Testing on Animals?

Question

How far is it acceptable for Animal Rights Campaigners go in protesting against testing?

Is it right for them to endanger human life?

Answer 1

it is wrong to allow animal testing and i go to meny protests, but i never get so involved with it that a human's life is at stake. that's just stupid

Answer 2

I am against Cosmetic animal testing ( testing animals for Loreal and shampoo etc.) because it is clearly really cruel.

But I am pro animal testing if it is in order to cure diseases



I think animal rights protesters go WAY too far, they dug someones grave and ran off with it, what does that do?

All it does is make everyone think the protesters are really evil and cruel.



Also, these people don't have jobs, they live on benifits money from the government and dont work, so they drain the governments money so we have to pay more taxes, then they commit all these crimes and do bomb scares etc. and this means the government has to spend even more money.



I can see where protesters are coming from because I'm against cosmetic animal testing, but I think they go too far when they dig up graves and attack people who are merely builders who've been contracted to construct the building and aren't really part of what will go on in the building, its just stupid and cruel.



I also think that animal rights protesters go the wrong way about trying to get the publics sympathy, if you try and kill and hurt people all it does is make the public hate you and sympathise with the people you hurt, so its a really ineffective way of getting attention for your cause

Answer 3

Peacful protest is fine. While campaigners get very angry about what is happening in places like Huntingdon Life?? Sciences violent behaviour will PROLONG the time it takes to get more humane practices and eventually a ban in place.



There is now a group of scientists campaigning against animal testing because they think it is a waste of research funds. Tests on human tissue are far more reliable than animal testing which mostly pours a lot of money down blind alleys. I fear it may be necessary in a very few cases but most of the hundreds of thousand animals are being tortured for no good reason.

Licences are issued very easily and some of the experiments sound like a sadist's dream. It has been discovered that many people who start by torturing animals go on to harm people.



You can support medical research with a clear conscience by donating money to The Dr. Hadwen Fund for humane research and your (dead) body to the human tissue bank.

Answer 4

whilst i disagree with unnecessary testing on animals, i do think that a lot of good has come from and still coming from carefully controlled testing.

some of the research that is being done on animals cannot be done on humans yet.

testing on humans is the last testing ground and that is dangerous, look at those 4 men earlier this year undergoing medical testing.



animal activists have their point but some go the wrong way about getting it across to the public, endangering life no matter who it belongs to is definately wrong and they should be punished to the full extent of the law [which is not very far].

activists say that they are opposed to testing on animals, okay, BUT what do they take if they have a headache - paracetamol - which has had its ingredients tested on animals. if they have an illness that needs antibiotics - ingredients tested on animals.

perhaps they should stop and think about that before they use their shampoo, deodorant and shower gel and before they take that paracetamol for their headache or even the contraceptive pill or condoms and before they think about endangering life.



99.99999% of all artifically made products

[shampoos, gels, toothpaste, pills etc] have some ingredient no matter how small that has been tested on animals at some stage.

Answer 5

It depends what kind of testing you mean.



Testing cosmetics and their ingrediants on animals is totally wrong, has no need to happen (as we know by now that they're all OK) and should be stopped right now and banned, lifetime in jail (not the English version wither!) anda million pound fine if someone does continue.



Testing new drugs on animals, for the very first time, is ok - so long as the animals have enough space and aren't harmed in anyway that can be controlled ie check all variables BEFORE doing ANYTHING to any animal.



After the first tests have taken place, and have shown that the drug works then human testing should be commenced.



If it is shown that the drug needs to be altered then it should be, and tested on animals again, then if it's OK, well, you get the idea...

Answer 6

I think the laws are fairly worded on this. It's never right to endanger innocent human life.



The real problem with animal testing is that it works toward making the future brighter for many...maybe even all of humanity.



So, how much animal testing is acceptable? This is a tough call. I'm much more against testing for things like makeup and other trivial unnecessary products, but we do have safety standards that must be met.



