Animal Testing: For or Against?

This was cringing, even though it isn't real blood.

Fkey, when it comes to molecular modelling, researchers are only looking for particular chemical/physical reactions that should happen regardless of different morphology and metabolism.

But does that mean we stop animal testing ? ^^^

If you are going on the basis of accounts of cases where things went wrong, look at how much things worked out.

I'm curious, kiwi

What are all those things that worked out?

I come from a country people died of old age if wars/crimes didn't get to them first.

Today, people are dying from diseases by the horde...not from old age.

Cancer treatment, polio, TB, diabetes to name a few. Then there is the cosmetic and veterniary medicines...

If you are going to on the basis of "failed cases" vs "successful cases", you can see that a lot of good has also come out these studies.

If we are talking about morality, it's a different case altogether. It's about whether testing on animals for anything is okay.

From a scientific perspective, it is good, from an ethical stance it is way over in the unacceptable region.

Personally, I'd rather see all forms of animal testing eradicated all together, if this cannot be reached at least push these studies to the very end until the threshold safety potential is theoretically calculated before conducted. 

But all the research funding $/£ should be invested in finding new economical means of replacing or at the very least reducing animal testing. But this would call for stem cells etc. Which opens another door to complaints.

I'm referring to animal testing strictly. Nothing else is used in the preliminary trials. There is no comparator

The cases refer to different drug discovery & drug development projects. The number of animals hurt in the process do outnumber cases of improvement and 'good' results, but there still would be a significant number detailing that.

I do like chocolate lol

Animal cruelty is rife, there is no denying that. It's the reluctant to change which baffles me. 

I don't see anything wrong to use stem cells for research. The complaints about testing on stem cells is born from irrational religiosity. It has nothing to do with ethics and morality.

Testing cosmetics ^^

That is ethics and morality

Also, if you're hurt by the actions of others by something that can stopped, why not let others vent and argue the same for their distresses? Stem Cell research just like animal testing have both seen a lot of heated discussions.

Sorry, I separate irrational religiosity from moral and ethics. How is research on stem cells inflicting suffering and cruelty on anything?

Irrational religiosity has even led to unethical, criminal, immoral behaviours.

I ask again, do you have a good understanding of genomics and cytometry ?

If so, you'll understand what 'flagging a chemical indicator' means.

Depending on the type of study to be undertaken, the requirement of complexity needs to be pre-defined. If we want (usually the case) to study a specific chemical interaction in isolation we can use simpler 'models' or more 'complex' models. Models referring to organism whom share similarity in metabolism, biochemistry and physiology.

It's clear why animals are selected, not just for the 'models', of course what you mentioned above are big factors. By selecting 'rodents' (for example) it's deemed to be more successful to get away with what goes wrong etc.

Is suffering and cruelty the only criteria's to meet a discussion about ethics and morality?

Read post 104 to get more of an idea please.

Also, we are not discussing religion. There are a lot of threads dedicated to that.

To me, yes. As regards to this subject matter that you brought up.

What is your criteria about ethics and morality?

To inject a disease or induce an illness in animals is shocking. That is what gets to me in particular.