This is a topic that's been on my mind for a long time and for the most part the debate of animal testing has all the ingrediants for controversy. Ultimately what this debate comes down to is that old question whether the few should suffer for the many and whether our own moral compass considers it wrong or not.

A few things that'll help you understand my point of view in this matter is understanding myself and I. For one I'm as stereotypically liberal as you can imagine and out of all my friends online and local there is the only one that has dominant conservative beliefs. So by now you probably have a good idea where I stand on this issue and if you guessed I'm against animal testing you're certainly right. At the same time however I didn't start this thread thinking the 'Testing on animals is wrong because it hurts them!' argument would work and I have some points which may even be . . . logical.

And just so you can understand I have just a little bit of credibility I'll go ahead and admit I hate PETA and I'll even throw in this little known fact that I hate monkeys. It's not because cute and fuzzy little animals that I like are harmed that I'm against animal testing, it's because I believe it's generally wrong even if it's towards animals I don't actually care about.

A final statement I'll make before I begin is that I hate statistics. There's a very good reason that the joke '666% of statistics are made up' is used a lot, because a lot of times statistics are false, especially when you consider the two major sources for statistics in this debate. PETA has absolutely no credibility as an 'animal rights' group but more as a cult and the other side is filled with corporations that really only care about efficiency, output and profit that basically latch on to the 'animal testing helps save lives!' so they can continue their ways. I could have piss coming out of my eyes and they still wouldn't care whether or not I'd have this problem fixed or not through animal testing.

One of the very first arguments to defend animal testing is that it helps saves lives and cures diseases. Sure, I'll buy that, but most times it's not out of helping and curing people that we test on animals, it's usually so your shampoo gets rid of that god damned dandruff. The exact same dandruff which shampoos were supposed to get rid of twenty years ago.

But I suppose a few animal casualties in the war against dandruff is fair, right? It won't save lives but it'll make your hair look better, if it works. And so when I imagine the situation it's a lot more amusing because in my head pops up the following:

Those defending it are ranting on how it'll cure cancer,

monkey's are given a makeover,

animal rights groups react hysterically on how the monkey is suffering the horrible fate of having shampoo applied to the scalp,

And in the very end the superficial people who believe an animal should suffer to make them look better are the wisest.

The more I think about this the more it seems to be the reality of the situation. We're arguing that it'll save lives and that animals shouldn't suffer, meanwhile the businesses are happy that cancer exists and the girls and boys who want better hair aren't getting involved with the mess.

Obviously I don't consider it fair to have an animal suffer for a product and the message behind my insanity is that basically, we've been testing products on animals for so long and really, has a lot of progress been made? For years we've been hearing these promises that the products would do certain things and again and again they fail to meet these promises. My sources on how animal testing is used for corporations more then helping people? Try remotely every product that doesn't say 'Doesn't test on animals.'

My second argument is that they're animals, which is basically the exact same argument on why it's all right to test on them, so here it goes. My second argument against testing on animals is that their bodies are different then ours and ultimately, if we put too much faith that our bodies will react the same way to a product as theirs then we'll have that come back to bite us in the ass. My sources? Certain birds can't eat rice, we can. Dogs can't eat chocolate, we can. Humans can smoke weed, and if animals could then it would probably be amusing.

You probably noticed by now that most of my arguments 'sources' are more backed up by our common knowledge as opposed to actual scientific facts. My logic behind this is that generally we all know that dogs can't eat chocolate and Peta nor corporations can bull shit this. Meanwhile scientific facts magically seem to change depending on the source they come from.

Now lets move on to medication. A lot of the time they won't do anything, at times they'll just fuck you up and when they actually do work it just so happens you'll need to take pills to counter the effects of the other pills. This argument can go hand in hand with the second one because I guarantee these were tested on animals and clearly the effects its had on them are fairly different.

Now to get to the point on why this argument even exists. To a certain extent this argument isn't necessarily just about whether testing on animals is wrong or not, it's also about whether it's morally right for a few to suffer for the many. It's very easy to argue something's for the greater good when we trade the joy and lives of a few for the many, and a lot of times we follow this logic. Afterall, if there is a killer on the loose and we kill him, we save the lives of a lot of people as opposed to letting him live where the individual continues killing.

