Animal testing..Good or bad Why?!


Question:

Animal testing..Good or bad Why?

is animal testing good or bad..it helps science but harms animals for meaningless cosmetics? what are your thoughts?


Answers:
PETA once said, 'if animal testing produced a cure for AIDS, we wouldn't support it'.

Rarely is anything said that makes my blood boil as much as that does. AIDS, as I'm sure you know, is a truly horrific disease, claiming millions of people every year, many of them children, none of them deserving. I'm sure you all know the scale of the problem in Africa, as it's so well publicised on TV.
PETA would condemn millions of innocent people, people no different to yourselves, to death for the sake of a far lesser number of animals. I don't dislike animals in the least, but I fail to comprehend how anyone can value them over human lives.

Anyway, the animals tested upon are done so with as much care as possible, there are laws in place to ensure that, and they don't usually suffer or die as a result of the testing. On the other hand, life saving and pain preventing drugs are provided by animal testing, that save millions of people every year. If it came down to you or a family member, would you rather they died or used a drug that wouldn't have become available without animal testing to save their life? Even the famed Linda McCartney used drugs tested on animals when push came to shove.

The fact is animal testing is entirely necessary. It may not be perfect, and we may not be close enough to animals for it to give a completely accurate result, but it's better than any other method save one.
That one, of course, is testing on humans. This happens already, but that is on drugs which have been previously tested on animals. The testing on animals means that, when taken to human level, they more or less know what effect it will have, and they know it won't be anything life threatening, and any danger involved is very, very small.*
I don't know about you, but were this not the case, and I was offered large amounts of money to test a drug which doctors didn't know what the likely results were, or whether it was potentially life threatening, I wouldn't accept.

*The recent TeGenero blunder happened because it was tested on humans, despite that it killed most of the animals it was tested on.

Bad! Why.... animals feel pain/fright!!! (DOH!)

Although I don't like it, it has to do with more than just cosmetics. Almost all of your medical research is done on animals, and all. I do think it is wrong, but I can see the point. I would rather them use a lab rat to find the cure for cancer than to use my son or daughter and put them through hell and then still have no results. Wouldn't it be better to know before hand if it was going to work or not. I feel sorry for those animals, but it is not going to cause me to change my way of eating, or the way that I live. I just try not to think about it.

bad of course especially for cosmetics, but necessary for medecine!

Bad. Just Me's heart is in the right place but she hasn't researched the facts. Research of human diseases on animals has been shown not to be valid. No animal reacts closely enough to how humans do. This is why we have incidents like Vioxx-the research was not valid.

well it is bad because just for testing we cant kill animal

i think good for us not good for the animals

Animal testing is bad. I never buy any cosmetics that does testing on animals. I have heard that they do the testing over and over. It is cruel.

Animal testing is bad. As has been mentioned, the majority of animals used for testing are anatomically dissimilar to humans, hence results will be inconclusive and inaccurate. While there is a more reasonable debate as to why medical testing is more justifiable, cosmetic testing is completely unnecessary. In my opinion, humans are the ones who want to wear makeup, eat the food and use the cleaning formulas (a lot of all of these are tested on animals) so why should animals suffer simply so we can satisfy our own wants?

Additionally, while a lot of this is from a human perspective, we must consider how testing affects the animals and their lives, or lack thereof. It is unfair and unjustifiable to inflict this kind of torture on any living creature when there are many alternatives available.

I am 100% against animal testing for any non-medical reason. To subject animals to such cruelty so we can have mascara, perfume, etc (all of which isn't intended to be ingested anyway), is just plain cruel and unneccessary.

Now as for medical research. IF animal testing really gave us huge medical advances, I'd be all for it. BUT... if you do the research (I did a paper on this back in High School)... you'll find that in many cases, animal testing actually slowed down the process of finding cures for stuff! The polio vaccine was delayed for a decade because it was ineffective in the animals they were testing it on. Works just fine in humans though, who have TOTALLY different systems. That's the problem with animal testing... especially in medicine. Animals have VERY different bodies and systems than we do. How can we say that just because we cured cancer in rats (that we artificially created, by the way) that it will be of any help to a human with a naturally occuring cancer. That's just one example.

If we can use animal parts to ACTUALLY save a human (like organ transplants, etc), which is arguably true in some cases... then I guess I'm okay with that. But the senseless testing of animals is just pointless. Especially with modern technology, we have computer programs that can simulate the human body extremely well. Many of the most renowned medical schools use these programs now instead of vivisection. If the computer programs work well enough to train our top surgeons, they should certainly be satisfactory for testing.

BAD BAD AND BADDD companies shave animals put them in cold dark cramped cages to "sleep" and sometimes the products kill the animals because dogs and cats and rabbits can't have the same stuff applied to their skin as humans can
so in otherwords it is not necessary and it hurts and in some cruel cases kills the animals.
some companies abuse animals to like IAMS thats y i don't buy their products

animal testing is wrong.they can get a human cell and test on that.it is cheaper and easier.they conduct the same tests over and over.if a chemical is tested on animals and found bad side effects,they'll keep doing it nine times over.this company used orangatanes for testing,everyone knows how intelligent they are,they abandoned all the orangs they used.Just left em after testing.

Not good at all.
For cosmetics its just rediculous.
For medical ... there are other options.. and testing on animals is unjustifiable.
Researches say that they can test on monkeys because they are similar to humans. But then when asked why it is okay to test on monkeys they say because theyr not like humans...

You're the one who made the good statement: "harms animals for meaningless cosmetics". Wouldn't our world be better if we stopped focusing on superficial crap like which bronzer will make our skin the glowiest--especially when animals lives are on the line? If science is deperate for live tests. Get some jerk-off who will go through with some **** for money. Animals can consent to that kind of stuff, so why put them through it. 100 years ago people were making out fine without animal testing, so why do we need it now?

are you kidding? animal testing is HORRIBLE!!!!
first of all, animals have different biological and physiological systems than humans do, so the results don't always help humans. secondly but more importantly, innocent animals are have painful chemicals FORCED into their eyes and on to their skin and are given terrible diseases & medicines to see what will happen. how would you like being tied down, scared out of your mind and having some burning acid poured on to your eyes or skin so you sit there screaming but just get laughed at? exactly, you wouldn't, and animals shouldn't have to put up with it when they have no choice about it. plus, there are alternatives, such as human testing or small skin samples and such. it is UNNECCESARY and CRUEL.




The consumer Foods information on foodaq.com is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment for any medical conditions.
The answer content post by the user, if contains the copyright content please contact us, we will immediately remove it.
Copyright © 2007 FoodAQ - Terms of Use - Contact us - Privacy Policy

Food's Q&A Resources