Should animals be used in pharmaceutical trials?

Discuss...

Plenty of people protest the use of animals, but few wouldn't happily receive treatments that were tested on animals.

I'm using rats for my final year Pharmacology project. I start on Friday.
One will be called Ratty, will decide the other names when I meet them. Rats are awesome!

I love animals and would never want them to be abused on purpose. But if hooking a monkeys nipples to a car battery can result in the cure for AIDS. Then I only have two things to say.........

The black is negative and the red is positive.

AarO)))n wrote:

I love animals and would never want them to be abused on purpose. But if hooking a monkeys nipples to a car battery can result in the cure for AIDS. Then I only have two things to say.........

The black is negative and the red is positive.

Rofl. And /thread.

ITT: People Eating Tasty Animals

*Australian accent* I luv animals...that's woy I kill 'em!

I've had this debate on more than one occasion. Especially when I was a Biology major in school. I struggled with it for a while. I'm not a vegetarian or anything like that, but I don't agree with the abuse of animals.

Then I thought about it. Animal testing doesn't just help humans. Without animal testing, your pet dogs and cats and anything else would not have the great medical advances that help them when they're in trouble either.

I absolutely despise the use of animal testing for cosmetics. That is simply ridiculous. Lining up a ton of rabbits and rubbing shit in their eyes to see how it would react in some vein womans eyes is beyond stupid.

I'm OK with animal testing to benefit animals, including the human animal.

LegionOvDoom wrote:

I absolutely despise the use of animal testing for cosmetics. That is simply ridiculous. Lining up a ton of rabbits and rubbing shit in their eyes to see how it would react in some vein womans eyes is beyond stupid.

Thats how they test make up on animals? I thought they put make up on animals and sent them to bars to see if guys would hit on them.

AarO)))n wrote:

LegionOvDoom wrote:

I absolutely despise the use of animal testing for cosmetics. That is simply ridiculous. Lining up a ton of rabbits and rubbing shit in their eyes to see how it would react in some vein womans eyes is beyond stupid.

Thats how they test make up on animals? I thought they put make up on animals and sent them to bars to see if guys would hit on them.

The bunny on the left is the control. The bunny on the right is wearing lip gloss. Which gets pregnant first?

"4 out of 5 rabbits agree, this lip gloss will get you pregnant"

Rosalind wrote:

AarO)))n wrote:

LegionOvDoom wrote:

I absolutely despise the use of animal testing for cosmetics. That is simply ridiculous. Lining up a ton of rabbits and rubbing shit in their eyes to see how it would react in some vein womans eyes is beyond stupid.

Thats how they test make up on animals? I thought they put make up on animals and sent them to bars to see if guys would hit on them.

The bunny on the left is the control. The bunny on the right is wearing lip gloss. Which gets pregnant first?

"4 out of 5 rabbits agree, this lip gloss will get you pregnant"

I'd fuck a rabbit wearing lip gloss. I mean that fur has to feel nice against your penis.

AarO)))n wrote:

Rosalind wrote:

AarO)))n wrote:

LegionOvDoom wrote:

I absolutely despise the use of animal testing for cosmetics. That is simply ridiculous. Lining up a ton of rabbits and rubbing shit in their eyes to see how it would react in some vein womans eyes is beyond stupid.

Thats how they test make up on animals? I thought they put make up on animals and sent them to bars to see if guys would hit on them.

The bunny on the left is the control. The bunny on the right is wearing lip gloss. Which gets pregnant first?

"4 out of 5 rabbits agree, this lip gloss will get you pregnant"

I'd fuck a rabbit wearing lip gloss. I mean that fur has to feel nice against your penis.

Ummm....so first it was underage gay porn and now you've moved on to bestiality?

Adothorr wrote:

Ummm....so first it was underage gay porn and now you've moved on to bestiality?

What can i say. I have range.

I agree with whatever has been said here.Animal testing helps animals, including humans. There has to be a point where the debate has to stop, and I believe this is it. It is not abuse, unless you do it for something really stupid like what Dale said. "Animal lovers" will simply have to accept that progress has a price. In this case, it's animals. Do you or do you not want human beings to become better? The end > the means, as far as I'm concerned.

Let`s take this discussion to the next level... Human testing: acceptable or not at all? If not, what makes animal testing more morally correct?

Acceptable if they consent. I believe intentional self-harm is wrong. But if the experiment can be beneficial for humans, go for it.

