#1
Do you agree with medical animal testing or not?

I tweeted earlier on my account today saying that medical animal testing is justified (cosmetic is not obviously) and got a bunch of people saying they'd rather die than take medication that had been tested on animals. Some other bright spark said criminals such as Ian Watkins should have medication tested upon them.

So what is your opinion for:

1. Is medical animal drug testing justified?
2. Should we experiment on prisoners?

My answers:
1. Yes. They are useful model systems for studying pharmacological properties of drugs such as absorption, excretion, toxicity and life time, but they are obviously limited. However they're simply one step in drug development and overall the gains of this method far outweigh the cost in animal life.
2. No. The ethical issues are just too much. Imagine if we injected a prisoner with cancer and tested fatal drugs on him just to find out he was later innocent? It is just too far a risk and even criminals have a right to their bodies.

longing rusted furnace daybreak seventeen benign nine homecoming one freight car
#2
I think medical testing should be performed on emo kids, they probably won't care

spread the rumor it's super deep and makes your parents angry and they'll just volunteer
It's over simplified, So what!

Quote by eGraham
I'm going to be on top of what is called a knob
Quote by theguitarist
Big ones can be fun in some ways but generally, they are a pain in the ass.
Quote by Wolfinator-x
I don't know what is going on in this thread or why I have an erection.
#3
1. Unless there are humans who are willing to volunteer, animal testing is a pretty necessary evil, so yes. The loss of life from performing these crucial experiments is outweighed by the long-term benefits.

2. Probably not. Prisoners are human beings just as anyone else is. I don't see prisoners as sub-human scum, even if their crimes are utterly despicable, they just need a lot of help.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Omae wa mou
Shindeiru



Quote by Axelfox
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Last edited by T00DEEPBLUE at Feb 20, 2014,
#4
Quote by EndTheRapture51

I tweeted earlier on my account today saying that medical animal testing is justified (cosmetic is not obviously)


Why? Just curious
cat
#5
Quote by EndTheRapture51
Do you agree with medical animal testing or not?

I tweeted earlier on my account today saying that medical animal testing is justified (cosmetic is not obviously) and got a bunch of people saying they'd rather die than take medication that had been tested on animals.

.

what if the animals want to be pretty too
#7
If a few mice have to be sacrificed so someone in the future gets better treatment go right ahead.
#9
1. On a case by case basis. Needs to weigh the importance of knowledge gained against the life of an animal and the practicality of results (i.e. how applicable it is to humans in the first place). There's already a buttload of stuff on wiki that discuss this

2. lol what
| (• ◡•)| (❍ᴥ❍ʋ
Last edited by Cianyx at Feb 20, 2014,
#10
If it takes a few rats/monkeys/rabbits to find a cure for some form of cancer, by all means go ahead and do the experiments.
#11
Quote by EndTheRapture51
I tweeted earlier on my account today saying that medical animal testing is justified (cosmetic is not obviously) and got a bunch of people saying they'd rather die than take medication that had been tested on animals. Some other bright spark said criminals such as Ian Watkins should have medication tested upon them.


Just remind them that EVERY* medication has been tested on animals. Every vaccine, every OTC drug, everything in the medical field was tested on animals. So yeah, they haven't a clue what they are talking about.

*FDA approved drugs only

EDIT:

1. Yes we should, most lab animals are bred specifically for the purpose of being nearly genetically identical to avoid any complications in the mechanism of reaction of medications to eliminate any genetic factors from interfering with the test. Besides, they only really use lab rats/mice/other rodents and have to go through piles and piles of ethics paper work to be granted status to preform the tests. It is done in the most scientific and responsible way possible.

2. Only by volunteers. Otherwise it violates scientific ethics and the Hippocratic oath for that matter. Forcing someone to experiment with a medication is counter productive as you rule out many control variables that you need to determine if the medication is working. What are you more likely to get useful information out of, someone who is a willing participant ("Rate the pain on a scale of 1-10") or someone who had a pill shoved down their throat?

EDIT 2:

Quote by LostLegion
#bradthread


Actually it is quite a complex and interesting thread. Sure some idiots will come out of the wood work, but it is nice to see someone taking interest of things of this caliber and asking a rather interesting question about prisoners.
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

Quote by lolmnt
PC police strike again


If you have a computer related question, ask here!

Official Mayor of the Computer Thread
Last edited by DamienEx1021 at Feb 20, 2014,
#12
Animals: Surely science has progressed to a point where animal testing is no longer necessary for every single pharmaceutical. That being said, I don't disagree with it in basic principle, it's responsible for much of what we know about biology. I don't think it's entirely right or fair either, but such is the world.

Prisoners: Only on a volunteer basis, and with as much paperwork to cover people's asses as possible.
Q: Favourite Pink Floyd song?
A: The one where they get wicked high and play Emin and A for an hour.
#13
Quote by travislausch
Animals: Surely science has progressed to a point where animal testing is no longer necessary for every single pharmaceutical.

no, the basis of science is empirical study through testing and observation using statistical analysis for determining significance, that being said there is no way to predict the effect of a pharmaceutical without testing, and it takes multiple testings to determine statistical significance (for both safety and effect), even if you try to use a rationalist method to predict what the effect of something may be it can (and will) have many unforeseen effects
#14
Quote by daytripper75
If it takes a few rats/monkeys/rabbits to find a cure for some form of cancer, by all means go ahead and do the experiments.

yep
___

Quote by The_Blode
she was saying things like... do you want to netflix and chill but just the chill part...too bad she'll never know that I only like the Netflix part...
#15
I'd rather animals get tested for something that could have lethal side effects, rather than humans.

#uneducatedonthematterandidontcare
#17
Quote by Obsceneairwaves
I think medical testing should be performed on emo kids, they probably won't care

spread the rumor it's super deep and makes your parents angry and they'll just volunteer


I like this idea.
Personally I tink rats and mice would make better company than emo kids, so the world wouldn't miss them that much.
I have nothing important to say
#18
1. Is medical animal drug testing justified?
2. Should we experiment on prisoners?

1. No. Not even spelling tests.
2. No. They're human. Might not even be guilty. Bankers on the other hand...
ZEN JUDDHISM
The new solo project, and spiritual philosophy... Album out now !
----------------------------------------------------------
hybrid 6.0
Debut album 'Silent Destruction' out now
Read the Two Guys Metal review here
#19
I'd like to point out that medicine tends to greatly advance during times of war due to prisoners being experimented on. Take it for what you will.
#20
Maybe let prisoners volunteer, with shorter jail terms as a reward. Animal testing is very wrong though.
this house is bitchin
#21
Quote by CaptainCanti
Maybe let prisoners volunteer, with shorter jail terms as a reward. Animal testing is very wrong though.


Yeah ok, then we have a bunch of super villains getting out early. Smart move.
#22
I bet these people against testing on animals eat meat or swat mosquitos and set up mouse traps (i could be wrong though).

Test on the animals. That's how we find out if stuff works.
#23
The drugs and medicines have already been tested in labs, and a lot of research goes into what the drugs would potentially do and how it works. The scientists already have a good understanding as to what it will do the the test subject. The animal testing is a very late stage in the testing process and is as humane as can be. One of my friend's did work experience at a Life science's testing lab, which did a lot of animal testing. The animals were kept really well, better than they would at a kennel/pound or whatever. She said that the animals were all really happy and healthy, they weren't in pain or being treated badly in the slightest.

They get a lot of protesters outside, always trying to cause trouble. The scientists there actually try to invite them in to try and dispell some of the myths that surround the testing, but the protesters wont have any of it and never take up the offer to see that it isnt as barbaric as people would have you believe.

It isn't mad scientists injecting monkeys with weird chemicals for the fun of it, there's a lot of research and work that goes into it, and its all done very professionally and humanely
#24
1) Yes I think it is justified. There wouldn't be any advancement in genetics if scientists did not test on model organisms.

2) Naw.

edit: There wouldn't be any serious advancement in anything.
Last edited by jonlambofgod666 at Feb 20, 2014,
#25
Quote by CaptainCanti
Maybe let prisoners volunteer, with shorter jail terms as a reward. Animal testing is very wrong though.


Uhhhh... no.

There are other benefits you could offer them (food from outside the prison, additional leisure time, etc), but volunteer work shouldn't get a criminal out of his sentence.
#26
We are testing on rats/mice/rodents/etc. Its not like we are testing on any sentient animal. Ethical lab studies are not done on monkeys/apes/other primates, that is more science fiction garbage than anything. Only very few PIRATICAL trials are preformed on primates.

Mass Effect 2 had a great quote from one of the scientific characters, Mordin Solus. "Never experiment on species with members capable of calculus; Simple rule, never broke it." In our case on planet earth, we can simply say we shouldn't test on animals capable of communicating with us or animals that show advanced social structures.

Examples of Communicating Animals:
-Domestic Dogs
-Dolphins
-Chimps/Primates

Examples of Advanced Social Animals:
-Wolfs
-Lions/Large Cats
-Dolphins
-Primates

I am likely missing tons of obvious answers but I just wanted to get people thinking a little.

Quote by Rockford_rocks
Uhhhh... no.

There are other benefits you could offer them (food from outside the prison, additional leisure time, etc), but volunteer work shouldn't get a criminal out of his sentence.


Yeah that sounds right. I was going to be strict and just say "you are doing this for the better of man kind" but I figure incentive will help. Absolutely no to the reduced jail sentence though.
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

Quote by lolmnt
PC police strike again


If you have a computer related question, ask here!

Official Mayor of the Computer Thread
Last edited by DamienEx1021 at Feb 20, 2014,
#27
1. Necessary Evil
2. Death Row Inmates, yes, but considering most of the animal rights people are also anti-capital punishment, that's not gonna happen.
Someone is wrong on the internet. Only you can help.

Originally Posted by Tulkas
Stairway is required on any list of anything involving the words guitar or song, I believe Congress amended the constitution in order to put it into federal law.
#28
Quote by KerNeL_KLuTcH
1. Necessary Evil


This is how I feel. Maybe once cloning is more of a thing we can all feel good about testing on animals that wouldn't have a life without human intervention, but until then we don't really have a choice.
#29
1. Yes, no qualms here.
2. No, it's firstly unethical, and second there is the strong possibility that the circumstances would yield poor or faulted results.
#30
Im ok with animal testing. Humanity >>>>> some rats, pigs, and sheep
Quote by yellowfrizbee
What does a girl have to do to get it in the butt thats all I ever wanted from you. Why, Ace? Why? I clean my asshole every night hoping and wishing and it never happens.
Bitches be Crazy.

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
#31
Quote by daytripper75
If it takes a few rats/monkeys/rabbits to find a cure for some form of cancer, by all means go ahead and do the experiments.


This.
Sail upon the open skies