Animal Experimentaion

[Loren Pechtel]

So Loren was quiet logical in his conclusion that no experimenting on animals means no new drugs unless we replace the experimentation on animals with experimentation on humans.

But this isn't what Loren wrote.

Even if Loren had included the italicised section above, his conclusion would still not have followed logically - human experimentation is not the only alternative to animal experimentation.

Edited to add:

For Loren's statement ("No animal experimentation = no new drugs.") to make sense he would have to show that all alternatives to animal testing would be unacceptable/unworkable.

I didn't include it because it was sufficiently obvious I didn't feel I needed to. Note that everybody else understood my argument.

As for alternatives--you haven't listed any. Animal testing is expensive, they don't do it until it's already passed lesser testing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I"m going to post a link that explains in very simple terms the problems with using animals for experimenting and testing new drugs. For example, some of the drugs that are safe in certain animals, aren't safe for humans. The link gives two examples. It also mentions new ways of testing drugs without using animals. Hopefully, this will be what happens in the future.

https://sentientmedia.org/why-is-animal-testing-bad/

• The registration of a single pesticide requires over 50 experiments and studies on up to 12,000 animals.
• According to the National Institutes of Health, 95 percent of drugs tested on animals ultimately fail in human trials.
• Of all the animals forced into animal testing, 60 percent are used in biomedical research and product safety testing.

Why Should We Stop Animal Testing?​

Animal testing is unsafe for humans and nonhuman animals, unreliable, inefficient, and outdated. The suffering that animals unwillingly endure in our experiments and tests is unnecessary and cruel.

How to Stop Animal Testing​

The first step toward stopping animal testing is spreading awareness of what it really entails. Many people are unaware of the pain that animals go through. Animal testing is not the only option for testing chemicals and medicines, so alternative options should be considered and used.

In addition to spreading the word, you can avoid purchasing household cleaners, deodorant, feminine hygiene products, or makeup that has been tested on animals. There are so many brands (especially when it comes to makeup) that are cruelty-free and reject animal testing.

Alternative Ways of Experimenting​

Scientists are now able to use human cells and tissues, computer modeling, 3D printing, robots, and more for experiments. These technologies are better for everyone and typically more accurate, less expensive, and faster than animal testing.

So, we really don't need to and shouldn't be using animals who can't consent to develop drugs for humans. It has a high failure rate and it's cruel.

This doesn't pass the laugh test. Robots are a better testing technique than animals?!?! 3D printing is a testing technique?!

And note that it's not going to reach animal testing until it's passed the computer modeling and cell culture tests.

In the real world you do the computer modeling, if it passes that you do the cell cultures, if it passes that then come the animals.

And a high failure rate is a clear indication that it's necessary--if the other systems were accurate enough they would never send the dangerous stuff to the animal testing stage in the first place. The only failures would be in scenarios where the animal reacts differently than humans do.

 

[skepticalbip]

Alternative Ways of Experimenting​

Scientists are now able to use human cells and tissues, computer modeling, 3D printing, robots, and more for experiments. These technologies are better for everyone and typically more accurate, less expensive, and faster than animal testing.

So, we really don't need to and shouldn't be using animals who can't consent to develop drugs for humans. It has a high failure rate and it's cruel.

This doesn't pass the laugh test. Robots are a better testing technique than animals?!?! 3D printing is a testing technique?!

And note that it's not going to reach animal testing until it's passed the computer modeling and cell culture tests.

In the real world you do the computer modeling, if it passes that you do the cell cultures, if it passes that then come the animals.

And a high failure rate is a clear indication that it's necessary--if the other systems were accurate enough they would never send the dangerous stuff to the animal testing stage in the first place. The only failures would be in scenarios where the animal reacts differently than humans do.

Yes, that article looks like something that would be put out by PETA, not by anyone actually involved in drug development.

I have to wonder if the writers of that article would be eager to take a new anti-cancer drug that was computer modeled and tested in human cell culture assuming it was found to be extremely effective in eliminating cancer growth. Personally, I wouldn't. I would first want to see further testing on an actual full living body to see if it may also cause things like liver or heart damage, kill brain cells, attack the nervous system, cause severe birth defects, etc. In other words, I would not want to take something that did cure a cancer but a side effect was debilitation or death.

 

[The AntiChris]

I didn't include it because it was sufficiently obvious I didn't feel I needed to. Note that everybody else understood my argument.

Yes, I know you took it for granted that 'it's obvious'.

This is a philosophy forum where, in my view, opinions should not be assumed to be 'obviously' true without rigorous argument.

 

[southernhybrid]

I"m going to post a link that explains in very simple terms the problems with using animals for experimenting and testing new drugs. For example, some of the drugs that are safe in certain animals, aren't safe for humans. The link gives two examples. It also mentions new ways of testing drugs without using animals. Hopefully, this will be what happens in the future.

https://sentientmedia.org/why-is-animal-testing-bad/

• The registration of a single pesticide requires over 50 experiments and studies on up to 12,000 animals.
• According to the National Institutes of Health, 95 percent of drugs tested on animals ultimately fail in human trials.
• Of all the animals forced into animal testing, 60 percent are used in biomedical research and product safety testing.

Why Should We Stop Animal Testing?​

Animal testing is unsafe for humans and nonhuman animals, unreliable, inefficient, and outdated. The suffering that animals unwillingly endure in our experiments and tests is unnecessary and cruel.

How to Stop Animal Testing​

The first step toward stopping animal testing is spreading awareness of what it really entails. Many people are unaware of the pain that animals go through. Animal testing is not the only option for testing chemicals and medicines, so alternative options should be considered and used.

In addition to spreading the word, you can avoid purchasing household cleaners, deodorant, feminine hygiene products, or makeup that has been tested on animals. There are so many brands (especially when it comes to makeup) that are cruelty-free and reject animal testing.

Alternative Ways of Experimenting​

Scientists are now able to use human cells and tissues, computer modeling, 3D printing, robots, and more for experiments. These technologies are better for everyone and typically more accurate, less expensive, and faster than animal testing.

So, we really don't need to and shouldn't be using animals who can't consent to develop drugs for humans. It has a high failure rate and it's cruel.

This doesn't pass the laugh test. Robots are a better testing technique than animals?!?! 3D printing is a testing technique?!

And note that it's not going to reach animal testing until it's passed the computer modeling and cell culture tests.

In the real world you do the computer modeling, if it passes that you do the cell cultures, if it passes that then come the animals.

And a high failure rate is a clear indication that it's necessary--if the other systems were accurate enough they would never send the dangerous stuff to the animal testing stage in the first place. The only failures would be in scenarios where the animal reacts differently than humans do.

There are plenty of other articles available that claim that the failure rate isn't because of using alternative ways of testing drugs. The failure rate is very high when we experiment on animals. It mentions the drug Vioxx. Remember that one? It was tested on animals, but when humans started using it, there were many who had serious heart pathologies related to the drug. Animal testing doesn't guarantee that the drug will be safe for humans. We need to continue to develop safer, more effective ways of developing drugs, without exploiting animals. It's bad enough that we use lab rats to be used for research, it's much worse, imo, when we use animals that have a lot in common with us, who are closely related to us genetically. We aren't that different from the other animals, but we are a lot more cruel in so many ways.

The older I become, the more empathy I have for the other animals that who share this planet with us. It's shameful what we humans have done to their habitats. It's hideous how factory farms treat and slaughter the animals we eat, and it's becoming more obvious to me, that the way we exploit them for medical research, is wrong. Of course, that's just my opinion. Maybe I have too much empathy for animals. Maybe I don't see my life as more important than the life of those primates who have been so mistreated by medical science. Just sayin'.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are plenty of other articles available that claim that the failure rate isn't because of using alternative ways of testing drugs. The failure rate is very high when we experiment on animals. It mentions the drug Vioxx. Remember that one? It was tested on animals, but when humans started using it, there were many who had serious heart pathologies related to the drug. Animal testing doesn't guarantee that the drug will be safe for humans. We need to continue to develop safer, more effective ways of developing drugs, without exploiting animals. It's bad enough that we use lab rats to be used for research, it's much worse, imo, when we use animals that have a lot in common with us, who are closely related to us genetically. We aren't that different from the other animals, but we are a lot more cruel in so many ways.

The older I become, the more empathy I have for the other animals that who share this planet with us. It's shameful what we humans have done to their habitats. It's hideous how factory farms treat and slaughter the animals we eat, and it's becoming more obvious to me, that the way we exploit them for medical research, is wrong. Of course, that's just my opinion. Maybe I have too much empathy for animals. Maybe I don't see my life as more important than the life of those primates who have been so mistreated by medical science. Just sayin'.

Note that none of the other techniques caught the problem with Vioxx, either. We simply don't understand the human body well enough to simulate everything. Nor can we catch every problem in testing. There are always going to be left-field issues. (Consider: It is suspected that thalidomide is actually safe, not a baby-mangler. The problem is the process to produce it made 50% the desired drug and 50% it's mirror image. It is suspected that the baby-mangling is actually due to that reversed molecule. With the technology of the era separating them on an industrial scale wasn't possible.)

 

[skepticalbip]

There are plenty of other articles available that claim that the failure rate isn't because of using alternative ways of testing drugs. The failure rate is very high when we experiment on animals. It mentions the drug Vioxx. Remember that one? It was tested on animals, but when humans started using it, there were many who had serious heart pathologies related to the drug. Animal testing doesn't guarantee that the drug will be safe for humans. We need to continue to develop safer, more effective ways of developing drugs, without exploiting animals. It's bad enough that we use lab rats to be used for research, it's much worse, imo, when we use animals that have a lot in common with us, who are closely related to us genetically. We aren't that different from the other animals, but we are a lot more cruel in so many ways.

The older I become, the more empathy I have for the other animals that who share this planet with us. It's shameful what we humans have done to their habitats. It's hideous how factory farms treat and slaughter the animals we eat, and it's becoming more obvious to me, that the way we exploit them for medical research, is wrong. Of course, that's just my opinion. Maybe I have too much empathy for animals. Maybe I don't see my life as more important than the life of those primates who have been so mistreated by medical science. Just sayin'.

Note that none of the other techniques caught the problem with Vioxx, either. We simply don't understand the human body well enough to simulate everything. Nor can we catch every problem in testing. There are always going to be left-field issues. (Consider: It is suspected that thalidomide is actually safe, not a baby-mangler. The problem is the process to produce it made 50% the desired drug and 50% it's mirror image. It is suspected that the baby-mangling is actually due to that reversed molecule. With the technology of the era separating them on an industrial scale wasn't possible.)

And to suggest ending the animal testing step in the testing procedure because it doesn't catch 100% of problems with a drug is ignoring the majority of drug problems that are found in animal testing. Without animal testing those problems that are currently being found in that step would never be seen until human patients negatively reacted to the drug.