animal use in research

[jolu]

---

Members do not see this ad.

i was just wondering if you all think animal use in biomedical research is justified. Any thoughts?

 

[DoubleL]

Yes. Emphatically yes.

LL

 

[CaNEM]

Yes.

 

[tBw]

Miaow!!

 

[JJNY]

Every single drug in your medicine cabinet, and in the whole pharmacy for that matter, was tested for safety in animals before it was approved for use in humans.

There's really no other way (i.e. in-vitro) to do it. I should know, I work in drug development for a biotech/pharma company and we do tox studies on potential products all the time.

So my answer is definitely yes. And this is coming from a guy whose best friend has four legs and a tail! 🙂

 

[Mistress S]

I agree that animal experimentation is necessary and justified in some biomedical research, but it is important that it is carried out in a humane fashion. There have been many cases in which drug companies and our own government have been found to be in violation of humane standards for the use of animals in medical experiments (i.e., carrying out surgeries without anesthesia, neglecting proper care and feeding of animals, performing unnecessary procedures, etc). These cases should make any compassionate person question whether it is absolutely necessary any time animals are used in research, and work to ensure that proper procedures are followed when animals are used. I should add that, in the one research experience I had in which animals (mice) were used, it was done so only because the organism being studied could not be grown in vitro, and all the researchers involved had respect for the sacrifice the animals were making to further our knowledge and treated them accordingly. The PI of the research project often personally carried out the execution of the mice, even though she could have had the lab techs do this, to make sure it was done humanely and to keep her connected to all aspects of the work she was doing (those little hearts and lungs didn't just materialize out of thin air).

I am opposed to the use of animals for research in cosmetics; this is cruel and 99% of the time unnecessary. If you are stupid enough to eat your hairspray or leave it where your children will eat it, you pretty much deserve whatever happens to you, and it is not necessary to force feed it to a dozen or so rabbits to know that the side effects will probably not be pleasant.

 

[BobbyDylanFan]

Originally posted by JJNY
Every single drug in your medicine cabinet, and in the whole pharmacy for that matter, was tested for safety in animals before it was approved for use in humans.

There's really no other way (i.e. in-vitro) to do it. I should know, I work in drug development for a biotech/pharma company and we do tox studies on potential products all the time.

So my answer is definitely yes. And this is coming from a guy whose best friend has four legs and a tail! 🙂

JJ,

I pmed you

 

[Street Philosopher]

Originally posted by Mistress S
If you are stupid enough to... ...leave it where your children will eat it, you pretty much deserve whatever happens to you

please, think of the children.

 

[dr. deez]

Originally posted by jolu
i was just wondering if you all think animal use in biomedical research is justified. Any thoughts?

research animals save lives and better the quality of life.

 

[manicmaven]

I'm always so amused at smug people who buy products from places like The Body Shop who espouse their 'not tested on animals' crap. Almost every large cosmetic company out there tests on animals. If that specific brand doesn't, one of the company's subsidiaries does...or they contract out to one of the labs that the company owns.

I also have quite a few vegan friends who get very upset when I remind them that as hard as they try not to use products involving animal parts, they can't escape the fact that book binding, matches and even money all have animal tallow in them.

And don't you be bringing your soapbox hippie ass into my hospital looking for treatment when everything there has been tested on stuart little.

 

[doepug]

Yes. Animal studies are absolutely crucial to medical advancement.

 

[relatively prime]

Yes, if it's done in a responsible manner. I mean, there are TONS of cases in which animal research has actually ~held back~ progress of the field. The testing of protease inhibitors is the classic example. They were kept off the market for 4 years because they kill dogs and rats... but they help cure AIDS in humans. Penicillon kills guinea pigs. Scientists just have to be really carefull about how they use animals in testing.

 

[doepug]

...and had thalidomide been tested in woodchucks, we'd have known that it was teratogenic in humans. Instead, we had thousands of kids with birth defects.

The FDA is highly unlikely to approve any drug that isn't tested in animals, and with good reason.

doepug

 

[relatively prime]

Originally posted by doepug
...and had thalidomide been tested in woodchucks, we'd have known that it was teratogenic in humans. Instead, we had thousands of kids with birth defects.

The FDA is highly unlikely to approve any drug that isn't tested in animals, and with good reason.

doepug

Right... but what if it had been tested on rats instead? I mean... you can't test every drug on every mammal in the world before testing it on humans. My point is that scientists should take animal testing results with a gram of salt... just b/c it's safe in animals doesn't mean it's safe in humans and just because it hurts animals doesn't mean it hurts humans.

I am NOT an animal rights advocate... I'm just not thoroughly convinced that animal testing doesn't cause as many drawbacks as it does benefits.

 

[Neuronix]

Are there really woodchuck labs? Are they investigating the amount of wood that could be chucked by a woodchuck? Please tell me where that is; I smell my PhD thesis!