Your Views on Animal Testing/Vivisection

Thread made due to curiousity, sparked by speech class. What are your views on animal testing and vivisection? Is it wrong, is it right, are the means justified by the result, do your views on medical testing and cosmetic testing differ, etc.?

edited 18th Oct '10 7:02:41 PM by blamspam

Medical testing is generally right. We should experiment on animals if it will save human lives, or even to advance science itself. As long as the animals are not put under more pain than is strictly necessary to an experiment.

Cosmetic testing is not so justifiable on the other hand. Shampoo still generally hurts your eyes even after it has been dermatologically tested on animals. Eye drop and dermatological product testing is akin to torture, the animals suffer immensely from it with no real gain in human terms, just so a new vanity product can be "safe".

Requiem ~ September 2010 - October 2011 [Banned 4 Life]

I don't think animals should be used to test cosmetics. Cosmetics are pretty useless and unnecessary.

Biophilic bookworm by day, gentleman adventurer by night.

I believe that there should be no limits on medical testing. Conversely, cosmetic testing is a complete waste.

Anime geemu wo shinasai!

Yeah, I'll echo the others and say that cosmetic testing is just vain and cruel, but medical testing is an unfortunate necessity to save human life.

"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."

Never with more pain than absolutely necessary. Cosmetic testing probably should be scrapped. Medical testing, depending on the necessity. We don't need to put animals through heck in order to test the newest boner pills, for example.

Whatever else they do, I don't want them testing on cats.

...Cats aren't exactly the ideal test organism. Rest easy.

Biophilic bookworm by day, gentleman adventurer by night.

Cosmetics testing and vivisection is wrong. Medical usage is okay (as long as the medical usage part isn't carried out to ridiculous extremes).

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

If putting animals through hell can credibly benefit mankind, it's okay for me.

Anime geemu wo shinasai!

Sounds like we're all on the same page. I agree.

Science cannot advance without heaps [of dead monkeys]! I'm okay with general science testing, cosmetics not so much.

Ivy, I believe the most common animals for testing medical compounds are rats due to having similar biochemical reactions but a much shorter life cycle.

Fight smart, not fair.

I'd really rather not harm animals for testing, but I'm not completely opposed and I feel that the restrictions on it (or at least the ones set by the American Psychological Association which is what I'm familiar with) are reasonable.

Usually medical testing isn't done on them, but some cosmetic testing is done on "cute" animals (rabbits/cats), most of it leaving them blind, etc.

edited 19th Oct '10 7:43:21 AM by blamspam

Depends what its for. Animals used in trials to stop debilitating diseases= good.

Beagles forced to start smoking and blusher tested on rabbits=bad.

Cats are also great model animals when it comes to neurological research.

And I think that I agree with most tropers over here. Medicine and science? Well, if there is no other way, but make sure not to cause any more suffering then strictly necessary. Cosmetics? Yeah, f*ck that.

I agree with all of the above.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

There sure aren't many different opinions here, are they? No hippies who want to free all animals, and no rednecks or business sharks who say 'f*ck the animals, my shampoo needs testing'.

Well, that to be expected, really.

They exist here, but haven't found their way into the thread yet. I halfway expect Major Tom or Rottweiler along any minute for the neocon/medievalist mindset.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I likely fall under the redneck (or at least capitalist) section since I like to set hippies on fire, I just don't think make up deserves to be in the same category as scientific research.

Fight smart, not fair.

Well, since we're on the same page, what about ways to stop people from testing cosmetics on animals? Simply outlawing it, or restrictions and taxation?

"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."

So, medical testing good, cosmetic testing bad. What about scientific testing not geared towards curing a disease? (I'm undecided leaning towards negative.)

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

^That's harder because some experiments that aren't immediately focused on curing diseases can end up being used for that anyway.

Looking at it from a utilitarian perspective, as long as the suffering avoided as a result of the testing is greater than the suffering caused by it, it's ethical.

But then again, sometimes animal testing isn't very useful. It all depends on how good a model the animals are for humans. If it's on poisons, say, maybe it'd be useless, because mice and humans react differently to substances.

Not entirely sure what you mean by vivisection, as I haven't heard of that much modern research that involves it. Dissection, on the other hand, is used a lot.

edited 20th Oct '10 1:42:44 AM by LoniJay

Be not afraid...

^I think vivisection is for learning about the body so you can treat it, in a medical or vet sense. I don't think it's for novel discoveries.

Edit: I cannot get this thought straight.

edited 20th Oct '10 2:02:33 AM by Funnyguts