Considering that there are alternatives which do not use animals, and a high %%% of the experiments done on animals is curiosity-driven research.
Answer:
I don't think its necessary.
There was a lab not too far from where I live.
They were testing cosmetics on rabbits..
But theres no need,
I think bunnies are cute enough already
"Not tested on animals, you will be the first."
"curiosity driven"?? Considering the high cost there better be a good reason.
What alternatives did you have in mind?I'm all for using alternatives when they are available
(as long as they aren't more destructive than
animal testing).However, we've gained an awful lot by testing
on animals in the medical industries.You say there are alternatives. What did you have
in mind?
I am the biggest animal lover out there. I have rescued numerous dogs and cats over the years. I think animal testing is barbaric and I couldn't do it. But, because of animal testing they found out that they can use a bovine's artery and heart in order to save my mother's. So even though some pigs were tested on out there I would have done anything to keep her alive.You mentioned alternatives to doing animal testing. What alternatives? How can we really find a cure for AIDs or cancer if we don't test new drugs on lab mice? The vaccine for polio was found by testing it on monkeys who have almost the same genetic make up humans do. They have saved billions of people world wide with that vaccine.
Actually, in many cases, there are not alternatives. Now, in high school biology, certainly a computer simulation is as good as a real dissection, but this isn't the case with pharmaceutical testing. We have to test procedures and medications on actual living systems to evaluate the safety and efficacy. Think of it this way; you've just found a compound that kills cancerous cells in a test tube. That's one step, but now you need to find out if it only works in that tube, or works in a living body, and whether it has terrible side effects. A computer model still can't do that. Would you rather try it on some mice, or a person? I'd pick the mice, myself.
Testing on animals is necessary in some cases. For instance, testing on lab-grown tissue samples does not always give an accurate result. It also doesn't show how a certain drug etc would affect an organism as a whole e.g. could have an adverse effect on the lungs while treating blood vessels. Even tests on micro-organisms are not conclusive enough for testing to be performed on human subjects and, as a result, animal testing becomes a necessary step in the progress of things such as drug testing
I do not think it is that necessary, the drugs they are making are just poisons anyways. with good eating habits you can prevent a lot of the diseases these drugs are used for and put the animal testers out of business
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment