November
07
Not Everyone is Against Animal Testing
Is he bold or is he crazy? Here’s an Oxford-based neurosurgeon who is publicly calling for
more animal testing. He’s even advocating the use of animal testing for cosmetics! This happened during a speech in front of a rally organized by Pro-Test, a group that supports animal testing for research. I wonder how this story would’ve played out if it happened in the United States.
Does animal testing upset YOU? Or do you think the testing prevents human suffering? Leave a comment and let the rest of the Beauty Brains community know what you think.
Loading ...
cristavalentine mankey Says:
I’m an animal lover with a dog, cat, and several reptiles. I hate the idea of animal testing, but… I believe sometimes it is nessacery and should only be used when there is no alternative. All animals should be treated with care and decency. Ofcourse this should be when it is for something to save lives. As much as I like.love my cosmetics I don’t think we need animal testing on them
lori Says:
with so many alternative ways to test which are more accurate than animal testing, there’s no reason it should be done any longer. the barbaric ways animals are abused shows how little we (humans) care for others and the world. if we don’t protect the animals from torture, what’s next?
Gloria Says:
Well.. I love animals too, but I studied microbiology and immunology in college, and without animal testing, my major would not exist. Almost everything is done on animal models, except the H. pylori test where it was done on a human (the human, the research scientist, did end up getting a Nobel price, but he drank H. pylori himself to prove that the bacteria caused ulcers, which he did get, NOT FUN!).
So see how I’m so conflicted?
My neighbor who knew that I want to go into cosmetics asked me this question, and even now I don’t know how to answer.
On a lighter note, a small mouse decided to run into my work lab a few days ago! We figured it wanted to be a lab rat like his buddies! And no… we didn’t just dissect him there, we captured him and let him loose across the street.
M?ndy Says:
Well, I’m a true animal-lover, and I would definitely like to see people stop treating animals like they are less than humans. No one would test on babies, or mentally-challenged people! If animals had voice boxes, it would all be different.
Unseen they suffer.
Unheard they cry.
In agony they linger.
In loneliness they die.
STOP ANIMAL TESTING!!! I say if it’s so important to test, do it on a volunteer! Until then, stop declaring one life more important than another.
Oh, but I’m sure there are some “gentle” testings, but any time an animal is kept primarily in a cage, it’s not a good situation. If it’s something the lab person wouldn’t bring their dog in for, don’t do it.
Becka Says:
I believe some animal testing is necessary. And I also believe that the extremists should put more effort into stopping abuse of pets by their owners rather than just the testing practices.
Sindi Says:
Animal testing is barbaric and outdated. If scientists really want to know the true effect these things have on humans, than use humans. Lord knows we have enough rapists and murderers sitting in our prison system…put them to use. There is no reason to torture innocent animals for our satisfaction.
Cate Says:
I’d like to know how many people that commented are vegetarians…
I believe that some animal testing is necessary…especially if we can come up with a cure for cancer or anything serious like that. Cancer has hit my family pretty hard over the years.
Cosmetics…well…I think that is another story. I’d rather have known my grandmother instead of having no wrinkles..
Gloria Says:
I think it all comes down to choosing between 2 evils. I definitely don’t support testing cosmetics on animals, and I won’t do it if I end up in a cosmetics lab. But all the ingredients that are used now have been tested on animals to prove their safety, otherwise they wouldn’t be used now.
As for the comment on using convicted felons as test subjects, here’s the thing, their environment and genes aren’t controlled, meaning there is too many variables. Plus, can you manipulate the genes of a grown person? The answer is no.
Many immunology and genetic research now depends on the use of transgenic mice, which is bred for the purpose of understanding the functions of various genes that affect everything, from our immune response to various strains of HIV to cancer! If you say that we should use humans instead of rats or guinea pigs for that type of research, then are you advocating breeding human babies for research purposes? We don’t even have to go that extreme… do you want to purposely infect humans with HIV? Can you IMAGINE the outrage everyone will have if the government allows that?!??!???
I’m sorry for sounding harsh, but that is the reality of science. Understand science and how it helps YOU first before you question its ethics. And yes, scientists are ethical and we’re just trying to understand our world and ourselves a little bit more.
Lucy Says:
We need animal testing. It’s a hard, even horrible, unavoidable fact. The cosmetics that claims that aren’t tested in animals are just using the information that have been recollected over the years about the ingredients they use, only that someone else did the animal testing. Otherwise they couldn’t use them because they couldn’t warrant the safety of their products. If that is not hypocrisy I don’t know what is.
In the case of medicine even when we do those test some drugs are took from the marked because something we didn’t see in the animal and tissue cultures show up. Imagine if we didn’t do those experiments in the first place. Actually most of the drugs tested in the pharmaceutical industry never get to the market so, do we really want to try all those in people? I personally don’t.
I don’t get the point of people against this kind of research. Specially when is obvious that if they get sick they will go to a hospital and receive drugs. Drugs tested on animals. They claim that nowadays we can go though all that research without “torturing” animals. That’s just propaganda. The true is that we can’t and torturing is really a harsh word in the subject. If we actually can do the research without the animals (and be equally safe for humans) we will do it. Will be easier. No long meetings with the committees of ethics finding the most humanitarian non-painful way to do the test, possible less expensive and a lot easier to handle.
Does all this help the animal in anyway? Actually the medicine that the veterinary applies to our beloved pets or livestock comes for the same research so, in some indirect way, help them too.
I suppose is hard to understand my point of view as much as is for me to understand anti-vivisectionists. But even if I’m not in the pharmaceutical field myself I look to the ultimate users every day. There are lot of people out there how live better for the drugs they take everyday or that only are alive because those drugs. In the case of cosmetics what worries my the most is that with the years we are prone to take more chances and if there’s even the slim possibility that someone get hurt because a mascara or tan cream doesn’t get enough testing… then where is an issue for me.
thebeautybrains Says:
It seems ironic that a group like PETA protests animal testing and experiments and yet they run shelters in which they kill thousands of animals each year.
Karen Says:
I am a vegetarian because I have felt since I was a little kid that eating animals was gross. I am against all forms of animal testing. I believe that we should have limits to the suffering we inflict on others in this world. If we just agreed that it was wrong to hurt those who can not defend themselves I know that the brilliant scientists and clinicians of the world could find new methods of solving our health problems and also continuing to provide us with great fun stuff like cosmetics. By the way, I think you are wrong about PETA killing animals in shelters. I think that they are a leader in promoting no-kill shelters and I have found a huge trend in our area of humane groups trying smarter, kinder and more effective means of controlling the pet overpopulation problem.
Thank you, Karen
thebeautybrains Says:
Karen, is that just your opinion that we are wrong about PETA or do you have some research/published information that says PETA does not kill unwanted animals? Our source is based on both the PETA website in which they advocate euthanasia for unwanted animals, and the Virginia state government who collected information from PETA related to the number of animals they “put to sleep” (killed) over the last 5 years.
Incidentally, brilliant scientists are working on the problem of replacements for animal testing. We really have no desire to test on animals. However, there are no suitable replacements yet. Perhaps soon but nothing yet. In fact, in the EU there is a law that is supposed to ban animal testing of cosmetics by 2009. This will not likely go into effect specifically because there are no suitable alternatives.
I wonder where you draw the line? For example, why don’t animal rights groups go after exterminators who’s only reason for existing is to kill defenseless animals like mice and rats?
annette Says:
ANIMAL TESTING IS WRONG ! IT MUST STOP
Monica Says:
“But all the ingredients that are used now have been tested on animals to prove their safety, otherwise they wouldn’t be used now.”
“We need animal testing. It’s a hard, even horrible, unavoidable fact. The cosmetics that claims that aren’t tested in animals are just using the information that have been recollected over the years about the ingredients they use, only that someone else did the animal testing. Otherwise they couldn’t use them because they couldn’t warrant the safety of their products. If that is not hypocrisy I don’t know what is.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think you guys are taking into account the ingredients that are being tested. We’re talking about products that use synthetics and petroleum-based ingredients that are tested on animals to see just how much humans can tolerate, so that they can add it to our cosmetics. I’m pretty sure companies that create truly natural products don’t have the need of animal testing, since most information come from human experiences (for example, essential oils).
The same goes for medicine. They’re filled with unnecessary chemicals that may damage other body areas, or that gives us terrible side effects. Again, they are just testing how much humas can tolerate the crap they fill the products with. And regarding cancer, the cure could be found in nature, but companies certaintly would not make as much profits from it than they would with their expensive medicine. There is more information about it on the web, just look for it.
