What is the other side of Animal testing? Or the benefits of it??
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
887356
Having experienced both, I think it's a wonderful opportunity to learn responsibility and caring for animals. It also introduces children to basic biology and zoology. It also serves for inspiration in other subjects. Kids write stories about the pet(s), for example.
751904
I don't think it's weird.  I've always read gross books about serial killers and looked at pictures of dead bodies but if I hear about animal testing or abuse I freak out.  I can't deal with stories about animals getting hurt unless I know there is a happy ending.  I've been this way my whole life.  It's just the way I am and most of my friends feel the same way.
288897
The biggest animal rights group in the world right now is probably People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. You might want to check out their site and the sites of their critics. Try http://www.petakillsanimals.com for some startling facts about PETA. Also, any good book on animal rights/welfare in your school's library will address the criticisms of the animal rights movement.\n\nA handy tip: remember that animal right and animal welfare are not the same thing. When you think animal rights, think PETA. When you think animal welfare, think SPCA.\n\nGood luck with your term paper!
1161151
its good to volunteer but remember these drugs haven't been approved yet-human testing required to put on market for general public so  ask about side effects -if any known-some have been tested by humans to  some extent and need final human testing or only tested on animals----so all these drugs are being tested to see if safe to use.All drugs have side effects but human testing determines if  no drastic side effects occur-esp be wary and ask if can damage liver, kidneys etc.  Make sure you really want to do this and that once the inform you of the risk involved if money is worth it.It isn't a whole lot of money in most cases anyway.
949172
Not for medical research .\n\nrats that are bred specifically for study are used because the groups are controlled and require the test subjects to be the same to have more accuracy in comparing results.I can't imagine chimps being bred like that . t's way too cruel of a life anyway.\n\nbut some research  maybe for learning related studies, communication, language etc...\n\nI like the idea of certain catagories of inmate to be used as a test subject
253459
Yes...they say eventually with a single cell, you could produce the world's annual meat supply. And you could do it in a way that's better for the environment and human health. Considering all the  diseases spread by animals ( asian brd flu, mad cow disease, ect. ) it doesn't sound like such a bad idea.  They still have a long way to go though...so far what they have gotten has turned out like mush...and even after they get something that turns out right it will be a long time before the US Food and Drug People get through with all their approval testing were anything can be placed on the market.
169264
Would you like me to stick one of your family members in a cage and shave them bald, smear untested goop on them just to see if they break out in a rash? Or hey lets just inject them with stuff and see what happens.. I wouldnt do it to a human and I dont want it happening to animals either... ther has to be a more humane way of testing things.. if it costs more or takes longer then fine I can pay more or I can wait.
975116
Well, firstly I think you need to define what you mean by "experimentation". Most of the people who have posted answers seem to have assumed that it refers specifically to experiments involving drugs, other chemicals or invasive techniques.  Maybe that's what you're assuming too, but there are many other fields of science that use animals for experiments to find out about their behaviour or ecology.  Some of these studies might involve wild animals, captive bred lab animals or wild animals caught for the experiment.  So now someone might think "well, ok but it's just the cruel medical experiments that make animals suffer that we are wanting to consider".  But it isn't that simple.  Some behavioural experiments might involve, food and water deprivation, handling stress, allowing animals to fight and injure / kill each other.  And similarly, a lot of medical and neuroscience research is carried out in such a way that the animals involved have a reasonable quality of life and a relatively humane and painless death.  So banning ALL experimentation on animals (except small rodents and insects) would clearly damage our ability to learn about our world, the ecosystems in it, the diseases that kill us and a whole range of other important things that science is currently investigating.  However, the other side of the coin is that allowing an open slather on all animal research would clearly expose many animals to cruel, painful procedures that yield only superficial gains for humans and for animals (tests of allergies to cosmetic products springs to mind as an example of cruel research yielding little gain).  What I'm trying to illustrate here is that, like most moral and political issues, animal experimentation is complicated and contains a lot of grey areas.  There is no one answer that is correct and appropriate for all situations.  You must way up the cost to animal (in terms of pain, distress and quality of life) with the potential benefits of the research (progress in disease treatments, better understanding of ecology and environment, for example).  And of course not everybody will agree on how costs and benefits would way up.  Imagine some experiments that work in such a way that for every monkey who dies (humanely) an extra person will be saved by the treatment.  Would you consider that reasonable?  What if the monkey died a painful death instead of a humane one?  What if it were ten monkeys to every person saved, or a hundred monkeys?  What if it were a thousand people each monkey could save? What if the monkey couldn't save anyone's life but could just prolong the lives of sick people for a while? What if it wasn't a monkey, but a cat or a rat?  What if there were other research options available, but they might take 6mths longer, or six years longer before the treatments are available?  Even if everybody was considering all the same aspects, people would differ in where they draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable.  So for this complicated issue, maybe the best "bill" is one that provides guidelines and instructions on how research should be evaluated, but leaves the decision of whether or not each particular experiment goes ahead up to a group of relevant people who understand the costs and benefits and can make an informed decision.  I hope this helps you have an interesting discussion in class.
