Should animals be used in medical research?

No....Absolutely NOT. They should use paid volunteers and criminal lifers!

Should animals be used in medical research?
Basically no. But, keeping in view of increasing diseases in human beings, for the betterment mankind, it can be done.
Reply:Animal research has helped humankind, but it has also HURT it. Aspirin kills cats, for example, but can be a lifesaver for people who may have a tendency to develop blood clots that can stop their hearts.





Using animals for medical research is cruel, IMO. Why would I want to inflict suffering on another living being capable of feeling pain just as i am? If I was that selfish, I'd use people! After all, the results of the research would be more accurate and beneficial.
Reply:This site is not intended for opinionated answers, so here is an attempt at a balanced answer with both sides of the issue.





Many people mention that animals may feel pain and are sacrificed performing the research.





On the other side, people would not want to take medications/vaccines/treatments that had not been tested at all; yet no one wants humans to be tested to see if they have side effects to different treatments. For example, AIDS vaccines or treatments are often tested by using monkeys or apes to see what effect they have. People will sue drug companies just over side effects of medications--think what would happen if untested medications were released on the market.





Some people are against animal testing for cosmetic purposes (such as makeup, hair products, etc.) but agree with it for true medical research. Others are against testing in primates but don't have a problem with rodent or other small animal testing.





Here are more arguments. Please do not add additional opinions below. Use the discussion page.








I worked at a University and had to walk by the labs to leave reports and what I saw and heard would make your skin crawl! The students at this university, plus myself rallied together and got the SPCA involved and animals were taken out of the labs.





Absolutely not! Animals are not related to the human species and thus, the testing on rats, mice, monkeys, dogs and cats have little to say as to how a drug would react on a human. None of you have mentioned one thing about prison inmates. It has been a fact for many years, that a prisoner can make a choice to get off death row (in some cases) and have a reduced sentence to life in prison, or some prisoners feel they should give something back to society. They are not forced into the testing of drugs and, if they agree must sign a contract. Now that's one solution!





I think they should. There are some things that cannot be determined from a test tube. Some tests have to be done on a living being and since experimentation on humans is illegal, mice will have to fill that spot. The loss of an animal isn't as tragic as the loss of a human.





Animal testing has to be done. Would you rather potentially harmful things be tried on you first? Another option would be to use convicted criminals in exchange of a lighter sentence.





I believe that the answer is no. Why should it be illegal to research on humans. Animals still have feelings and they can experience the same pain that we do. Just because they cannot talk to us and they do not have wives and husbands, does not mean that they should have to live to be blind or have some unknown disease just so we can live longer. It isn't right and it shouldn't be done.





Absolutely not. I will not buy any make-up that has been tested on animals. I think a trip to some of these labs would convince many that this is very wrong. Many tests are also done on stray dogs and cats. We are not just talking about mice or rats here. I worked at UBC and passed a lab and the cries and moans and groans of dogs coming out of that lab reduced me to tears. Now, thank heavens the ASPCA or SPCA in Canada are putting a stop to this. It's been a long time coming. I agree with the other poster, that animals of all species have feelings and like children, they rely on us in most cases to keep them safe. Are we letting them down? They also cant defend themselves when they are drugged and poisoned. It is so cruel to the animals. If they could hang themselves I bet you they would.





YES! Animals should be used in animal research because people are being cured everyday and you have to admit that it is due to animal research; animal research wasn't done many people could die from a illness that could have been prevented. If you cant do research on animals then what would we use to do our research and make medical breakthroughs?





I think that animals should be used in medical research because it is the only way right now to cure diseases. We have already found cures for many deadly diseases. I've had to do research on this topic and i have found that there is way more animals being killed for meat and clothes.90% of animals used in med research are mice and rats. There is still many diseases to cure. Scientist believe that a cure for aids will happen in the near future.





I think that they shouldn't be used in experiments because animals have feelings just like us. You try being tested and may even die. Animals are precious and even saved our lives a lot.





The question says MEDICAL RESEARCH. You are referring to COSMETIC testing. Wouldn't you let a few mice get cancer to test a treatment that might cure yours?