The reason why people are outraged with animal testing is BECAUSE ITS CRUEL. These animals are caged, bored, treated unhumanely, and their health/safety is certantly not a concern to the testers.
thebeautybrains Says:
Monica,
You are wrong.
All ingredients used in cosmetics (natural or not) have been tested on animals. The US government requires that manufacturers be able to prove that the products they sell are safe for human use. The only data they accept to prove safety is animal testing. Until legislation changes, that is a fact.
Medicine and cosmetics are not “filled with unnecessary chemicals”, they are filled with the least amount of chemicals possible to create a safe and effective product. Extra chemicals means extra cost and companies try to make as much profit as possible by removing chemicals from their formulas.
It’s ridiculous and naive to suggest the cure for cancer could simply be found in nature. Scientists around the world have been investigating cancer looking for cures (in nature and in the lab) and haven’t come up with much. The answer isn’t simple. In fact, cancer isn’t simply one disease. There are thousands of different diseases that are classified as “cancer”. There will not be a single cure.
Unless you are someone who has done animal testing, how do you know how the animals are treated and what the testers think about? Have you merely read someone else’s account of animal testing and allowed them to fill your head with their opinions. Do some research yourself before parroting someone else’s opinion like a robot. It’s OK to think for yourself.
It’s the height of arrogance for you to make claims about animal testing unless you’ve personally been involved with it. Certainly, it’s understandable that you think animal testing is cruel but it’s not such a black and white issue.
Ruth Says:
Monica,
You are right and are the voice of reason on this site. “Beautybrains” needs more brains.
Le Mer Says:
The simple fact is cosmetics are for vanity and they are not “needed”. Thus testing on animal for vanity sake is cruel but about it. It is not a “grey” area. No one ever died not using cosmetics. I am in the industry and have an extensive knowledge of the business of cosmetics and still believe no one will die if they choose to not by into the culture of vanity. Yet animals being torchered to support vanity is clearly immoral.
Katie Says:
thebeautybrains,
You say that unless we had direct encounter with animal testing, we can’t speak about it? There are SO MANY underground videos made of “ethical scientists” that you so willingly defend. They TORTURE, yes TORTURE ( no other word will describe what they do) the animals. Monkey get their heads bashed between two metal boards to give them brain damage, then operate on them and see the results. Is that ETHICAL???? I hate people like you that defend animal testing for the sake of science. Animals are NOT on this earth for testing!!!
Just because they can’t say STOP, doesn’t mean they don’t feel pain.
Here’s an underground video (one of many). Go on youtube and put in “animal testing” you will find plenty more evidence of how the animals are really treated!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xV72w6oEYI
Left Brain Says:
Katie, we don’t hate you. Thanks for the link. I still don’t see things as black and white as you do, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. For the record, we here at the Beauty Brains don’t support torture.
We believe that animal testing should be stopped when possible. We believe that scientists should develop methods for replacing animal testing with non-animal alternatives that are suitably predictive.
However, those methods do not yet exist. Animal testing is still needed for pharmaceuticals & new cosmetics. I agree that people do not NEED cosmetics. And people won’t die if all animal testing of cosmetics were stopped. There just wouldn’t be any new products. Which may be just fine. I’m not sure everyone in the world would agree.
Ilsa Says:
i love animals but humans need to hold on to life, its natural human nature. its how things were made. if we do test on animals, it also helps vets who can then cure animals. if a species is getting naturally extinct, scientists research about it and try to provide a better environmet. so we not only kill animals, we also care for them so everything balances out.
Fuzz Says:
So, what cosmetic product is out there that the anti-animal testing people know has been tested on animals? Being part of this industry, I don’t think animal testing is as wide spread as some of the above accounts seem to think. One astute person above noted, a good portion of personal care products are not animal tested but their ingredients are. We don’t test those ingredients over and over on animals. Except for very new ingredients, we have the data we need already. However, let’s hope all those ingredients don’t interact negatively. That’s the gamble the consumers are taking when they buy a product not tested on animals. Maybe one should ask, “If it is not being tested on animals, then how how do I know it is safe to use?” Protecting animals is good but do we do it by not protecting the people!? And in case anyone was wondering - yes, our industry does test on people, and yes we do use alternative invitro testing and yes we do molecular modeling to estimate safety. We do as much non-animal testing as we can and as the BeautyBrains folks pointed out - we will do more as soon as reliable alternatives are available. One more side comment - personal care products are not just for vanity. Many protect your health through hygiene, UV protection, moisturization, etc. Keep brushing your teeth, washing your hair and using bodywash and soap, for you and those around you.
Cyd Says:
i HATE animal testing.
i make a point not to buy products from any company that endorses it, or sells products that have been tested. the tests are cruel and uneccesary, imagine the pain those animals must go through? why because they cant fight back.. imagine if they did the things they do to those animals to humans, it would be called torcher and the culprits would be despised whereas when this is done to innocent animals they are called scientists? i dont understand? maybe if more people knew what went on in those labs, they would buy their lip gloss or mascara from a more compassionate company, one test is called LD50 and it involves force-feeding animals lipstick until it kills them, is this a fair prize for beauty? because i dont see that as beautiful at all.
Annonymous Says:
There is no reason why animal testing should be happening! Humans and animals are different things, we react differently to certain things compaired to animals. If we need something researched or tested humans should be used to be tested on, not some innocent animal who will end up dying for our satisfaction of a product. Some animals can stay outside all winter and be fine, if a human did that they’d freeze. We can eat very much differently then animals, for example, some wildlife eat raw meats, if we did we’d simply die. We’re different from animals in so many ways, so how are we the same when it comes to reactions with products. Seriously, do we really need another new mascara or shampoo, theres enough out there.
So stop being a [expletive deleted] and deal with your own problems, test on the species that will be using the product.
Even if its a new medication or something like that, there are so many people that could be used to replace animals, such as the death penalty, use them. Thats kinda lame, i know but there are alternatives to testing on animals. They’re not going to get any use out of this except there lives coming to an end.
Ashley Says:
I am completely against animal testing, and any form of it. I am also a vegetarian. I have loved animals all of my life, and I will stand my my opinion forever.
I use completely vegan and non-animal tested products for a long time now, and my skin started to clear up, and I felt spiritually comforted by the thought of purity of the products I use.
These natural products have NO animal ingredients or synthetic materials in them to begin with and I have NEVER once had a negative reaction. If scientists and organizations for animal testing say it is so important, how are some cancer research foundations and TONS of cosmetic products not testing on animals?
all science put aside-it is morally wrong to captivate and test (humane or not) on any animal for any reason.
from CaringConsumer.com:
“These tests are not required by law, and they often produce inaccurate or misleading results—even if a product has blinded an animal, it can still be marketed to you.”
“Fortunately, scientists have developed sophisticated product tests that are faster, cheaper, and far more accurate than blinding and poisoning tests, which were developed in the 1920s. Human cell cultures and tissue studies (in vitro tests) and artificial human “skin” and “eyes” mimic the body’s natural properties, and a number of computer virtual organs serve as accurate models of human body parts.”
Also I have read an artical in Vegetarian times on Episkin. L’Oreal has developed this. To learn more visit this site:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/episkin_growing.php
-Ashley
thebeautybrains Says:
Ashley,
While scientists are working on alternatives to animal tests, the technology isn’t so advanced that it could completely replace animal testing. If it could, cosmetic companies wouldn’t do animal testing anymore.
And the companies that say they don’t test on animals are not being completely straight with you. They just use chemicals that were tested on animals years ago.
It’s also probably not correct that you’re using cosmetics completely free of “synthetic compounds”. But we could give a better estimation of the formulas if you told us the brand name and gave a list of ingredients.
Ashley Says:
The fact that people still use animal testing seems to me that it is much cheeper than investing time and money to produce other effective alternitives. I could be wrong, but, I have done much research on animals (especially in the meat and dairy industry, and im just using this as a similar example) and people in the meat industry try to cut costs and do things the cheapest way possible.
There are over 600 companies currently NOT doing animal testing. Even though they might have at one time, they have completely stopped and spared the lives of plenty animals; however, as far as the “trust” issue goes, companies risk heavy lawsuits and lost customers if they are found testing on animals. And there are plenty of undercover investigations and whistle blowers (on the lookout to report any animal testing to companies lieing to consumers)Basically, you can not trust anybody.
