Post your opinion on Animal Research! Discuss the reading and respond to a classmate!
All three classes are invited to discuss the issue!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
These journals/discussions facilitate deep processing of learning and differentiation of instruction by encouraging critical thinking and independent exploration. They also provide an additional forum for me to give feedback to guide your individual learning.
Psychology
Rubrics
- 15 Points - Response made to the reading and two replies were submitted on two different days relevant to instructional unit
- 10 Points - Response and one reply made to the discussion or two replies were submitted on two different days relevant to reading
- 5 Points - One post was submitted relevant to reading
Postings
Blog Archive
About Me
Requirement
As you read the postings of your classmates, consider how you might add to the discussion. You could ask probing questions, offer examples, share a different perspective, seek clarification, add your own insights based on your experiences from outside this course, etc. Avoid brief comments like, "I agree with Helen." Your goal is to add to the discussion so that further understanding develops. I expect from each participant at least two postings in response to other student answers (this is in addition to posting your answer to the DQs).
92 comments:
Not to sound insensitive but I believe that God gave us animals so thhat we could use them for our survival (it says so in the bible). So when we talk about experimentation on anaimals I think it is ok as long as the animals are treated well. If the animals are being mistreated then it is wrong. Even thoug if you think about most humans dont have a problem killing animals for food but they get upset when they are used in other ways to save human lives. I'm not saying that love the idea but I'm not against it if it will save us with minimum harm toward the animals. I also think that the experimentation should only be done when absolutely necessary and the experiments should not bring the population of the certain animal down. Overall I love animals, but God gae them to us for a reason.
Humans are obsessed with living forever and being healthy for the rest of their lives. The truth is though, that this is an impossible dream. Eventually we will all die of one cause or another. And, even if we do find a cure to Parkinson's or Alzheimer's, soon a new disease will arise with more unanswered questions and less simple cures. Our obsession for an "eternal life" is not worth the supression of other living creatures. Monkeys, lizards, fish, birds, all animals are just as important to this world as we are. And although humans like to think we are more important, an animal's life is just as valualbe.
Performing an experiment on an animal is wrong. No matter how well the animal is treated, it is torture simply because you are forcing a creature to participate in something they did not chose to participate in. Not only this, but as the article points out, results from animal experiments do not always transfer to humans. According to the article, there have been 50 incidents where a drug worked on a monkey, and not on a human. Thus, animal testing is not only harmful to the animal, but also to us.
Now, I understand that this is hard to grasp for those with family members suffering from such diseases as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. But ask yourself this, what if the rolls were reversed and it was your family member who was being tested on for the benefit of the monkey. You would all of a sudden strongly oppose such experimental testing. Therefore, I believe that animal testing is wrong, that the new center for animal testing should not be built, and other means for finding cures should be used.
Disregarding the importance of animal trials in medicine is foolhardy at best and dum at worst. The basis of our understanding of our most complex parts in our body, the brain, heart, and other major organs are derived from analyzing the organs of similar animals. Without this knowledge we would quite literally be stuck in the stone age. Our development as a species depends on our continued advancement and better being for humans in general, if underdeveloped monkeys get in the way of the idea of a more ideal world for humans tough noodles. The continued study of these animals will benefit not just a few select individuals but humanity in the most general scope. Think of the consequences if we triumphed Aids, cancer, and other seemingly industructable. The sheer amount of people saved will outweigh a couple of animal test subjects. Also the testing of the animals is not inhumane, they are injected with painless toxins the same toxins given to convicts. Thus the animal is already dead and honestly whats a difference between killing a cow for science and eating a stack attack? Virtually every drug in the modern world we have has been tested on and confirmed through animal trials. Think of the millions of people that would have died without the development of these pharmecuticals. It seems obvious once considering the pottential gain and the given sucess of animal trials there should be no question on the continuance of these programs.
@ alex: Alex we haven't come close to living forever? Well I think we have come pretty (insert expletive here) close. Remember how the average life span of people was 30 and now in America its around the 80's just because of development of science. Also if an experiment on animals is wrong isn't the killing of an animal wrong as well? Should we all go vegan? The fifty listed medicines that had differing sucess between humans and monkeys is irrevelant once considering every major drug today was developed from animal trials. Without the study of animals the harm to humans would be unimaginable and view a human's life as more valuable than a monkeys. Also for the reversal of fate thing, if I ever wake to find myself inferior to a monkey then please shoot me.
Walid:
You keep contradicting yourself. First you say that if our good will comes at the expense of only a few animals then its fine. But then you say that every drug we use has been tested on animals. That sounds like more than just a few animals to me? Second of all, you say these animals are treated well because we inject them with toxins. But then you go on to say that the toxins pretty much kill the animals for the experiments, and that the toxins are the same ones used for convicts. Great so we are now giving animals the death penalty. What did they do to deserve that? You say that its alright to do animal testing because we treat them well and that it is only a few, and then you completely contradict yourself. So clearly, animal testing is not as moral as you think it to be.
First off, I completely disagree with Jazmyn's comment. Who says that humans are superior to animals? Even if scientists are testing on lab rats to increase the life span and health on humans, it is still wrong. Innocent, not to mention healthy, animals are dying daily due to cures gone wrong. First, they are given a disease they originally didn't even have, and probably would not have gotten, and then surgery is performed on the animal, usually without anesthetics. It is completely heartless. Humans are insanely self centered. If you ask me, we should be testing on ourselves to cure animals, because if we cured the monkey family of aids, we wouldn't even have it now. Most of the incurable diseases we have now come from animals, like aids, the bird flu, mad cow disease, so why are we testing on animals to benefit ourselves when we can just go straight to the source and cure that?
Walid, your comment was quite humorous, but I don't agree. Even if people who were against animal cruelty stopped eating meat, the rest of the population would still eat meat, so that wouldn't do us any good. It's not as if the human population gloats daily about how much animals meat they consumed.
Additionally, more animals are killed than humans are cured. Hundreds of animals probably die just to find one cure, and when that cure is put in use in a hospital, more animals are being killed to find another cure. Animals are just as good as humans in every way. Why is it that dogs can detect UFOs and fires when humans need motion detectors and fire alarms? Exactly.
Alex, to people who think life is short, it is the LONGEST freaking thing we know of. Nobody has experienced anything longer than life. Therefore, when humans get diseases when they are aged and wrinkly, perhaps it will be due to their mistreatment of their body and youth. Humans are constantly being rewarded for things we do not deserve. When it's time to die, die already!
I don't agree in viewing animals as equals with humans. Besides having some biological similarities, (which is why they are tested) we have very little in common. They cannot talk, they do not have complex feelings, and they do not have the knowledge that we do. Since we have such a superiority to animals, I believe we have a right (to an extent) to experiment with animals. As humans, we have a responsibility to use the resources we have been given, but obviously in a responsible manner.
First off, I have to state that I am definitely against animal testing due to its cruel nature. It takes a defenseless animal and gives it up to scientific research that, in the long run, harms the animal. Through reading some of the responses, I have noticed a trend between mentioning killing animals and testing on animals. Well, in my opinion there is a huge difference. Killing animals, although not nice, is something that doesn't prolong the pain of the animal. Not to sound insensitive, but the job is over with within seconds. As for testing, the animals are subjected to pain and suffering that may cause slow and painful deaths, or maybe just a chronic headache (well, you get the idea). This lasts more than just a few seconds...it is something that lingers and effects the animal in the long term. In my opinion, this should fall under a range of animal abuse because it is much worse than having a malnourished pet. It is causing a defenseless animal to be under constant pressure. Trouble is caused when someone doesn't feed their animal. So why shouldn't pepople get in trouble if they mess with an animal's brain or cause them to go through other pains?
@ Alex: I’m not proclaiming that i know how many animals die due to testing but i do know from the wonderful and most educational teachings of Mrs. Alston that there is only a minority of animals that are actually harmed in the experiments once looking at the proportion of animals tested. Also yes i believe that there are only a small amount of animals used for testing once you look at how many stacks of frozen patties accumulate in all the Jack in the Boxes of the world. Also about the toxin thing the death penalty is one of the most controversial issues in the U.S. Thus many have argued for the most painless ways to kill humans which results in the toxin injection that both convicts and animals receive. So i was just stating that animals are cared for to the extent of humans. I'm not arguing for the morality of killing animals im arguing for the PRACTICALITY (i kinda like caps)of testing animals. The benefits of curing cancer and other diseases are some of the most important goals in our world.
@ Jessie- it seems you missed the whole point of my argument. I was stressing the fact that the number of animals killed are next to nothing compared to the millions of human lives saved in a single "cure". Do not dismiss science so easily. Also you believe yourself lower than a butt scratching feces throwing flea infested monkey then more power to you. But I believe that my existence is more meaningful than a bunch of furballs (mostly cause im awesome). I strongly believe that no other species has been able to influence the world and adapt it to their needs then humans. Also Jessie don't lie you don't think our lives are too long im pretty sure its quite the opposite in fact. Once you reach 80 (im guessing you will lead a healthy life and layoff the twinkies) then you will be cursing how short life really is and how much you have missed out in the wide world. Our lives have been continually increasing and will continue to do so as humanity progresses. Also to ppl that care about animal cruelty what are your opinions on human cruelty? Should we really worry about spending money on some chimpanzee's or should we send money to starving Africans? Cause it seems that in your opinions animals have the priority. (Also what kinda of freakish dogs do you have that bark at UFO's? i need one of those...)
@ walid:
Is this discussion becoming an defamatory argument between you and me? I suggest you stick to the topic and cease with the insults. According to the theory of evolution, humans evolved from animals, so everything we have is owed to our ancestors: animals. I'm not saying that animals are superior to humans or that humans are superior to animals. I don't have to be completely for it or completely against it to take a side. I believe that humans and animals are equal, because there is a lot humans can do that animals can't and vise versa. Anyways, my point is, what's the purpose of curing a disease on someone who didn't even spread the disease in the first place. Say that humans are eating meat from cows with mad cow disease. Why wouldn't we just cure the cow so humans wouldn't have to eat that disgusting meat in the first place? And you also say that no other species has been able to adapt to the world like humans. I don't see humans growing fins and gills and living their lives in the ocean or running in the wilderness. Instead, humans have the lowly job of KILLING other animals for survival, which if you ask me, is pretty pathetic.
@ annie bello:
You say that animals can't talk or have complex feelings, but that is all relative. You simply think animals can't talk because they don't speak your language and that they don't have feelings because they don't express it the same way we do. In fact, I've actually watched dogs cry, get sad, get angry, and get happy, which is more than I can say for the emo kids in this society.
I agree with jazmyn. Animals are here to help us survive. These animals have been helping us for millions of years. We now know more about ourselves and the world around us due to the fact of animals. Using these animals have helped us cure desiease and many other things. This one centre is not going to make or break the world, but it could possible change our world for the better. It could cure cancer, stop hard attacks from accuring and much much more.
In response to jessie ai's coment on the fact that animals cant speak. I agree, but it is wrong to profile emo keds into that category. Evenyone has emotion, even cats and dogs, its just depends on how and when they express these feelings. Not all of us are gossip queens or super talkitave. People and animals have different ways of expressing one feeling from another.
I believe that it is okay to experiment on animals. Most animals that are being tested are special rats, that are specially bred for animal research. It is not like they are taking these animals out of the wild and taking them to experiment on them. Second, most animal experimentation does not inflict any harm upon the animal. The electrodes that the researches placed on the monkeys in the article did not cause any serious pain and the monkey felt no discomfort.
Animal provides a very large benefit for humans and their health. Many experiments done on animals have provided us with the health benefits that are currently available today. Testing on the monkeys in the article could provide new treatments for stroke, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, schizophrenia, and substance; most of which we still don't fully understand today. I am all for animal experimentation as long as its for the benefits of humans' health.
[Written by Tyler Petcher]
I disagree with Alex because scientists are not chasing an impossible dream. With the proper research we will be able to cure people. According to the estimates by the National Institutes of Health and Voluntary Organizations 4 million suffer from Alzheimer's disease and 1.5 million from Parkinson's disease. How can you say we are fighting an impossible dream. These cures will help many people today. New diseases don't just rise up out of the blue. I don't think people are trying to find an eternal life, but rather make others have a healthier life. People from these diseases can die relatively young and no one likes that. Although there might have been 50 instances where the drug has not worked on humans, look at all the benefits humans have had from animal testing. Ray Greek's evidence is just pointing out a negative, but the positives outweigh the negatives.
[Written by Tyler Petcher]
In response to Angela, how do you suppose that the health of humans will get better without doing some sort of testing? Over the last century, the human life span has raised dramatically. Why? This is because of all the diseases and medicines that have helped increase our lives. Most of these have been tested on animals. If we didn't test on animals, we might not live past 30 today, and that's on average. Would you be willing to give that up for an animal not being harmed?
It all comes back to what you think the animal's purpose is in life. I think that these lab rats purpose is to be just that lab rats. They breed them specifically for that reason. I think they have no other purpose to life and don't bring value to any other animals life, besides helping us humans with our health.
[Written by Tyler Petcher]
I have to say that Jessie makes quite a strong argument about the source of many of our diseases. Yes, they do stem from animals, so why we test on them to cure ourselves is kind of rediculous. If we just cured them, many things would be irradicated. But the problem lies within. Not all diseases and problems come from animals. Some do come from human nature itself. The problem with this is that we are making it so that animals have all of these diseases so that we can try to cure them. Which, in fact, usually doesn't work and/or harms the animal. And in my opinion, this is morally wrong. How would you feel if your brother was injected with some weird disease and scientists experimented on him? I have to agree with Jesse that human are inexorably self centered, but I would not go as far to say that we should test on ourselves to cure animals. That would be like replacing the animals with humans in animal testing. We would be injected with the disease and we would be tested on. It basically holds the same as normal animal testing.
In reply to Jessie Ai, I do realize animals have feelings, but to an extent. No animal can compare to the complexity of the human mind and life. And because of the superiority we have to animals, we are given a natural right to experiment with them. So is the same in the opposite case, if animals were more complexly designed, they would in turn have the right to experiment safely on us for their better good. We must recognize that there is a hierarchy here, and as we try to take care of those below us, we can also use them to our benefit.
I don't know where I stand on this. I mean, I agree that to experiment on animal's can be cruel and wrong at times. But, honestly how do we treat animals outside of testing? We force them to mate, we force them to be our "servants" so to speak, and we raise them until they are old enough to kill and use for food, or clothes at times. I don't think that experimenting on animals contradicts with anything we've done in the past so why is it just SO cruel?
If we're going to fight for one thing we may as well fight for them all. But I don't see anyone reacting to how they are bred, used for our purposes, and disposed of. It's just as bad, if not worse, however.
Like Annie said, animals do not exhibit our feelings or complex emotional structure. True, Jessie Ai, that we do not actually know seeing as we cannot converse with them. But do you compare yourself to an animal? Do you say that you are equal to them? Most likely not. Again, we use them for our own purposes and that's about it. Therefore, we established superiority over them, which is why we think it's okay to experiment on them. maybe it's not, I just think we need to be consistent.
I agree with Jazmyn on how we should use animals for our survival. I dont belive that we should use them to the extent that they are mistreated. Experiments done on animals, especially the closest to our family, should be thought out very carefully in that we are practically experimenting on ourselves. If monkeys have all the same emotions, brain structures, and other characteristics like us, how could it be any differnt from testing on a human? You might as well stick a human in there. Overall, people really need to take into consideration of what they are testing on animals because they are so much like us.
Although testing on animals may seem inhumane and "cruel" I think that some of it is completely necessary. All health related reasons for testing on animals are completely justifiable. I believe that some people are so against testing on animals, but if they were put into a position where one of their loved ones needed an operation that was first tested on an animal, they would be perfectly fine with that. Some people just do not see the big picture. This is benifiting YOU! Testing on animals isnt done just for fun, its done to better our society and to better the lives of human beings. Without animal testing, where do you think we would be today?
In response to Alex Wald.
I would like to see you live your life without any of the benifits of animal testing. Would you be able to live your life without make up? Because that was first tested on animals. Do you presently wear makeup? if so you are contradicting everything you say and your statement would be seen on the same level as if Bill Clinton said that adultry is the greatest sin. I dont believe that you see the big picture in the least bit. Who is at the top of the food chain? Thats right humans. Out of all living species, who has the greatest intelligence? Thats right HUMANS. If monkeys were superior to humans in the aspects that they were smarter and at the top ofthe food chain, then im sure they would be testing on us. For us to be at the pinnacle of evolution and not take advantage of that is pure stupidity. Sure we will all die some day but would you like that to be when you are 50 or when you are 85? If you are so opposed to animal testing lets list out only a FEW of the differences there would be in your life and lets see if you are still opposed to it.
Makeup = Gone
Certain Foods = Gone
Any kind of medicine=Gone
Your safety from airbourne drugs = Gone
Perfume = Gone
Cell phone= gone
Anything that comes in contact with your skin = gone
Again these are just a FEW of the many changes. How do you feel about animal testing now?
In response to Marissa
Dont you think that these experiments are thought out carefully? Dont you think that if they are paying thousands of dollars to have monkeys shipped in for the purpose of research that they will take their time and not waste their money? And yes animals and humans share some similarities but the differences outweigh the similarities. I dont believe you are seeing the big picture here. The testing is benifiting YOU! You just dont see it because its not the instant gratification you are used to. The process is slow and takes time but the benifits are outrageoulsy large. If you believe that animals should have the same rights as humans because they are so similar then you are saying that a bird's life is equal to that of Martin Luther Kind Junior? A rats life is equal to the of the pope and Rosa Parks? A dog's life is equal to that of the Presidents? I think not. Please remove the glasses that are imparing your vision on this topic.
Jessie:
Haha I agree with you that Walid's comments are definitely the most entertaining on here. I also agree with your statement of "Who says that humans are superior to animals?" As you pointed out, according to science, humans evolved from animals. So, even if someone does believe that humans are superior to animals, we still have animals to thank for our superiority. I think animal testing is a just a strange way to repay them.
I don`t think its fair that the primates are being tested and experimented on for medical research. It`s unfortunate that their welfare is at stake. They`re not humans but they`re still living and breathing creatures. Also, at the end of the day monkeys are not humans. They have different organs, bone strcture, brain capacity and numerous other things humans possess and they don`t. Also, the things that scientists are testing out on primates work differently and have differnt effects on the animals. The article even stated that at least 50 examples of drugs worked on primates but failed on humans.
I somewhat agree with Jazmyn`s arguement that it should be ok sometimes but as long as the animals are treated fairly. And animals are killed for food so the differnce is in this case that they are being tested for a good cause. I just don`t agree with them being demeaned and mistreated.
I have very mixed opinions about animal research. I believe that it helps discover things about humans. From animal research, psychologists can find cures to diseases, surgical methods, and observe behavioral patterns. However, I believe it is not right for the animal to experience long-term suffering or pain. For instance, cosmetics can be tested on animals, but this can cause skin irritation and physical pain to the animal. I don't believe that is right. I think in certain situations, animal research is great and helps us greatly with research, however, there are certain experiments animals should not be involved in.
Haha. Some of these comments are hilarious! I guess I’ll throw in my two cents. I believe that animal testing is 100 percent necessary. Like Andrew said, these experiments are thought out very carefully and no doubt all possible outcomes are taken into consideration. I’m sure there are very little cruel or unusual tests on animals. There are entire groups looking out for the welfare of these animals to make sure that these tests are purely for experimental use…not for cruel or unusual uses.
Animal testing is helping out the humans, which are genetically superior. It is survival of the fittest. That’s how nature has evolved. I’m sure no one would rather use their own bodies and lives in place of the animal in these tests. The fact is if you are against animal testing, then you are willing to risk thousands of human lives that could have been prevented.
I suggest everyone who wants to stop animal testings should offer for us to do experiments on them instead. That would solve the problem.
chynna:
I agree with you completely. I don't think it is right for primates to be suffering for medical research that may not even help with humans. Though there are many similarities, primates are still very different from humans and are not as fully evolved. Drugs that may work on primates, may not necessarily work on humans. It could also go the other direction, where a drug could work fantastically on humans, however, it could also have upsetting side-effects on the primates being tested.
I go along with Amy on this whole animal testing investigation. I think in some cases it is alright yet it others it seems like the animals endure cruel punishements. In the article it says that animal testing could help us find links to cure schizophrenia, substance abuses, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Disease. Finding this connection would be very beneficial for human advancements. However, I know there would be a fine line between what is okay to test and what isn't okay to test. But in reality, like Andrew pointed out, many of the things we use and consume have been tested on animals for our sake.
In response to Andrew, I don't think that all of those things would be nonexistent. Instead of testing on animals, I believe that we would have tested on ourselves (eventually) and we would have all of those things. After all, not ALL makeup is tested on animals. Many products do endorse that they are not tested on animals. So who are they tested on? Um, humans.
To Angela:
If you want to use some unknown makeup on your face, go ahead. I don't want no chemical burns on my face and have me end up looking like Two-face or something. (Not that I use makeup or anything. This is 100 percent natural) Same goes with drugs. What a great idea! Let's put some chemicals in a human and find out if it will KILL HIM! I said it before and I'll say it again... if you don't like animal testing, then we'll test stuff on you.
If I've learned anything so far in Economics this year, it's this: humans look out for themselves, not for others. You always act in self-interest. In this case, humans are looking out for themselves. They are putting animals at risk rather than themselves.
So if you don't want to do tests on animals, you would rather keep their lives instead of humans. And for what? So they can live a few more years under human captivity, in a zoo, turn out as a coat, or turn out as food for another predator. That, in my opinion, is not worth a human life.
I am half and half for animal testing. As a human, of course I want to see science broaden and develop more ways to improve living. At the same time, it is hard to imagine inflicting pain on others because of our greed for advancement. I am having a hard time believing that animals are receiving little to no amounts of pain. Obviously, if that was the case, humans would have no fear of testing one another. Also, the research still seems too shaky. At least 50 drugs that worked on primates failed to have the same effects on humans. Although I am keen to see what science can bring forth with the ability to test on animals I think everyone should consider what the animal would want. Would you be willing to feel pain for another species? Or even go into an experiment knowing that you could be inflicted with hurt? Imagine having no voice and being put into a situation, forced into a situation and not knowing the outcome? I am still torn by the subject, but If there was a 100% guarantee that the animals would be out of harm’s way, I am sure I’d be more prone to the idea of animal testing.
I agree with animal testing to a certain degree. There is a thin line between "beneficial research" and cruelty. I understand the logic, and importance of animal study. Animals are a resource. There are numerous diseases without a cure, and if we can make breakthroughs using animal testing, we can save lives. I'm not talking about cheating death, or living forever.
Just because disease runs so rampant doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fight the "inevitable" fates of millions of people with terminal cureless diseases. We hold ourselves above all other species, because we are self-aware and complex beings, and we have the power to fight with disease and sickness for our right to live. If we don't abuse animal testing, and conduct responsible research, I can't see the harm in trying
I agree with Walid's comments. Couldn't have argued it better myself. It would seem a waste to ignore a chance to spare humanity from the most heinous diseases and ailments on a global scale. Most can agree that killing an animal for their nurishment is okay (unless you're vegetarian or otherwise). I believe utilizing animals for medical reasons should also be okay
@ walid: Animals eat other animals, that is how we survive. I am sure you have seen
(via animal planet or something) animals hunting one another…it is just nature. Personally, I have never seen another animal walking into a house, take a person without their consent to a laboratory and begin testing on them for the benefit of their kind. As far as I am concerned the only race that practices testing on other animals is humans. It just isn't natural.
Without animal testing we probably wouldn't be here to discuss it. Humanity would probably at the mercy of polio, tetanus, or something else that we now have vaccines for because of animal trials.
To what LEXXXXXIIIIII said @ Walid...
Animals of all species do what they can to survive, it is our natural instinct, what we all share. Our practices may be different, but survival is the goal in mind. Surely we can talk about this for more extra credit points
The issue on animal testing can go both ways. If researchers are using animals to help find cures for diseases, then that is completely fine. When people start testing insignificant products on animals, like makeup or hair products, it gets doubtful. I am all for testing drugs on animals because without them tested, a number of people in this world would not be here right now. What about future diseases? Animals need to be tested on so that people can be saved in the future. The people that disagree with animal testing need to think about the consequences of not testing on animals. Would the people that disagree rather have PEOPLE die than animals?
I disagree with Chynna when she says that it is not okay to research on animals. The article did state that at least 50 of the drugs that worked on primates did not work on humans, but what about the drugs that did work? Those drugs, surely, have saved if not thousands, millions of lives. Also, especially monkeys, what else are they used for? If they were not tested on maybe they would over populate.
Jazmyn:
"Even though if you think about most humans don't have a problem killing animals for food but they get upset when they are used in other ways to save human lives." I love what she is saying here because this statement is completely true. Some humans act as if testing animals was the worst thing to do, but those same people will eat meat. I think that all humans need to look at not only the consequences of testing animals, but also the positives.
I am in full support of animal testing. Obviously scientists don't test things on endangered animals, so we don't have to fear animals going extinct due to our interaction.
I read over most of the comments and the person who really explained it well was ERICK. I certainly don't want tests run on me so some other person can rest assure that a drug or opperation works. And if you don't stand behind using animals as test subjects, would you really sacrifice your self? come on. We need to be real here. It's very practical to run tests on the animals. They could show scientists how humans can react to certain things, and it also costs much less to run it on animals then on humans. They don't have to worry about lawsuits from people and they can run there tests more effectively.
I understand that the case of animal cruelty can be raised, but it shouldn't even be challenged because of how many human lives you can save in the process. In otherwords, a case can equally be made that if you don't run the test on humans, thats HUMAN cruelty.
I kind of laughed when I was reading Brian's comment. It's true, if we were to experiment on ourselves, that would be human cruelty! I think the issue comes down to what do we care about more: the future of the human race or the environment. I personally care more about the human race. I do believe, as Jazmyn said at the beginning, that humans have been given dominion over animals and may use as long as it is in a respnsible manner.
Unfortunately, "feelings" have consumed many people's logic. We cannot benefit if political correctness consumes something as vital as a scientific method that ensures the well-being and progression of humanity. To those of you who play the "roll swapping" card and inquire whether or not "YOU would like it if it were YOU that the scientists were experimenting on": this isn't Planet of the Apes, this is reality and the potential fate of mankind.
Understand: contributive experiments conducted on animals for the sake of the human race are crucial and therefore outweigh any suggestions that testing on animals should be ousted.
I am torn between agreeing and disagreeing. To a certain extent I agree because animal testing has definately aided us humans and has even saved lives. But it also further engrains the fact that the human race lacks any sense of morality when it comes to saving and enhancing one's life. I mean is this completely self serving and immoral? Well, it kind of is.
But I do think that if the researchers can convince EVERYONE that the animal is not exhibiting any pain whatsoever and the animal is willingly participating in the study, then they should be able to proceed if it will be that benefitial. But if they cannot completely prove this, then they most definately should not. Who are we to say whether an animal can be purchased, and then killed or injured in the name of science? What makes this ethical? Especially if there are alternative methods that can be perfected and replace this.
I couldn't agree more with Anne and Brian. As Anne said, I care more about the human race. Also, I really liked Ryan B saying ," Humanity would probably at the mercy of polio, tetanus, or something else that we now have vaccines for because of animal trials." For those of you against the animal testing (keep in mind I'm in no way in support of CRUEL animal testing) please suggest what we should use instead of animals. Keep in mind that we need an organism that is the closest to a human being (and I highly doubt anyone would like to test on themselves)...
I agree with erin forbes, it most definately depends on the overall purpose of the experiment. If it is for a practical life altering study, then it probably should be conducted. But At the same time who is to say? Who is to draw that distinctive line stating what is ok, and what is not ok?
The article also should have explained and proved the "painless" experiences better than it was stated.
By the way, I do not think that humans are obsessed with living forever, merely making future generations experiences on this planet more bareable and loveable. Science has significantly helped our world exceed in a positive direction, not necessarily in a completely ethical way, but we have learned from our mistakes. I am still unable to agree or disagree.
It seems that most people here that disagree with animal testing are combining emotions with logic. Kind of attributing with what Mark said, I think animal testing is completely necessary for the evolution of man. I see Amy's point about primates not being exactly like humans, and I found that to be the most valid argument on the anti-animal testing side, but I think the differences between humans and primates is extremely thin. It's Darwin's survival of the fittest, and although I'm a church go-er myself, the research and copabilities that have been found throughout history with animal research is non-debateable.
this is Jazmyn Ledford by the way. from sixth period.
In looking over all of these comments about animals, and the majority of them give me RAGE. I am a firm believer in catholicism, so the thing that "God gave us animals so that we could use them for survival" is outrageous to me. God gave people fish to eat becuase there was no other options, he never said, "hey test your products on animals", did he? I agree with Alex Wald that humans need to get over the fact that they are not going to live forever. For those that are such firm believers in the "God gave us animals for our use," then you should also agree the everything happens for a reason, and that everything is in God's hands, yes? Thus, and torturing animals by testing our products on them, is wrong. You die when you die, whether there is a cure or not. I think just because animals don't have opposible thumbs, and technology doesn't mean that they should be taken advantage of. Animals have feelings, and animals if it's seen to be okay for animals to be tested upon, then i think it's okay for humans to be tested on. For some reason, no one agrees with that, but why?
I also agree with Jessie Ai, who disagrees with Jazmyn. Humans are NOT superior to animals, and should not act as so.
Tyler: I disagree with you too. If animals are here to help us, than we should help them too by NOT killing and abusing them for no reason.
I also completely agree with Brian and Erick. I think without the use of animal testing, it would be Human cruetly to make a superior race undergo experimentation that could possibly kill him/her.
And to respond to Alex's theories of humans acting on the impression that we are more important than animals: We are more important than animals. We make the world go round and destroy the ozone layer; not animals. We are the ones with the capibilities to crack our atmosphere and destroy the world with a few nukes. We are a superior race because of our ability to use our brains to create things of extraordinary nature and it truely comes down to survival of the fittest and acting in our best interest. To quote the late Kurmit the Frog, "It ain't easy bein' green"
to Annie and Brian: So animal cruelty is okay, but not human cruelty? That makes complete sense I would actually sacrifice myself for the benefit of others in certain situations. I think people who are already dying would allow someone to test on them. what's the worst that can happen? They die, which is sad, but it was in an attempt to save them, and other people. Next time, you know it didn't work. There is other ways to go about things than abusing animals.
To andrew:
Makeup = Gone
Certain Foods = Gone
Any kind of medicine=Gone
Your safety from airbourne drugs = Gone
Perfume = Gone
Cell phone= gone
Anything that comes in contact with your skin = gone
none of these things have to be gone if they're tested on humans, but wait! that's not okay is it? I think I could live just fine without abuse to animals, and I think that you are overlooking other ways that medicines, makeup, and skin products can be tested without harming an innocent animal.
To Dan: You're talking about survival of the fittest? So becuase animals don't have opposible thumbs, it's okay to abuse and take advantage of them? Testing on animals may have been necessary to find cures and such, but who said knowing the cures was necessary? Also, I've heard the argument, "If you were dying wouldn't you want a cure?" I know this argument is going to be thrown back at me, and my answer to it is NO! I wouldn't harm someone else for my sake. I think all of you "church-goers" would agree that jesus, who sacrificed himself for everyone else, would feel the same way.
To natalia: Why is it okay for humans to overpopulate but not animals? Are we afraid that animals could dominate the world?
One last thing, and I'll calm down a little :)
The article says that there are 50 examples drugs that worked on primates and not humans. So we tortured the poor animals for nothing? What if it was tested on your dog, and killed it? Then, come to find out, it doesn't even work. How would that make you feel? Your dog is no different than another animal. But to you it probably is because you actually care about it.
To Jazmyn: Think of it this way if those 50 tests had worked and helped out humans, you most likely would be saying the exact opposite. In addition, it says that most of the tests done on the monkeys didn't even affect them. So how are we torturing them???
[Written by Tyler Petcher]
I think animal testing is necessary for our survival. I know it might sound selfish, but think about all the human lives we have save from animal testing. Also think, after the benefit of saving the human lives, we can focus in saving the lives of the animal.
Millions of animals are being killed every year just for food. If that's okay, then why is animal experimentation for benefits to the cure of many diseases wrong? Most animals being tested are not harm and if all goes right, the cure they found are going to the millions of patients needed, including the "animal welfare groups" who has the disease.
There are also different animal experiments. Those that goes to the science,i feel are ethical, but those that goes for makeup and such are not. We are not just killing animals randomly, we are using then for the benefit of our society.
All in all, if were were unable to conduct these experiments on the animal, the human species will one day be wiped out.
To Jazmyn Ledford from sixth period, you firmly claim that "animals have feelings" along with many other religious remarks. I too am catholic, but testing on animals has nothing to do with catholicism. You also make an argument that God didn't intend for humans to use animals in their experiments. I was just wondering where in the Bible it mentions that God opposes this psychological method of testing products on animals.
@ Jazmyn: You said "we should help them [animals] too by NOT killing and abusing them for no reason."
