OT Is animal testing right?

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Is animal testing on medicine right?

  • Yes I believe it is.

  • No I do not believe it is.

Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
All animal testing will gradually be fazed out soon anyways. Think it was the uni of southampton, they have developed a computer that can replicate any dna be it animal or man. You then inject the drug into the computer and it tells you how that dna would react.
 
Beef_Dripping said:
All animal testing will gradually be fazed out soon anyways. Think it was the uni of southampton, they have developed a computer that can replicate any dna be it animal or man. You then inject the drug into the computer and it tells you how that dna would react.
Click to expand...

Ah, if only science was that simple. As a research scientist in a previous life (1970-1984) we were always looking to faze out animal testing where possible for ethical and financial reasons. Remember a lot of testing is forced on drug companies by regulations. I suspect that early non-animal testing may provide valuable information that can help decide whether to progress to full drug testing. This will reduce the amount of animal testing required. I am aware that I am out of date now and perhaps DNA testing will prevent false positives and negatives because of species differences.
 
fran-MLs little camera said:
Ah, if only science was that simple. As a research scientist in a previous life (1970-1984) we were always looking to faze out animal testing where possible for ethical and financial reasons. Remember a lot of testing is forced on drug companies by regulations. I suspect that early non-animal testing may provide valuable information that can help decide whether to progress to full drug testing. This will reduce the amount of animal testing required. I am aware that I am out of date now and perhaps DNA testing will prevent false positives and negatives because of species differences.
Click to expand...

It's not that early tho fran, the company I work for have been testing it for over a year. (I'm not involved in drug testing part I am just notified).

This computer is mad it can basically replicate any animals dna you need be it healthy or not to do testing on and work out what the affects of the drugs are.

I think it will be about 4yrs before this machine is in service tho tbh.
 
I am way out of date...it's just that I know in general things have a way of not turning out how you expect. If I had my time again I would still choose science...it is the reason I am interested in virtually everything.
 
fran-MLs little camera said:
I am way out of date...it's just that I know in general things have a way of not turning out how you expect. If I had my time again I would still choose science...it is the reason I am interested in virtually everything.
Click to expand...

Agreed it still may not work out, but at least we are a year on in tests.
 
We're not far off being able to produce meat without actually killing animals.
 
It is an interesting philosophical point. The imperative of life is to pass on your DNA. Cows, sheep and pigs are common in Britain because they provide meat and other products without threatening man, therefore being tasty and useful has proved to be good for their survival as a species. No one would want large herbivores wandering around eating our food sources if we became vegetarian. They'd only exist in parks and zoos and their gene pool would become small, perhaps too small for long-term survival.
 
fran-MLs little camera said:
It is an interesting philosophical point. The imperative of life is to pass on your DNA. Cows, sheep and pigs are common in Britain because they provide meat and other products without threatening man, therefore being tasty and useful has proved to be good for their survival as a species. No one would want large herbivores wandering around eating our food sources if we became vegetarian. They'd only exist in parks and zoos and their gene pool would become small, perhaps too small for long-term survival.
Click to expand...

We could still use them for leather, wool, milk, etc.
 
St Godders of Windsor said:
I once ran over a wild rabbit that jumed out into the road and it left me feeling bad for days.
Click to expand...

I too had the same experience which resulted in the death of the rabbit. Mind you I had to chase it over a couple of fields before I got the ****er.

It's a well known fact that foxes, pheasants and the horses in the Grand National are all on this earth for our benefit and some of them actually enjoy the experience.
As for using animals for cosmetic testing, I've never seen a rabbit that didn't look better with a little mascara on.

With mascara

You must log in or register to see images


Without mascara

You must log in or register to see images
 
How do you know the animals being harmed are "innocent"?

Just because they're small, furry, and cute, doesn't mean that they might not have done some sort of little animal crimes.
 
I really couldn't give a flying **** about the poor sod of a lab rat that gets loaded up with a drug to see how much will kill it. Call me heartless, but the treatment of a few animals for me comes second to the betterment of mankind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back