Animation Source Forums

Yep, they test on monkeys because they are closest to us, so therefore we may get more reliable results.

Which I think should be the only animal to be tested on (However, if I could, I would stop it altogether).

umm, but as you said before that all animals are equal, but yet you say it's ok for monkeys?

I do disagree with animal testing......Although, my friend's dad works at a huge animal testing plant I live by( I curse the thing every time I drive by it). But any way his family is in pretty good shape(money wise). Anyway, the job pay's a suitable amount of money. And in these times a good paying Job(atleast in Michigan) will get you pretty far.

I never said it was ok. I said that it would probably prove to be the best results.

ohh, sory, the way i understood it you meant it was 'ok' for monkeys...

Sorry, probably my fault, I must of worded it wrong.

I agree on Murta, animal testing works on monkeys, but I am not so sure it works on other animals. Pretty extordinary though.

Actually, as far as body systems go, rats are closer to us than monkeys.

At any rate, this may be surprising to some of you, being that I'm going into Veterinary Medicine, but I agree with animal testing. Now, before people start jumping down my throat automatically, I never supported testing for cosmetic reasons, and I've only ever supported animal testing for drugs and medicine in general. It's a reliable way to be sure what symptoms new drugs coming onto the market will cause and, aside from exposing humans (willing or unwilling to be tested) it is the best way to test new procedures that may save lives (both animal and human). A computer simulation just can't accurately predict what the body will due or how it will react.

Now, this isn't saying that if we could find a better, more reliable and accurate way to test medicines and procedures without risking animals that I wouldn't agree. If we could, I would whole-heartedly support it. But, the fact remains that this just isn't an option at the moment and we have to work with the best we've been given.

You guys are are all going to hate me but I'm ok with animal testing. My Animal Health Care teacher worked at a lab and she explained many things tom me. The animals there they treat as if they were their own pets. Now and days they realy only test rats and mice.

Sorry for the late reply but... I've come across some information totally different, let's take a look...

The Animal's tested in the United Kingdom (UK) of Great Britain (GB) and Northern Ireland (NI) ALONE from 2008 stand at:
3.7 MILLION
They include:
2.4 million on mice
605,000 on fish
4,598 on monkeys
355,000 on rats
123,000 on birds
17,000 on rabbit
9,000 on horses and donkeys
360 on cats.

Putting that on a worldwide scale, since the UK takes up 1% of the world's population... This leaves us the minimal estimate of 370 million animals tested worldwide. Most likely more, since in some countries (Naming China) have probably many many more.

Source: Sunday Mirror Article: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-storie ... -21550973/ (Note: The table I produced was in the Sunday Mirror newspaper itself, page 31, July 26 2009.)

I'm sorry with everyone but I also have to say that I'm ok with animal testing and support it as long as it is not for cosmetic purposes and I think most of you should realize that without animal testing you'll probably be dead or in bad health and wouldn't be posting here.

By the way, animal testing also permit the creation of vaccines and medicines for animals.

I understand those who think we should test our products on human but don't agree with that. I support animal causes and help associations that try to find a new house for abandonned pets and sign petitions to avoid cultural violence on animals such as corrida BUT I do not think animals are really our equals. We are far more different than them, perhaps both the most perfect and the less perfect specie on Earth. We have prejudices, values, history, culturs, languages. We can think and reflect, we have an opinion upon everything.
Basically, we can say "it's bad !" or "it's good !" while they can't because they are amoral (not imoral, A-moral, without morality) and are just trying to survive. They kill each other for a territory, a mate, control of population, eating.
Of course they have feelings and thoughts but they wouldn't be able to find a cure for cancer for example. We do, and we use cures that work on animals too.

As long as we have no other option that testing on animals, I'll agree with it and support it because, though it's bad because it kills living beings (though I have to say it's less bad than war because it has a purpose and a good one), we need it and animals need it.

I mean, even if we like to say "our world wouls be better without all the things humans have created because we're destrying our planet", who, on BS, could stop using their computer, eat twice/three times a day, be sick without any drug, live and sleep outside, use animal fur to create clothes because there's no other option, etc... ?

As I respect your opinion I disagree.

I believe new drugs should be tested on people with the problem the drug should cure. Such as, a dying cancer patient should be (if (s)he agrees) tested on with a drug that is supposed to cure the cancer, or extend the lifespan of the cancer patient. This is a more officiant way to creating cures, and quicker in some senses. Since it is directly being tested on people that need the cure, that have no hope otherwise.

I also feel that cosmetic testing should be done on "life" prisoners, or by any volunteering of the general public (Including prisoners), however, if it all goes horribly wrong, who cares? (The general public would sign a form saying that if it did go wrong, they couldn't claim a penny, but prisoners would have little choice). I also have a reasonable idea based on the short-term prisoners. They can volunteer to be tested on, to maybe shorten their sentence. Although, the sentences that would get shortened are for things like, persistent shop-lifting, repetitive minor vandalism, exec.

Do you really think there would be enough people to accept testing a new drug on them ? They already test drugs and vaccines on people (once they think it's safe usually), I've been one of them with a new vaccine again meningitis because every children was forced to in my country and we had to reply to a survey (I know, the vaccine was not considered as dangerous but still, they tested it on us).
If we tested drugs or vaccines on human beings only, we would never be able to cure so many diseases.

We could cure almost exactly the right amount.

It's more direct to test it on humans, speeding up the process, plus making it go quicker. And of course there would be enough, as long as every country participates.