Yeah, I'll buy that. But you know what, I have these two certain thoughts come to my mind that re evaluate whether this ideal is a golden one. It's in our nature to pick the most efficient and cheapest solution to every problem and all the time these cheap and efficient ways don't sustain us in the long run, they collapse just like a crappy chinese toy. All the time it's a lot easier to say few should suffer for the many, but it just so happens we forget that sometimes we make a few suffer not necessarily for the greater good, but just so we can enrich our lives with more luxuries.

All the time we say it's all right for one person to suffer, but we have yet to imagine our selves in that persons shoes, and then does this 'greater good' sound just? Justice is a beautiful lady who wears a blindfold. In one hand she carries a sword and in the other scales. She judges us not at random and she judges us not as the few that should suffer and the rest that shouldn't. She judges us on whether our existance is more of a burden to the rest, and she does this to restore balance. She is harsh, calculating, and absolute. It is not justice to draw out a lottery and pick at random who should and shouldn't suffer be it human or animal. It is justice to weigh all of us on the same scale, and separate those who torment the rest. So is testing on animals justice, can it be justified?

Speaking as an annoying liberal who has a relative fighting cancer I'll say that it's still wrong, even with a fellow family member at risk. Is it because I'm an animal nut? No, it's because I don't want to be a hypocrite who rants on what justice is and cannot follow it him self. We can say it's right for a few animals to suffer for humanity, or we can even say it's fair for a few humans to suffer for humanity, but in the end there are far more animals out there then humans and these animals have brought greater contributions to this world then we ever have. Plants grow, rabbits eat plants to stop them from over growing, Foxes eat rabbits to stop rabbits from over populating, so where do we fit in? We are a burden. Our number one justifications for our actions is always 'they're inferior, they're stupid.' And honestly, I don't like weighing someone's worth through intellect. Doing this is self righteous and concieted. Besides hurting most creatures for our own benefit we have actually not contributed anything to the world. We have tanks, porn, religion, scientists, and funny imaginary ideals, but the truth is, our fantastic discoveries never amounted to anything in the world. It's only amounted to our own benefits. We've out lived our uselessness and now that Led Zeppelin already released their album 'IV' years ago it's time we just went away gracefully.

If we argue that it's justice to test on animals then no, it's not, because justice would be for each and every human on this world to die. Is it preferred? No, it fucking isn't. I would love to play Fallout New Vegas before I die. Because of that I'm afraid I cannot agree that it's justice nor for the greater good.

Is it to save lives that we test on animals? No, it is out of selfishness. We grow attached to those we love and I'm quite sure if it mean't testing on other families instead of animals we'd resort to that as well.

Is it to improve our standards of living? No, it's greed. Corporations would do the same to pesky liberals like my self and pro capitalists would be cheering along side them.

And ultimately my final argument against animal testing is a very simple one.

Because I wouldn't want it to be done to me. And it's because I wouldn't want it to be done to me that I wouldn't wish such a fate on any creature. Well, except for maybe those people that have been dicking around with Duke Nukem for so long.

Jokes aside I want everyone to understand I put serious thought into this and I didn't just slap my self in the face and said 'Oh yeah, lets have all those people with cancer die for a few fuzzy animals!' I seriously have scarred in my mind of all the people that would probably die without any hope if my ideal was implanted. And at the same time I have this feeling deep down in my gut that every little thing I wrote here is going to bite me in the ass and I'll probably end up having testicular cancer.

I'm not kidding. So as opposed to relying so heavily on efficiency we should find new ways in which we can help other people. All the time fascinating discoveries are made and at times it doesn't require anyone to suffer to find them, it just requires imagination, determination, and scientists that are looking forward to actually helping instead of 'being the man that cured cancer!'


P.S - I'm currently downloading a Open Beta for DW Online (It's a guilty pleasure, I swear!) and getting this posted up was a bit of a hassle, I'll start replying to your opinions later once the download is complete.

