“The Best And Worst Of Twitter”: 50 Chucklesome Takes On Pretty Much Everything (New Posts)

That entirely depends on the available alternatives. There are often other options, e.g. living tissue samples, which can even be grown from human stem cells and thus be a closer match than animal models. If you don't live in a stupid country where Christians decided that human stem cells are sacred, like I do, that is.

However you can help by supporting medical research into non animal methods. This is not second best - animal models have had some significant failures. While it was all we had, it was excusable. I donate to Animal Free Research UK, formerly known as Dr Hadwen Trust. It really heartening to see what has been accomplished already

It should only used as the last step and only where necessary though. When you test on animals they should have at least have proper living conditions and no unnecessary pain. But before that stage it should be tested by data models, fake organs etc. If it fails there is no reason to furtwr test on animals.Non medical testing (like hair dye) on animals should not exist.

As a pharmacist, during my studies I witnessed testing on animals! You all don't know what are you talking about! Before the tests they are scared, and some of them die during the tests. This is the reason why I am very strongly against animal testing, and also I am vegetarian. Those who didn't see scared animal who knows his death is near, may live in happy denial!

You are not well informed. There's no way to determine how many medications didn't make it to the human stage because they had adverse effects on animals. Many common medications were never tested on animals at all and if they were, they'd be rejected. In modern medicine there are much better techniques to test medical procedures and medication. Animals are quite different from humans, and animal testing isn't great to find good medicine for humans. That's why it's phased out already.

When the current statistic is that 90% of tests done on animals are deemed pointless/ for no scientific gain, do you still support it? That mean 9 out of 10 (often painful and resulting in death of the animal) tests give us no useful data etc on if the product is safe for humans or even works at all! Nowadays computer modelling is deemed a lot safer and has a lot higher results in terms of working out if a product is safe for human testing. In fact make products now aren't even tested on animals and go from computer modelling to human testing! After all we only share 67% of the same dna as mice which is only 17% more than a banana! Computer modelling can be set to be 100% the same as a human. So even if a test has been safe on mice there's a 33% chance it won't be safe on humans! I would feel a lot safer having something that has been computer tested than tested on mice being tested on me! In fact there is a lot of thought that the Covid jab wasn't tested on animals because of the spee

Yes, I’m these instances I agree with you too; hopefully people remember downvotes aren’t for disagreeing! I think where it’s particularly cruel is when it comes to non-life saving issues, such as make up and other beauty products, or anything that’s a bit out there.

In my mind it's the equivalent of experimenting on a small child. They literally have the development of a small child. They are confused sentient beings that know nothing other than pain and cages. They do not have the ability to consent to medical torture.

It’s not about testing on animals. It’s about the fact that most facilities unnecessarily mistreat the animals. These animals already have a crappy life they don’t then need to be abused on top of that.

A big issue you may have not considered is differing biochemistry. Dogs can’t tolerate chocolate or grapes, but humans can. Just because no side effects were seen in the animal testing doesn’t mean that the medicine won’t kill a person.

This is related to a HUGE animal cruelty scandal involving the company Envigo. In March, news first came out about a breeding facility that had failed to treat its research beagles humanely, and so was surrendering 4000 of them to the Humane Society. They were cited by USDA inspectors multiple times for not following the rules. Regardless of how you feel about using animals for research, dogs do not deserve to be left to sit in their own feces, left without water in hot weather, have their wounds fester and go untreated, be infested with bugs, be fed moldy food, etc. And that was exactly what this company was doing.

I support medical testing on death row inmates

Absolutely. Testing medication on animals is cruel....and entirely necessary. We don't have the technology to eliminate live testing yet and we can't jump from doing computer based tests straight to testing on humans.

Yeah won't downvote you but you and 143 people can go and get stuffed. F**k people justifying cruelty to animals. People love rationalising anything now. Go pour shampoo in your eyes.

I was in a human trial once for something that should never be tested on animals - I got paid $250 for 4 hours work and no animals were harmed, I was happy to help :) if we can test on living beings we should start with humans first. (Too many variables to comment about though)

but why should a humans life be placed above that of another animals? What makes us so great? We're the ones that have destroyed the planet for every other creature. So the least we can do is not test on them, especially when other options are now available, such as lab grown stem cells etc. Animal testing should only be used if there literally is no other viable alternative.