However, we should avoid human testing if possible and test on animals instead. It is more morally correct. There is no reason why we should put other animals before ourselves under the guise of "compassion". The simple fact is that animals are stupid. This is not speciesism but a realization that all humans must have. Survival instinct is sometimes called "animal instinct" but this is not necessarily true. A dog will find food and watch his back because that's what he's born with. But when he sees his reflection in the water he'll jump in and drown. That is not survival instinct. Humans actually know how to use their brains and therefore are so much more superior. Also, pandas eat one kind of food and they don't know how to have sex, literally. Humans have to force them to reproduce. Look it up. We shouldn't be bothered about animals who have no desire to live. At least animal testing keeps them useful.

Animal lovers and anti-animal testing people should realize that they use animals too, in one way or another. Food, nourishment, warmth, entertainment. Animal testing is just one of those uses. People who own pets are using them for entertainment, a cute thing as a substitute for a baby in many cases. That is not so different from animal testing.

Ahmedeus wrote:

I believe intentional self-harm is wrong.

There is actually a chemical process here; self harm (cutting usually) releases amongst other things used to clot and heal the wound endorphins which act as a mild anti-depressant. I don't think its wrong in itself, but its certainly not a long term solution.

I'm against Animal testing, how do you expect them to pass a test when they can't even read.

On a seperate note, I think it should be a one for one trade off, we test something for humans on animals, then we test something for animals on humans. Apparently I'm not the only one, there are people out there championing my cause......

Finally, on a more serious note, if we don't test on animals, then we would have to test new drugs on humans. Doesn't really sound more humane to me. I guess we could make abortion illegal, force people to have their unwanted children, and then test the drugs on them...... but that seems like a lot of effort, and I'm pretty lazy.

Rosalind wrote:

Ahmedeus wrote:

I believe intentional self-harm is wrong.

There is actually a chemical process here; self harm (cutting usually) releases amongst other things used to clot and heal the wound endorphins which act as a mild anti-depressant. I don't think its wrong in itself, but its certainly not a long term solution.

Interesting. I'd always wondered why people would harm themselves when they're already in pain. You learn something new everyday.

It's certainly better to be violent than to have anger stored up inside, as far as mental well-being goes. But cutting yourself just doesn't seem like a good idea to me. First, because it's risky, and second because it's a sign of suicidal behavior. You're better off taking a pill. Although I'm against pills too (lol), it's the lesser of two evils if you want your depression gone. One is violent expression, and one is numbing, but neither of them really solves anything. That's why I think self-harm is wrong. There is most likely something traumatic in your past and your mind should be given to a psychiatrist to take apart, that's what'll really solve the problems.

Ahmedeus wrote:

Rosalind wrote:

Ahmedeus wrote:

I believe intentional self-harm is wrong.

There is actually a chemical process here; self harm (cutting usually) releases amongst other things used to clot and heal the wound endorphins which act as a mild anti-depressant. I don't think its wrong in itself, but its certainly not a long term solution.

Interesting. I'd always wondered why people would harm themselves when they're already in pain. You learn something new everyday.

It's certainly better to be violent than to have anger stored up inside, as far as mental well-being goes. But cutting yourself just doesn't seem like a good idea to me. First, because it's risky, and second because it's a sign of suicidal behavior. You're better off taking a pill. Although I'm against pills too (lol), it's the lesser of two evils if you want your depression gone. One is violent expression, and one is numbing, but neither of them really solves anything. That's why I think self-harm is wrong. There is most likely something traumatic in your past and your mind should be given to a psychiatrist to take apart, that's what'll really solve the problems.

In most cases self-cutting isn't so much an attempt of suicide or even an indication of depression. It is merely a cry for attention and, sadly, it is quite trendy right now amongst certain groups. As for the cause of depression, it's still argued over what the cause is. People who suffer from depression have lower levels of serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine in their brain, so modern medications seek to raise these levels. However, it can't be determined whether these imbalances causes the state of mind or whether the state of mind causes the imbalances. Both medication and therapy work, however, modern therapeutic techniques don't focus on person's past. Instead, they focus on person's thinking and behavior. People with depression are said to have a cognitive distortion, as they view the world differently than everyone else, so the goal of therapy is to get them to see how their thinking is skewed and how they can change that thinking.

Ahmedeus wrote:

Rosalind wrote:

Ahmedeus wrote:

I believe intentional self-harm is wrong.

There is actually a chemical process here; self harm (cutting usually) releases amongst other things used to clot and heal the wound endorphins which act as a mild anti-depressant. I don't think its wrong in itself, but its certainly not a long term solution.

Interesting. I'd always wondered why people would harm themselves when they're already in pain. You learn something new everyday.

