When it comes to animal research there are various constraints we need to keep in mind. One of them is animal rights. A lot of animal rights group are against this. Recently there are few news about extremist groups who are following and destroying animal research work. To avoid harassment researchers and the animal activist groups should have good communication. Talking about animal research is one way to start that. What other ways can help this situation?
I think it would be appropriate to say this topic is like a double edge sword. Just as with any controversy or disagreement, I think dialogue is the best way to go about it. Both side need to discuss the pros and cons of using animals for research and studies. I think it's important for both side to express and understand how all life is sacred and how such research can lead to saving millions of lives. Through dialogue, perhaps we could come up with new guidelines which could allow for such research while not harming keeping the harm to a minimal level to animals.
When it comes to animal research there are various constraints we need to keep in mind. One of them is animal rights. A lot of animal rights group are against this. Recently there are few news about extremist groups who are following and destroying animal research work. To avoid harassment researchers and the animal activist groups should have good communication. Talking about animal research is one way to start that. What other ways can help this situation?
I agree that having the initial discussion of how researchers and animal rights activists can work to find a compromise is the first step for change. However, to create long lasting change there must be a continuous forum for discussion between these two groups and there should be guidelines set in place to ensure that animal research isn't unnecessarily harmful or inhumane in any way. Until, these structures are in place progress can't be achieved.
I agree that communication needs to be a foundation to the solution so that an understanding (not necessarily an agreement) can be reached. After both sides listen to and understand the other side's point of view, arrangements should be made so that animal activists groups can observe the process. This way, an understanding can go beyond a verbal one and reach a physical understanding. On the other side, I think researchers should look at the situation from the activists point of view to ensure precaution measures are put in place so the animals endure minimal pain. Overall, I believe that animal cruelty should not be confused with animal research. Being cruel involves misuse while engaging in research involves careful manipulation to bring about results for the advancement of generations.
Yes, all living things have rights, so do animals; there is never a just cause to be cruel. In the same aspect, I believe animal testing is a crucial step that is needed to protect humans. As we discuss making medical devices just as much as Pharma it’s important that we are not killing patients in clinical trials. While clinical trials are still just that, trials: the collection of data of how a product is interacting with a human there needs to be a first line of defense. I believe animal testing provides humans with our initial protection against products that we are working towards using safely on humans. IF we want to back up to validate why animal testing is needed to provide safety in product testing you could simply state that our first step of testing goes to in vitro, then with successful results we move forward with in vivo. In vivo is an important step not to neglect because this is where biocompatiabily testing should occur NOT in humans first. If we were to go from in vitro directly to testing in humans, there is a great chance that the human death rate would be substantially higher if biocompatibility testing were done on humans first consistently for a long time frame. Biocompatibility is a vital part that needs to be done prior to clinical studies as a safety measure. In my opinion, cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, irritation, systemic Tox, hemocompatibility, and toxikokinetics is not something that needs to be first time experimented in human children. I close with cruelty is never necessary and animals have rights that should be respected as well, however, medical research and advancement has not come this far without the assistance of animals.
Animal research is unique in a sense that you can’t ask the animal if he or she would like to participate in an experiment because we are not at the level of communication where an animal can consent, at least not by our level of science, yet. That being the case, there is a significant difference between using animals in science for the purpose of consumer products like lipsticks and hair care and perfume and that sort of thing versus life-saving vaccines and therapeutic and therapies that could help sustain human life. Nonetheless there’s a fine line between these discoveries and the suffering of animals. These benefits to humans have not been proven as of yet. Many animal activist groups have been actively approaching many biotech firms in an attempt to halt, if not eliminate animal testing. Some of these tests are not as nefarious; for instance those that are used for the testing of behavior like Pavlonian classical conditioning. This isn’t harmful to the animal as much as it is helpful to humanity and in those cases there may be some form of agreement, especially with the less extreme animal activist groups. The key point is similar to that of medicine where you "do no harm"; if that same courtesy can be extended to animals it would be a mutual benefit in experimentation. The other question is what happens to the animals that are not euthanized and have been the subject of experimentation if left to live? What quality of life will they have and to what extent were the suffering they experience be in vain? These are all ethical issues pertaining to animal experimentation but without it can we effectively test the mini therapeutics and Biologics which could sustain our lives for generations to come? That remains to be seen.
I think it would be appropriate to say this topic is like a double edge sword. Just as with any controversy or disagreement, I think dialogue is the best way to go about it. Both side need to discuss the pros and cons of using animals for research and studies. I think it's important for both side to express and understand how all life is sacred and how such research can lead to saving millions of lives. Through dialogue, perhaps we could come up with new guidelines which could allow for such research while not harming keeping the harm to a minimal level to animals.
While I agree that a conversation is a great way to get the ball rolling on the conversations between the animal activists and the researchers, I also wonder if there may be some futility in this. We know that the government already regulates animal testing. Perhaps that should be enough. I do not personally believe that animal activists would ever be satisfied with testing. I think, for them, no testing is the best testing. I care about animals, but I must say that I value human lives more. I do not think animals should be abused, but we need animal testing before testing on humans and I am just not sure that it would ever suffice with the activists. I don't know.
I believe a dialog between the two parties is the best solution to prevent any incidents like the destruction of research. It may benefit from having a member of these organizations on research pannels to provide some insight on potential concerns for the test subjects and provide representation in spaces they may not frequent daily. Although the government regulates animal testing, there are instances where some animals are severely harmed due to adverse effects. Obviously, my bias is with the clinical researchers, but I am against any meaningless violence or cruelty towards animals from a moral standpoint. The research on animal models is (hopefully) done as humanly as possible concerning the experiment's parameters. These tests for biomedical research projects are done with the benefit of humanity in mind and could lead to breakthroughs in drug or medical device development. In my mind, these tests are done for the greater good and are performed by those who undergo training to ensure the animals are treated or sacrificed with minimal pain or discomfort.
I think it would be appropriate to say this topic is like a double edge sword. Just as with any controversy or disagreement, I think dialogue is the best way to go about it. Both side need to discuss the pros and cons of using animals for research and studies. I think it's important for both side to express and understand how all life is sacred and how such research can lead to saving millions of lives. Through dialogue, perhaps we could come up with new guidelines which could allow for such research while not harming keeping the harm to a minimal level to animals.
I agree @mduru. An open conversation could go a long way in helping both sides of the isle agree on what is right and far. In another post this week, I touch on the fact that animal rights activist sometimes care more about the animals than the human lives that are being saved. I think that helping them to understand that the animals are not being treated poorly would go a way in them accepting the path we're on. Because for the great majority of humanity, they would rather see their mothers, brothers, sisters or fathers saved than their dogs.
I agree that keeping a strong and constant level of communication will assist in having a better understanding between animal researchers and animal activist groups. Discussion panels can be a safe space for sharing different ideas and solutions. Adverse impacts on the animals should be studied further to ensure no additional harm toward the animal subjects. Both sides need to be able to talk through the process that way differing actions can occur down the line. I also agree on the importance of animal testing for human advancement and benefit. Everyone needs to be on the same page to avoid negative impacts on advancements in the industry.
When conducting animal research, all guidelines should be followed to ensure animals are not suffering. To keep the public and animal activist groups informed, dialogue needs to remain open with a spokesperson willing to speak to groups to address their concerns. I would also suggest creating a commercial on research where testing facilities are briefly shown or described to explain how animals are cared for and facilities maintained. If commercials are too expensive for the budget, maybe they can release updated information on the website.
When it comes to animal research there are various constraints we need to keep in mind. One of them is animal rights. A lot of animal rights group are against this. Recently there are few news about extremist groups who are following and destroying animal research work. To avoid harassment researchers and the animal activist groups should have good communication. Talking about animal research is one way to start that. What other ways can help this situation?
I have two answers for this discussion post: first, I personally feel that because scientists have been testing on animal models for decades, there should be enough data to predict how the body will react to certain diseases based on the medicines being used. I feel that there has been too much money invested into research and industry for cures to not have been solved at this point. I probably would have been okay with animal testing if it were new and temporary being that unfortunately, part of life is making sacrifices in order to save others. At this day in age, too many innocent animals have been abused, tortured, and terrorized for basically nothing. Second, one way to communicate with animal activists is to have them encourage people who have disorders or diseases to donate their bodies to science. With this being done, there is consent and sufficient data can be collected opposed to using a model similar to the human body. Another alternative could be to encourage them to educate people on their diet. The average disease is caused by unhealthy eating habits. If people were to eat more consciously, there would be a less need to do research seeing how the numbers would decrease overtime.
When it comes to animal research there are various constraints we need to keep in mind. One of them is animal rights. A lot of animal rights group are against this. Recently there are few news about extremist groups who are following and destroying animal research work. To avoid harassment researchers and the animal activist groups should have good communication. Talking about animal research is one way to start that. What other ways can help this situation?
I believe that open communication is always the key. I believe addressing some of the concerns that animal rights groups can help. I also have to believe that there is a reason for the distrust as animals have been abused and new ones have been placed in their place as if nothing happened, but I don’t believe going t the extreme and destroying things is the answer. There is should be a set guide for the animal’s best interest and or a outline. Ultimately the key is to have great communication to understand needs that have to be met and concerns and acting ethically.
Animal research is essential to understanding the pathology and treatment of diseases. I can understand why some animal activist groups deem animal research to be flawed and unethical, but there is not another model that can mimic human disease as effectively as animal models. A number of breakthrough therapies were possible through the use of animal models. Communication between animal rights groups and scientists is the only way these important points can be conveyed. Some methods can be holding conferences and seminars on the importance of using animal models for research. It should also be communicated that animal research is highly regulated and that animals within the study are put through the least pain as possible.
Another great way to help is to put more funding into the development of alterative testing models. A great example would be organ on chips. This is a type of biotechnology they is able to replication human organ responses to experiment without the negative effects of animal testing while also providing researches with more accurate human respond to things like mediation.