Make desisions for yourself ladies, do what you feel in your heart is right.
As far as the company I use, It is called Lush cosmetics, and I only use a handfull of their products. I use my very own recipies at home. I subtley change haircolor by useing lemons, and face masks made from avacados or oatmeal that I have picked up online.
Melissa Says:
I believe animal testing is wrong! Why would anyone want to do that to any animal, no matter what kind it is its wrong to do that to animals. It is just like animal cruelty.
Lottie Says:
Although I am only twelve, i feel very strongly that animal testing is completly wrong. People say “its for the benifit of mankind” but some of these unatural “scince experiments” are so grotesque that i bear not metion them. We do not need this stupid testing! If it was for a medicine to help people from dieing/suffering then it would be ok to save millions of people by using 10 animals but its only cosmetics… MAKEUP! Make up is not necessary for “the benifit of mankind” …. yea it may look nice.. but next time you put your mascara on and eyeliner…. think, what animals have been creuly treated, that are suffering and may even be dead to let you wear this.
Lottie Says:
I agree with you melissa!
Kate morgan Says:
Q) how do people react when a human kills another human? A)they lock the criminal up and make him suffer.
Q) what do humans do when another human kills helpless animals. A) NOTHING.
All the power that the goverment have and the support they get off the public and they do NOTHING!!!!!
thebeautybrains Says:
Kate,
PETA kills thousands of animals a year in animal shelters and yet people still donate money and support them. Why isn’t this organization being shut down by animal lovers?
Ashley Says:
Dear Beauty Brains,
Please check on this link for information about your latest question.
PETA site
The result of animals being put in shelters and ultimately end up being euthanized is partly because of not spaying or neutering your companions.
Peta also has a new campaign called ABC (animal birth control)
any one who is considering adopting a pet PLEASE do not adopt from pet stores or breeders, spay and neuter your pets.
I hope the following links are helpful to all.
-Ashley
Anna Says:
Today are killed 50 to 100 million animals worldwide in a year in the name of science. I realy do not think animal testing is right i think that if there is a cure that can save lives then keep cheking it and see what 2 substances go together and what substances do not and i am shure that there are some people that would volentier to give there lives to reserch but why take animals lives. They can not tell you if they are willing or not but people can. If I hade a choice then I would prefere they you test on me not on animals.
reachforthestars Says:
i know that testing on animals for medicine purposes is required by law, but if companies like body shop, revlon, clinique and A&G have found ways not to test on animals, THEN WHY ARE OTHER COMPANIES NOT USING THAT METHOD? i have never had any problems what so ever with those products.
thebeautybrains Says:
Did you read the post and subsequent comments? Companies like the Body Shop only use chemicals that are already tested on animals so they don’t test their finished formulas.
The only companies who continue to do animal testing are those that are creating NEW products. Companies that don’t use animal testing use only chemicals that have already been tested on animals and don’t create any new technology. The products they made in the 90’s are still the same ones (except a different fragrance or color) that they use now.
Things are rarely so simple as you imply.
Cady Says:
Heyy! i am against animal testing and i really thing that it should be illegal to test on animals! Accept like the stuff that could save our lives, ‘cuz thats important but besides that i think its completly wrong!
Jugaaa!!! Says:
I am soo against animal testing… it is like soo wrong and those poor animals shouldnt suffer and face that. U never know if the product is bad or good. FIGHT THE POWER!! peace out~~
Charlotte Says:
I’m from England, and my boyfriend is an undergraduate chemist at Oxford Uni so the last three years I’ve been fairly in touch with the animal testing protests going on there. I’m against animal testing for cosmetics and I try to shop ethically according to this stance. For medical purposes is another matter, a grey area. In general I would love for alternatives to animal testing to be developed further until we can stop animal testing for good. And I am currently aiming to work in primate conservation once I graduate. The fact that this Aziz bloke condones testing for cosmetics on the basis that we’ve been using cosmetics for years and they are part of human culture is disgraceful…
On the other hand, I’d like to make the point that the situation in Oxford is extremely volatile largely due to the animal rights protestors there hindering the cause, rather than helping. There are a number of completely irrational acts, such as the burning down of college boat houses or the digging up of granny’s graves, which just means that people associate animal testing/vegetarianism/fairtrade shopping with crazed, tripped-out drug abusers who live off the dole and are good for nothing. The protests also target the wrong groups of people- undergraduate students and members of staff of departments where no animal testing is practised or even related in some cases, showing they haven’t done their homework properly. My boyfriend has received verbal abuse from the protesters on numerous occasions- but he has the same stance as me on animal testing, he’s been a vegetarian for well over a decade now and he absolutely loves animals. What do they expect to achieve from this insane behaviour? The problem needs a more logical, rational approach if any animal rights group is going to win over more people because currently protesters just deter people from getting involved.
