Testing on animals for medical research..?

I need some good arguments for and against it.

Testing on animals for medical research..?
Wow, a few arguments for and against?


The arguments are basically the two sides of the same coin. To develop new medicines they have to be tested for both efficacy (how ell they work) and toxicity to assess how good a medicine they will be. This testing is a very complex and involved process, starting with chemistry, moving through test tube (in vitro) testing and then to animal and human testing. At each stage chemicals that are either ineffective or toxic are cast aside. It can take over one million new chemicals to develop one medicince, and although the in vitro testing screens out the majority of these, there is still a need to test in a whole organism, which is where animal testing comes in. Ideally one would test in humans at this stage, but there simply aren't enough volunteers and it would cost far too much money, so animals are used. This does have problems associated with it, as a rat is not the same as a human. However, as the human option is not viable as a high volume screen a compromise has to be made.


The question of ethics also has to be raised. Is it ethical to test a possibly toxic drug on another species that will be used to treat humans? On the flip side, is it ethical to test a possibly toxic chemical on a person without attempting to assess how toxic it could be? Not easy questions to answer.


So, in a nut shell:


For: cost, ease of use, ethics


Against: Not the same as humans, ethics
Reply:they should do medical research on sex offenders and serial killers, not on innocent animals what did they do wrong? put the sick fcuks to good use. thats my thought on animal testing.
Reply:Have you ever had reason to be glad of a prescription drug?


It had, by law, to be trialled on animals before it could even be tested on humans.


Is it possible that you, or someone you care for. might benefit from some drug that is being, or will in the foreseeable future be, developed?


It will have, by law, to be trialled on animals before it can even be tested on humans.


Unless the government is willing to relax the extremely strict laws (tougher than anywhere else in the world) that are in place about the testing of drugs for use in this country, that situation will not change


It might be tempting to suggest that prisoners be used to trial drugs. If their consent is not freely given, it would be illegal, and rightly so. There are too many innocent people in British jails for it to be a serious consideration.


.





And please don't give me that over-familiar garbage about everybody who is found guilty in a court of law being, actually, guilty. If that were the case, there would not be the thousands of successful appeals per year, against conviction, that we see.
Reply:testing is prefered on animals becoz the results are identified easily and rapidly than on humans and also changes can be monitored on the animals better than on humans. Imagine monitoring all the parameters and physical changes on a large human to that of rabbit or a rat.
Reply:You could argue that as animals are a different species there being tested upon holds no relevance,but there again if they are relevant what are we doing subjecting our close cousins to such horrific undertakings in the name of progress.


The one thing that sticks in my mind is that if penicillin had been tested on guinea pigs it would never have been developed because it kills them
Reply:hi


i am against cruelty to animals but if you look at the argument logically, isn't it better to test medication on a animal than on say your child etc, i don't like to think of any poor animal suffering unnecessarily but if it is to save human life then i can see why we do it.

false teeth