Not sure if this is in the right forum... but just wanted to get everyones view on the hot issue of animal testing.
For my job (infectious disease research), I have sacrificed more mice than I can count, but I do beleive that everyone of those mice gave invaluable scientific data. I wish that I didn't have to use them, but I know I do given the current capabilities of science. The way I see it, science as we know it today is really only possible because of animal testing. Whenever alternatives are possible, we use them, but alternatives arent only available.
In everyones mind, is animal testing unjustifiable or does it have its valuable purposes?
_________________ Roll on High
Throw them again
All God's dice
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am Posts: 7189 Location: CA
Toxico wrote:
Not sure if this is in the right forum... but just wanted to get everyones view on the hot issue of animal testing.
For my job (infectious disease research), I have sacrificed more mice than I can count, but I do beleive that everyone of those mice gave invaluable scientific data. I wish that I didn't have to use them, but I know I do given the current capabilities of science. The way I see it, science as we know it today is really only possible because of animal testing. Whenever alternatives are possible, we use them, but alternatives arent only available.
In everyones mind, is animal testing unjustifiable or does it have its valuable purposes?
Some are under the belief that computer models are sufficiently accurate, and therefore animal research is unnecessary. As someone in the field, what do you know about alternatives to animal testing?
I support computer testing when it's viable, but as I posted here before, and as I said to a very attractive PETA lady in London four years ago: "I would strangle every puppy on earth to cure AIDS".
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am Posts: 7189 Location: CA
broken iris wrote:
I support computer testing when it's viable, but as I posted here before, and as I said to a very attractive PETA lady in London four years ago: "I would strangle every puppy on earth to cure AIDS".
My ladyfriend is no PETA member, but I wouldn't be surprised if she would infect everyone on earth with AIDS in order to save a puppy.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:23 pm Posts: 1144 Location: Richmond, VA Gender: Male
this is such a double edged sword. The amount of data and results we've gotten from animal testing is amazing, but at the same time we've pretty much denied all those little critters any sort of comfortable normal life.
I'm not against it really, I just am not happy that its done either.
_________________ Blessed are the forgetful, for they get the better even of their blunders.
-Nietzche
Not sure if this is in the right forum... but just wanted to get everyones view on the hot issue of animal testing.
For my job (infectious disease research), I have sacrificed more mice than I can count, but I do beleive that everyone of those mice gave invaluable scientific data. I wish that I didn't have to use them, but I know I do given the current capabilities of science. The way I see it, science as we know it today is really only possible because of animal testing. Whenever alternatives are possible, we use them, but alternatives arent only available.
In everyones mind, is animal testing unjustifiable or does it have its valuable purposes?
Some are under the belief that computer models are sufficiently accurate, and therefore animal research is unnecessary. As someone in the field, what do you know about alternatives to animal testing?
Computer models are constantly in the process of being updated and modeled to simulate real life science... however development of those computer programs require animal research. For example, my department is modeling software that would simulate immune responses to a stimulus with some degree of certainty, but the only way that this would be applicable to real life is if the simulated immune responses were compared with animal data. Computer models would reduce the amount of animals but not eliminate them.
The other alternative is using cells in culture as opposed to animals, but that in itself is limited... not what really happens in the body.
I do think that in time aninmal research will be heavily minimized (from the degree it is used today), but it is hard to say that it will be eliminated.
_________________ Roll on High
Throw them again
All God's dice
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 7:31 pm Posts: 3 Location: Over the roofs Gender: Male
Animal testing in health is something that seems important. I'm not sure this doesn't exist but I wonder if it would be possible to have strict regulations forcing the testers to justify the importance of the projected study and necessity to use animals. Getting rid of animal testing in the cosmetics field would also be a nice move.
We should really try to figure out if humans are worth all those animals in the first place. I mean...I understand trying to ease the suffering of humans if we weren't the ones causing the suffering on ourselves.
put that in your smoke and pipe it!
_________________ This ain't no party, this ain't no disco this ain't no fooling around...
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:57 pm Posts: 3332 Location: Chicago-ish
broken iris wrote:
I support computer testing when it's viable, but as I posted here before, and as I said to a very attractive PETA lady in London four years ago: "I would strangle every puppy on earth to cure AIDS".
You try and strangle my dog and I'll beat the shit out of you
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