On another note, a “friend” of mine (not anymore) once told me her stance on animal testing was that it was fine for cosmetics, but not for medical purposes because cosmetics were a luxury and therefore it was more acceptable to kill an animal for that than for our own survival. There are nutters on both sides of the fence it would seem.
ryhjghTT Says:
ANIMAL TESTING….STOP!!!!
Lauren Says:
i believe it is one of the worst things on earth. i’d rather animal testing end than war.
animals are so helpless; and they don’t deserve to be tested on for products we use.
i wish the goddamn stupid f***ers would test on people; seeing that the products are used on humans.
our world is full of dumba** people.
and the population of ‘dumba** people’ is 80% people that are cruel to animals.
>.
AGAINST ANIMAL TESTING Says:
HOW CAN YOU NOT BE AGAINST ANMAL TESTING??!!! YOU ARE RIDICULOUS!! HOW CAN YOU NOT???? MILLIONS OF ANIMALS ARE KILLED EVERY YEAR. THINK OF ONE OF YOUR ANIMALS BEING PUT THROUGH THE SAME SITUATION!!!
YOU DISGUST ME!!!
alicia Says:
animal testing is horrible and it makes me think, why do people do it! obviously the people who animal test are stupid, self-centred and obnoxious people! they dont care who or what they hurt. they just want to make money! in my opinion i would rather be poor than hurt animals and be rich!
Ana Says:
u know i don’t think that animal testing is very uncalled for cuz there is so many other ways to test cosmetics instead of testing it on poor innocent animals.i just can’t believe how cruel people can be to animals.
kelsi Says:
ANIMAL TESTING IS CRUEL AND INHUMAINE!! i think that if we keep testing on animals what is going to stop us from using humans later? it may become a ripple effect, someonr will decide animals aren’t good enough and start using humans. then people will finally see how incerdibly wrong it is.
bo bo Says:
animal testing is wrong. we should use some of the alternatives that we have come up with instead of the poor little animals.
Christine Says:
I have 3 horses 2 cats and 1s about to have babies 3 dogs and 48 guppies and i think animal testing because that crap they test is not eveb for animals so of course their bodies will react different SO STOP THE ANIMAL TESTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
its mean
Fuzz Says:
Exclamation marks, emotional outbursts and name calling are not going to stop animal testing. What will stop animal testing are reliable alternatives. Instead of maligning the companies that use animal testing to protect the public, encourage toxicologists to create alternative methods. Chemical companies are full of chemists, not toxicologists. Most chemical companies that have animal testing run (and many do not) are not running these tests themsleves. These tests are run by outside companies. The chemical and manufacturing companies would be happy to use alternative methods if someone would develop some that reliably predict human safety.
Some good news is that the NIH and EPA are getting together to begin doing just that. If you are interested, obtain and read the article below.
Science 15 February 2008:
Vol. 319. no. 5865, pp. 906 - 907
DOI: 10.1126/science.1154619
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Policy Forum
TOXICOLOGY:
Transforming Environmental Health Protection
Francis S. Collins,1*† George M. Gray,2* John R. Bucher3*
We propose a shift from primarily in vivo animal studies to in vitro assays, in vivo assays with lower organisms, and computational modeling for toxicity assessments.
——————————————————————————–
1Director, National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892;
2Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460;
3Associate Director, U.S. National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
Anna Says:
I DO NOT AGREE WITH ANIMAL TESTING IT IS CRUL AND NOT RIGHT. And if the animals could talk i think they would disagree because they are helpless and can not say no. say no to all the things crul people put them through. This is coming from a 13 year old girl and i think this is very very very very crul.
