Animal Testing

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Animal Testing

But you didn't seriously, even for a moment, consider the human child, did you?

Who would?

Yeah, humans are animals, but humans are also us, and only loonies pick them over us...

[Chris the Bold]

Re: Animal Testing

I'm ok with testing meds on animals, cosmetics though, that's just dumb.

My sophomore year of high school we conducted an experiment in biology on mice to see if they had the same tendencies toward addiction as humans. We placed a tank full of water on one side of the cage and one full of alcohol on the other in an attempt to see if the mice became alcoholics (this failed btw, they didn't like the alcohol, wouldn't go near it). As soon as the experiment was done (about one week) our teacher promptly fed the mice to the snakes she keeps in the room.

The way I see it. These mice get pampered with a steady source of food and water, a life of luxury compared to wild mice. Then they get eaten by a predator. Food chain/circle of life never really gets broken. Its almost a sort of artificial ecosystem in that lab. Didn't really seem unnatural to me at all.

[Optimistic discord]

Re: Animal Testing

Ah animal testing, a tricky topic.

I am opposed to anything that causes unnecessary suffering/harm to a living creature.
But it is true that we need to have a spectrum of methods for testing cosmetic products, I am hoping that more and more companies fund and move towards using biological cultures and non-animal methods, oddly some of the big companies many people traditionally dislike have been doing just that (Loreal).
Cosmetic testing is a crime.
It would be nice to see more voluntary human testing, as long as it does not end up being "a job for the poor".
Testing on convicts? No. They might be criminals but they are still human and still living beings, you dont torture and test things on a dog or cat if it misbehaves so why do it to a human?


Medical testing:
One thing many people are not aware of is that there is little to NO sharing of date between veterinary and human medicine, that means that any research and testing that has been done on a product/technique has to be duplicated. So lets say we have a product called "Bob" its been designed to cure humans of all sickness, so as part of its testing it is tested on animals. Now, once "Bob" has been released to the world, caring Veterinarians want to use "Bob" on animals, but cant until the research and testing is duplicated, so once again poor animals have to be used as test subjects, even though we have valid data that tells us "100mg of Bob causes death in rats"..

Its one reason why I am lucky to work in a clinic set up by a person who is pushing to re-unite animal and human medicine

[Ophidia]

Re: Animal Testing

Something to consider when it comes to animal testing is veterinary science and the ability to raise livestock. My dog recently had a double knee surgery to correct a defect. Had other dogs not gone through the procedure first, she would spend the rest of her normal, productive life in pain and not being able to walk normally. Yes, wild animals suffering from injuries and deformities usually die, but since we as a species have been interacting with animals from the dawn of our existence, we've also been learning how to keep our companions healthy. Only so much can be learned about anatomy through butchering food - a lot of what we know now has been from applied science.

Consider, those of you who seem so confused -

If you, a human child, a dog, and a duck were stuck in a snowstorm, starving, would you have a hard time deciding who to eat?

I'm thinking some people might.

I would not. My difficulty would be in deciding the order of things. And wondering if the dog would actually come back with my chianti.

[WinterTraditions]

Re: Animal Testing

Hm, we could always just test on hard criminals instead of animals.... We have plenty of proven murders in jail that will rot there until death... Why not make them useful?

Ah animal testing, a tricky topic.

I am opposed to anything that causes unnecessary suffering/harm to a living creature.
But it is true that we need to have a spectrum of methods for testing cosmetic products, I am hoping that more and more companies fund and move towards using biological cultures and non-animal methods, oddly some of the big companies many people traditionally dislike have been doing just that (Loreal).
Cosmetic testing is a crime.
It would be nice to see more voluntary human testing, as long as it does not end up being "a job for the poor".
Testing on convicts? No. They might be criminals but they are still human and still living beings, you dont torture and test things on a dog or cat if it misbehaves so why do it to a human?


Medical testing:
One thing many people are not aware of is that there is little to NO sharing of date between veterinary and human medicine, that means that any research and testing that has been done on a product/technique has to be duplicated. So lets say we have a product called "Bob" its been designed to cure humans of all sickness, so as part of its testing it is tested on animals. Now, once "Bob" has been released to the world, caring Veterinarians want to use "Bob" on animals, but cant until the research and testing is duplicated, so once again poor animals have to be used as test subjects, even though we have valid data that tells us "100mg of Bob causes death in rats"..

Its one reason why I am lucky to work in a clinic set up by a person who is pushing to re-unite animal and human medicine

I don't think dogs go around killing their own kind, though. And if they do kill (especially a human) they are very commonly "put down".

For example, if we did it on criminals who had the death sentence, or had 100+ years on their ticket... They're going to die either way. If there is undeniable evidence that they killed, or were terrorists... Go right ahead. We have too many criminals that are living for free in jails.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Animal Testing

Medical testing:
One thing many people are not aware of is that there is little to NO sharing of date between veterinary and human medicine, that means that any research and testing that has been done on a product/technique has to be duplicated. So lets say we have a product called "Bob" its been designed to cure humans of all sickness, so as part of its testing it is tested on animals. Now, once "Bob" has been released to the world, caring Veterinarians want to use "Bob" on animals, but cant until the research and testing is duplicated, so once again poor animals have to be used as test subjects, even though we have valid data that tells us "100mg of Bob causes death in rats"..

