CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
animal testing is wrong....they use poor innocent animals make make-up ndd other products. i think we should protest against it because animals have feelings and families and lives too. we shouldn't try to destroy their lives because of body prducts. we dont need make up to look beautiful. it is wat matters on the inside not the outside. you dont need make up to full fill your day.
This isnt what we are talking about and you know it, What we are talking about is a serious problem where defensless animals are being treated horribly and having things done to them that no human would ever want done to them
Actually..., it's really not that big of deal. Sometimes I feel that God, or the universe, or mother nature, is experimenting on me..., us. If life was a little bit nicer to me..., us..., then maybe I would be a little more concerned about it. But until that happens, I wouldn't get my panties in a bunch ;)
If it's to find a cure for human diseases, I'm all for it, no holds barred or whatever.
If it's for a new make up line, well, depends on the potential harm. If the worse that can happen is a small rash that'll heal with time or medicine, then go for it.
If it's something that may send and animal into deadly convulsions, well, I think there's enough make up on the shelves already.
Animal testing is not actually safer for the humans. The results are fairly useless. Penicillin is poisonous to guinea pigs, and had the researchers relied on animal testing, we would not have the medicine today. Lipitor was also fatal to the animals it was tested on, but it's one of the most effective cholesterol medicines we have available. And think of thalidomide. Great in monkeys, dangerous in humans. Relying on animal testing only means that we are likely to miss out on useful drugs that do poorly in animal tests, and we are likely to release drugs that are harmful to humans.
Even though you are inactive, I am going to respond.
All the examples you brought up actually disprove your point. Scientists rely on more than one type of testing. This is why you have been able to list all those examples where animal or human testing produced negative results. It seems like you are suggesting that FDA approval relies solely on animal testing. This is simply not true.
I am not saying that, and I apologize if that was unclear. Animal testing is one of the earlier stages of testing, but it's a useless one, and a number of drugs are stopped after being ineffective or dangerous in animal studies in the US, and don't make it into the other stages. My point is animal testing is a cruel and useless method. We have alternative methods that are significantly more accurate. Use those to replace animal testing and we will likely develop more useful medicine.
There are no viable alternatives to animal testing. In vitro and computer models do not account for many of the complex mechanisms of a living organism. You have to use something that is similar to a human being at some point before human testing, at least by current ethical standards. There is nothing more accurate than an animal at this point for complex biological processes. There are several industries that no longer use animal testing due to current laws and regulations.
There are already many laws in place that either promote research into alternative methods, require alternative methods when appropriate, or regulate the use of animals for testing.
Until science advances much further, there is no way to stop animal testing, only to carry it out responsibly.
Animal subjects do not account for human mechanisms either. Chimpanzees are generally considered to be our closest relatives, from a DNA standpoint, at roughly 70% similarity. They don't get AIDS, their proteins vary from our proteins, which affects cancer studies, they have a different number of chromosomes. Animal testing is not viable - it is inaccurate 92% of the time. 92%! That means it is accurate 8% of the time. I could flip a coin and guess whether or not a medicine was safe. We can use stem cells, tissue samples, epidemiological studies, the in-vitro and computer models you mentioned. Those methods are accurate 90% of the time. I'm not saying you could pick one method to replace animal testing, but a combination would give you a pretty wide picture and would be more accurate and more cost-effective. Using a combination can be done - Pharmagene Laboratories is doing it.
Animal subjects do not account for human mechanisms either. Chimpanzees are generally considered to be our closest relatives, from a DNA standpoint, at roughly 70% similarity.
98%+.
We mostly use mice and rats. Get a lot of the same crap we do. You should watch Ratatouille for the reason why. Also, you might want to google "transgenic" and "knockout".
it is inaccurate 92% of the time. 92%! That means it is accurate 8% of the time. I could flip a coin and guess whether or not a medicine was safe.
This seems made up.
We can use stem cells, tissue samples, epidemiological studies, the in-vitro and computer models you mentioned. Those methods are accurate 90% of the time.
No. These methods are definitely not accurate 90% of the time. Many of these methods are not even used for direct testing. In vitro and computer models only give starting points for hypothesis. They provide no real value to further understanding. We do use human tissue samples, but they do not carry out active biological processes. Not sure what you mean epidemiological studies? Those are generally just data analysis of population. I am also not sure what you mean by stem cells either. Clone organs to test? That would be step up from in vitro, but still not a living organism.
As I already said, many studies already employ alternative methods and take pains to limit the amount of animal testing.
We mostly use mice and rats. Get a lot of the same crap we do. You should watch Ratatouille for the reason why. Also, you might want to google "transgenic" and "knockout".
I understand that we mostly use mice and rats, and why that is true. It doesn't make the tests more accurate. For one, the stress of living in a cage and being tested on results in skewed data. Test subjects tend to be overweight or malnourished, again skewing data. The manifestation of diseases isn't always the same, and the cure isn't always the same.
Epidemiological studies are data analyses of the population, which helps us understand the diseases we are fighting against. They are how we linked smoking to cancer and identified AIDS.
Limiting animal testing is definitely a step in the right direction, but we need to keep moving towards eliminating it. There are ways to eliminate it.
Gordon Baxter, co-founder of Pharmagene Laboratories, which uses only computers and human tissues to create and test drugs once said, “If you have information on human genes, what’s the point of going back to animals?”
Basically, instead of comparing the point mutations, they compare each individual chromosome.
It's not.
Very interesting.
The PCRM disagrees
These are LD50 tests. This is entirely different from standard clinical studies. LD50 tests only check for lethal dosage. They do not care about the actual pathways of the substance. The 83% is only limited to LD50 tests. There is no way to apply that to clinical studies of pharmaceuticals.
The NEAVS also finds these methods pretty accurate
This mentions LD50s again. We already use tissue samples to test for LD50s.
It also mentions allergy and irritant tests which were developed to prevent reduce cosmetic animal testing.
None of these can be used for life saving pharmaceuticals. As I said before, there are already laws in place to reduce unnecessary animal testing. There are just certain tests that cannot be be replaced.
Here's more on stem cells
This is the same as tissue samples, but a whole lot more expensive. It would be worth the cost when they can clone entire organs or organ systems in order to test more complex processes.
The 9 out of 10 failure rate definitely warrants new testing methods. The problem is, it is still considered unethical to test humans first. The current mindset seems to be, sacrifice 10 mice to save 1 human life. (made up numbers)
That's what I get for not checking a link. I know that there's a better study out there, because we discussed it in my biology class last year, but I can't find it right now. Doesn't matter anyway, because we've basically ended chimp testing anyway.
There is no way to apply that to clinical studies of pharmaceuticals.
Microdosing is an innovative technique that measures how very small doses of potential new medicines are absorbed, distributed, metabolised and excreted by the human body (in so called ADME studies). These microdoses are radio-labelled, injected into human volunteers and measured (usually in blood samples) using a very sensitive measuring device called an accelerator mass spectrometer. Currently, it is estimated that 40% of drugs fail in human trials because the traditional ADME studies conducted in animals do not accurately predict how the drug would behave in humans. In 2009, international drug regulators (ICH) endorsed the use of microdosing in early clinical trials to improve the speed and safety of drug development.
I really like microdosing because it does cover the whole system, in the being that will actually be using the medicine.
The computer models can also calculate effects on the overall being or the separate organ systems. It shortchanges results on the cellular level, which can be counteracted by other tests.
The 9 out of 10 failure rate definitely warrants new testing methods.
The 9 out of 10 failure rate indicates that animal testing does not work! It's a shot in the dark and the researchers hope they won't be sued when it kills humans. Use cell cultures to test the drug on a cellular level, make sure it's probably going to do what its supposed to do. Use computer models and organ chips to test it in systems. Use computer models and microdosing to see if there are adverse effects. Then break out some death row prisoners and some volunteers, and get to testing.
Also, we haven't mentioned psychological studies and such, so can we agree there is no need to torture a monkey or a dog to see if abused children still seek love?
Yes. Microdosing has been done for quite a while, but only in the early phases. Early phases always administer sub-therapeutic doses.
I was researching the 9 out of 10 statistic and I believe it needs to be given context. At first, I thought it was only considering clinical studies that rely only on animal testing for the early phases, but this is not the case. This statistic is regarding combined failures from phase I to phase IV. Phase 0 and preclinical are before phase I. These include all the testing methods you have listed so far as well as animal testing. The 9 out of 10 failure rate includes alternative methods as well. Most clinical studies utilize many of the methods you have listed as well as animal testing and still end up with a 10% success rate.
The failure rate has more to do with the science of pharmacology. It is a crapshoot. We actually understand very little about the big picture. We can only design chemicals to correspond to the basic pathway of a specific target. The only way to see how it responds to the body as a whole is during phase I to phase IV (human testing).
It should be noted that in medically related animal experimentation, it is not common for the animal testing to be useful in the end result. Physiological differences between humans, and say, cats means that a disease or a treatment will not behave the same. This is why Thalidomide was put on the market - it was safe and effective on animal test subjects, but was dangerous when used in humans. Another example is the HIV cocktail, which was completely ineffective and even fatal in animals, but very useful in humans.
As for cosmetic testing, it is pretty much never just a small rash. The Draize eye test involves immobilizing rabbits in steel cages, dripping chemicals in their eye, not allowing them to use any natural defense mechanisms to remove the chemical, such as rubbing at their eye, and watching for weeks to see how painful it is and how long till they go blind. There's the LD50 test, which means scientists force feed animals chemicals until half of the test subjects die. By that point, all of them are very very ill. And the skin tests? They shave the animal, immobilize it, and inject chemicals into the skin. It's very painful and frankly, quite useless. Consumer good testing is not required by law, and is really to cover the company in case an unintelligent human buys a bottle of drain cleaner, and thinks "Hey, I should drink this!"
Actually, there are many other alternatives for animal testing, such as computer simulation, skin donation, and dead bodies, which works much better than animal testing and is cheaper than it(according t a recent study, 94% of tests that have passed animal testing have failed to work on humans).
You know, I find it interesting that the bigger the creature, the more people care about it.
One time a bird hit the windshield of our car and died instantly, my sister cried. Why? How is that different than an insect hitting the windshield and dieing?
Of course she cried Jake. First off it's a shock to hit a rather large animal or bird. Perhaps she was frightened by it! I don't necessarily agree that the larger the animal the more people care about it. An insect hitting a windshield is rather noiseless and unnoticeable most times. It is also an expected event, whereas a bird is not.
I much rather test something on an animal than on a human being. If a product actually IS harmful, it'd be better for an animal to die than a human being. Also, the animals that typically get tested on are animals that have short life spans and fast reproductive cycles, such as rats, which give birth to many rats very quickly. When it comes to medicines that are meant to keep people alive for things like a heart condition, rats and other animals are bred to live shorter lives. This is because the scientists breed them to be more susceptible to the diseases they are trying to treat.
Given the choice between your dog or your mother (or child), who would you choose? I love my cat very much, but I would kill her in an instant to save the life of a loved one. Is animal testing any different?
... you obviously have no idea how cruel animals are to one another. They are far crueler than humans are usually even physically capable of being. They eat each other alive amidst wailing and crying, like for hours, eat each other alive from the stomach up. It can take days for the animal to die whilst being gnawed upon.
But then it makes you think. How cruel is it that I find it funny?
One could argue that we don't have need to be cruel and that is why we are not. -Because our intelligence grants us the privilege. But I don't claim to have the knowledge(thankfully) of weather I would have the heart to kill another for food etc. You could theoretically say all but are we not all different? Or is that WHY we have become this intelligent? Does being cruel or brutal stunt progress? I'm sort of rambling now..