As humans we have consent put your self in the animals place someone kidnaps you and stabs you with needles. I'd rather be a test subject than hurt an animal at least I know what I'm getting into.

"Animals should suffer cause we need it 😢" boohoo, stop justifying animal cruelty, humans aren't more important than animals

It's the 21st century, do you need to be so daft?

There is no reason to test on animals when there are plenty of pedophiles in prison to use as test subjects.

Medical testing, yes. Cosmetic testing, no.

We ought to have enough data in some areas... like do we need to continue to test eye make up on rabbits no I should think not... And those animals are treated horribly

drugs for humans should be tested on willing humans, but obviously you don't give a s**t about other living things

This is a hard topic from any perspective. Peter Singer's view on it, as to be read in "Animal Liberation" is pretty reasonable I think - if there are no other alternatives, the least painful possible testing on the least number of animals is likely justifiable. But, OTOH, animal testing has NOT detected a few side effects that got to shameful fame - Contergan, for example, didn't do anything to pregnant rats or their children. Also, the testing industry heavily lobbies against development of alternative procederes, such as cell cultures or even partial organisms (having a complete and running system, usually, is the only advantage animal testing on OTHER species than us has over cell culture experiments in the current state of their development - everything else at least has some deviation from the target organism that may make us overlook bad effects or even rule out medication that does harm to rats, but not to humans). The tests that are run for "basic research" often scream pointlessness with every letter of the study. And we, as a society, accept a lot more than the tests that one can, reasonably, declare as irreplacable at the moment, and that, I allow myself to declare wrong, and downright delusional is the objection that is taken in case of stem cell research - it should, to any compassionate person, not even be a question that anything derived from human cells that doesn't have a brain, therefore cannot suffer, are to be prefered in order to minimize the suffering imposed on any living creature, as if membership of species was some kind of relevant factor. It isn't, at least on rational grounds, and emotional reasons to prefer Beagles being tortured against cell cultures being used ... well, it's hard to justify that the law should take them into account, because they're ignorant, obnoxious and lack any foundation that makes the most basic, least advanced, sense.

I would suggest you actually research this so that you can make a logical decision before making an emotional one, if this topic ever gets on the ballot. There's far more evidence on the opposite side of what you're arguing. Like most things in life, it's not as simple as you seem to think it is.

Its a necessary evil in many cases, but there are ways to go about it without needlessly making animals suffer.

I disagree, though there was an experiment to make artificial human skin to test on.

Unfortunately the majority of medical testing is not necessary, is continually testing for things that we already have data on, and many companies do not always follow the regulatory oversight regulations and guidelines for humane treatment of animal patients.

I never understood this anyway. You want to develop new drugs for people? Test them on people. Yes, I know there's laws against this (trials notwithstanding).

congrats! you didn't get downvoted into oblivion!

It's just a way for sick people to get their kicks legally.

Test on felons in prison.

9/10 animal trial tests fail (studies and papers have been written about this). There are plenty of human test subjects who deserve to be selected for this purpose (rapists, serial killers etc.). All we’re doing is actually skipping the deaths of 500 000 - 750 000 innocent animals per beauty product or medication. Why go through a wasteful stage of testing on innocents when a better option, one that is perfectly matched (human:human) lies waiting?

Wrong wrong wrong. There are so many more options now, and we differ too greatly for it to be worth the pain and suffering. Imagine they 'tested' chocolate on cats or dogs first? We react very differently to even simple foods. There is no need to test on animals.

I kinda agree with Panda. I think you have to find the line between torture of the animal and testing. You don’t need to kill the dog to test it

The sad thing is, you hold human life above every other species. You are saying that the ends justifies the means. That is an incredibly dangerous way to look a life. Plus, no one knows exactly how our species will respond to medications/vaccines UNTIL human trials start. Testing on other species is rather pointless b/c they’re not human. Sometimes they choose species that are similar to us in ways, but overall, it’s just a waste of time & money. If the medication is for humans, it should be tested on humans. Why not start with the shareholders of pharmaceuticals, who put greed above all else.

yes, people who think they are above animals will think that. i dont support anything in that direction because humans are not worth more than an animal who will get abused and tortured in medical testing. if you support that, you're just another one proving why human beings are disgusting. hell no.