Its one reason why I am lucky to work in a clinic set up by a person who is pushing to re-unite animal and human medicine

That's really unfortunate. You'd think since the initial phases of drugs are tested on animals that the data could be used.

[thalassa]

Re: Animal Testing

I don't think dogs go around killing their own kind, though. And if they do kill (especially a human) they are very commonly "put down".

Yes, yes they do. And hamster mommies eat their babies, and dolphins rape...and chimps will wage war and cannibalize their opponent. They are just much animals as we are.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Animal Testing

I would not. My difficulty would be in deciding the order of things. And wondering if the dog would actually come back with my chianti.

Trust me - go for the duck first, they're loaded with fat (a lot of people don't like duck because they're "greasy"), and fat is exactly what you need when you are starving.

Then the dog.

After that, you're on your own...

__________________________________________________ __________________

One of the tests that is generally done with meds is to test for the LD50 - the lethal dose of 50% of the test population. This is used to determine the rough overdose potential of much of what you ingest.

For example, the LD50 of grain alcohol is a blood alcohol level of 0.45%. However, significant brain damage (as well as damage to organs) occurs at a much lower percent.

Test for LD50 on criminals and A) you kill 50% of them outright, and B) you cause massive damage to the rest.

While I am not very fond of certain types of criminals, this does not seem right to me...

[MoonRaven]

Re: Animal Testing

Yes, yes they do. And hamster mommies eat their babies, and dolphins rape...and chimps will wage war and cannibalize their opponent. They are just much animals as we are.

I was going to address this next but you beat me to it. Thanks for bringing it in up, and more succint and eloquently than I could.


And I am going to ask for the umpteenth time, okay third but anyway, those who suggest using humans instead of animals, what do we do in the early stages of testing where we need a lifeform that ages fast, that is have a short life span? The only humans the would qualify in that case would be those who suffer from rare conditions that speeds up ageing such as Progeria, should we be experimenting on them?
(For those who can't tell the last line is meant sarcastically, though I would still very much like an answer)

[thalassa]

Re: Animal Testing

One of the tests that is generally done with meds is to test for the LD50 - the lethal dose of 50% of the test population. This is used to determine the rough overdose potential of much of what you ingest.

For example, the LD50 of grain alcohol is a blood alcohol level of 0.45%. However, significant brain damage (as well as damage to organs) occurs at a much lower percent.

This is something I wish I more time right now to talk about...but I'm @ work, up to my ears in workplace assessments (coincidentally enough, making recommenations for a group that is routinely exposed to formaldehyde). We've learned, over time, the hard way, what safer exposure levels...animal testing makes it quicker, cheaper, and less deadly.

Unfortunately I don't think that many people (outside of fields that use toxicology information regularly) truly get how toxicological research is done, how it works, why it works (and is done this way), or what the information is or is not useful for.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Animal Testing

Trust me - go for the duck first, they're loaded with fat (a lot of people don't like duck because they're "greasy"), and fat is exactly what you need when you are starving.

Plus, duck is delicious.

Sorry....I'll stop.

[Ophidia]

Re: Animal Testing

Unfortunately I don't think that many people (outside of fields that use toxicology information regularly) truly get how toxicological research is done, how it works, why it works (and is done this way), or what the information is or is not useful for.

One of my favorite books, The Poisoner's Handbook, talks about one of New York's earliest medical examiners - Charles Norris. He was trying to develop reliable tests for various types of poisoning in deceased tissue - and had to pick up stray dogs to basically poison and then euthenize because of the general unavailablility of human cadavers. His pioneering ventures into forensics made for a pretty interesting read (in spite of numerous errors made by the author) - and a lot of his tests still work today for criminologists in less well-equipped crime labs around the world.

[Denarius]

Re: Animal Testing

And I am going to ask for the umpteenth time, okay third but anyway, those who suggest using humans instead of animals, what do we do in the early stages of testing where we need a lifeform that ages fast, that is have a short life span?

Again, genetic engineering. Custom tailored test subjects, no muss no fuss.

[Maria de Luna]

Re: Animal Testing

The way I see it. These mice get pampered with a steady source of food and water, a life of luxury compared to wild mice.

And, in this case, booze!

Animal testing may sound cruel, and in some cases it may actually be cruel (in cases of testing chemical and biological weapons, we got to watch films...) but I personally think that in early medical trials animal testing is nessecary, their physiology, and size makes for faster results produced. A person can make the choice of never using products which have been tested on animals, but pharmaceuticals will be out of the picture...

[thalassa]

Re: Animal Testing

Again, genetic engineering. Custom tailored test subjects, no muss no fuss.

And in the mean time?

Thousands of chemicals are created for use in industry each year.