Advertisement

answer this question

Debate Question

Using animals in pre-clinical trials?

I know animal cruelty has probably come up on here several times before, but this specific case deserves some extra respect.

I have no doubt that we abuse animals well beyond what's necessary. We test all sorts of things on them that are unnecessary, most notably cosmetics. In many cases, that is completely unnecessary.

Such is not the case in pre-clinical trials, when animal testing is a requirement in order to get a drug through testing and into the market. The testing needs to be done in a full body system (in vivo) and not simply with a small group of cells and/or chemical solutions (in vitro). So the choice really doesn't come down to "do we have to do it" and more "what do we have to do it with."

Should we continue to use animals, which cannot consent to the treatment they are getting, or should we use human testing at that stage, paying participants and informing them of the risks? The concern I have with the latter situation is that, by the pre-clinical stage, we really don't know what the risks are, unlike in Phase I clinical trials. Personally, I feel that animal testing in this stage of clinical trials is utterly necessary, though we can certainly do more for the benefit of the animals that are being tested. What say you?
*
Only when necessary; and I believe that as much pain should be lacked and relieved as possible...
DarkCEpitome posted over a year ago
*
Agreed, though unfortunately, while recognizing pain in these animals is easy, recognizing anguish is not.
whiteflame55 posted over a year ago
*
The fact remains, that we consider ourselves more important than animals and it is a fact of life that we do, but it doesn't mean that it is right to do so. The biggest question is: 'what makes it okay for humans to consider themselves more important than everything else, when 'everything else' is what allows humans to survive? And, I admit, while I believe in that, and think others should too, doesn't mean I'll force it down their throat.
blackpanther666 posted over a year ago
 whiteflame55 posted over a year ago
next question »

Debate Answers

Chaann94 said:
I agree with you. To me, humans are much more important than animals. If you pay people to participate in clinical trials, you're playing with their lives.

I can't see why animal testing should be stopped. Sure, it sucks for those animals. But humans are more important. If you give away money, only the people who really need it will apply for the trial. To me, that's even more inhumane than testing animals.
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
*
Well, that's the thing, I'm not sure we can say animals are more or less important. I'm not trying to make a statement in that regard, merely one of necessity. We use mice and rats most often in pre-clinical trials because they reproduce quickly and often and we can get a lot of genetic clones. They're the easiest to work with, and we're not going to wipe them out by doing it this way. It's sad because I feel for these creatures, but the options are incredibly limited, and every other one is just full of problems.
whiteflame55 posted over a year ago
*
I'm afraid I disagree with you there, Chaan94... Humans are not 'more important' than animals... In respect to our planet, we are probably one of the least important species, ecologically speaking. I believe that animals should have every right to be treated as well as humans. Plus, animals were here before us and then we came along and decided that we are more important, simply because we are more intelligent in some ways. However, I agree with Whiteflame, that if we are going to test things on animals, that rats and mice should be the ones to be tested on, as they are less important to ecology, as many other species are. Testing on animals can be subjective, because there are plenty of pests out there that actually cause harm to other species, so, while I agree that animals are just as important as humans, I agree that 'pests' are less important, because they can damage native flora and fauna in many countries. That is vert true in New Zealand as well; rabbits, weasels, stoats, rats, mice and possums/opossums are considered to be major pests, hence why I say that this issue can be subjective. Humans just need to continue their research, without damaging important species of animal.
blackpanther666 posted over a year ago
coriann said:
im certainly not one to say which form of life is more important and which is not, but, we are humans, and it's natural to want to do things to the benefit of ourselves, im not one to place the animals lives first or the humans lives, but until a suitable replacement can be made, it will be more beneficial to the human community.
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
*
weather it is wrong or right i do not know :(
coriann posted over a year ago
*
i suppose it'd neither :P
coriann posted over a year ago
*
Alright, makes sense
whiteflame55 posted over a year ago
blackpanther666 said:
I go with what I said on some of the other responses... This issue can be highly subjective, because some animals can be considered pests and more harmful to other species of animal, hence why I think that clinical testing should be used still, but only on species where it less harmful to do so than other species. Testing on rabbits and organisms that reproduce quickly is fine, because we are actually benefitting other species by doing so, as well as our own research.
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
*
Fair enough.
whiteflame55 posted over a year ago
next question »