It's funny you start this topic, now that I work for a drug company. And guesswhat do I do for them? I'm statistician! First, to clear up some facts...

Good statistics always says "we're n% certain that this is true". So if you bet on it being true and it turns out false, it's purely your fault for taking that gamble - we warned you. Statistics (and OR, for that matter) is widely misunderstood, mistaught and unappreciated. But if you take away those branches of math, everything will somehow stop working properly.
First of all, several species of animals are used and we know for a fact that, historically, almost all effects can be detected in animals that would appear in humans. Secondly, first human trials have doses hundreds or even thousands of times smaller than those used on animals (drug amount per unit of body weight).
Drugs always have varying medical effects on people. Don't make such blunt generalizations - the drug wouldn't be put into production because it wouldn't make profit for the company. Unless you happen to buy fake medicine produced in a modified dishwashing machine somewhere in Mongolia.
Side effects are accepted only if you're treating something serious. Most people would rather puke out half of their liver and lose their hair than die of cancer, for example. You wouldn't want to lose your hair just to get rid of a headache.

Back to animal testing... do you eat meat? Do you wear or use any items made of leather? Have you ever taken any 'conventional' medication? In fact, you may not know it, but your very existence might be possible only due to drugs - giving birth to a child is not an easy process for a woman's body. That's how we roll as a species - we use entities (both objects and other living creatures) for our advantage. If I were you, I'd be more concerned with people exploiting other people, which happens on a daily basis. One disgusting fact I found out is that in the UK, more money goes to animal charities than human charities.

When you take a pill against hay-fever, you are basically taking anti-hestamine; a molecule that occupies the receptors of your cells that would otherwise be occupied by hestamine - the stuff that causes the allergic reaction. So you're not really introducing a 'cure' - just a short-term solution that blocks the hestamine. You're absolutely right, conventional medicine is mostly about short-term solutions. Why? Because we're lacking foresight and it just provides such a good market to thrive in.

Why thank you for agreeing on the last bit n_n. I never really had hay-fever, sadly, so I can't quite understand what it's like nor what it does.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Oct 18 2010, 11:51 pm by lSHaDoW-FoXl.

For much of your wall of text, you seem to just be arguing against specific applications of animal testing (like all that talk about shampoo), rather then the practice itself.


Why not? Why shouldn't we weigh people based upon intellectual ability?

And the great thing is it doesn't matter at all what we think, reality is not a democracy. Reality is not shaped by individual belief and what people think.

Furthermore, even if you and a few other people weigh people based upon something else, that doesn't matter because survival of the fittest is still going to take effect, and the powerful and the smart will still be on top well the weak and the powerless suffer.

And I think that the last three billion years of life on Earth are evidence enough that the weak perish, well the strong and the fit survive. This is a part of reality rather people believe it or not.


No it isn't.

It would be conceited if we said that Earth is the center of the universe, and humans are the purpose of the universe. The reality is that there is probably somewhere in our incredibly vast universe, an alien race that is millions of years ahead of us, they just can't find us because it is like locating a subatomic particle in a haystack.


Why do you care about suffering?

Suffering is an intrinsic part of reality and it is a necessary phase in the evolution of life.


Since all of the non-human animals are stupid, all they have made is stupid contributions.


Consider that humans are animals too, so humans have a bunch of flaws too, flaws like the sex drive and therefore the need for porn, the competition for sexual partners and therefore violence and tanks, the need for food and therefore meat, etc.

Robot beings on the other hand don't have to have all of the flaws of humans.

Post has been edited 4 time(s), last time on Nov 4 2010, 12:54 am by jhuni.

Because we don't know what intellect is, and can't measure it.
Um, no. The evidence points to the fact that things find a niche to excel in. Those that compete for the same niche have to compete, but no matter how strong you are, you not going to outcompete the bacteria in your stomach.
Although I don't disagree with this statement, using it as a defense to cause suffering is weak.
You say this as though human contributions are better... Also, consider the fact that a vast majority of human inventions have been based around processes observed in animals. Classic monkey see monkey do.

The original quote was referring to the intellectual difference between humans and animals.