Daytona Says:
I thoroughly read each of these replys,Thanks to all, you have helped me to write a theses on Against Animal Testing =)
gigglepots Says:
READ…
thanx as well!!!
i used this info for my sci essay…
i have been to loadz of sites and read hundreds of opinions, & i think now that animal testing is not right, but necessary in some cases. uk has some of strictest rules on animal testing in the world, and as long as animals treated humanely in labs i think its ok.
but cosmetics-we dont need no more of them-who needs another hairspray or lip gloss???
but for things like medicines i think that we need it-it better than testing on humans-but only when there really is no alternative e.g. in vitro testing…
this is where i get confused:
About 100 monkeys dying are worth thousands of people walking. Let’s suppose that’s a fair trade. What happens, however, if we start playing around with the numbers? Are 100 monkeys dying worth 100 people walking? What about 100,000 monkeys against 20 walkers? What basis do you use to make a calculation such as that in the first place? If I’m in a wheelchair, how much suffering am I entitled to cause to benefit myself?
ahhhhhhhhh!!!
its so complicated. who are we to judge what a life is worth anyway? or because we have the capacity to think like this it means we naturally have the right to decide????
but 1 thing i am sure about is this:
both sides of the argument can easily be manipulated. If, say, the anti-testing protesters disappeared, the government would probably not be so tight with animal testing regulations, and conditions for the animals could become really bad. I also think that a lot of the truth about animal experimentation is swept user the carpet, and that if the public knew more about it they would be able to make a better calculated opinion, which I think we deserve. After all, the public are the people who use the end products of animal testing, so we of all people should know the truth.
xxx anyway thanx for comments ^_^*
Left Brain Says:
One thing I wonder about all the people who have posted comments about how animal testing is cruel. Are you vegetarians? Why aren’t you outraged by all the restaurants in the world that kill millions of animals each year just so people can have food?
People don’t need to kill animals to live healthy. They can sustain themselves perfectly fine on a diet that comes from plants. So, why aren’t there protests against McDonalds?
Brooklyn Says:
ok, to all the idiots out there who are defending animal testing, go do some research. i had to write a whole frickin paper and do a presentation on animal testing, so i know what i’m talking about. those animals get hurt bad. they suffer as much as you and me. there is nothing good about animal testing. in fact, people who use animal tested products have a sixty three percent chance of dying or becoming seriously ill/damaged. animal testing is very innaccurate, and to all the people who don’t know this; THERE ARE REPLACEMENTS. to the people who know this fact; you are awesome. i wasn’t an animal “protector” until i did this essay and it has changed my views entirely. jusst because animals can’t talk doesn’t mean they don’t suffer. i’m only 13 years old, and yet i ask you this as a person who has seen and experienced the cruelties of this world: what are you going to do about this? what can you do to save these animals? what can you give so that these animals have hope? please help the poor and unfortunate.
(beautybrains, go get a life)
Brooklyn Says:
beautybrains, i have to tell you some things;
1) those animals tested on are way smarter than you
2) you have as much common sense as a rock
3) how an idiot like you can even surf the internet is beyond me
4) go to he** for supporting animal testing
5) shut the he** up
oh, and by the way, i’ve got two fingers for you and they aren’t thumbs up
Brittany Says:
OBVIOUSLY u surf the web brooklyn!!
Charlie x Says:
i am only young and i hate animal testing.. the things those poor little things go threw is horrible… i love all my animals and i wiuld hate for them to even see what them animals go through let alone actually go through it… if i had the chance i would love to save them all and make them fnd another way of testing the products and drugs…
STOP ANIMAL TESTING
Brittany Says:
i am only in my teens but i also hate animal testing i believe that it is cruel and inhumane, whoever tests on animals should go to he**. I am VERY against animal testing!!
Monica Soto Says:
I think that animal testing is the worst thing in this world!!
Can you imagine yourself dying slowly, suffering in a cage. This is the most awful thing humans can think of!!
