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

i wonder if those ppl that are dead set against it would step up to take these meds and test out products before the rest of us

I do not believe non-human animals should ever be used in research if there are alternatives, but if there aren't--then in some cases, it should be done.

I also think that any species which passes the mirror test deserves special protection under the law, as the Great Ape Trust is trying to secure for great apes. Spain is the first to adopt this into law.

In light of the fact that chimpanzees are now known to be Homonids, we ought to reconsider our stance on their 'value' relative to ourselves.
Self-aware species should not be used in research--because they ARE on the same 'plane' as humans. They may not be as smart or creative as we are, but then again, neither is Forest Gump. If we ever meet an extra-terrestrial sentient species, how will we treat them? Will they be on the same 'plane' as humans? What if they're on another world, in a tribal hunter/gatherer stage? Will we treat them like humans, or will we treat them the way we've been treating apes? Some place needs to be found to draw that line.

Apes are much smarter than we ever wanted to give them credit for, in any case. An Orang at the Henry Doorly zoo was found out of his cage in the morning, for over a week straight. The conclusion was that someone was leaving it unlocked at night. People were nearly fired over the issue, when someone stayed overnight to observe from an out-of-sight vantage point.

The Orang, as it turns out, had disassembled a light fixture, removed the wires, and crafted a lock pick. He was picking the lock, opening the cage and letting himself and his buddies out, then hiding the pick between his cheek and gum for safe-keeping during the day.

How many people do you know of who would think of that?

Chimps have just proven that in one area of mental acuity, they are actually better than us--they have a much better spatial memory than we do. They seriously blow us right out of the water.
YouTube - Chimpanzee Cognition: Beats humans at memory task
My favorite part is near the end, where the chimp is distracted, and turns away for a number of seconds before completing the memory task flawlessly.

Chimp win, human fail. At a mental task. This isn't the only chimp who regularly thrashes humans at this test, by the way.

You have to draw the line somewhere, and history isn't going to make us look too pretty if we draw it at mere genetics.

We have a long history of seriously underestimating other species. The pedestal we have placed ourselves on is much too high. While I don't think there will ever be a time when our species bias is completely overcome (or should be)--I do think we need to take ourselves down a few notches.

There has to be a better reason than 'because we're the humans'. Something rational, and fair. Something based on science, and not on religion.
The mirror test, *or an analog of it, seems to be a fair line in my opinion.

Current list of species passing the mirror test:
Chimps, Bonobos, Orangs, and Gorillas
Bottlenose dolphins and Orcas
Elephants
European Magpies

It's a short list. We'll probably find more species to populate it, but many have already been tested. I think it's a small concession to acknowledge that these species, while they might not be valued as highly as we value ourselves, deserve compassion and freedom from torture, in light of their unique mental ability to consider themselves within their own minds.

*some species have very poor vision, and rely primarily on other senses. These species may require some other form of test to judge their self-awareness. Elephants have poor vision, but managed to pass the test anyhow.

Wow, I have to say that is a very interesting way to look at it. While I dont necessarily agree with all of it, I am very glad you responded. Not many people really take the time to discuss things like this with others in such detail.

Big Gunns does understand all the great successes that science has had using animals. BG just can't watch every time he sees a Chimp in a cage that's being used for research by being pumped full of drugs. BG could never do it...NEVER!!!!:tears::tears::tears:

Big Gunns just wishes there was a better way.

I think a lot of people feel that way. I actually do research on neurodegeneration with fruit flies. I couldn't imagine doing what I do every day on something that I can relate to more, like a cat or dog or a chimp or even a mouse. Although in all actuality I don't do anything that harms the flies or causes distress.

my thought is that lab rats have served a great purpose in medical research! many cancer treatments and other types of disease control have been found trough rats! But if a rat is in most peoples home, they kill them, their go a life wasted for no cause, and a lab rat has a noble cause of death unlike a snap of a trap. A human life is more valuable in my opinion because we have the power to change things, we have a thought process like no other animal. A rat has little process IMHO because they go off of instinct, something they have had for many a year, while us humans use our adapting brain to come up with ways to change the human experience, unlike the rats that live in trash cans and spread disease, but other than rats i mostly disagree with other types of animals used in the lab to learn!

Oh, we do far worse to rats than use snap-traps on them.
I remember reading the instructions on a sticky mouse trap.
It said, when you find a rodent in the trap...you should throw it in the garbage.

Of course, the mouse may still be alive at that time. In fact, it probably will be.

Cruelty to rodents in the private sector is apparently expected, so I don't see that anyone should complain about it happening in laboratories.
In fact, the use of rats and mice in labs is the reason why we herpers are permitted to feed live rodents to our animals. Many herps would die if this option were not available. Rats and Mice are exempt from anti-cruelty laws. It was lobbying by medical research facilities that accomplished this early on.
We owe them our ability to legally feed live fuzzies to new hatchling snakes.

It would be quite hypocritical of us to speak against them for using rodents in medical research.

Funny you should post this, I saw a billboard the other day that said "GOT LEPROSY? Thanks to animal research, you won't." Anybody seen this?

I fully support testing medications on animals. Every medication and medical procedure done on animals was testing on one. Without those animals, ours would have a great deal harder time surviving an infection because we wouldn't have the needed antibiotics.

I firmly believe that if you're against experimenting on animals, then you shouldn't take your animals to the vet, use medication on them, you shouldn't go to the doctor or take medications, either. Why? The vast majority of medications and medical procedures were tested first on animals.