And, yes, I'd say the President of the U.S. is more intelligent than a Nigerian farmer, no matter what you think about intellect being unmeasurable.

Human contributions are limited by human capability, and we are mammals, so, yes, durr, we have a tendency to apply things seen in nature to power our own contributions. This doesn't mean that because we've based the model of a tank on an ant (just a fake example), the ant achieved something.

I completely disagree with shadowfox and believe that better animal testing than whatever it takes to go around it, because a human life should be valued far more than an animal life. I don't know why Cardinal went into essentially saying that suffering is alright because it's natural... but, Rantent, instead of answering point by point, might as well make an actual argument. Nitpicking on small points is just weak.

I wrote a long reply on this and then SEN was UPDATING. And I rage-quitted IdrA style.

Anyways, the pharmaceutical industry spends billions of US dollars each year in research and development alone. Once a drug is hypothetically 'found', it is tested on animals for efficiency, side-effects and general research. If the drug is found to either alleviate symptoms better than currently existing drugs, or if it is found to cure symptoms, the pharmaceutical company will then enter Phase 1 testing. In a Phase 1 test, a small number of humans are given extremely minimal dosages of the drug, about half of them are also given placebos (wikipedia: Placebo, if you're like 'huh, what?'.). Due to the tiny dosage administered to clients in a phase 1 test, the medical staff and scientists have to carefully monitor their patients for the symptoms and effects noticed in the animals. And of course, the company has to pay people they want to inject or drug up. Another thing to note is that it is extremely expensive to create drugs on a small scale basis (ie. for Phase 1 testing).

If and only if the drug is found to have similar effects in humans than in animals (which I beleive 84% of cases do (Source: WHO)) Then a Phase 2 test is initiated, in which the wider public are tested, in the same controlled and scientific manner and usually with varying dosages. This again costs a hell of a lot of money. And only after Phase 1 and Phase 2 testing is complete, can the Pharmaceutical company begin even contemplating marketing their drug. If the drug is found to cure whatever, but it costs £200 dollars to make a 5mg tablet? Chances are, they won't market it. Similarly if the drug costs £0.22c to manufacture a packet of 24 5mg tablets, but this packet will only sell for £1? The company might not market it...

This is AFTER spending those billions of dollars on researching and developing.

Once a company has discovered, researched, tested Phase 1 and Phase 2 and put the drug through extensive clinical trials - and decided to market it. That company retains the sole-trading right of that drug for (i think) 10 years. This is to allow the company to recuperate the costs it spent on developing and researching that drug. After this 10 years, any company in the world, anyone with money, anyone with business interests can start manufacturing the Drug under it's 'medical name', as opposed to it's 'brand name'. For example, I think Viagra is produced by Phizer and still has 2 or 3 more years of its 'sole-trading' period before it expires. After this period, there will be an influx of cheaper, and essentially, identical drugs on the market, for a fraction of the price.

And yet, you would complain that a few mice or monkeys are getting shampoed? Get real. Hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions are living in abject poverty, filthy living conditions - without access to clean water, clothing and the most basic of ammenities? Yet a sizeable number of people feel it is their god-given duty to protest the rights of ANIMALS? Cocaine smuggling, prostitution and human traficking is rife amongst large parts of Bolivia, Venezuela, Columbia and Ecuador... Blood diamonds and arms-trafficking solicits the murder and rape of hundreds of innocent human beings by hungry warlords in the Democratic Republic of Congo... The current war in Afgahnistan and previously Iraq, we (i speak for the United Kingdom here) were literally bombing the crap out of civilian neighbourhoods because 'we beleived there to be terrorists nearby'.

There are bigger problems in the world than the rights of a few mice and monkeys, my friend.

This is actually quite interesting from the pharmaceutical point of view. For one, that most all pharmaceuticals drugs are actually mixtures of two different drugs, one that helps your issue, and one that causes most, if not all, of the side effects. For you organic chemists out there, stereochemistry. Why? Because if they separated them, the drug would cost $260 as opposed to $60, and in turn you "might" get side effects.

