. It should however be regulated so that the animals are treated humanly. Animal testing not only finds cures and solutions to the human population, it also provides the same information in the animal population. How else would be able develop vaccines for humans and animals alike?
I think animal testing is okay in some instances. If the testing is not harming the animal and the animal is being treated well I see no problem with testing on animals. Once there is a risk of harm or mistreatment though that should be banned. We need to be respectful of animals.
Unfortunately, animal testing is necessary these days for product testing and other endeavors. The fact of the matter is that testing on animals is far less dangerous than testing on humans. Federal law prohibits animal testing that puts the animal in tangible danger after all, and these laws are adequate enough.
Animals are here for our benefit. We eat them, we wear them, we use them for labour and nobody bats an eye. But mention that you want to inject some rats with a vaccine before you vaccinate infants and suddenly everyone is up in arms? Ridiculous.
As for the people saying test on criminals because we have a seemingly infinite supply of rapists and paedophiles, while I am morally opposed to this I would instead like to point out that we do not in fact have anywhere close to enough human bodies to substitute human testing for animal testing. Once an animal has been tested on, it is done. Period. You kill it regardless of the effect after simply because it is useless; once being tested on once it can not be tested on again even if it survives because we do not know how he previous chemical will interact with the new testing product on a cellular level.