[Pureblade]

This came up as a topic in school, so I wanted to get some feedback and see what everyone else thought. Should scientists experiment on animals?

[Traver]

I'd say yes, as long as they are not hurting them on purpose (like seeing how many times you can hit a cow with an axe before it dies). Somehow I'm against testing on animals, because the animals might be hurt from it, which I don't like. But on the other hand, if those experiments can lead to a cure for, say, cancer, I think it would be okay.

I know I'm being a bit of a hypocrite and contradictional here, but I think it's hard to decide really.

[Zziggywolf5]

I say yes.
First of all, if we don't study on animals, what will we use, humans? Most people wouldn't volunteer for that either. And without testing, you couldn't release new medicines, at least without risking killing everyone who uses it. Medicine might come to a halt.
Testing needs to actually be helpful for people. Using animals for cancer or paralysis are fine, but cutting parts off to see what happens would be sick.

[Jarik C-Bol]

We already know what happens when you cut off that piece and wait to se what happens.
we tryed that a long time ago, back when people where "barbaric" or whatever.
so we dont do it anymore.

anyway, animal testing is important, because tesing on humans is dangerous, iresponsible, and foolish. (can kill people..)
so you say: "what about the inocent animals!!!?"
i say: well, most animals that we do testing on reproduce about 100 times faster than humans, they are not in any kind of risk of extinction. most of the tests done today are for medicines, they carefuly give a mouse cancer, and then try to use medicines and treatments to cure it. usualy there is very little pain for the creatures. true, some die, however, consider this:
if the mouse had been "free" what would have happend to it? it probly would not have lived as long. it might have been eaten by a cat or dog, or owl, or some other bird of prey, or might have gotten run over by a car, it might have drowned in a sewer.
real life is dangerous, and animals that are tested on are taken good care off and made as confortable as humans can make them.
and the testing might save your life somday.

[Pureblade]

Thats what I was thinking. If scientists experiment on animals that reproduce fast, they will probably live longer than normal and will also lead to cures that may save millions. But I also understand the other side...I dont like animal cruelty, and even if they died in the wild, they probably wouldn't suffer. It would most likely be a quick snap to the neck. Some scientists however experiment while the animal is still alive in some cases.

[Jarik C-Bol]

my point was, a very large portion of the experimenting done now is virtualy painless. unfortuneate as it may be, most cancer research has to be done while the subject is alive.
(side note, i've been witness to quite a few animals who where forced to suffer in nature, (injury doring a failed kill by a hawk ect) true, its not common, but thought i'd mention it)

[Hax the Cook]

s

[CongressJon]

Nope. No. No way.

I know that not all animal experiments are the kind of things you see on TV - where they dissect the things alive, expose them to intense radiation, etc. But some things can still be pretty inhumane. Remember Dolly? The cloned sheep? Took 'em hundreds upon hundreds of tries to get it right, and the tries that failed... it just wasn't right.

[Traver]

Nope. No. No way.

I know that not all animal experiments are the kind of things you see on TV - where they dissect the things alive, expose them to intense radiation, etc. But some things can still be pretty inhumane. Remember Dolly? The cloned sheep? Took 'em hundreds upon hundreds of tries to get it right, and the tries that failed... it just wasn't right.

Even if those sheep can save thousands if not millions of lives?

[©allum]

If it is for the benefit of humans, then I think it's ok.

But if they are testing weaopns etc. on them, that's not right.

People are in prision for a reason...

[Mobster101]

i think so. i mean if we didn't test on them what would we test on or who? now the thing of, "lets see what happens if we take its leg off and..." is wrong, but testing for cancer treatments is ok nin my book.

[Aaron]

I see no harm in it. It's just science. 'Nuff said