Animals in BioMedical Research

So I am taking a Bio class called Human Animal Interaction which is basically about the ways humans interact with and use animals and all that jazz. Recently, we have been discussing using animals in research and there seems to be a varied response in the class. I do have to mention a few of the people in my class have strong feelings about animals and that animals are equals to humans, so this may be why the reactions are so strong and varied. So, I was curious. What do you guys have to say about this? Should we use animals in research? What if we have alternatives? Could the current system stand to be corrected?

And most importantly for me, have any of you guys signed papers or told doctors not to use anything on you that has been tested on or discovered through the use of animals?

Not answering the question but a thought, I often wonder if those who strongly oppose animal tasting would also strongly oppose/refuse drugs (that were tested on animals) if they were diagnose with cancer or other life threatening diseases.

I am not opposed to animal research, but admittedly do not have a fully formed perspective regarding the various levels of research...

A rat used to test cancer drugs and euthanized humanely and prior to any suffering... or a rabbit used to test lipsticks and made to suffer for an extended period of time. Big differences there.

The head of PETA is a diabetic and takes drugs that were tested on animalsin order to stay alive. So as noted, sometimes those that are most vocal and often the most hypocritical.

Bruce

Considering how much is medically possible now thanks to animal testing, I honestly can't say that I am against it.

Most animal testing during the last decade is relatively humane. There are very few procedures that actually cause pain, and painkillers are occasionally used as well as quick euthanasia before initial pain occurs.

The advances in the medical field have been huge because of animals. It's an important part of the sciences.

Animals deserve the right to have welfare, but not to have rights. In order to have rights they need to be able to speak for themselves and be considered sentient beings (which people are actually trying to get dolphins into the category of and give them rights to an extent). Animals are not on an equal platform as us because of the gap in our knowledge and intelligence, but that does not mean they do not deserve respect and a pain-free life if at all possible.

That's just my opinion. :]

I have seen that if you look up the drugs/procedures etc discovered with the use of animals its extensive. Over 6,000. I'm curious, Deb, if you don't mind me asking why you didn't answer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MsPrada

I have seen that if you look up the drugs/procedures etc discovered with the use of animals its extensive. Over 6,000. I'm curious, Deb, if you don't mind me asking why you didn't answer?

---

I thought my question would kind of give the hint on my position.

I am not opposed to animal testing, but I am oppose to the unecessary suffering of any animal no matter what their purpose is (whether it is research, food industry, hunting, snake feeding etc). If it is done humanely and serve a purpose I have no issue.

I believe that in most situations there is a just a middle sadly because of people who have extreme convictions it's either black or white, ironically the people who are often the most vocal about things such as animal testing are also often the most hypocritical.

Only way around animal testing is human volunteers to test drugs without knowing safety, side effects, etc. Other systems of medical testing are not advanced enough. Most if not all drugs used in humans, all vaccines, and medical techniques were developed in part through animal testing. It is an emotional thing, so facts like these will not help those so opposed to this sort of testing.
I am definitely for this testing, as I appreciate the life-saving advances, and as important and wonderful as animals are, they are not on an equal plane with humans.
Justin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deborah

I thought my question would kind of give the hint on my position.

---

It kind of did, but I asked because I was wanting to make sure my questions werent inappropriate :D

In class we were told that even if you get human volunteers, they wouldn't be allowed to do anything that had serious side effects. They couldnt, then, enter into an experiment that would...say...cut off a leg, even knowingly. No serious harm is allowed to humans even with consent. Or so the LAR director told us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackcrystal22

Animals deserve the right to have welfare, but not to have rights.

---

Interesting way to put it! I like this view.

JonV