Not horsey, but what are your views on animal testing?

F

Fly_By_Wire

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 March 2008
Messages
161
Visit site
Hi,

I'm asking because I've spent the last week observing the goings on at an animal research centre, and it's really got me thinking, and allowed me to develop my own views on the subject (which I won't voice just yet, interested to see what other people think first!).

However, I couldn't help notice how badly informed most people are on the subject, and how outdated a lot of the information appearing in the public domain is. So, my question is, what is your opinion, and if you really think hard about it, what is that opinion based on? How much do you know? Personally, I've come to think public education is majorly lacking here.

Lastly, I'm genuinely interested in what you all think, I know this is a controversial topic, but lets try and keep it civil, eh?
 
I hate the idea of testing on animals, but, limited testing for medical research, providing it is strictly monitored and not gratuitous is acceptable.

For cosmetics etc, no, dead against this, I believe that Proctor and Gamble are the subject of quite a strong Facebook protest at the moment.
 
I think there is a lot of propaganda using images from abroad that is just very ill-informed and emotive. I just wish ONE animal rights group would prioritise facts and giving people accurate information. I have been inside HLS and it really wasn't that bad. I definitely don't agree with cosmetic testing as there is no need, but would agree with medical testing and therefore veterinary as they often run into each other. Pesticides is a bit of a grey area but suppose I would agree with that too. There is so much legislation now I don't think people realise how hard it is to get authorisation for animal testing.
 
If I had the choice I would be all for using paedophiles for medical testing, kills two birds with one stone.
Really my opinion is much like pale riders. Much as I don't like it I think its occasionally necessary. But for me to be actually for it a lot needs to change. Only lifesaving/changing research & only then when its the next step before human testing, not to just see what happens. Or testing unnecessarily, eg how quickly does x pain killer work. No painful procedures, either ga or local if they are likely to cause suffering. More natural lifestyles/environments.
 
Well I've been involved with a fair amount so to be against the use of animals in medical research would hypocritical of me. As others have said, if you believe some of the propaganda released by certain organisations, you will not have a balanced view of the reality of research. In my experience, people just aren't aware of the degree of legislation, regulation and the extent of "checking up" on institutes and their adherence to the rules in the UK. Research animals often live in better conditions than farmed livestock and the standards of care are extremely high.

That said, I'm not in favour of cosmetic testing involving the use of animals.
 
Last edited:
mandwhy said:
I think there is a lot of propaganda using images from abroad that is just very ill-informed and emotive. I just wish ONE animal rights group would prioritise facts and giving people accurate information. I have been inside HLS and it really wasn't that bad. I definitely don't agree with cosmetic testing as there is no need, but would agree with medical testing and therefore veterinary as they often run into each other. Pesticides is a bit of a grey area but suppose I would agree with that too. There is so much legislation now I don't think people realise how hard it is to get authorisation for animal testing.
Click to expand...

This is almost word for word how I would describe my opinion of animal testing having been inside a lab for a week. And totally agree with the last bit, I've read project licenses for a lot of experiments this week, and I was amazed at the level of justification the researchers have to provide for an experiment before they are allowed to perform it, nothing is allowed to happen without proof that there is an absolute need for it.
 
A necessary evil for medical research. Although not as evil as a lot of anti campaigns would like to make out, animals are kept in good condition and euthanised humanely. I fear many domestic pets are neglected far more than lab animals.

Cosmetic testing I'm against.
 
JFTD said:
Well I've been involved with a fair amount so to be against the use of animals in medical research would hypocritical of me. As others have said, if you believe some of the propaganda released by certain organisations, you will not have a balanced view of the reality of research. In my experience, people just aren't aware of the degree of legislation, regulation and the extent of "checking up" on institutes and their adherence to the rules in the UK. Research animals often live in better conditions than farmed livestock and the standards of care are extremely high.

That said, I'm not in favour of cosmetic testing involving the use of animals.
Click to expand...

All of what she said, including being directly involved in it.

The pictures SHAC and ALF put are complete BS and would never happen in today's world.

O and I worked at HLS. Do I win? :D
 
100% in favour. Many of my loved ones have died of horrific diseases. I dont care how many animals they experiment on if it saves someone else going through what I have been through.
 
You'd run out of paedophiles pretty quickly if you only used them for all the tests we use animals for.

Plus there would be too many variables in the study if you did that. They'd all be different ages and have pre-existing conditions etc.
 