What about medical testing? Check out this story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060810/ap_on_he_me/toxic_aging



Is it okay to test new drugs on worms? They may be contributing to a cure for Alzheimers. This certainly seems justifiable to me.



What about cancer and AIDS research? Cures, treatments, and vaccines against these diseases cannot be marketed and sold until they have proven their worth.



It's a tough call. I hate seeing photos of animals, particularly mammals, being used in testing. It pains me, and I'm sure it pains anyone with any compassion. But, is it worth it?



It's a very tough thing to make a stand on either way. If you've ever been cured by a drug, or if anyone you love has ever been cured by a drug, know that it was tested and found to be safe on on animals first.



I feel the best way to help animals used for testing is to adopt them once their 'work' is done. You'd be suprised how many labs are now encouraging the adoption of animals once used in testing. See the reference links below.



If you want to give something back to the animals who are making life better for humanity, how about giving them a loving home? It seems much more productive than carrying protest signs.

Answer 7

NO ! The "Animal Rights" nut cases value Animals over People. Animals were put here for our use by God, we have "Dominion" over them.

They are for Food, Clothing,even Companionship; whatever we need them for.



As it happens many also good for testing. To me this is acceptable, so long as the animal doesn't suffer unnessarly. To endanger Human Life to free Animals that would be a danger in the wild because of their testing, or could not survive in the wild is stupid !

Answer 8

I am absolutely against animal testing of any kind. There are people who would be more than willing to let scientists use them for a nominal sum of money. Animals are innocent and do not deserve to be tortured and that is what it is, torture! I mean seriously, why do we have to pour hair dye into a rabbit's eyes to figure out what will happen? IT BURNS LIKE HELL don't get it in your eyes! And why does someone have to bash a monkey in the head with a hammer to see that yes, a helmet would have protected his head?????



However...I feel it is not only wrong to endanger human life supporting that belief it is also extremely hippocritical.



It is all awful. I think people forget that animals feel pain and do not like to be confined and miserable. That or they just don't care. We as a society really need to find a solution to this dillemma.

Answer 9

I think they forget that the animals were specially bred for the testing, and that the testing can save human lives. I think they're misguided in their idea that they can just release the animals into the wild and "save" them. They don't know how to survive in the wild. Plus, one time a group set a lobster "free" in the northwest Pacific. Only one problem--it was a Maine lobster. It didn't live long.

Answer 10

is murder acceptable?

are assault, grievous bodily harm, harassment etc acceptable

when animal rights activists do their stuff, they are merely displaying their ignorance of how cruel the world actually is. maybe their viewpoints would change if they had to face the people who will die from the diseases now incurable from their pathetic petulance. Whilst it is true that some of the cosmetics testing is perhaps a little unnecessary (Loreal?) any medicinal testing should be encouraged, not campaigned against (Huntingdon Life Sciences)

Answer 11

Well humans endanger animal life, who is to say we are not all equal in the greater scheme of things?

Answer 12

Yes. But once all other possible methods (like computer modeling have been exhausted), and it should never be done for capricious reasons.

As for being right for them to endanger human life, no.

Answer 13

No of course it's not right to endanger human lives.

Answer 14

si think it is important to test on animals in some Cases... only for seek of human health

but sometimes it become in vain , so there should be laws to protect both humans & animals

Answer 15

It is intolerable cruel and must of the time totally unnecessary because sometimes they are testing even though they have tested the same thing before and the records are available

Answer 16

As soon as you broke the law, you went too far.

Animal Right Activists have much more of an impact if they use they law rather than break it. You just have to be sneaky in what laws you use and how you obtain your information.

Answer 17

It is up to the individual if they want to put their life in danger, no one elses

Answer 18

Animals are here for our use. we can do any thing we want to to them.and then eat them.and this is the way it should be

Answer 19

Short answer..

It's not acceptable at all. Its cruel and inhumane to do so.

Answer 20

problem is they do test upon test upon test etc etc etc because it keeps ppl in jobs. is that justice?

Answer 21

I just do not take to them: they oppose violence with violence. What kind of behaviour is this?

Answer 22

not acceptable