Well this is sort of a strange question. It really depends on the situation. If they're testing by sticking needles into dogs eyeballs to test for one of the rarest diseases ever known to infect dogs, that's horrible. But if they're testing for a very common disease amongst dogs by taking a blood sample. the nit's fine. You see what I'm saying?-
it helps scientists make a new discoveries actually in medicine. We are living in quickly development world and people are meeting new illnesses every year and sometimes preparation is not helpful. In this case scientists are researching ways to try treating illnesses as a cancer – disease before what scientists are still powerless. . Anyway I against when testing comes to beauty, trying to see if your make-up will cause an allergic reaction , I think its foolish to harm an animal for that purpose, I saw how they make testing perfume, detergent on animals; they do it without any anesthesia and animals feel a powerful pain and is horrible and shouldn't be done ever! Testing must be for a good reason like finding a cure for cancer and all kinds of different diseases or illnesses
animal testing is fine cause if we dont test animals and further our research we will not be able to save lives of others it helps to creat new medicine to cure US humans from aids,leprosy, and more
Everyone consider this. We love our modern life. Would we be prepared to let cancer kill all of us just to satisfy the needs of animals? Is everyone against animal testing vegan? I dont think so. We kill millons of animals year after year. But not for animal testing, but for food and fur. Anyone who is against animal testing and is not vegan is being hypocritical.
I completely favor animal testing , because day by day our science is progressing with leaps and bounds and for that we need a test subject that whether the medicines that we are creating are effective or not. Those who are claiming that animal testing should be banned should be kind enough to suggest other alternatives.Because if don't test on animals then who should it be ?Humans ?And if the answer is no , then should we stop testing our latest breakthroughs altogether ?
If such tests aren't done on animals who else can you suggest it be performed on? Living beings are incredibly complex and therefore scientists too cant create models which are similar. The medical and scientific advances far outweighs the minor inconveniences such as cruelty towards animals. Scientific advancement ,in one way, will also help scientists to create different models on which such testing can be done therefore its for their betterment too. It also should be said that there are more test subjects and controlled environments for experiments with animals.
Animal testing is completely and undeniably wrong in every circumstance. I don't think I need to talk about cosmetics testing; that's just horrible. But medical testing?
a) Non-human species react differently than humans. To everything. Their reactions cannot be gauged as an accurate representation of how humans will react. This is completely unnecessary and unhelpful testing.
b) So, why test on animals? Why not humans? Is it because animals don't have the same thought process as humans? In that case, why not take human infants, or severely retarded humans? How is it different?
It's against our moral standards to test human life retarded or not. That's why we use animals . It 's been effectively used by the scientist for the passed years . We have developed artificial ear for the human deft with the help of animal testing and animal flesh. The artificial ear today can be made by a mouse , as you see if you got a deft brother you wouldn't find ounce of guilt if that animal testing can make your brother hear. This question is actually a question of what to prioritize. Is it either human or animal? And to answer this question. it so senseless for us to use other species than our own species.
first of all animal testing should be illegal because all of these animals suffer every day just so we can be "pretty" and for our house to be "clean" we kill about 200+ animals a DAY if you do that math thats a hell of a lot of animals a month better yet a year. Just think about all of the tests that are done on animals. The Draize test, studying head trauma and studying severe burns. All of these different tests require harming the animal. WE SHOULDN'T"T LET THAT HAPPEN. I understand that people would rather have animals being tested on then humans just in case the product is dangerous. Most products tested most of the time don't make it to the shelves and that IS a good thing. But all these animals had to die because of that product. They researchers could of used synthetic skin in favor of using animals. So think about it about ever minute 10+ animals have just been tortured and killed. Sad isn't it. =/
No worries , if we let animals intercourse as many as they want then problem solved. If you know how many lives has been saved by animal testing then you would be at our side
Animal testing is morally wrong. Plus when you test on an animal, it is more likely to go endangered. We already have over 100 endangered species. We dont need more.
Well, but animal testing is very cruel. I mean, for example, let's took a white rat. We first pull the tail and make it paralysis. But actually, after pulling it's tail, it can't move for it's whole life like a person in a vegetative state. It is very cruel.
I do not support animal testing mostly because of the loose restrictions on abuse. Most researchers waste animal resources to gain statistics, not necessarily results! There needs to be more focus on animal husbandry technqiues, and living conditions. Also, most of the things which work for animals, don't work with humans...