What do people think about animals being tested on specifically for animal products? Like cats/dogs/horses etc having cat/dog/horse wormers tested on them? Somehow I don't think testing those on pedophiles is scientifically appropriate...

(ditto to what JFTD and JT have already said too)
 
The legislation governing experimental animals and the policing of the animals (experimental) act in this country is (in my opinion) the best in the world. If all animals were kept to the same standards as exp. animals, we wouldn't have many welfare issues in the UK.

It's not testing in the UK that you have to worry about; what they can do (even under licence) in the other parts of the world is scary.
 
pootleperkin said:
The legislation governing experimental animals and the policing of the animals (experimental) act in this country is (in my opinion) the best in the world. If all animals were kept to the same standards as exp. animals, we wouldn't have many welfare issues in the UK.

It's not testing in the UK that you have to worry about; what they can do (even under licence) in the other parts of the world is scary.
Click to expand...

Totally agreed. And I have, on occasion been known to tell the idiots from SHAC that very thing when they've been protesting in town on a Saturday :o Why would you want to make it a better option to just have it all done in south east Asia where welfare is appalling when you can have it done, properly, here. By making it impossible to do the research here (targeting innocent suppliers for eg) you just make it more likely that it gets shoved to another country. Eventually anyway.

Sigh.

ETS: sorry, I'm going now. I just hate how much bad propaganda there is out there and how little people understand what happens in the UK. :(
 
For reasonable medical research I'm 110% in favour of animal testing... Providing there's an absence of existing research that would do and the anticipated results can be scientifically justified to have cross species relevance or be beneficial to the tested species... It might not be to everyone's taste but to me, it's a necessary evil...

I have a number of safety assessments to manufacture and sell cosmetic products for years... I've never had cause to use an ingredient with a recent/current history of animal testing... Off the top of my head, the EU Cosmetic Safety Regulations disallowed most of it (for new chemicals) from 2009 with the remaining (repeat use toxicity and reproductive toxicity) being currently phased out...

:)
 
Last edited:
pootleperkin said:
The legislation governing experimental animals and the policing of the animals (experimental) act in this country is (in my opinion) the best in the world. If all animals were kept to the same standards as exp. animals, we wouldn't have many welfare issues in the UK.

It's not testing in the UK that you have to worry about; what they can do (even under licence) in the other parts of the world is scary.
Click to expand...

^^^ this, great post.
 
Tbh, I think you could use a paedophile over & over, any regulations about pts or unnecessary suffering could just be ignored. Top up the numbers with predatory sex offenders & child murderers, anyone convicted of child abuse, could run up a list of candidates for the job.
 
littlelegs said:
Tbh, I think you could use a paedophile over & over, any regulations about pts or unnecessary suffering could just be ignored. Top up the numbers with predatory sex offenders & child murderers, anyone convicted of child abuse, could run up a list of candidates for the job.
Click to expand...

To play devil's advocate, what about the one or two people who are falsely convicted?
 
I just wish the companies ie drug companies would join up just for testing etc. I suppose I still remember the big beagles smoking campaign years ago! Cigarettes.

For new drugs its unavoidable but I am sure there are worse animal cruelty on supposed pets/abbatoirs etc etc Its what is cruel?

I think cosmetic companies should declare they are not tested on animals. Or publicise it better. I would buy for sure.
 
I think that its ok IF and only IF its for medical purposes and its justified. I also think that you should test on all the murderers etc. especially the ones with life sentence, they took something/someone away from the society so by being tested on they can contrivute to finding cure for something and slowly give back to the society by saving other peoples lives. Yes the person they murdered will never return but they can at least help save others. I also think that the variable would be great! If one of the prisoners had some sort of disease that not much research has been done about it then he can be used for research and eventually to try out ned meds for it.
But testing cosmetics on animals is not necessary! Can also test that on prisoners, get a better idea of how a human body will react to the particular cosmetic product :)
ETA. yes it was a typo sorry! i'm writing too fast today and missing out words :(
 
Last edited:
littlelegs said:
Tbh, I think you could use a paedophile over & over, any regulations about pts or unnecessary suffering could just be ignored. Top up the numbers with predatory sex offenders & child murderers, anyone convicted of child abuse, could run up a list of candidates for the job.
Click to expand...

You couldn't. What you'd done in the past would mask any true results you got from the next trial.

And Pale Rider, I expect I do. One of them is even related to me! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top