Do you think animal testing is right? That products should be tested on animals because they are animals and human life is more valuable?

Or do you think animals should be protected, as their lives are just as valuable as ours?

I've always sat on the fence with this one. I love animals but if I was to one day use an untested product on my son and he had an awful reaction (or worse) and it could of been prevented by animal testing, well a rat to my son? But then I think there is not really products on the market that isn't tested one way or another. Either on animals or humans. Humans voluntarily I guess! I can never decide one way or another, but if I can buy products not tested on animals but that are proven safe then I'll buy then rather than tested on animals.

Co-Cl On Mums Club Dec 2008

Hi Sarah,

Like you I think this is a tough one so am interested in what others think. Maybe someone can sway my mind one way or another.

Sunshine.
(proud mum to DS-18, DD1-14, DD2- 3 and blue bump) 

Cl on MC Aug 08 ,  MC Dec 08 , Great Debates Parenting Polls and Debates and Make Friends at iVillage

Hi

Well it's no surprise that I am against any animal testing for non-medical purposes lol, it is not necessary imo to test on animals for cosmetics or personal products and I don't think household cleaning products should be tested, afterall the Co-Op have been successfully making cruelty free cleaners and shampoos etc for nearly 20 years and several companies have followed suit. So it can be done.  

I always check the label and will actively boycott any product that does not state they are against animal testing, it is cruel and unecessary. I would be horrified to think that any animals had suffered to make me a bottle of shower gel or floor cleaner.

On the drugs front I agree this is much harder and I am really torn tbh. On the one hand drugs have to be extensively tested to make sure they are safe and inevitably this means much of the early stage testing is performed on animals, however there is also the argument that animal physiology and DNA are very different from ours and therefore testing on them can never really give a true indication of how safe and effective they are, until the testing is started on humans.

There have been several drugs (thalidomide being the most famous) that were tested extensively on animals, deemed to be safe and then caused the most horrendous side-effects. No drug is ever completely "safe". There is also eveidence to show that using computer programmes and modules that can predict an outcome are becoming more popular and of course testing on cadavers, human volunteers or human tissue is another alternative.

My hope is that one day animals testing will become obsolete (and soon). I hate it, although I accept the reasons why and I hope that the animals are at least treated as humanely and painlessly as possible. But I hope I live to see the day when  it is no longer needed.  

Ps I agree that child molesters and rapists, murderers etc are of far less value than a rabbit and should be first in the queue for testing.   

Very complicated issue which is hard to debate anywhere due to many people having crystal clear views but not understanding the subject as whole and really only the leading experts know the full scope of 'facts'. The rest of us just have an opinion based on personal belief. So the benefits or negative aspects aren't always taken on board.

In the cosmetic area I'm not really sure where I stand, I'm almost in the middle as I can see clearly why companies do it and why others don't. In the end it's all about costs and risks. Yeah people can boycott but in the end that's only good for the moral feeling of the individual, unless they get millions of people to boycott the product then they're still making profits and it wouldn't concern them. Problem is many people won't read the label when buying a product to check if it was tested on animals, I certainly don't. Most likely because I fly around the shop so checking if it was tested on animals is usually not in my mind.

In the medical and research area I support animal testing. I consider the lives of animals less important than that of humans. The thing that I never understand in this area is people protest greatly against the use of animals but then don't seem to mind that most animal research is done on invertebrates, such as the fruit fly and so on. Yeah they might be a smaller form of life but still a form of life. So the argument could be used that it doesn't feel pain but then we can remove the pain the animal feels through the use of anaesthetics but does that change anything?

Now people usually react with anger when they see a monkey with its brain uncovered with wires practically plugged into it. This could be used to test robotic arms for use by people who have lost limbs..potentially changing their life. This was in the news last year or early this year I think. Now many would consider that cruel but the brain does not have any sensory nerve endings, meaning the monkey wouldn't actually feel anything. So does that make it right or wrong?

Computer simulation is one area where we're advancing but I'm still not convinced of its accuracy, I'd have to read some scientific papers on it.

It's always interesting when people say test on criminals, be it murderers, child abusers or rapists. It runs the risk of a person wrongly convicted not only have to suffer being in prison but then also has chemicals tested on them. I just hope the people who want it are prepared for the multi-million pound settlements paid for out of tax. Also crimes like rape, child abuse and murder don't carry full term sentences thus any disfigurement or lasting illness would lead to compensation claims. Which of course people would say they deserve it but the Law is not emotive, so expect a lot of compensation to be paid out.