• Question: Do you make tests on animals? Because i am against all of this.

    Asked by ollymursforever to Christine, Edd, Jess, Nicolas, Zara on 12 Jun 2011. This question was also asked by lindseymerrygold.
    • Photo: Edward Codling

      Edward Codling answered on 10 Jun 2011:

      I’m against animal testing as well!

      However, it is not always as simple as it can seem. For example, do you think it would be right to test a new medicine on animals if it could save thousands of people from dying?

      With issues like this it can be something of a grey area but most scientists really don’t like testing anything on animals if they can avoid it. There is a thing called the ‘3 Rs’ that scientists should always try to follow (from Wikipedia):

      1. Replacement refers to the preferred use of non-animal methods over animal methods whenever it is possible to achieve the same scientific aim.
      2. Reduction refers to methods that enable researchers to obtain comparable levels of information from fewer animals, or to obtain more information from the same number of animals.
      3. Refinement refers to methods that alleviate or minimize potential pain, suffering or distress, and enhance animal welfare for the animals still used.

      In some of my work I do simple behavioural experiments on fish. This doesn’t hurt the animals though – all we do is observe them in their tank and see which way they swim (e.g. towards a food source or away from it). Hence, what we are doing is not that different to keeping a pet fish. However, we have to go through a lot of ‘ethics’ instructions even to do this very simple type of experiment. There are lots of rules in place to make sure people don’t hurt animals when they are working with them. In fact, it is much easier to do simple behavioural experiments with people – which is what I have done with some of my research!

      One of the key things that I do in my work is to use computer simulations wherever possible to explore different types of behaviour. This is a bit like playing a computer game where we set up some simple rules and see how our virtual animals behave. By altering the rules of behaviour and seeing what happens we can get some understanding of how animals might behave in the real world. This then means we don’t need to run any experiments on animals.

    • Photo: Jessica Chu

      Jessica Chu answered on 11 Jun 2011:

      Hiya,
      Well I don’t test anything on animals- I love animals so I wouldn’t be able to test on them!

      I totally agree with you on this one and a brilliant answer from Ed but I do know people are finding other ways such as to use cancer cell lines (cancer cell samples taken from patients and grown for research use) for testing instead. But developing a good experiment as a replacement takes time unfortunately ):

      Someone else asked a similar question and I have mentioned this:

      I have seen a research group in America where the scientists gave some drugs they were making to a dolphine and a horse because they had cancer inside their mouth and it totally cured them so they were able to eat properly and have a longer life!!

      Prehaps you can develop something one day so we can stop all animal testing and use your new invention instead?!

      Jess

    • Photo: Zara Gladman

      Zara Gladman answered on 11 Jun 2011:

      I don’t test things on animals either! I do, however, use animals in experiments which involve watching how they behave (e.g. how and what they eat, how they move and how they interact with other animals), just as Ed mentioned.

      I think testing animals for cosmetics is wrong – animals should not have to suffer just so that we can wear lipstick! Testing on animals for medical research is a tricky one. Animal testing has allowed drugs and vaccinations to be developed that have saved the lives or eased the suffering of millions of people. A vaccine against the Smallpox virus, for example – which used to kill millions of people but is now completely eradicated from the world – was developed by testing on cows. If animals are going to be used in research, the benefits should be weighed up against how much the animals are going to suffer – then a decision should be made about whether it’s worth it or not.

      Like Jess said, there are alternatives to animal testing being developed so hopefully one day scientists won’t have to make such horrible decisions.

    • Photo: Nicolas Biber

      Nicolas Biber answered on 12 Jun 2011:

      There are some pretty disturbing things going on with animal testing. Often it is very difficult to see the purpose of animal testing too, and even if you can see the purpose it makes you wonder why the animal has to suffer to serve that purpose. My answer is yes, I have done animal testing, and one of my current experiments involves feeding cockles (shells that live in the mud) plastic powder, so I can later dissect them and see where I find the plastic. Some people then argue that they are only shells, and for the same reason it would then be OK to perform tests on flies, crabs and even fish embryos, because they are not ‘very sophisticated’, but seriously, where do you draw the line. Still, I could never perform a test on a mouse, I guess that’s what makes us human.
      As Zara said, it is really wrong to make animals suffer for testing cosmetic products. Cosmetic products are not essential to our survival, and there are enough of them that can be used without prior animal testing. It’s a different thing if an animal has to suffer to save lives, and it’s yet another thing if an animal has to suffer so we can gain knowledge on its species that will help us save the species. But does the greater good justify any suffering?

Comments