Animal Testing

Should we use animals to test medication?

Yes, the life of humans is more important than an animals.
6
60%
Yes, but only for life threatening diseases, or seriously debilitating diseases.
3
30%
Yes but only for diseases we have no treatment for.
1
10%
No, all lives are equal
0
No votes
Let's use the loser of hippo vs tiger
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 10

Online
User avatar
Colback's Orange Tufts
Ancient Forum Relic
Ancient Forum Relic
Posts: 10394
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:48 pm
Location: Near the ducks

Re: Animal Testing

Post by Colback's Orange Tufts » Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:50 am

I'm for changing the system from "do animal testing unless you can prove you don't need it" to "do it if you prove you do need it"

The problem I see is that many drugs/compounds etc atc differently on animals, even primates. So if we test on animals where there is no correlation between test and human affect:
1) Places false confidence in drug, risking humans (cases seen where drugs tested fine on animals, hurt humans)
2) Suffering for no gain
3) Makes drugs more expensive due to high animal testing costs (have to do human trials after)
4) Less investment in alternatives, like lab grown flesh etc
5) Diminishes faith in science.

So by changing to opt-in, provides a liability shield for pharma, currently a big consideration is to do animal testing so if there are human issues, can't get sued (even if it didn't help or worse).
Then for the cases (basic toxicity as PTAO) that merit it, we keep it.

Of course due to extreme opponents many in science (understandibly) have a siege mentality of protecting all testing because it's all worth it
Sharing articles no-one reads since 2012

Post Reply