So why does this have to do with animal testing? Well, animal testing with drugs is actually where a lot of the testing goes on nowadays. If you look it up, a lot of those "hair and makeup" companies actually dont use animal testing anymore. Some girl in my public speaking class gave a speech on it a couple weeks ago, and basically said only a few corporations use it still, even though testing on stuff other than animals is 10x more expensive.

Without animal testing, we have no idea how a drug will work, and basically, drugs would never be developed. A researcher might discover a molecule that cures cancer. However, that other molecule that can't be separated from it might cause instant death. You would never want to test this first on human subjects.

Animal testing might be cruel in a way, but without it, research would cost even more billions than it already costs, along with perhaps ending human lives.

I didn't read most of your wall of text, and I don't have anything I specifically want to add to the debate.

I just want to point out that you really haven't given a clear picture of what cosmetic testing on animals is really like. You've sort of talked about "monkeys getting makeovers" and have shampoo on their scalp.

No, it's more like a rabbit being born and trapped in a cage for it's entire life. Then, it's eye is held open and drops of shampoo are applied to the eye for hours at a time, testing to see what sort of concentrations cause what sort of effects, and if it'll do permanent damage to the rabbit's vision. Then the same sorts of tests get done directly on the skin - what happens if we leave this shampoo here for 4 hours, and then apply some more, and some more, and some more, and then in 3 days time see what has happened to the skin. Now lets adjust the concentration or formula slightly and do it all again.

It's a lot more horrific than what you vaguely imply. Shredder says that these sorts of things don't happen very much any more, and it's not surprising why - the practice is pretty barbaric.

Also, vivisection.

I want to explain to Cardinal how the "sole-trading rights" work. Drugs are patented as soon as the chemicals are discovered in R&D, long before phase one testing. They do this because if they keep it a secret and another company finds it, they lose their right to the patent. A patent is the exclusive right to use the technology that the patent covers. So the patent for viagara givers Pfizer the exclusive right to use the molecule for treatment of ED (Pfizer probably made the use a much broader description than this). Patents last 20 years, and once they expire, they are available for anyone to use. So the time a company gets exclusivity is dependent on how fast they can get it out to the market. So when the FDA tells pharmaceuticals that their drugs aren't ready for the market, drug companies not only have to spend billions more in R&D but they lose billions in potential revenue.

@Shredder: I don't know how accurate that number is. My dad works for a major drug company, and he does research on animals, rats mainly. He had to go up to Harvard Medical school to get trained in how to use new equipment and new techniques that involves cutting out the muscle tissue of rats. I think animal testing is fairly mainstream in the industry. Maybe the shampoo companies don't use it, but I'm fairly certain that big pharma does.

@dumbducky: Maybe you didnt get my point. Yeah big drug researching companies still use it. It's necessary. The corporations that have stopped using it mostly are the hair and body corporations, because they can get alternatives.

Could you please provide a source for this statement. I'm reasonably acquainted with the general ideas of drug development and I'm working with scientists on a daily basis, but I've never heard of anything like this. Why would you want to mix two drugs, if a drug is a complete product by itself? Maybe you mean the active ingredient? Still, that would not explain why one of them would help against a disease while the other would mainly cause side-effects.

He is talking about the active ingredient, the specific chemical(s) that actually do the work. I don't think what he's saying is actually applicable in the general case as he is implying. For some drugs it probably is, but for many drugs that have serious side-effects I'm absolutely certain the companies would at least give people the option of paying $60 for sideeffects or $260 without - they can always cream of extra profits that way. The fact that they don't generally do this indicates that it doesn't happen.

If you want an example (really the textbook example) of what he's talking about, chemically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

Enantiomers are difficult to separate because they have all the same physical properties except in chiral environments. Thus, they rotate light differently, and react differently in biological "handed" regions. The problem arises from the fact that the only way to separate two enantiomers is to use a chiral environment. This means either using chiral molecules in the synthesis, which of course all companies in their right mind do use, or separating the two compounds using a chiral chromatograph or other chiral separation technique.

It's not that they are adding the two compounds together, it's that both are always made together and separating the two is hard. However, there are side effects caused by the remedy as well as the enantiomer.