No they shouldn't. It's really cruel, if you think that it's OK to do that, then put yourself in their position. How would you like it if every day scientists put loads of make-up and make you eat certain new foods; you would end up dead very soon.





No they shouldn't most definitely not animals have feelings too. Just because they cant talk doesn't mean they don't experience the same pain we do.





I think that there should be a limit to animal research, but it should be done. The success of animals in research has benefited both human lives and animal lives. For example, the development of insulin in 1921 has saved millions of animal lives as well as human lives by providing treatment for the common disease known as diabetes. In Britain, about 200,000 puppies died each year due to the Canine Distemper virus. As a result of animal research, the Canine Distemper vaccine was discovered, and hundreds of thousands of animal lives were and still are being saved each year. In December 2002 researchers were able to complete the genetic coding for the human and mouse genome. Comparing the two, researchers were able to see that an extraordinary number of genes were similar. Many of these recently discovered genes encoded genes that lead to various diseases, from Alzheimer’s disease to arthritis. Although some of these genes do not represent human models, many of the genes do and have presented many new opportunities to understanding health and disease of both humans and animals. It states from the Research Education Trust that, "Unfortunately the whole human or animal body is so complicated and the diseases that affect it so complex that non-animal methods can only play a part in developing treatments for diseases like epilepsy and high blood pressure. New non-animal methods may reduce the need for animal experiments but we are still likely to have to use animals for the foreseeable future if we are to continue to develop safe and effective medicines." In conclusion, animals should be replaced with non animal models, but there is a limit to which they models can be used.





In response to research with animals for cosmetic makeup, this should not be done. We have enough information from past experiments so that no more research in this area needs to be done.





Testing on animals is necessary. Medications and Vaccinations can not be proven safe for humans with out it. Federal Law prohibits 'pain full' testing. If an experiment needs to be done that will cause the animal pain, then pain medications MUST be given. Animals can only have one (1) experiment done on them, then if possible they will be placed for adoption. ALL animal cages, pens, and kennels MUST be cleaned and sanitized daily, and inspected by a veterinarian daily. ANY animal who becomes sick, or injured must be removed from the experiment and given proper medical attention AS SOON AS IT IS DETERMINED NO EXCEPTIONS. If above the allowed number of animals become sick (believe its 3% of the total number of animals allowed), the experiment MUST be IMMEDIATLY STOPPED. The next time you take an aspirin, antibiotic; have a vaccination think about the animals that made those medications safe for you. Cell research is indeed improving; however a cell can not ~ and will never be equal to the human body as different animals are. Look at your child(ren), parents, siblings if you have a choice if one of them would die from taking a medication or if a mouse can do it for them ~ especially for it to be safe for you, What would you choose? If you choose neither then never take any medication again, become a vegetarian and be a martyr for all of us.





Animals should be used in medical research. Without the use of animals in research, you and I would have to deal with several diseases. Animals, as well as humans, have benefited from using animals in the research. For all you against using animals why are you? Is it because it is what you believe is incorrect, or are you following what people such as, PETA have told you. Now, PETA is a different subject that I am completely against and will not discuss here. If animals were not used in medical research, we would never see if the effects of a new drug to help an AIDS patient will be harmful until they take the medicine. We would only have computers telling us what the drug will do and we will NEVER KNOW the effects of the drug-helpful and unhelpful. Put yourself in the position of this victim. And it's not necessarily just AIDS I'm talking about here, either. Replace AIDS with cancer, polio, pertussis..etc. (Polio and pertussis have pretty much been eradicated-but with out animals it would still be rampant.)Would you want to take something that's supposed to be helping you to kill you?? I certainly would not.





NO. No one should ever be able to use animals in medical research. It is wrong and unethical. How would you like to be tested on for diseases and possibly get a disease yourself just so they can make a new medicine or make-up. I bet most people wouldn't want to do that so why do you think that animals want to be tested on. It is cruelty towards animals and they have feelings too even though they can't express them out loud. So, if you are for animal testing you should re-think that idea.








