Do you think it is necessary to do animal testing?

1. 72

   BlissfulWriterposted 12 years ago

   Do you think it is necessary to do animal testing?
   
   Do you think it is necessary to do animal testing in order to produce drugs and products for humans and to do research on disease processes?

   replyreport
2. 82

   jandeeposted 12 years ago

   NO................NO DEfinitely.......Not..

   replyreport
3. 0

   Deb Welchposted 12 years ago

   I Googled this topic:  I am copying an alternative that was given, -  (There are alternatives to many tests that are currently done on animals - e.g. growing tissue or cell cultures from human cells in the laboratory.)  www.idebate.org  Animals are treated so badly that has been proven by PETA. No - I do not agree with the necessity of using animals for disease research.

   replyreport
4. 0

   Gusserposted 12 years ago

   It sure beats letting humans die. PETA  is People Eating Tasty Animals.

   replyreport
5. 61

   madmachioposted 12 years ago

   I'd rather a few lab rats die then a kid or fellow human. Rats (animals) are a lot cheaper then growing tissue. Now it doesn't mean be cruel to the animals, but if the results of testing hurts them, that's better then it happening on one of us.

   replyreport
6. 62

   old albionposted 12 years ago

   Regretfully I feel it is necessary. It is better that a rat dies in the name of research, than your mother for the lack of it.
   Graham.

   replyreport
7. 67

   topquarkposted 12 years ago

   I think that some animal testing is necessary to better understand disease and produce life-saving medications. However, I don't think that all the testing currently being carried out is necessary; some of it could be done in other ways. Cosmetics testing on animals is never justified, in my opinion.

   replyreport
8. 74

   Jennifer Madisonposted 12 years ago

   I am not sure if those of you who support the testing of animals really know what it is about. Obviously, it is not only rats that suffer. In the US, about five million dogs, cats, rabbits, rats, monkeys, and other animals die from lethal tests performed on them. Substances are forced into the animals’ throats, pumped into their stomachs, where the substance causes stomach ruptures in some cases, injected into a vein, applied to the eyes, rectum and vagina or inhaled through a gas mask. The animals react by breathing hard, having diarrhea, bleeding from the eyes, nose or mouth. The animals sit terrified in their barren cages and as they are stressed, they show neurotic behaviors such as pulling out their own hair, shaking, rocking back and forth, biting themselves. If someone passes by their cage they cower in fear. Their life is marked by loneliness, terror and pain. There are already many companies that have turned their back to animal testing. They have done their homework: there are alternative tests such as testing on human cell cultures and tissue studies (in vitro tests) and artificial human “skin” and “eyes” that imitate the body’s natural properties. Computer virtual organs can also be used as accurate models of human body parts. EPISKIN™ and EpiDerm™ are multi-layered skin models that consist of cultures of human skin cells. These methods have been scientifically validated and accepted around the world as good replacements of animal testing.
   
   Companies that don't test on animals:
   
   Bobbi Brown
   Abercrombie & Fitch
   LIDO Skin Care
   Paul Mitchell Systems
   Carolina Herrera
   (amongst many others)
   
   Companies that do test on animals:
   
   L'oreal
   Dolce & Gabbana
   Estée Lauder
   Procter & Gamble
   Hugo Boss
   Johnson & Johnson (and the list goes on and on)
   
   I think it is time to reconsider our favorite brands...

   replyreport