# Animal Research



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Next week, on behalf of a medical charity I volunteer for, I'm attending a conference on animal research in medical science, set up largely to educate non-professionals first hand about current practices and ethics.

I don't know much about the subject at the moment, so I thought I'd open up a discussion here. Feel free to discuss it from any angle, and if there's anything you think I should find out or ask about on the day, please suggest it.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

You might find it helpful to read this before attending the conference, and also to follow some of the links on the left side of the page:

*http://www.ox.ac.uk/animal_research/research_using_animals_an_overview/index.html*


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2012)

As a researcher that regularly uses animal models for scientific studies, I can tell you that in many instances, animal research is indispensable. There is no desire on the part of researchers to use unlimited numbers of animals for research. Strictly from a cost perspective, you can make your research dollars stretch much further if you can conduct meaningful research without animals. But sometimes it simply can't be avoided. At least in the U.S., it is highly regulated. Extensive documentation and justification is required to conduct studies using animals.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

If we truly had any sense we'd use ourselves. Oh, but, no! Human life is so precious...


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2012)

kv466 said:


> If we truly had any sense we'd use ourselves. Oh, but, no! Human life is so precious...


I'm sure if you look around, there are numerous trials underway that require human volunteers. Why don't you go see if you qualify for any of them?


----------



## lou (Sep 7, 2011)

We should use convicted murderers and child molesters for medical testing.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

DrMike said:


> I'm sure if you look around, there are numerous trials underway that require human volunteers. Why don't you go see if you qualify for any of them?


You should know by now I would never undergo anything medical.


----------



## Guest (Mar 22, 2012)

Nevertheless, you have benefited from animal research.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

DrMike said:


> Nevertheless, you have benefited from animal research.


...yeah, not quite as much as you have, i'm certain...


----------



## Guest (Mar 25, 2012)

Have you ever contracted polio, measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, diptheria, pertussis (whooping cough)? I would say smallpox, except that old Jenner actually used an orphan boy for his experiment that proved the vaccinia virus could protect against smallpox. Virtually every medicine you might use was likely tested originally in animals. Cancer treatments? Tested in animals. 

And it isn't just an ethical issue with using animals over humans. Humans are too large and too diverse a population - too many variables to have to control. There are several species for which we have inbred populations - such as mice - where we can generate a high degree of statistical significance with smaller numbers of animals because they are genetically identical, and under normal circumstances will behave exactly the same. Using an outbred population, you would need much larger numbers to be certain of results.

Animals even benefit from animal research - in addition to all the human vaccines, there are numerous animal vaccines that were tested in - you guessed it - animals.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Well, seeing as how you opened the thread again, _DrMike_, I'll stick my nose in long enough to say that, _for me_, most humans 'count for more' than most other animals. Yep, I'm a humanist.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Well, seeing as how you opened the thread again, _DrMike_, I'll stick my nose in long enough to say that, _for me_, most humans 'count for more' than most other animals. Yep, I'm a humanist.


Me too.

Show an animal rights activist a child suffering from some horrible disease, and either they will moderate their position or I will consider them morally irrational. ("Moral irrationality" is a new idea for me. I'm working on it. But it works well enough for now to make my meaning clear.)


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

lou said:


> We should use convicted murderers and child molesters for medical testing.


No, we shouldn't!


----------



## lou (Sep 7, 2011)

starthrower said:


> No, we shouldn't!


Care to elaborate?


----------