Testing On Animals Is NOT 100% Effective! My answer is still no to using ANY animal for medical research. In fact, if you watch the news there are more drugs coming up that actually have caused death to humans (including children). Doctors (at least in Canada) have over medicated children with antibiotics (imbalances the Ph levels of the body) and now doctors are finding these same antibiotics are not working on these children and certainly not when they get into their teens or become adults. So much for experimentation on animals! Ritalin was shoved at kids by doctors like they were getting candy from a Pez dispenser and some of these children just needed to be taken off sugar! We have become a society of pill poppers! We are also becoming a society that is brain-washed into thinking we need a pill to fix whatever emotions we have. It is a proven fact that the Westernized way of eating, the environment causes more diseases in humans than anything else. They have tested Gorillas and Chimps in the wilds and not one of them have cancer, diabetes, arthritis, allergies and Gorillas can live to be 180 years old! If in captivity these animals become ill, (just like dogs can) and have many maladies that humans have. People that came from other countries such as Japan, China, etc., who ate lots of vegetables, low in red meats, high in fish, rice, etc., were extremely healthy, but once Westernized they too became more ill with more allergies. Each time I see the news on TV another drug is being taken off the market. For example Viagra has not been tested long enough and although not off the market the FDA is forced to put a warning on this drug that it can cause side effects such as possible blood clots, strokes, etc. That's just one of the millions of drugs out there. Drug companies love their money, so unless it's necessary humans should use other means to deal with smaller maladies and if necessary then it's time for some medications. Yes, some meds do save lives, but with each med comes side effects and for those side effects another med is used to combat that and on and on it goes. If humans watch what they eat, exercise, drink lots of water, take foods and fruits high in antitoxidents, stay away from smoking, too much alcohol, street drugs, then a human should be quite healthy. We all have to die from something eventually. There is absolutely no proof that testing animals helps humans and it's proven every time they have to take a med off the market. It's proof in the children out there when antibiotics no longer work, or when a child has asthma or allergies. It's proven when they reported that cancer research (although there are more cures and a longer life span) is not much better in reality then the 1950s! That was in a medical report.





You should not use animals for drug research because there are millions of people out there who would rather be the test subjects instead. Don't you see them lined up around the block? Me either. Critical, life-saving medications should be tested on animals because our computer models and knowledge on how the drugs interact is too limited. Animal testing can help find an interaction that the designers may have missed before sending the drug of to be tested on humans with potentially fatal results.





Animal testing is useless. There have been numerous occasions where a product or medicine has passed an animal test with flying colors, only to cause death or birth defects to humans. Products can be tested on synthetic skin and other synthetic body parts to more accurately understand the effects it will have on a human. No matter what reasoning a company may have to test on animals, it's false and is less accurate. Animal testing does not save lives, it saves companies from lawsuits and ensure that rich men get deeper pockets.





I dont think animals are here for us to do whatever we want with. The fact that human animals can make rational decisions (or at least we have the ablity there somewhere) means that it is a real lack of integrity and compassion to then choose to inflict pain on an animal. Advances in science have been made in the very beginning but the majority of the time animal research for human OR animal benefit is pointless. There are alternatives these days, what with cell research etc that we can now choose a nicer way to behave towards our fellow creatures. Check out why animal testing is barbaric here...





Have you ever been in a lab where they do scientific research on animals (and yes, it is still going on today.) It's not a pretty sight and these animals are in pain, some blinded by a botched experiment. Whoever told you that these animals get something for pain is full of it! They wouldn't waste the research money on it. If in doubt, visit a research facility and see for yourself. I can bet they won't let you within a mile of the actual lab because they are hiding a lot.
Reply:No, even though similar physiology, rats are different from cats, are different from dogs, are different from humans. Just because testing on an animal gives some indication of what a particular medicine or procedure does in one species, it doesn't always correlate to what happens in another, there are differences and results are unpredictable from one species to another.
Reply:How stupid can people be? How many 1000's of people would die if not for medical research done with animals. What about we let all the animal rights people take their place.
Reply:Yes to save humans
Reply:No, not at all.
Reply:I know where you are coming from and I don't


like it either. When you think about it, how are


we going to learn if we don't use them. It's


a tough call and I don't want to make it. A lot


of animals suffer, but a lot of animals live


longer and happier lives because of it.
Reply:I don't know becuase on the one hand I wouldn't want animals to be tortured but on the other i know that a loved one is way more important to me then any number of animals so if they were researching something like cancer and had a breakthrough that could save a member of my family I know that I could only care about that.
Reply:You know I am very much against animal testing for human products. There is enough research to prove that dogs, cats, monkeys, birds, and whatnot do not achieve the same effects that humans achieve. Take for instance if you have a canary, a cat, and a human. The cat may be fine in a mine shaft that is full of deadly toxins. Human goes in and they are dead. The canary just barely is placed into same said area and is dead of dying in a matter of moments. Human stays alive. (Coal miners in the 1800's used canaries to establish if a mine was safe to enter or not). Now also take into consideration that most animals do not have tear ducts in order to expell foreign objects like humans can. (Favorite animals in this test are smaller animals like mice, hamsters, rats, and rabbits). Because they go blind it is assumed that all animals will go blind. Humans however are able to shed "tears" in order to expell this waste. Now how can you say those are accurate results?





On the other hand though if you are testing vaccinations for an animal and are testing on THAT type of animal. You will come up with constant results and possibly a cure to an ailment. BUT just because the testing worked for that type of animal DOES NOT mean it will give the same results for a different type of animal. (i.e. diabetes medicine for a dog will not work properly if used on a dove or other type of bird). There are way too many variables.





In my opinion animal testing results should only be used to determine an antidote for that said animal type. Nothing tested on an animal (aside from a human) will have accurate results for a human. I hope I answered your question.
Reply:There are 33 facts i would like you to consider before making your mind up about whether animal testing is right or wrong.





1. Less than 2% of illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never efect animals.





2. According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree "5%-25%" of the time.





3. 95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans.





4. At least 50 drugs on the market cause cancer in lab animals. They are allowed because it is admitted the animal tests are not relevant.





5. Vivesectors, Proctor %26amp; Gamble used an artificial musk despite it failing the animal tests, causing tumours in mice. They said the results were "of little relevance for humans."





6. Up to 90% of animal test results are discardedas they're inapplicable to man.





7. When asked if they agreed that animal experiments can be misleading "because of anatomical and physiological differences between animals and humans", 88% of doctors agreed.





8. Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans. Flipping a coin would be 50% effective, therefore more accurate.





9. Rodents are the animal s almost always used in cancer research. They never get carcinomas, the human form of cancer, which affects membranes (eg. lung cancer). Their sarcomas affect bone and connecting tissue: the two are completely different.





10. The results from animal experiments can be altered by trivial factors such as diet and bedding. The same strain of mice developed cancer rates over 90% in one location and almost zero in another lab - due only to the different sawdust in their bedding.





11. Sex differences among lab animals can cause contradictory results. This does not correspond with humans.





12. An estimated 83% of substances are metabloised by rats in a way different from humans.





13. Attempts to sue the manufacturers of the drug Surgam failed due to the testimony of medical experts that "data from animals could not be extrapolated saftely to patients





14. Lemon juice is a deadly poison, but arsenic, hemlock and butulin can be proved safe according to animal tests.





15. Genetically modified animals are not models for human illness. The mdx mouse is supposed to represent muscular dystrophy, but the muscles regenerate with no treatment.





16. According to a far-reaching study, 88% of stillbirths are caused by drugs which passed animal tests.





17. 61% of birth defects are caused by drugs passed safe in animal tests, according to the same study. Defect rates are 200 times 1948 levels.





18. 70% of drugs known to cause birth defects pass tests on pregnant monkeys.





19. One in six patients in hospital are there becuase of treatment they have taken.





20. In America, 100,000 deaths a year are attributed to medical treatment. In one year 1.5 million people were hospitalised by medical treatment.





21. A World Health Organisation study showed children were 14 times more likely to develope measles if they had been vaccinated.





22. 40% of patients suffer side effects as a result of prescription treatment.