Look, we have two sides now, one is the problem of population,like aging of population, population explosion,another is endangered animals species. If you think animal testing can protect human? no! it is contradiction.
What are the animal testing teach our dependent? Unfriendly!!indifferent!selfish!and violent!
okay, I tend to agree because I like dogs and cats - and turtles and tortoises as well. I don't want them tested either.
But just as a side debate, what should be the litmus test of wether an animal can be tested?
Should it go by
cuteness,
intelligence,
usefullness,
or some combination?
For me, I have a personal vendetta against spiders. I kill every one I see, no matter the situation.
It's my personal goal to eradicate the world of spiders, and if the very circle of life itself were to crumble for want of that horrid abomination, so be it. A life with spiders is not worth living!
Sure, I know that people love the strangest creatures and keep some as pets or curiosities. I would think that at least part of the litmus test should be the question of what creature mimics man in the best way so that the test results are somewhat valid. If that animal MUST be a dog or cat then at least let it be those that would be euthanized because of overcrowding in our nations pounds. If we actually were evolved from the monkey or ape it naturally follows that we still may have some connection to them. The species can easily be replenished right from the laboratory or perhaps in the wild. I have a thorough dislike and fear of mice and rats! Are they eligible for such testing? I don't know the answer to that but I do know they were used for years. I simply think testing should be conducted so that it does the best thing for mankind.
I actually don't even know what kind of animals they test, I do think it is mostly rats though,
And oddly pigs innards most closely resemble our own I've heard (irony anyone?)
I don't know that anyone tests dogs and cats outsided of for the benefit of dogs and cats. Least not hear.
We actually didn't evolve from monkeys at all, or chimps, or banobos or any other of the primates we most closely resemble, that's just the closest common link. Some millions of years ago there was a group of primates that were separated, some turned into us after millions of years, some turned into other monkey-like creatures.
So not so much ancestors, as distant distant cousins.
But at the end of the day, I'd rather put a chimp in a test flight for a new craft that may or may not blow up.
Unfair? yes, but we have to draw the line somewhere, and a rat I don't think would give us the needed info.
Hopefully though sometime very soon, we'll be able to move beyond any testing on any living thing, and technology will be able to simulate well enough, and we'll have robots to do the leg work.
The majority of testing is on rats and similar animals that are bred very quickly to become more susceptible to the diseases that the scientists are trying to cure. The rat is the perfect animal for this because they reproduce quickly and numerously and are cheap to care for.
I dont think any animal should be tested on they have emotions and can feel pain too!!
Imagine your an animal in a science lab. You have have people that are bigger, scarier, more powerful than you rubbing stuff on your skin that burns and makes your insides feel as if there broiling. Then they take something and put it on your eyes suddenly your eyes start burning, you try to get it off but the big people hold down your paws, your eyes start to get narrow visioned and suddenly everythings goes black and the burning stops, you cant see because you have gone blind.
This may be nothing like they feel like because im sure it is much more graphic and horrible than that, But definetly nothing less than that.
“Animals are more than ever a test of our character, of mankind's capacity for empathy and for decent, honorable conduct and faithful stewardship. We are called to treat them with kindness, not because they have rights or power or some claim to total equality, but in a sense because they don't; because they all stand unequal and powerless before us unable to do anything."
So please lets stand up against Animal Testing!!!!!!!!!!!!
Plus you dont have to use animals for testing, there are alternatives like computer programs that use Serum, DNA and other stuff to predict what the out come of the product is.
There is also something called Human Testing, but it is not on acuall humans it is on human cells, so no one is hurt and they can see how the human would react from it.
Thanks for the idea but DNA cannot get the accurate result in terms of getting a replica of human "'being" sad to say we need to value human lives before another species.
People think what are you saying that animals are less important than you like think animals being used for testing mostly half of the time end up dying there using sometimes chemicals inside of dogs for you animals are not for the rights to be used for all that its just them trying illegal things on animals to give to you selfish people dogs are risking there life for you think of you being strangled or maybe you being threatened you have no way out to try and save yourself scientist need to make a machine that will test chemicals or clothing or anything don't harm our animals with you illegal or life threatening chemicals or clothing
