For those that don't believe in animal tesing of any kind...(please read details)

My personal opinion is not that research should not happen, but that much of the research that is done on animals could (and should) be done using alternative methods. Those methods already exist and have a proven track record.

I also feel that animals that have suffered and sacrificed for our benefit deserve some modicum of comfort, quality of life, and respect.

I used to work at a local school of veterinary medicine in the gnotibiotic department. Colonies of research animals were kept for some eventual use and surplus animals were destroyed by cervical dislocation (because the tech I worked with was too lazy to walk to the next building and use gas). I would find living, paralyzed animals in the trash hours later.

I also used to pick up destroyed animals from Charles River Laboratories (a supplier of research animals) to feed to the wild cats at a the conservation organization that I worked for. I would go into the walk-in freezer and pick up 600–800 lbs of dead mice and rats every other week or so (and ours was no the only facility that did this). These were unused surplus animals that were bred and then destroyed because they were of no value to the company.

I don’t argue the need for research – I argue against the callous, uncaring attitude with which we treat those animals.

I agree with @syz that the animals should be treated with caring and respect. Allowing animals to live paralyzed in the trash because someone is too lazy to do it the right way is despicable. There is no excuse for that.

Would I turn down live-saving medicine becuase it was tested on animals? No.

Testing animals is fundamentally wrong.
How on earth can you expect an Animal to know Algebra or Tangents it’s just not fair.

There are better ways, yet we continue to test on animals. In many instances it could be avoided, but we bypass other options because they’re more expensive.

Not only do I think testing on animals is wrong, it’s stupid. Most animals that are tested on are so biologically different than humans that there is no way to know if possible side effects from medication will or won’t also effect people.

My husband works in r&d at a major pharmaceutical. If it were not testing on mice, rats, dogs and monkeys, we wouldn’t have the life-saving medications that we have today.

It’s an unfortunate reality, and I don’t mean to demean your reply Drastic Dreamer, but the human side effects are not really what they’re looking for. In a sense, they’re screening every single component of a compound for its POTENTIAL to cause side effects. (toxicology, genetic toxicology)
Some of this is done on cells (in-vitro) but other tests simply can not be performed on cell lines. They have to dose the animals. Mice have an accelerated metabolism, which enables the drug compound to produce effects much quicker than in any other animal.
(there is no alternative, other than to perform these tests on humans…)

Also, if properly done, cervical dislocation is much more humane than gassing. (when animals are deprived of oxygen, they go into a frantic state…Properly performed, cervical dislocation is much faster and causes no pain.

The best answer yet Christine.

@syz, @BBSDTfamily and @DrasticDreamer whilst I respect your opinions (and agree with some of them) on this subject, my question wasn’t whether or not you would agree with it but what you would do in a certain situation.

to answer the o/p take the meds and live

@DrasticDreamer: What are you basing that on?

@Leanne1986 I can’t say for sure what I would do, but the only thing I know now is that I do not think my life is more valuable than the life of any other animal on the planet. I love living and would want to continue to do so, but I would feel horrible knowing that I was killing other creatures just so I could live.

@nikipedia: http://www.slate.com/id/2142814/

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-7068060/Animal-testing-not-reliable-for.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/how-reliable-is-animal-testing-podium-1079311.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2006/may/05/highereducation.uk

@DrasticDreamer: Don’t get me wrong, I think animal testing is an imperfect system. But so is any system you use. The articles you mention bring up a handful of cases, whereas I believe its safe to assume that nearly every drug currently on the market was, at one point, tested on animals. What do you propose as an alternative?

@nikipedia Willing, human, participants. Who are paid.

@DrasticDreamer: I think that, sadly, creates a whole new host of problems—I worry that money is inherently coercive, and people who were desperate for money would volunteer for things that were so risky that no one with an alternative would do.

You could be right. I still don’t believe in testing on animals.