23. Over 200,000 medicines have been released, most of which are now withdrawn. According to the World Health Organiation, 240 medicines are "essential". Thousands of drugs passed safe in animals have been withdrawn or banned due to their effct on humans.





24. A German doctors' congress concluded that 6%26amp; of fatal illnesses and 25% of organic illnesses are caused by medicines. All have been animal tested.





25. The most common lifesaving operation (for ectopic pregnancies) was delayed 40 years by vivisection.





26. According to the Royal Commision into vivisection (1912) " The discovery of anaesthetics owes nothing to experiments on animals." The great Dr Hadwen noted "had animal experiments been relied upon...humanity would have been robbed of this great blessing of anaesthesia." The vivisector Hasley descibed the discovery of the anaesthetic Fluroxene as "One of the most dramatic examples pf misleading evidence from animal data."





27. Aspirin fails animal tests, as do digitalis (heart drug), cancer treatments, insulin (which causes animal birth defects), penicillin and other safe medicines. They would be banned if vivisection was heeded.





28. When the producers of Thailidomide faced court, they were acquitted after numerous experts agreed animal tests could not be relied on for human medicine.





29. Blood transfusions were delayed 200 years by animal studies, corneal transplants were delayed 90 years.





30. Despite many Nobel prizes going to vivisectors, only 45% agree that animal experiments are crucial.





31. At least 450 methods exist with which we can replace animal experiments.





32. At least 33 animals die in labs per second worldwide. In the UK one dies every 4 seconds.





33. The director of Research Defence Society, (which serves only to defend vivisection) was asked if medical progress could have been achieved without animal use. His written reply was "I am sure it could be."
Reply:I think that they should when the medical research is something being done for a serious illness. But, on the contrary, I absoloutley do not think that animals should be used as testers for cosmetics. Although I am a fan of makeup, this price is too large to pay for beauty. But when it's something more important like medical research, then I believe that it it usually okay.
Reply:No that is very cruel and is unfair for the poor animals. it seems that just cuz they cant communicate with us its okay but i dont agree!!!!!!!!!!
Reply:No, that would be a very cruel policy. Animals too have their rights and we ought to respect them...


The human brain can find another way for medical research trials..
Reply:Let's look at it this way. Once upon a time, anyone could bottle any substance and sell it as a cure. Lithium, cocaine, opium- all of these substances were included in "cures". One famous case was a teething aid for babies- opium!


When the FDA was developed, its first task was to ensure that eveything on the US market was 1) SAFE- it would not kill you if used properly 2)EFFECTIVE- the drug must do what it is supposed to do.


How do you determine if it's safe?


In the US they do use animals- usually lab rats or mice- and determine the minimal effective dose and lethal dose. Trials take years to bring a new drug to market. The average cost of research on a new drug is TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS- and that is before it gets on the market! Once it gets to the point where humans test it they usually pay healthy human volunteers. In the case of rare diseases, people are so desperate they will volunteer. In childhood cancer, around 80-90% of children will be enrolled in a trial of some sort, as opposed to less than 20% of adults. We will do anything to save our children.


Cats and dogs are not used as much for drug testing purposes because they do not metabolize things the same way people do. So animals you may keep as a pet are not used as often. Sometimes they do use primates- and I am personally not as happy about that. I remember seeing awful old experiments from the 50s and 60s where monkeys were held bound and forced to inhale cigarette smoke so they could study the effect. NOT happy with that and in that respect I am glad groups like PETA stepped in.


That said- I lost half my family to diseases like cancer and heart attacks and stroke when I was a teen. My aunties and uncles hit forty and dropped like flies. Am I glad we now have drugs to prevent stroke and MI? DAMN STRAIGHT!


If I had cancer, would I care about the mice? Don't think so.





Bottom line- we need to know if drugs work, and we need animals to test our development. People must be protected from companies that make potentially harmful things (and herbals/supplements are worst because the FDA doesn't regulate them the same way, thank you Bill Clinton!).


But I believe the animals should be treated with respect and dignity as much as possible.
Reply:no it is cruel and they deserve to be looked after not tested
Reply:much more than humans.