ChatterBank6 mins ago
animal testing
7 Answers
Animal testing is not just damaging for animals but for humans too. There is only a 5-20% chance that a drug will effect an animal in the same way as a human. As a result, about 70,000 people every year in the UK die from prescription drugs. There are far more accurate methods of research such as stem cell and tissue culture, computer modelling and epidemiology. So why aren't the government trying to phase out animal testing and fund more accurate methods of research?
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by winned. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's a matter of priority. You, and I, and several million other people regard this issue as a priority, the same as we regard cancer research, premature baby deaths, Gulf War Syndrome, and countless other issues as a priority. But we are not the people in power, and those that are tend to concentrate far more on issues that will secure their place in history, rather than actually doing something unsung for the overall good of humanity.
That's interesting, I was told recently by a doctor friend that the figure was in excess of 50%. Either way, I'm fairly ambivalent about the whole subject, but if your stats are correct then yes, alternative ways should possibly be sought: equally, if my friend's figures are more accurate then testing should absolutely be continued on animals. What I would say is that whatever the rights and wrongs of animal testing, the likes of SHAC and other militant animal rights groups are, frankly, f*cking idiots, and are not doing their cause any favours whatsoever.
Well said Andy! Although, in fairness, I understand that the government do fund some research into alternatives (to what extent, I don't know) but the driving force behind this research is, in my opinion, likely to be reducing costs rather than ethics - but if the end result is that animal testing can be replaced with something as good or better, then wahey all round as far as I'm concerned!
Your concern about the dangers of drugs which are only tested on animals isn't totally accurate. Before a drug is released for prescription, it has to be tested on hundreds if not thousands of humans first. It would of course be totally loony to prescribe drugs based solely on the effects on animals. It is true that people do die from the effects of prescription drugs - but they are largely side effects that are already known from human trials. I have been involved in drugs trials and we had to note absolutely EVERYTHING - even if the problem couldn't in all feasibility be due to the drug, which is why the side effects list in drugs information leaflets is so long.
Medical research is one thing, and I can understand the reasons behind the (decreasing) use of animals for testing - but what I cannot every condone is the use of animals for cosmetics and non-medical testing. I'd rather have shampoo stinging my eyes with a clear conscience.
Medical research is one thing, and I can understand the reasons behind the (decreasing) use of animals for testing - but what I cannot every condone is the use of animals for cosmetics and non-medical testing. I'd rather have shampoo stinging my eyes with a clear conscience.
gef ... yes they are you funny person. The time may someday come when animal testing is not a necessary of our modern life but this time is an unseeably long way off. Until then we can only try to ensure that the lives of animals are not wasted making cosmetics and perfume, and salute the scientists that are acting responsibly and humanely whilst trying to advance medical knowledge for doing a difficult and harrowing job
1 to 7 of 7