It's certainly better to be violent than to have anger stored up inside, as far as mental well-being goes. But cutting yourself just doesn't seem like a good idea to me. First, because it's risky, and second because it's a sign of suicidal behavior. You're better off taking a pill. Although I'm against pills too (lol), it's the lesser of two evils if you want your depression gone. One is violent expression, and one is numbing, but neither of them really solves anything. That's why I think self-harm is wrong. There is most likely something traumatic in your past and your mind should be given to a psychiatrist to take apart, that's what'll really solve the problems.

Actually, from what ive read into the subject its not really suicidal behaviour; they don't want to end their life, only cope with the depression. Very few cases end in death - most of the time if the person in question thinks they have cut too deep they'll seek medical attention. Even drugs shouldn't be a long term solution, you need to find the root cause of the depression and tackle it from there, but sadly for clinical depression there often isn't one. It's more irrational depression, more like a phobia than a swaying mood.

There's a whole load of similar ideas similar to this - S&M as well as the sub/dom sexual relationships (which are interesting at least to me, though I cba to go into details) for example. My interest was sparked from the film "Secretary." Its a Romantic Drama, but its one of those very few that I adore. Worth watching if you want a non-stereotypical view of self-harm.

Rosalind wrote:

It's more irrational depression, more like a phobia than a swaying mood.

It's not really like an anxiety disorder at all. While they are both irrational, those that suffer from a phobia are able to recognize that their thoughts are irrational, whereas with depression the person suffering from depression can't see their thinking as irrational and instead think the world is exactly the way they see it.

Ahmedeus wrote:

Acceptable if they consent. I believe intentional self-harm is wrong. But if the experiment can be beneficial for humans, go for it.

However, we should avoid human testing if possible and test on animals instead. It is more morally correct. There is no reason why we should put other animals before ourselves under the guise of "compassion". The simple fact is that animals are stupid. This is not speciesism but a realization that all humans must have. Survival instinct is sometimes called "animal instinct" but this is not necessarily true. A dog will find food and watch his back because that's what he's born with. But when he sees his reflection in the water he'll jump in and drown. That is not survival instinct. Humans actually know how to use their brains and therefore are so much more superior. Also, pandas eat one kind of food and they don't know how to have sex, literally. Humans have to force them to reproduce. Look it up. We shouldn't be bothered about animals who have no desire to live. At least animal testing keeps them useful.

Animal lovers and anti-animal testing people should realize that they use animals too, in one way or another. Food, nourishment, warmth, entertainment. Animal testing is just one of those uses. People who own pets are using them for entertainment, a cute thing as a substitute for a baby in many cases. That is not so different from animal testing.

I can definately agree with the whole "it`s okay with consent" thing. Consented medical testing on humans already takes place. And as far as animal testing goes, I believe medical science has at least advanced to a point where they can be somewhat certain what the results will be and therefore much of the danger is already nullified.

But as for animals being "dumb" - I don`t quite agree with you there. There have been many reports of "intelligent behaviour" in animals, i.e. elefants that bury their dead, dogs, cats and other domestic animals that blatantly disregard their survival instinct in favour of the protection of their master or offspring, and many acts of seeming compassion in animals etc. These are all indications of "free thinking" animals. I also am not at all sure about pandas not knowing how to have sex. I think you mean sex in captivity, which is another story. If they really didn`t know how, they would`ve gone extinct ages ago, donchathink? What it comes down to is the question: What is meant with "intelligent"? If you mean animals aren`t as likely to experience pain since their brains are less developed, doesn`t that also mean that we can experiment on humans with underdeveloped brains, since they "aren`t as likely to experience the whole effect"? That would at least keep the mentally retarded useful, right?

As for pets being nothing more than a source of entertainment, I`m not sure it`s as clear a picture as you try to make it seem. These animals aren`t put at risk for humans` sake. They are looked after and provided with all that they need. This is more along the lines of nurture that testing.

I`m not against animal testing for the benifit of other animals or humans. I just think your attitude is not 100% right. What exactly makes us more deservant of protection? I think animal testing must be done, otherwise medical progress would be much slower and brought to a complete stop in some cases. But it must be done in such a way as to cause the least possible damage to the animal and with maximum care.

Kamikaze wrote:

Rosalind wrote:

It's more irrational depression, more like a phobia than a swaying mood.

It's not really like an anxiety disorder at all. While they are both irrational, those that suffer from a phobia are able to recognize that their thoughts are irrational, whereas with depression the person suffering from depression can't see their thinking as irrational and instead think the world is exactly the way they see it.

True, I was more using the comparison as an example of an irrational thought pattern. The analogy - as all do - can only go so far. (Though it was my understanding that this wasn't always the case - sometimes they are aware of the irrational depression. Isn't there a ridiculous amount of slight variations on the general 'clinical depression' term?)