314976
the advantage of Ame's test is to stop cruelty and save the lives of the animals.
959097
i tell you what i believe .... and we are not being informed by the medical feild ,, but our naturalist are telling it !!!!its all over the net  ........our animals are treated for parasites!!!!!!!!!we humans are not !!!!!!when i was a little girl and let us go back to even  out ancestors  they  treated once a year for  parasites  but  why have we quit??????? not me i found a remedy  and all the hurts and pains that i began getting as i became  older has now dissappeared believe it  or not  i do a dailey parasite program have for several years now nothing compares to it   .... so why are our animals more healthy ????isnt it funny we worm our dogs, cats, horses, cows, and so on  what about  us?????? something  for u to think about
784426
I believe that testing on animals for medical reasons is an unfortunate necessity. We all want advances in science to cure terrible diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Cancer, HIV etc, and without the use of animals for this purpose we will never be able to achieve this.\nAnimal testing will continue until a new model could be found. The use of Cell and Tissue culture is used for drug testing, but medicinal drugs are not allowed on the market until animal testing has been completed. This is then backed up with human testing once the drug is deemed safe. This does fail, and people can get hurt (eg thalidomide) but without the animal testing these cases would occur more frequently. \nAlso laboratories for testing on animals have to work to highly stringent guidelines, and are frequently checked by officials that the animals are not being mistreated. In the UK at least.
516894
We unarguably need to increase animal testing.  I think everyone can easily agree on this.
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.
721657
It takes a while to get to the animal rights part...\n\nFirstly, one thing is I think most liberals (and most people in general) do care what happens to unborn babies, even if they support women's rights to abortion.\nIt's just that an abortion supporter is also considering the negative impacts of a mother giving birth to a child she isn't ready for, or doesn't want. When this is taken into consideration, a decision (of whether to have the child or abort) is a weigh up between the good and bad outcomes on each side. Someone's opinion on this then depends on what sort of being they perceive an unborn child to be at different stages of development - how aware it is, etc. It also depends on how they feel the mother and child's lives will be if the child is born. To me it is morally fair for a mother to abort, if she has given the matter enough thought. I certainly feel compassion for an aborted child (and a little for a wasted sperm or egg when I think about it), but I also think lives would come out worse in general if mothers weren't allowed to abort.\nIt seems there are certain positive things we do in terms of  actively caring for unborn babies: medical things, dealing physically and mentally with pregnant mothers, and educational things, improving how everyone acts, like promoting safe sex, etc. (I think abortion actually falls under the first category. Although it doesn't immediately "care" for the child being aborted, I think it brings more positive benefit for mothers and children in general.) So I suppose one's perception of how we treat unborn babies depends on whether they think we are doing well in these areas. No doubt they could be improved...\nAnimal rights activists clealy believe we are not doing well in our treatment of animals, so spend time and energy trying to change this. However, this doesn't mean that they don't care for unborn babies. But they may well spend more effort in promoting animal rights than promoting unborn babies' rights (which they might have done by promoting safe sex for instance). So an observer might think the activist cares *more* about animal rights than unborn babies, however this might be false. The activist might simply think we are already treating unborn babies fairly well, but animals very badly, so feel it's more important to act on the animals issue. So I don't think it's twisted that someone does this, it depends on subtle perception differences. In fact it's probably important that there are people specifically involved in each of these (and of course other) issues. That way they can do a lot to promote that one issue, and someone else can deal with other issues. All of these things do need improvement.
368035
While we hate to think of those cute little animals being exposed to various materials, the alternative in many cases is to test them on humans.  There are, however, alternatives to animal testing of some kinds of materials.  There are synthetic membranes which react the same as  human or animal tissue with respect to testing of the corrosivity of a material.  These synthetic membranes cannot simulate the reaction of human or animal tissue to certain medicines or other non-corrosive materials.  In those instances, animal testing is the only choice before human testing.  Better an animal should suffer the ill effects of a test material than a human.  If you disagree, would you volunteer to be a test subject for an unknown medicine if the ill effects could possibly be debilitating or fatal?  Or would you prefer that the Dr. prescribe a medicine that could not be tested because animal testing was outlawed?
778963
I totally disagree with animal testing. They do not only use unadoptable animals they use specially bred dogs, maily beagles. These animals have a miserable existence and some suffer abuse from the lab technicians if they don't tow the line i.e. allow blood to be taken from the vein in their necks without struggling. I have suffered a great deal of trauma from what I have experienced first hand of this practice. It's no good saying only necessary experiments can be done as this is just too ethically difficult to decide so a blanket 'permission' is given to the drugs companies. Each study uses about 50 dogs who only stay alive for 6 months and are then all euthanised. Some of the technicians find this funny....I have seen this! These animals respond to love .... I tried to give it to them....but it didn't save them, probably made it worse for them to accept the cruelty and suffering.