Re: What are some benifits of animal testing in labritories give to the people?

Hello Stefanie. How complicated! I had no idea how hard it is to find good information on the positive side of this debate -- on the internet anyway. On the internet, crassness abounds. Fortunately, books require editors and publishers and an all-together lack of crass. I will provide a bit of information that can be found in books (although not under the direct heading of animal testing.) I will also append the short-list of internet sites that I found. Good luck, it's quite a quagmire. I feel obliged to tell you that I am somewhat involved in animal testing. However, I only accepted this question because I am convinced that I can portray the situation without imposing my bias upon you.

Animal testing is a phrase that holds meaning for many different events. There are many completely different actions that can be accurately considered Animal testing.

To argue something, it is important to first understand it. Understanding must come before judgement. Since ethical judgement is dynamic and completely personal, I will take the role of the informant and leave everything else up to you. Good luck! Information is always useful, but there are two well defined sides and grey is harder to support than the two primary shades. You have been assigned to a side and it is good practice to debate in this way regardless of your opinion. Remember that it is always your opinion. You can still believe something that you must argue against, or disagree with something that you must publically support.

Animal testing can be as simple as ringing a bell and feeding a dog in order to understand how animals learn. That's animal testing, which nobody can deny.

Some production companies test their products on animals. They have designed a product and want to sell it to the public, but first need to know what will happen if it accidentally gets into someone's eyes. Fortunately, preliminary chemical analysis can be done and many toxic compounds can be recognised before they are tested on animals for skin irritation. We understand this toxicity mostly from previous experience with animal testing. It may have been done in the past, but anyone who relies on this data should at least understand from where it has come.

Another form of testing exists and it is less understood. Drug companies rely heavily on animal testing to develop drugs for humans. Mice and rats are good subjects, but so are rabbits and some other primates. It is so hard to remove animals from this process because animals (or animal tissues) are an integral part of the research process.

Imagine. A Pharmaceutical company has found some interesting protein that is expressed in human cells. How should we study it? Classical pharmacology involves sectioning an animal (sectioning means cutting a dead animal into very thin slices) and then treating those sections with something radioactive that will bind to the novel protein. This something can be an antibody or a nucleic acid probe. The probe is made radioactive so that we can later check where the protein is located in the body. Protein localization gives information about possible function, and this is a very valuable way to start. Without this first piece of information, drug companies would not know how to proceed. Molecular biology once promised to take over and eliminate such strategies, but it has been about ten years since the birth of this science (maybe more) and there is conjecture that molecular biology will be a long time still in reaching maturity as a science that can replace pharmacology. Slicing up animals is simply more revealing.

Later, once a potential drug has been found (I skipped a big part, but let me know if you are interested.) The company must now determine how much must be injested for the positive effect of the drug to be felt. The company must also know how much of the drug is required to kill the subject. If this margin is too narrow, the drug will carry a high risk of overdose. An internet search for "LD50" and "therapeutic index" returned many sites that you may find interesting.

A large drug company has access to information on more than a thousand proteins and uses animal testing to determine which way to develop. This second part of the testing process is closer to the comon idea of animal testing, but it should be noted that every year drug companies must decide which compounds to develop. The monetary requirements are astounding, and animal testing helps to make a more informed decision.

Direct benifits requires more work and I was interested to learn some of this information. I will list a few sites that I found, but beware! Very few sites are truely dedicated to a rational analysis of the pro-animal testing arguement. Many pro-animal testing sites that I visited, seem to be only interested in picking immature fights with animal rights activists, which is my sign to go back. Progress will be atained through a rational analysis of facts on both sides, and should not involve any direct attacks on the beliefs of others.

The Americans for Medical Progress have a valuable site and here is an interesting newsgroup although you know how newsgroups are. Here is an interesting point of departure It is a search on the lycos search-engine for animal rights anti. It lists about five more sites that may or may not contain the information you are looking for.

I think most people acknowledge that animal testing is not a happy thing to do. Do the ends justify the means? And does your audience even know where they draw their own personal line that separates morality from immorality? Do you?