Should medical research using animals be banned?


So you want to study drugs of man or of animal..!!

__________________
Thank you GOD

you have to start somewhere, before actual testing on humans, right?

no.no machine can effectively emulate any biological system.so u have test it.

Not unless you dont mind practicing the art of medicine without any useful controled trial data. Why stop at animals? Shouldnt we ban data we collect from experiments done on bacteria, fungi, and all life for that matter. I dont know about you, but I would be frustrated if we didnt have antibiotics or vaccines. Without animal model testing we would not have these things. Any Doctor who doesnt believe in animal research should also reject any advancements in treatments or technology that have been a concequence of animal research. Don't fret: there is still phrenology, astrology, and whats that one with the way the animal bones fall on the plate (oh animal bones....guess that one is out too)

There's no reason to test drugs on humans directly..Animals are used. I think that laws should be made to control animal experimentation but not to ban it..

All those fighting against animal experimentation, are you people willing to be the test subjects for the newly discovered drugs with unknown properties. Of course, you won't

So, let's regulate it instead of banning it.

__________________

Banned? Hrm.

I think that people tend to think that animal testing is more necessary than it is, perhaps in the same way that some people thought (and some still think) that vivisection is more necessary than it is.

Unnecessary animal testing of anything is wrong in my opinion, and I lump in "cost-saving testing" in "unnecessary". More money ought to be invested in the research of non-animal research, which I believe is a promising field.

As for the attempt of invoking the slippery slope argument in form of "where do we stop, should we not ban research on bacteria?", I am fairly confident that those who oppose research on animals are not opposed research on living beings but research on living beings with preferences (non-dying is a usual preference of monkeys). A bacteria on the other hand does not have such cognitive capabilities.

Finally, it is worth keeping in mind that animal testing does not tell us how things will work in humans (it tells us how it works in animals and how it might work in humans), as we've seen over and over and over again (either with increased toxic or reduced intended effects compared to in animals), which is why testing on humans is also a necessary part of any drug development.

What is so bad about doing research on animals?
I guess one bad thing is that animals really suffer from experimental conditions and the another is clinical data obtained from animals cannot always be extrapolated on humans (here I think mice are best experimental animals out there because they share > 99% of the human genome).

As said above, animal tests should be controlled, not banned...
There is no machine that simulates a living system completely. And I believe that I won't live enough to see such a thing. A human body has over 30.000 proteins, acting on the most diverse fields. Testing on an animal already has its limitations, on a machine it would simply be too limited.
Again, the tests should be controlled, and the animal shoudn't be exposed do suffering...

Animal tests should be controlled, not banned...

Easy to say, hard to achieve. At the end of the day the only researcher know what happens inside his lab.

Some regulations should be instituted, but otherwise we don't have the technology to do testing without live subjects.