The horrors of animal experimentation are too numerous to name: Conscious monkeys are forced to inhale toxic smoke; improperly anaesthetized dogs are subject to invasive surgery; blinded cats are dropped into vats of water; guinea pigs are coated with corrosive substances that eat through to their organs. The accounts of animal experiments surpass any horror film in terms of sheer repulsiveness.

But animal experimentation is not only grotesque, it is also wrong. Unless we believe that "might makes right," the practice of using animals in medical research is impossible to justify. Does the superior power of humans give us the right to keep animals captive and in isolation while subjecting them to painful and degrading experiments? Do we honestly believe that it is acceptable to mistreat animals for our own gain? The use of animals in experiments clearly violates animals' right to live without suffering pain or emotional distress.

Animals are exploited by humans in a variety of ways. We eat them, derive clothing and household products from them, use them as a source of entertainment and to improve our psychological well-being, and put them to work for our benefit. Few other issues are as contentious, however, as the use of animals in the laboratory environment. Why should we add another animal-exploit to the list?
-Paranoid

The difference with eating an animal, is that most animals we eat (such as cow, pig, chicken, etc etc) aren't USUALLY kept as pets (some people do, but I don't class these as common, domesticated pets). But then we have countries like China who actually eat cats, which I think is utterly disgusting.

I'm an avid meat-eater, but animal experimentation is just morally and ethically wrong in my opinion. And I would expect the Animal Rights Act would protect animals from such torture. Why it doesn't protect them from being killed and eaten is beyond me, but the difference between eating an animal and experimenting on one is:

1. The animal is usually killed before eating, obviously. Therefore, it feels no pain while we eat it, does it? And;
2. We need to eat meat to survive. Well okay, we don't HAVE to but to go and ban people from eating meat now would be extremely stupid, unfair and pointless.

So would you rather people conduct experiments on humans? These scientists don't enjoy torturing animals, they do it to make advancements.

Eating meat is completely natural and the human body practically needs it. Vegetarians are mostly pale and weak people.

The list of advances made without the use of animals is extensive, and includes the isolation of the AIDS virus, the discovery of penicillin and anesthetics, the identification of human blood types, the need for certain vitamins, and the development of x-rays. The identification of risk factors for heart disease—probably the most important discovery for decreasing deaths from heart attacks—was made through human population studies.

A major problem with animal experiments is that the results frequently do not apply to humans. Unreliable animal experiments have led science astray in other ways, as well. For example, unsuccessful attempts to induce lung cancer in lab animals by forcing them to inhale tobacco smoke cast doubt on human clinical findings, delaying health warnings and possibly costing thousands of lives.

History has already shown that animal experimentation is not essential to medical progress. Vital medical developments such as X rays; a vaccine against yellow fever; antidepressant and anti psychotic drugs; and surgical procedures for cardiac aneurysms, appendicitis, bladder and gall stones, brain tumors and cataracts have all been obtained through research done without the use of vivisection. Today, highly sophisticated alternatives to animal testing make the need for laboratory animals obsolete.

With the advance of biomedical research technologies, studies can now be conducted on live human cells that are cultured in petri dishes or test tubes. Using these methods, called in vitro studies, it is possible to project the effects of a chemical on the human body. In vitro tests are also more effective than animal experiments because they help us understand human reactions to diseases, not animal ones.

They are not doing any advancements, animal experimentation is a multi-billion DOLLAR industry. Colleges and universities are only funding this experimentation for its monetary value.

http://socialissues.wiseto.com/Articles/FO3020630166/

That is directly from the article you linked me....But let's discuss some animal experiments taking place at CU. Researchers are using monkeys to supposedly conduct research on AIDS. They have spent 20 years and nearly seven million taxpayer dollars to take baby monkeys away from their mothers. That's right, they think that by depriving infant monkeys of their mothers they will somehow find a cure for AIDS. How ludicrous. True, the immune system is adversely effected by stress. We have known that for years based on clinical observation of humans. But to think that by studying maternal deprivation in monkeys one can find the cure for AIDS is like thinking that by studying the wheel you can propel man to the moon.

Experiments on primates have a long history of misleading scientists about AIDS. Primate experiments misled researchers about how rapidly HIV [human immunodeficiency virus, which causes AIDS] replicates resulting in mistreatment and lost lives. The current medications used to treat AIDS were discovered in a test tube and bypassed animal testing altogether.

That article claims that animal experimentation has greatly aided the AIDS research, when in fact it has not.

How do you know a cure or vaccine cannot be found by testing on monkeys?
It is worth experimenting on some monkeys if there is the potential to save millions of human lives.

Do you have the cure for aids?

I do not have the cure for AIDS, why don't you ask the hundreds of maternal deprived monkeys that question.
I know that we don't have to stoop so low as to harm innocent animals for the benefit of the human race. AIDS is a STD, meaning that you must have sex or come in contact with blood from an infected personage. AIDS is a killer, it kills millions upon millions of people everywhere around the world. I am not saying that researchers should stop the quest to kill the AIDS epidemic, I am saying that there are other ways to do it besides conducting experiments on primates. The results have been misleading in the past, and in no doubt in my mind will be misleading in the future.

It seems like your mind is already set and there is no point debating, but if there is the slightest chance a cure can be found through animal testing, shouldn't we take it? What's the big deal that a few monkeys die if there is a chance to save millions of humans?

There are more promising studies through safer forms of testing, so no we should not take it. Scientists are testing the animals because they 'suspect' there might be a link between animals and AIDS. Past studies have mislead scientific thinking. It is people like you in society that keep the idealogoy of animal experimentation alive. Your only arguement so far on this board and topic has been "OMG, if it has a 'chance' to cure people, a small chance...lets kill animals and torture them to just prove that small chance to be no little hope!" Props on that.

Think about it this way...if your beloved dog was suffering from an unknown illness, and the only way to find a cure to this illness is through torturing and testing your nephew...would you do it? If you are that morally retarded diaf.

Anyways, I am interested in other people's thoughts.

Did any of these innocent creatures complain to you? Are you sure they even care? For all we humans know, monkeys might quite enjoy being poked about a little bit.
I personally don't see anything wrong with testing things on animals. You talk as though humans and animals are equal. They aren't.

Mmmm...meat

@Paranoid: I think you're taking all this a bit too seriously. Most of us would love it if new drugs and medicines could be developed without testing them on animals.

But that isn't going be and if science uses genetic engineering to develop a special species of monkeys [or another animal] with no pain centres in their brains [so they can't feel any pain at all] for the sole purpose of testing new drugs, people will call it unethical...

Edit: But no matter which side of this debate we're on, I'd advise everyone here to check out this short online comic strip based on Neil Gaiman's short story Babycakes.

It deals with this issue and, like the participants here, is biased and may present an opinion that some of us may not appreciate... but it's a good tale. Happy Reading!

yeah, nice little comic
but i don't think most people would give up their babies to have them treated like animals
and if they do then they're not very nice parents.
i guess you never know.

Yes, but I think the story was written to get people to react. It gets them to immediately 'take a side' in this debate; to sort of realise which side of the line they're on.

You either disagree with it [I do, for reasons mentioned above] or you agree with it [like Paranoid's post show]. In any case, it promotes a healthy debate and presents an extreme alternative, if only to present the issue from a perspective we can relate to...

I completely disagree with paranoid. He is acting like Humans and Animals are equal, when they obviously are not. Sure we like to think so sometimes with a dog or cat but they aren't and they always will die before us. Thats why I don't have any animals, I'd rather not get attached. But to go on Paranoids point, what if it was the other way around... Your Nephew had a horrible disease, and somehow was linked to you beloved dog. Would YOU give up your dog to save your nephew? I would. I would have no problem with that. Because my nephew is MORE important than my animals.

brilliant analogy. very true to the point.

Like I said before, this is a moral issue...but look at the facts. In my opinion you're full of ignorance. I agree that saving the lives of humans is more important than that of the lives of animals, we are on the top of the food chain, however we do not need to torture animals in the ways we have been doing. I read the comic you linked, and it was sad, yet true. I think we can be more sophisticated in the way we treat other living creatures, because aren't we living as well? We demand the rights for other humans, we can demand the rights for other living creatures. They can feel pain, the same pain you feel if something was torturing you. Think about it, because I think you're arguing just to disagree with me. Do you seriously get a sense of happiness when you disagree with some person? If you do, good for you. If you have a problem with the way I think, toss me a private thread...but not in public threads. You're acting like animals.