We are not just doing killing animals for the fun of it. All the experiments we conducted are for a benefit. Yes, we human are not perfect and we make mistakes, but that is how we learn. Once an experiment failed, we learn from it and we try something else.
all of this talk about animals having feelings is bull. animals act purely on instinct. they dont have the capabilties to process information like we do they dont have the ability to create or use technology. thats what makes us superior, not our thumbs, thats just stupid, if you cut off my thumbs i'd still be superior to a dog and monkey. when it all comes down to it animals can feel, but they dont have the same complicated emotions that we do and thats why we use them, no one is going to miss monkeys and rats and cats, but if that cure that they're using monkeys or rats to find ends up saving your mom or dad or grandparents life, isnt it worth it?
I'll raise Erick's two cents, to a grand total of four. I really don't think that animal testing is bad. I try to look at it as our way of getting back at nature for all of the horrors that it put us through when we still lived in caves. Animal testing is meant to test potentially dangerous new things without hurting people in the process. If we did not go a head with it, we would then have people will all kinds of funky side affects walking down the street.
I to strongly believe animals should be respected and cared for like humans do. I think it is very wrong to be testing products on animlas. Various things happen when they do. The animal could suffer. It could die, or it may be perfectly fine. Thats a risk that should not be taken. Animals are very smart and powerful creatures. Animals very well could dominate over humans, they are physically superior to us and deserve respect from us all.
i think that it is good that we use animals for research, not because its funny or because they're stupid but because maybe losing an animal life or two is worth saving ten human lifes, we dont kill for no reason there is a purpose behind it and that is saving human lives
I completely agree with coasterdue91, there are animals that are bred to be used in a lab. We are not doing any harm to important species like the blue whales, orcas, or lions. However back about 40 years ago there were some experiments that may have been a little over the top, such as when they wanted to see the affects of LSD on elephants or if they could graft a dogs head. (which are all true by the way, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/nov/01/research) Now days we have come to better understand both human and animal rights, and when people talk about animal testing it is not the same as it may have been back then.
Well Ashley beat me to it, it is worth one or two animal lives in order to save thousands of human lives. I feel that progress can not be made without the sacrifice of a few (i mean animals). We would have never had known the affects of certain medical drugs had it not been for animal testing, or the affects a heart transplant had not been tested on an animal first.
I believe in the idea that animals experiments should be used. Animals have done more than just provide us as a source of food, they have sacrificed themselves in order to help the human race. As long as the research using these animals does not get excessive or too extreme, i have no problem with using them to help in human aid. As long as these discoveries continue to be beneficial, these sacrifices will not have gone in vain.
i agree with dan in the fact that it is completely necessary to research on animals in order to continue the development of the human race. The research that we have gotten as a result of these "sacrifices" has certainly been on the positive uprising and there is no denying that
I disagree with alex in that we want to live forever and WANT to use others in order to do it. But that is not completely the case, we are not wiping out the whole animal population, we are simply using the excess population to help ourselves. Im not saying that the human life is more important, but i feel that any one human being has the potential to affect the world more than any animal
While people love to complain about how scientist are cool-blooded people who can experiment on other living creatures, I don't see anyone lining up to take their place. (Well, there may be a few, but not enough to eliminate the need for animal based testing.) If people are so quick to complain, they why are they unwilling to be the ones sitting on the lab table? They want immediate results yet want to have nothing compromised. Life is never that convenient. They want to spare the animals and they want to spare themselves. Without any test subjects, there is no way to get accurate results. If people were willing to become the "lab rats" of sorts, then scientists would be able to get a better picture of the influences of drugs on humans. Still, people are only good for their words, and not their actions. They are fighting for the "greater good" and are willing to do nothing for it.
This is a pretty rough topic, I don't really know where I stand. Without experiments on animals such as primates, many diseases would still be around effecting people we knew. Experiments on animals have benefited us in many ways however I understand when people consider inhuman and cruel. I know for a fact that if I saw electrodes sticking out of a monkey's brain I'd most likely cry, jk, I'm a man, I would just feel sad haha. The ironic thing is that some people don't want animals to be experimented on however they eat animals and use supplies made from them on a daily basis. I know I do, I'm a basically a meatatarian. ps- I chuckled to myself when the article said bullshit. heehee.
@ Brandon: "Animals have done more than just provide us as a source of food, they have sacrificed themselves in order to help the human race."
While I do think animals are currently needed as test subjects, I disagree with your wording. THEY have not sacrificed THEMSELVES. WE have sacrificed THEM. Why? Because the more detached we are from a subject, the easier it is give it up for something we are bound to. We believe that humans are more important to us and trade animals for the benefit of mankind.
To Jazmyn: Regarding "church-goers" and Jesus not wanting us to harm animals, there's a line between cruelty and doing what is best for the human race God left us with. After reading the Bible, I think it's safe to say that God does not expect us all to be vegitarians. It would be like telling everyone who has a steak for dinner that they're sinners and are going to burn. God intended to put animals on this earth to help other beings (not just humans) survive. This scientific research runs along the same lines. And necessary? Of course this research is necessary? That kind of argument would be like saying that humans should work around eating animals for survival and focus on their veggies.
And hey, this argument is based on my Catholic view of how God perceives us on this world, so if yours is different, I can totally respect that.
@ Annie: "Since we have such a superiority to animals, I believe we have a right (to an extent) to experiment with animals."
I think that superiority is only a though humans have of themselves because they understand only themselves. Perhaps a dog may think himself the master who can receive treats and walk at every beck and call. Perhaps the man is only a servant in its mind. However, we may never know.
That "right" mentioned is merely a self-declared right. No animal ever gave us its permission.
In the end, I still believe that humans CHOOSE to experiment on animals because it is lighter on their conscience than experimenting on other humans.
I agree with Olivia when she says that she doesn't know which side to choose. I feel the exact same way. Also to Andrew, I completely agree that lifestyles would absolutely change if we stopped using animals for a tremendous amount of things. In addition, we don't behave exactly like animals. For example, Mrs. Alston mentions a lot of the how whenever there is commotion in the hallways, everyone is running to check it out, animals are the exact opposite, they will run away. I also completely agree with the fact that animals under stress and pressure will behave differently. Also, experiments are done to them in a lab so they are not in their natural environment so they may react in another way.
I've been looking at many blogs, and I seemed to have noticed many people questioning our superiority over animals. Some people don't see what gives us the right and that we are equals compared to animals. In my opinion, I believe that we are superior. However, we must not forget that we are aslo animals on earth just like any other organism. In the end, our superiority is shown because we are the smartest animals on earth woo.
I think that animal testing is not that big of a deal. Without animal testing, there would be a lot of medicines and drugs that would not be able to be used today. If there were other ways of testing drugs effectively and safely, then we could stop testing them on animals, but there isn't. If the animals are being used specifically for scientific reasons then I think it is ok.
I totally agree with Aleah.
Most of the Products / Drugs on the market today would not be possible without animals.
The way I look at it, science is going to expand no matter what. Its better to test on animals first rather then humans. The testing has caused hundreds of drugs to be released that have saved human and animal lives.I know it isn't always fair, but its crucial for the expansion of science, and for the best of humanity.
Outlaw animal research across the world and we would be amazed at how quickly scientists came up with alternate research methods, i.e. brain scans on humans, etc. We have no right to torture other species to save ourselves. Hearing loss, by the way, is very treatable. Why is animal research on the issue necessary?
If the testing of animals is not inhumane, why can't we just test on humans? Why not test on people who suffer from these diseases and seek treatment, if the tests are so humane?
It is ridiculous to say that we can assume superiority over any other species. Perhaps we have the ability to use animals as test subjects because we are stronger and more numerous than them, but this does not make us better than them. Like Jen Chen said, this is only a self-declared right. Also, to say that animals cannot talk or think is just another example of human arrogance. We have as little idea of what goes on in animals' heads as they do of what goes on in ours. Some animals have been taught to use sign language. Perhaps we decide to use animals anyway because we still believe we are superior over them, but there are no tests, animal or otherwise, that can prove that.
To repeat the same message that many have said before me, I think it is perfectly fine to test on animals, especially if it is a medicine that could save many more people. Though I am against the intentional harming of animals, with rules and regulations in place; testing on animals brings little pain to the creatures in most cases and as stated in the book, helps both animals and humans. If we did not test on animals, even for cosmetics and other mostly useless things, many, many people would die from not the medicines from the testing but also from the testing alone, especially for drugs in preliminary stages.
Jazmyn:
Just becasue we eat animals is not equal to testing on them, becasue when we kill animals to eat they are killed quickly, however in some testing before the modern regulations animals were virtually tortured.
Annie:
O.o;;...I agree with you that we should testn animals but I strongly disagree with your reason, it is not becasue of our "superiority over them," its becasue we do this to help, otherwise we should just test on anyone that we deem inferior to us?
I believe that research should be conducted in such a way to minimize the suffering of the animals. But, I believe that animal research is better to carry out than human research. If other options are avalible I believe that they should be taken. Depending on the type of expierment they may be unethical. I don't believe that hurting animals for products that have no real use for humans, like makeup, should not be allowed. But such surgeries as heart surgery should be allowed to test on animals before they are tried on humans. If the suffering is limited and other ways to test are being sought I believe it is ok to test on animals, until other options become avalible.
Alex:
I do not agree that all animal testing should be banned just because it might harm them. I believe that humans should not be tested on instead of animals. Is it ok to do nessecary experiments on humans, just because some animals could be hurt. I believe that other methods of testing should be researched but animal testing should remain for the time being.
Animal testing. It has become a wide spread argument on whether or not it should be allowed for scientific experiments. I believe that animal testing should be allowed, but under certain circumstances. If an animal is to be used for an experiment, it should not be harmed in any way. Think about it this way, would you put yourself in the position of the animal? Some people will say that harming the animal is ok if the outcome of the experiment will help the science field greatly. I say that no matter how much the outcome helps the science field, it is not ok to harm the animal. If scientists want to do animal experiments, then it's fine by me, just don't harm the animal.
I have to disagree with you Walid on doing tests on the animals to find cures for the diseases that we have in the world. Why do we need to test animals to find cures for the diesases? Why don't we just go ahead and test ouselves if it is not going to hurt? Animals have feelings and when we hurt them, they scream in pain, but in their own language, so we don't understand them. Also, why do we need to find cures for cancer and other big diseases in the world? The best cure for cancer is to NOT get it in the first place!!! People become diagnosed with cancer because they didn't take care of their bodies at an earlier age and now they are fighting to have a healthly life. I think that it is extremely unfair that animals have to suffer because we made mistakes in our lives and now we are trying to fix them, by harmfully experimenting on the animals.
I agree with what Angela said on killing the animal and testing on the animal. To kill an animal is a bad thing right from the start, but to test on it, which in some cases causes pain over a long period of time, well that is torture. Would people like it if all of a sudden we started testing on them and they have to go through the pain that the animal receives when being tested on? This animal testing (the ones where the animal gets hurt) has got to stop! We are committing murder and animal abuse, and as far as i know, that is against the law. If it is ok to cause pain to an animal, is it ok to cause pain to a human? I don't think so!!! I'm all for the animal testing that DOESN'T harm the animal but the testing that harms animals should stop this instant.
Post a Comment