Is animal testing humane?

Is it right to thoroughly test products on animals before exposing human test subjects to their effects?

I'll post my two cents a little later.

 

But now the issue is, we very well could have found the cure for polio doing the exact same experiments on human test subjects. The science was there, even if it were done in a different lab it was inevitable.

The problem is, we've drawn an arbitrary line around the word 'human' and don't want to pose unnecessary risk to humans. So we breed other species as test subjects. Our current 'ethical definition' states that experiments must use subjects that are 'the least complex life forms possible to achieve results.'

But is this the right definition? And additionally, is it a fair definition?

 

^^Actually, for medicine it must be tested on human subjects. Human immune responses etc. differ greatly from animals...rodents are typically used (in North America at least) as a first pass, just to determine that the pharmaceudicals are not fatal when ingested. But in order to determine that a pill could give you heartburn, it isn't enough to see that the pill gave a rat heart burn (and how could you tell?).

Warning labels are a bit overdone in my opinion too...it's all, as you said, an attempt to avoid liability in the event of an accident. Someone sued Pillsbury after burning themselves at some point and now their pizza pops say "CAUTION: Hot when heated." on them.

 

You're right, but it depends on the experiment. The fact that a fly has similar DNA to us is irrelevant if that's not what we're studying, but is at the heart of the matter if that is what we're studying.

To give an example, if we were doing DNA experiments we would likely use bacteria (even if we don't need to see many different generations) as these are rather simplistic, when compared with say, mammals. We could do DNA experimentation on something more complex such as fruit flies, but, if all other things are equal (this is the key idea here), we opt for the simpler life form. It is possible that bacteria replicate too quickly (for our particular experiment) as well, and so in such a case bacteria become 'useless' as test subjects, and the simplest life form is now fruit flies.

But if we were doing something like a clinical test of a new drug, simpler forms of life would be useless. If we want to test a new type of pain killer for humans, on humans, they become the simplest possible life form because nothing simpler will suffice.

 

Precisely. It doesn't necessarily depend on which drug you're testing, but instead, the required data.

As an example, I was explaining that for clinical drug trials, namely, ones where we want to specifically see the side effects of said drug on humans... then humans are all that will do. Testing it on dogs, or flies, or bacteria, won't give you the necessary data, because dogs and humans may have different adverse effects.

And so if the only possibility is humans, then humans are thereby the simplest possible life form for the experiment.


EDIT: And to emphasize once more, contrast the following:

Humans may not be 100% necessary for the experiment, such as for a preliminary drug trial (namely, a trial to see if the drug is toxic, for instance, seeing that it it safe for dogs will strongly support the hypothesis that it is safe for human consumption). In such tests, since humans are (arguably) more complex than dogs, dogs may be used for the trial instead because they are the simplest possible life forms.

 

As I mentioned, it depends on what specifically needs to be tested. If it's something that insects and human beings have in common, then an insect will suffice, surely. But insects are very different from people, people have a complex cardiovascular system for instance, that insects lack...so anything 'blood related' would require something more complex than insects (like mammals).