Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective
erichgrunewald.com
Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective
1–10 of 319 posts
Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective
#2Can it be made more effective?
Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective
#3There are shades of grey on this kind of thing. Testing cosmetics seems a less painful ordeal than some of the more brutal examples given in the article.
Another thing. If animal testing was outlawed, the same testing would probably end up being done on poor people instead. Is that worse? I think so.
Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective
#4How can one claim it is ineffective when it is the most effective?
Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective
#5[deleted]
Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective
#6There are shades of grey on this kind of thing. Testing cosmetics seems a less painful ordeal than some of the more brutal examples given in the article. Another thing. If animal testing was outlawed, the same testing would probably end up being done on poor people instead. Is that worse? I think so.
> If animal testing was outlawed, the same testing would probably end up being done on poor people instead.
That's... quite the leap. The entire point is that ethics committees are much more averse to human testing than to animal testing, so we're less conscientious about animal testing.
Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective
#7There are shades of grey on this kind of thing. Testing cosmetics seems a less painful ordeal than some of the more brutal examples given in the article. Another thing. If animal testing was outlawed, the same testing would probably end up being done on poor people instead. Is that worse? I think so.
> If animal testing was outlawed, the same testing would probably end up being done on poor people instead. That's... quite the leap. The entire point is that ethics committees are much more averse to human testing than to animal testing, so we're less conscientious about animal testing.
In ... all countries?
Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If animal testing was outlawed, the same testing would probably end up being done on poor people instead. That's... quite the leap. The entire point is that ethics committees are much more averse to human testing than to animal testing, so we're less conscientious about animal testing.
In ... all countries?
Yes, it's safe to say that, in all countries, people are more comfortable with animal testing than with human testing.
The quality of results from human testing is many orders of magnitude better; if you're willing to do it, there's no point in doing any animal testing.
Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective
#9There are shades of grey on this kind of thing. Testing cosmetics seems a less painful ordeal than some of the more brutal examples given in the article. Another thing. If animal testing was outlawed, the same testing would probably end up being done on poor people instead. Is that worse? I think so.
[deleted]
Re: Animal testing is exploitative and largely ineffective
#10There's certainly more that could be done to prevent bad or futile research on animals. But there are areas where there is no reasonable way to replace animal testing. How else would you test the safety of a new drug or other chemical? You can't do this in vitro, and going directly into humans is not an acceptable solution in my view.