3 ms·

>If anything there is TOO MUCH regulation. If you entertain the possibility that an animal can suffer as much as a human being, then all the regulation in the

>If anything there is TOO MUCH regulation. If you entertain the possibility that an animal can suffer as much as a human being, then all the regulation in the world is not enough. Consider even the most humane animal experiment, replace the animal with a human being, and see how you feel about it. Animals are living beings that we share the planet with; let them live their lives out in their natural environment. Animal experimentation should not even be contemplated, for exactly the same reason that wartime Nazi medical and eugenic experiments are condemned: for causing needless suffering in other living beings.

Thriptic 11y ago
The fact of the matter is that translational life science, medical device development, and pharmaceutical development are not safely possible without animal experimentation at this time. Our in vitro and computer models are simply not good enough to accurately mimic the human body. It's completely legitimate to take the stance that animals should never suffer, but then you must also be willing to accept that our ability to produce beneficial medications will also be severely limited. I'm personally not willing to make that tradeoff.
- atlantic 11y ago
  For me personally, it doesn't make any kind of sense to force members of other species to live miserably and undergo various forms of de facto torture so I can avoid disease and live longer. It seems a bit selfish. I understand other people can and do take other positions on this matter.
  - EmlynC 11y ago
    Animal experimentation is repellant to many people, I can see why. The point is that society has decided that they'd prefer well-researched, empirically-observed working medicines. Regulation must strike a compromise between allowing research to continue with enough oversight to limit abuse. It is the sort of compromise developers use with security; enough to limit abuse, but not too much that no-one can use the system!

Thriptic 11y ago

The fact of the matter is that translational life science, medical device development, and pharmaceutical development are not safely possible without animal experimentation at this time. Our in vitro and computer models are simply not good enough to accurately mimic the human body. It's completely legitimate to take the stance that animals should never suffer, but then you must also be willing to accept that our ability to produce beneficial medications will also be severely limited. I'm personally not willing to make that tradeoff.

atlantic 11y ago
For me personally, it doesn't make any kind of sense to force members of other species to live miserably and undergo various forms of de facto torture so I can avoid disease and live longer. It seems a bit selfish. I understand other people can and do take other positions on this matter.
- EmlynC 11y ago
  Animal experimentation is repellant to many people, I can see why. The point is that society has decided that they'd prefer well-researched, empirically-observed working medicines. Regulation must strike a compromise between allowing research to continue with enough oversight to limit abuse. It is the sort of compromise developers use with security; enough to limit abuse, but not too much that no-one can use the system!