Medical testing I can vouch for to some extent: my mother had to use corticostereoids when she was diagnosed with lupus and my brother and I were given similar drugs to encourage lung development when we were born (we were premature). Then my ferret was diagnosed with an insulinoma and given the exact same medication (it is rather likely that said medicine had been tested on a ferret, since their endocrine systems are apparently very similar to that of a human and they are commonly used in medical testing). I really wish that research animals didn't have to suffer, but the human and animal lives saved really make it a necessary evil until in-vitro research becomes more accessible (growing an ear on a mouse's back is pushing it a bit, though).
Cosmetic testing, however, tends to be rather pointless. This product was tested on animals, while this one was not. Both were likely to contain chemicals linked to cancer, infertility, and endocrine disruption. This suggests, at least to me, that even if a chemical caused a harmful medical reaction in an animal, the results of said testing may have little bearing on what goes into cosmetics until the public demands it (such as bans on higher concentrates of phtalates in some areas).
I feel vivisection is mainly unnecessary and will become obsolete. Right now, cadavers and cell samples extracted from live specimens (cultured scrapings from organs, etc.) could be used in medical education (then again, I'm not a doctor or veterinarian, so I could be wrong here) for the most part, and lab-grown organs have been demonstrated to be possible as alternatives, as pointed out by feotakahari.
Medical testing I can vouch for to some extent: my mother had to use corticostereoids when she was diagnosed with lupus and my brother and I were given similar drugs to encourage lung development when we were born (we were premature). Then my ferret was diagnosed with an insulinoma and given the exact same medication (it is rather likely that said medicine had been tested on a ferret, since their endocrine systems are apparently very similar to that of a human and they are commonly used in medical testing). I really wish that research animals didn't have to suffer, but the human and animal lives saved really make it a necessary evil until in-vitro research becomes more accessible (growing an ear on a mouse's back is pushing it a bit, though).
Cosmetic testing, however, tends to be rather pointless. This product was tested on animals
, while this one was not
. Both were likely to contain chemicals linked to cancer, infertility, and endocrine disruption. This suggests, at least to me, that even if a chemical caused a harmful medical reaction in an animal, the results of said testing may have little bearing on what goes into cosmetics until the public demands it (such as bans on higher concentrates of phtalates in some areas).
I feel vivisection is mainly unnecessary and will become obsolete. Right now, cadavers and cell samples extracted from live specimens (cultured scrapings from organs, etc.) could be used in medical education (then again, I'm not a doctor or veterinarian, so I could be wrong here) for the most part, and lab-grown organs have been demonstrated to be possible as alternatives, as pointed out by feotakahari.
edited 30th Aug '11 9:38:24 PM by lionbuggy