Do you think humans not animals should be used for the first stage of drug experiments?
144564
let me guess your a member of PETA
252077
there is nothing wrong with drugs themselves. any drug, if used properly, in moderation, and for a purpose other than just getting f*cked up, can be a usefull tool for expanding the use of the brain and seeing things from a different perspective (something that people should do more often). some of the most brilliant minds in history were drug users. i'm not saying there aren't risks; any tool used recklessly can cause alot of damage. give a kid a hammer and don't teach him to use it properly, and see what happens. windows get broken and maybe hands get smashed. give that hammer to someone old enough to swing it, and teach him the right way to use it, and houses get built. we should stop pretending that drugs have no value and start educating those who choose to use them. and i don't mean "dare". all i ever did in that class was draw joints in the hands of the cartoon characters in the d.a.r.e handbook. and i wasn't even interested in drugs at the time. to me, d.a.r.e. was just another pointless class i had to sit through while counting the minutes 'till the end of the day. big deal.
156574
I don't think we should test such paltry things as beauty products on animals.  I don't think we should use animals for research of any kind UNLESS we can show that it is a study that will possibly save or extend human life, and that no human beings are willing to participate in the testing.  Any animals used for this purpose should be put into a state of sleep or made insensitive to pain.  They should be rewarded with everything they like best.  They should be given names, and these names should be listed on the products for all people benefitting from these tests to read.
524598
First things first: I am against animal testing for cosmetic and vanity purposes. Yay for the Body Shop. I buy not-tested-on-animal shampoo etc., I'm vegetarian, and I don't wear leather.\n\nBut...\n\nI'm also a doctor. And was a lab scientist, until I decided I personally didn't like the rat killing, even though I understood the rationale. Almost *every* advance in medicine today is built on preliminary tests in animals. Dissolvable sutures? New antibiotics? Cancer treatments? Vaccines? Balloons and stents instead of open heart surgery? Heck, anti-bird-flu drugs??\n\nAll of these are tried out first in animals. Because when it comes right down to it, people are selfish. And if I personally was asked if I'd rather have something tried on me first in the world, or if I'd rather it were tried in a rat to see if it killed it - I'm sorry. I want to live. I vote to try it on the rat. And if it were a question of my child or a rat? Rat. Your child or a rat?\n\nWell, that's your call.\n\nHaving said that - yes, there are limitations to animal tests. Yes, there are some tests that can be done in cell culture, computer models, or donated cadaver tissue. But, and PETA don't point this out, there are lots that can't. I don't know if a new method for stapling the gut back together after cancer surgery (which, if it works, is vastly preferable to sutures) is going to leak and kill my patient. You can't test that in cell culture. It has to be an animal model. Or a real patient.\n\nIf you personally wish to volunteer for these tests - good for you. Perhaps we should start a website, collecting names of people who are willing to be guinea pigs, rather than using actual guinea pigs. \n\nNo, wait. That's been done. Experimenting on black men with untreated syphilis. Experimenting on condemned prisoners. Experimenting on concentration camp inmates. There have been lots of cases where humans were used as primary test subjects. I disagree with this philosophy, myself.
866553
Worms don't really have much in the way of a brain or nervous system, so I doubt they mind.  As far as other animals, I used to be against it but I've become rather desensitized to it... Many more animals are killed to become food or fur, or killed for sport... I have to deal with killing mice on a regular basis to feed snakes... They are low on the food chain for a reason.  A few humanely euthanized rats here and there for students to learn is a small price to pay.  As a bio student, there really is no replacement for learning first hand on the real thing.  My favorite dissection was a fetal pig in high school... Very interesting.  The only time I took offense was a mink dissection, and that is because the school was actually getting the minks from fur farms and paying for them, so our experiments were fueling the fur trade...
321826
Usually, new drugs are developed through methods involving a test tube and isolated proteins and/or DNA. Would you like to be the first to try a new drug? It can be very dangerous.\n\nIn order to try to maximize safety from side effects, we test these drugs on human and/or animal cells in culture, then with animal models to see if there are potentially serious side effects we don't expect. Phase III clinical trials finally test the drugs in limited doses on human subjects.
769508
Well... at least for now that's true.... until some lame-brain from PETA gets civil rights for animals. \n\nHowever you will need more than just an animal's lack of rights to win a debate. Though a good starting point, you will need to build on that primes. Tout the benefits derived from making sure drugs are safe before using them on Humans...
