Do you construe that animal conducting tests is morally suitable if used for the 'benefit of human health'?
I personally think it isn't - for many reason.
Opinions?
Answers:
Well nearby isn't another way we can test the actual reaction of a drug next to a living thing, so unless people want to volunteer to try new drugs and put their lives on the stripe then it's the only way and one-sidedly I do believe in testing if it can benefit humanity. Although if there be another way to test it I would support that.
Absolutely and unequivocally. There is absolutely no bearing to do an ethical trial of a pharmacological compound in a human without animal data - and it's informal on top of that.
You say it isn't effective because drugs are still removed from the flea market, but for a moment, think about it from the other side - how many other drugs never take home it to even being tested in humans because of animal testing. It's not a small number - thousands of potential treatments are tossed away respectively year because they fail in animal testing. This save lives, prevents harm, and keeps bad drugs past its sell-by date the market. Also keep in mind that drugs get hold of pulled at ridiculously high standards. One of the single most promising drugs of the last decade was just this minute killed because one person died out of hundreds of thousands who took it. Animal models aren't even designed to look for this sort of thing. They establish a sufficient baseline of efficacy, safekeeping, PK and PD information needed to even try to do human studies.
You say it isn't effective because they have 'different systems'. Not entirely true. For the most cog rats, mice, rodents, your various animal models are pretty damned close. They have the same organ systems, essentially duplicate proteins doing the same thing as humans. The differences, the occasional cytochrome, brain transport, liver conjugation pathway are all pretty powerfully mapped out - and we can thank the genome projects for this. We know in fairly excruciating detail when animal models are accurate, and when they cannot be used.
Show me an alternative that has a nervous system, blood brain barrier, circulatory system, kidneys, liver, GI tract and endocrine system, and will provide accurate pharmacokinetics, dynamics, demonstrate a toxic profile and cathartic index and you'll have an alternative. There's nothing even remotely close to this out there
new treatments are created every day, but even after simulation and prediction, there's no way of knowing if they are even remotely undisruptive for humans. personally, not only do i feel that animal carrying out tests is acceptable, but i feel that not testing on animals previously testing on humans is morally irresponsible. even after animal trials, there is human risk in phase 1 trials - see the danger without.
that said, animal research should be done responsibly. every trial should justify the use a specific animal model, the minimum number of animals necessary for a significant result, etc. in short, every precaution should be taken that the animal is used isn't used in vain.
i guess i'm biased 'cause i've spend a few years doing research (some near animals, some without). anyways, i'm sure you'll get lots of answers on both sides of the fence.
Would you prefer the stop off medical advance. The majority of tests are performed on rats bred for that purpose, Occasionally monkeys but they to were bred for that purpose and own lived better lives than some people ever will. Would you disagree with it if a loved ones life depended on that research done to an animal? Every time a cure is found ALL of mankind benefits.
Related Questions:
Smart self theory test,can this be true?
Why do doctors preform abortions and fatal injections when it is clearly against the Hippocratic Oath?
Can I donate blood on these medication?
Opinions?
Answers:
Well nearby isn't another way we can test the actual reaction of a drug next to a living thing, so unless people want to volunteer to try new drugs and put their lives on the stripe then it's the only way and one-sidedly I do believe in testing if it can benefit humanity. Although if there be another way to test it I would support that.
Absolutely and unequivocally. There is absolutely no bearing to do an ethical trial of a pharmacological compound in a human without animal data - and it's informal on top of that.
You say it isn't effective because drugs are still removed from the flea market, but for a moment, think about it from the other side - how many other drugs never take home it to even being tested in humans because of animal testing. It's not a small number - thousands of potential treatments are tossed away respectively year because they fail in animal testing. This save lives, prevents harm, and keeps bad drugs past its sell-by date the market. Also keep in mind that drugs get hold of pulled at ridiculously high standards. One of the single most promising drugs of the last decade was just this minute killed because one person died out of hundreds of thousands who took it. Animal models aren't even designed to look for this sort of thing. They establish a sufficient baseline of efficacy, safekeeping, PK and PD information needed to even try to do human studies.
You say it isn't effective because they have 'different systems'. Not entirely true. For the most cog rats, mice, rodents, your various animal models are pretty damned close. They have the same organ systems, essentially duplicate proteins doing the same thing as humans. The differences, the occasional cytochrome, brain transport, liver conjugation pathway are all pretty powerfully mapped out - and we can thank the genome projects for this. We know in fairly excruciating detail when animal models are accurate, and when they cannot be used.
Show me an alternative that has a nervous system, blood brain barrier, circulatory system, kidneys, liver, GI tract and endocrine system, and will provide accurate pharmacokinetics, dynamics, demonstrate a toxic profile and cathartic index and you'll have an alternative. There's nothing even remotely close to this out there
new treatments are created every day, but even after simulation and prediction, there's no way of knowing if they are even remotely undisruptive for humans. personally, not only do i feel that animal carrying out tests is acceptable, but i feel that not testing on animals previously testing on humans is morally irresponsible. even after animal trials, there is human risk in phase 1 trials - see the danger without.
that said, animal research should be done responsibly. every trial should justify the use a specific animal model, the minimum number of animals necessary for a significant result, etc. in short, every precaution should be taken that the animal is used isn't used in vain.
i guess i'm biased 'cause i've spend a few years doing research (some near animals, some without). anyways, i'm sure you'll get lots of answers on both sides of the fence.
Would you prefer the stop off medical advance. The majority of tests are performed on rats bred for that purpose, Occasionally monkeys but they to were bred for that purpose and own lived better lives than some people ever will. Would you disagree with it if a loved ones life depended on that research done to an animal? Every time a cure is found ALL of mankind benefits.
Related Questions: