dibattito Domanda

Using animali in pre-clinical trials?

I know animal cruelty has probably come up on here several times before, but this specific case deserves some extra respect.

I have no doubt that we abuse animali well beyond what's necessary. We test all sorts of things on them that are unnecessary, most notably cosmetics. In many cases, that is completely unnecessary.

Such is not the case in pre-clinical trials, when animal testing is a requirement in order to get a drug through testing and into the market. The testing needs to be done in a full body system (in vivo) and not simply with a small group of cells and/or chemical solutions (in vitro). So the choice really doesn't come down to "do we have to do it" and più "what do we have to do it with."

Should we continue to use animals, which cannot consent to the treatment they are getting, o should we use human testing at that stage, paying participants and informing them of the risks? The concern I have with the latter situation is that, da the pre-clinical stage, we really don't know what the risks are, unlike in Phase I clinical trials. Personally, I feel that animal testing in this stage of clinical trials is utterly necessary, though we can certainly do più for the benefit of the animali that are being tested. What say you?

Only when necessary; and I believe that as much pain should be lacked and relieved as possible...

DarkCEpitome posted più di un anno fa

Agreed, though unfortunately, while recognizing pain in these animali is easy, recognizing anguish is not.

whiteflame55 posted più di un anno fa

Hiding 3 comments... click to show.

The fact remains, that we consider ourselves più important than animali and it is a fact of life that we do, but it doesn't mean that it is right to do so. The biggest domanda is: 'what makes it okay for humans to consider themselves più important than everything else, when 'everything else' is what allows humans to survive? And, I admit, while I believe in that, and think others should too, doesn't mean I'll force it down their throat.

blackpanther666 posted più di un anno fa

whiteflame55 posted più di un anno fa

next question »

dibattito Risposte

Chaann94 said:

I agree with you. To me, humans are much più important than animals. If te pay people to participate in clinical trials, you're playing with their lives.

I can't see why animal testing should be stopped. Sure, it sucks for those animals. But humans are più important. If te give away money, only the people who really need it will apply for the trial. To me, that's even più inhumane than testing animals.

posted più di un anno fa

Well, that's the thing, I'm not sure we can say animali are più o less important. I'm not trying to make a statement in that regard, merely one of necessity. We use mice and rats most often in pre-clinical trials because they reproduce quickly and often and we can get a lot of genetic clones. They're the easiest to work with, and we're not going to wipe them out da doing it this way. It's sad because I feel for these creatures, but the options are incredibly limited, and every other one is just full of problems.

whiteflame55 posted più di un anno fa

I'm afraid I disagree with te there, Chaan94... Humans are not 'more important' than animals... In respect to our planet, we are probably one of the least important species, ecologically speaking. I believe that animali should have every right to be treated as well as humans. Plus, animali were here before us and then we came along and decided that we are più important, simply because we are più intelligent in some ways. However, I agree with Whiteflame, that if we are going to test things on animals, that rats and mice should be the ones to be tested on, as they are less important to ecology, as many other species are. Testing on animali can be subjective, because there are plenty of pests out there that actually cause harm to other species, so, while I agree that animali are just as important as humans, I agree that 'pests' are less important, because they can damage native flora and fauna in many countries. That is vert true in New Zealand as well; rabbits, weasels, stoats, rats, mice and possums/opossums are considered to be major pests, hence why I say that this issue can be subjective. Humans just need to continue their research, without damaging important species of animal.

blackpanther666 posted più di un anno fa

coriann said:

im certainly not one to say which form of life is più important and which is not, but, we are humans, and it's natural to want to do things to the benefit of ourselves, im not one to place the animali lives first o the humans lives, but until a suitable replacement can be made, it will be più beneficial to the human community.

posted più di un anno fa

weather it is wrong o right i do not know :(

coriann posted più di un anno fa

i suppose it'd neither :P

coriann posted più di un anno fa

Hiding 5 comments... click to show.

Simple enough, but yeah, basically. Let's face it: we're out for ourselves here. Whether we treasure animali at all, we'll always treasure ourselves more, because we are a member of our species.

whiteflame55 posted più di un anno fa

I agree, Coriann, humans don't really have the right to place themselves più highly than other species and, yes, while it is natural to want to benefit our own species, I believe that it can be beneficial to us to treat animali right and allow them a better quality of life. Really, because we call this planet home, we have an obligation to try and keep our 'home' as tidy and well-functioning as possible.

blackpanther666 posted più di un anno fa

@Whiteflame, while I partially disagree with that sentiment - looking out for ourselves and looking out for other species go hand-in-hand, because, when te think about it, what would this planet be without animali on it - we'd be screwed and have nothing to use for meat... But, that is just the beginning of it. As a biologist myself, I consider all species on Earth to be tied in with one another and, even though i say that pests are less important, I think that pests can be still beneficial in some ways, but humans just need to control bio-security and bio-control, in order to look out for the planet, because without it, we are nothing.

blackpanther666 posted più di un anno fa

I don't doubt that, BP, but let's face it, most human beings think about their species first. Sure, some people understand the interplay between species and the importance of having a diverse biosphere, but even among them, what happens to human beings often comes first

whiteflame55 posted più di un anno fa

I'm not arguing that it doesn't happen, though, I'm simply explaining how I view the issue myself. Yes, I agree humans do tend to look out for themselves first, but i also believe that we can benefit ourselves just as much da looking out for our planet and the other species that inhabit it.

blackpanther666 posted più di un anno fa

Alright, makes sense

whiteflame55 posted più di un anno fa

blackpanther666 said:

I go with what I detto on some of the other responses... This issue can be highly subjective, because some animali can be considered pests and più harmful to other species of animal, hence why I think that clinical testing should be used still, but only on species where it less harmful to do so than other species. Testing on rabbits and organisms that reproduce quickly is fine, because we are actually benefitting other species da doing so, as well as our own research.

posted più di un anno fa

Fair enough.

whiteflame55 posted più di un anno fa

next question »

diritti degli animali	Stati Uniti d’America	Keep Earth Green
Gay Rights	Barack Obama	Human Rights
LGBT	Martin Luther King Jr	Washington, DC

dibattito

dibattito Domanda

Using animali in pre-clinical trials?

dibattito Risposte

Club Associati