Linz Says:
I think animal testing should be banned for most the sh*t its used for. yeah its probably true that all the companies that don’t test on animals use products and stuff that once was tested on animals, so why do we still need to test the same crap over and over on innocent animals, it was tested once supposedly ‘proven’ that it is safe so why do they need to do it again? i have done so many assignments on animal testing for so many different classes and each time i find out something new. and each time i have researched about it i find out other ways that they can test instead of animals that are more accurate and cheaper. so all those people saying they aren’t go look up what your saying and find your evidence to prove that their aren’t alternatives, because you wont find it, you’ll just prove yourselves wrong. go on i dare you, i bet you, you will find what i am saying is true and that you are full of it.
everyone who is against animal testing should help boycott a company called procter and gamble as they are one of the biggest and main companies that test, and they dont treat the animals with respect.
gee x Says:
omg im doing researh on animal testing im in class now i cant belive how horrible it is i mean how dare they use rabbits and mice animal are gougus they shold not have to suffer BECAUSE OF US WANTING MAKE UP !!!!!!! X I LOVE ANIMALS <3 <3 <3 X
Winnie Says:
While I am against animal testing for cosmetics, I am surprised at reading some of the comments on here. The majority of them seem to be attacking the beautybrains and sound unresearched, poorly worded, and inflammatory. I cannot believe the gall the one poster had to write about trying to test products on convicted felons. Ever heard of cruel and unusual punishment? These people may be bad, but they still have rights.
How many of you people will be willing to give up eating meat? What about wearing leather? How many of you actually purchase non-tested products? How many of you even make sure your pets are spayed/neutered?
The fact is, natural or not, every ingredient in every product must be tested. That is required by law. Many of the products used in non-tested products have been tested long ago and have been proven safe. While scientists are developing newer ways to test things without harming animals, the fact is, none of these techniques have been perfected for large-scale use. If we didn’t have animal testing, we’d have had to use humans.
And the fact is, I don’t want to put a human through a clinical trial of a drug that I didn’t test. Giving a baby a new, untested treatment therapy that killed it would cause me oodles of grief and guilt, whereas if I used a mouse, I wouldn’t feel nearly as bad. That’s the truth of it. And I’m a leather-avoiding, pet spaying vegetarian.
LaurenAC Says:
Preface:
Both my parents are doctors and very involved in and knowledgeable about biomedical animal research. Please do not accuse me of not knowing the real facts.
I used to get Botox for migraine headaches (plus to look younger, even though I am only 21), however I do not believe animals should suffer and die so I can be rid of headaches. I obviously no longer get Botox.
While I wish all animal experimentation would stop, I grudgingly accept that animals may be used to save people from death. (However, my father, who has MS, is opposed to animal research on his behalf.)
However….
It is completely unacceptable when animals are forced to die for the sake of individual vanity. I’m talking about development of medicines like Acutane, or testing for breast implants, or (worse) make-up. No one ever died because they had acne. Yes, it must suck to have bad skin. But should animals die so you can look better? I have to say no.
But what about implants for breast cancer survivors?, some may ask. I just can’t accept that animals are tortured and killed so these women “can live a normal life.” I am flat-chested and live a completely normal life, amazingly even without breasts!
It also upsets me that animals are used to ease/cure a person’s (non-fatal) health problems, such as lazy eye (many cats were killed to develop treatment for this).
Furthermore, their use in research for problems caused by poor lifestyle choices (e.g. heart disease) is (to me) ethically disgraceful. Amazingly, animals are used to test the safety of cigarettes! They are dying so that people can, in turn, poison and possibly kill themselves via smoking!
My grandmother, who now has a pacemaker, refused to alter her horrendously unhealthy diet. I keep reminding her to be aware of the many dogs who suffered and died so she could prolong her own life that she (obviously) did not respect enough to treat well in the first place (despite countless doctors’ warnings she never heeded).
I also object to using animals to find cures for HIV/AIDS, which is completely preventable, and (in the vast majority of cases) due to outright stupid behavior. Unless you are part of the infinitesimal minority who were: (a) raped, (b) born with HIV, or (c) recipients of tainted blood/organs etc., I am sorry to say that your getting AIDS was your own fault. Some may argue they “didn’t know their partner was infected.” Ignorance is no excuse. It is still that person’s fault s/he was infected.
My point? Animals should not die because we humans are too stupid to modify our own behavior. The way to cure AIDS is to stop the behavior that transmits it. The way to end heart disease is to not poison your body with fats and cholesterol. And so on for any infection/condition resulting from bad behavior choices.
Many feel entitled to use animals’ bodies because their own have failed. In a lot of cases, they did not respect the bodies they had in the first place.