If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Animal testing
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
The league against vivisection have won a court rulling against the government because they are not doing enough to maintain animal welfare standards - this will apparently lead to less testing in the UK.
Obviously everything needs to be done to make sure that animals used for testing are not unduely hurt, but its not like the tests are just going to stop. The control, the economic benefit and the jobs will just move straight to South Korea or some other country and they wont give a toss about animal welfare.
Obviously everything needs to be done to make sure that animals used for testing are not unduely hurt, but its not like the tests are just going to stop. The control, the economic benefit and the jobs will just move straight to South Korea or some other country and they wont give a toss about animal welfare.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
I know the BUAV have also been pushing for this for some time.
Is this testing for medicine or cosmetics or something else?
I dunno.
Perhaps they could use chavs instead.
and why can't cosmetics testing be banned? there is just no need, i'd be happy to be a payed tester...
The body shop (well they used to before there got sold to Loreal), and M&S refuse to test comestics on animals. It is utterly pointless when other alteratives are easily available.
Lush was the other one I was thinking of. I think co-op dont test there own brand stuff either. They have done a lot to raise the profile of non-animal testing. I was wondering about a list as well because I really dont want to use animal tested products where nessacery. Protor and Gamble used to animal test, I dont know if they still do or not.
If this is the case then why do people still do it? Mass stupidity? To test one thing on one person for a few days (to monitor side effects) costs a company thousands. To use an animal, where things like skin reactions can be similar, its almost next to nil.
It's all about money at the end of the day. People can vote with their feet so to speak and just choose not to buy medicines or cosmetics that have been tested on animals. No demand - no profit - no incentive.
Animals are often used becasue they'd rather not test on humans until they check there's no unanticipated side effects on animals.
Im not sure this is true - its not cheap.
This is an idea which I am very much liking
Exactly how safe and cost effective is animal testing anyway?
Lush is pretty good though (so far as I know)...
The only way to be sure that animals were not exploited when making a product is if it has a BUAV logo on it (like Co-op products), or if it is approved by Naturewatch and has a cut off point.
^ BUAV logo
It's a damned sight safer than testing on humans, and animals are cheaper to keep too...
For a start they don't demand a £500k house to live in
If it is done for medical research then I think fair enough, if the animals don't suffer.. they shouldn't be made to suffer, and shouldn't be treated like shit.
Oh do fuck off. Joking or otherwise. :mad:
quite
Cost effective? I don't CARE if it is cost effective.
I'd rather have medication tested before release than having it released and finding that instead of say, helping to reduce the effects of dementia, the drug is less effective than current ones and also has the side effect of making the veins in your eyeballs burst.
As for using Chavs - why not? I'd agree to that. And people serving life sentences for things like rape or murder.
I have one thing to say and that, Mr. Gerbil, is Thalidomide.
The issue here was inadequate and far from thorough testing - nowaday before a trial on human patients there is (hopefully, anyway) thorough and fairly long processes of animal tests. One hopes most lessons such as this have been learnt - before getting a drug out into the real world, long term and in depth tests are needed - what are the long-term effects? Effects on reproduction? And so on and so forth.
Yes, I accept that some drugs have effects on humans not shown in animal tests - but this particular example is one of not testing enough, or in enough depth. But we should test on animals first - if the lab rat drops DEAD after taking a drug, that's better than having a human test group all dropping dead.
Also WTF do I put on Monster if I don't CARE what job position I get?
it's along the line of:
-computer simulation to find suitable molecules types
-then you have to put them through more simulation tests
-then you test them on individual cell types to see if they have the desired effect
-then you test on tissue samples
-then you test on animals
-then you test on human small scale
-then human big scale
what is so wrong about this?
keeping the tests appropiate is fair and ethical
-the numbers increase is due to increases in fish and mice being tested on
ps - thalidomide caused birth defects despite testing because it was unknown at the time it was a racemic mixture, of the left and right handed version, one treated symtoms, one caused birth defects in humans.... the drug itself if it was made correctly would of been fine, and if the chemistry at the time was advanced enough
pps - most sugars would rotate light to the right (right handed), honey does it to the left, which is why is lasts (as well as having anti-oxidants in)
That way, we're not turning them into a bunch of hypocrites.
Thank you, I agree here.
Half the fuckers I bet wouldn't even be alive if it were not for animal testing.
Like it's hypocritical to get angry about a man who tortures a kitten for pleasure, but not somebody who eats meat for pleasure?
Why do people get so angry at people who want to defend animal rights? Just because you're anti-vivisection, anti-hunt, vegetarian ect why do people get on their high horses and search ways to denounce you as hypocrits?
It gets old and cliche.
So... How effective is animal research? We only hear the good stuff, what about the bad stuff? How close are animals to people anyway?
Cliche's often become cliche's because they're true...
More effective than the alternatives...Its not like scientists are torturing animals for fun.
The point about animal research often isn't to replicate humans but to check that the theory of the drug is right.
If the drug's supposed to have no side effect, but the animal starts frothing at the mouth and dies the scientists can see that there is something that's unexplored and they go back to look what it is. Better that these side effects are found out because a cat dies than a human...
because torturing a person or animal for sheer pleasure is blatantly out of order and eating meat still serves a purpose (and a tasty purpose)