598243
Pros of Animal Testing\n- makes sure product is safe before selling it to people\n- avoids having to test on people\n- allows scientists to research new medicines, vaccines against \n   disease etc.\n- by looking at animals, can understand people better\n\nCons of Animal Testing\n- animals are mistreated in the labs\n- conditions they live in before being used for testing are also bad\n- many of the experiments are cruel and can be painful\n- curiosity doesn't give people the right to abuse other living \n   creatures\n- doesn't even advance science all that much
759776
I'm vegetarian, and i'm no extremist or anything but here's how I feel:\nKilling animals is something that humans have done for a long time. period.  I think we should stop, because we don't need to do it anymore to survive, but that hasn't always been the case.  If anyone gets all up-in-arms about killing animals in a fantasy game, they're an idiot.  That's just my opinion as a doctor.  They would be the same kind of person that would take sex out of shakespeare to make it PC.  I would kill animals for food or points in a game, and I would let my kids do it, too.
294210
I think that you need a lot of answers to this. I am also against the use of animals in trials. I aggree with the previous answerer that it is sad and I will add that it is also scarring the purpose they are using them for.\n\nKaterina
1019853
Yes, it's very effective. In vivo studies gives us a much better understanding than any in vitro study could reproduce. The amount of animal testing now, compared to say 50 years ago is way less. Efforts have been made to improve handling of test subjects, but science has not advanced to a point yet where we understand biological systems well enough to do without in vivo testing. \n\nThe majority of what we understand today about psychology, physiology, medicine, and other biological sciences have involved all sorts of animal testing. It's unfortunate that many of these animals had to be sacrificed in the name of science, but the quality of life medically that we enjoy today can be attributed immensely to animal research.
245385
Monkeys, dogs, rabbits, and mice are just a few of the animals used in research.  Wikipedia.org has a very comprehensive article detailing the types of animal and tests performed on them.  An example: rabbits were used to test mascara and eye since their eyes didn't tear, IAMS uses dogs to test new foods.  Peta.org is also a good resource since they are trying to stop animal testing.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing
1091637
Absolutely not. Did you know that the pharmaceutical industry takes in more money than all other industries combined? They have a drug for every symptom a person could possibly have. Whatever happened to "sweating it out"? Maybe we'd be a healthier people if we didn't take so many pills. They want us to be scared of natural plants (marijuana: which is given to people with cancer and aids) but they want to cram all kinds of lab-created drugs down our throats. They make me sick (please excuse the pun).
880696
Please consult Encarta encyclopedia--animal experiments--and/or contact any animal rights group in the world listed in English on Internet. Good luck with your project.
458441
My guess would be that no, you could not evaluate the efficicacy of antidepressants in animals.  This is because depression isn't something you can measure objectively and there are no lab tests you can do to see if someone (animal or human) is depressed.  Depression is more subjective or experiential, and diagnosing it relies on the patient's narrative.  Since you can't ask a rabbit how they're feeling today compared to yesterday, or if they have hope for the future, you're not going to be able to see if the drugs were effective.\n\nHowever, you probably could look at side effects alone.  You wouldn't know if it was working against the depression, but you would know if it caused any serious side effects.  But I don't like the idea of testing on animals (inhumane).
841195
For years a debate has ensued over the practice of animal research and experimentation. The scientific community and animal rights activists have disagreed as to whether the benefits of animal research and experimentation are worth the pain and suffering that these experiments often cause to the animal subjects. Scientific advances have greatly reduced the number and severity of animal experiments that take place\n\nThere are  two main categories of animal experimentation and research, medical and cosmetic. \n\nMedical testing involves testing new drugs for their levels of toxicity and trying out new medical procedures. Animals are used to represent humans and human reactions in these tests in order to analyze the potential impacts of the drugs or procedures on humans\n\nCosmetic testing is use of  animals to test the risks involved with the use of certain cosmetics and household products. This type of experimentation predicts the irritation levels of these products and any dangers they may pose to humans\n\nWITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH:\n*60 MILLION PEOPLE MAY RISK DEATH FROM HEART ATTACK, STROKE, OR KIDNEY FAILURE FROM LACK OF MEDICATION TO CONTROL THEIR HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE.\n*7,5000 NEWBORNS WHO CONTRACT JAUNDICE EACH YEAR WOULD DEVELOP CEREBRAL PALSY, NOW PREVENTABLE THROUGH PHOTO THERAPY. \n*POLIO WOULD KILL OR CRIPPLE THOUSANDS OF UNVACCINATED CHILDREN AND ADULTS THIS YEAR.\n*MILLIONS OF DOGS, CATS, AND OTHER PEYS AND FARM ANIMALS WOULD DIE FROM ANTHRAX, DISTEMPER, CANINE PARVOVIRUS, FELINE LEUKEMIA, RABIES AND MORE THAN 200 OTHER DISEASES NOW PREVENTABLE THANKS TO ANIMAL RESEACH.
827782
we can buy animal controlled drugs for our dogs via the internet, but we have to send them the vets prescription prior to the delivery. maybe its the same for human drugs ?