animal testing - both sides have a point?

@jb78000 (15139)
June 2, 2009 6:43am CST
This is something where I can annoy (or infuriate) everybody as there seems to me to be valid arguments both for and against animal testing (at least medical). (I was going to post this about something else but decided against it). It does lead to medical advances and it does involve cruelty to animals. How would you resolve this?
1 response
egdcltd
@egdcltd (12059)
•
2 Jun 09
You currently have two choices when it comes to testing stuff. Either test it on animals or test it on humans. I don't really like either. Instead of animal rights activists going animal testing is bad (which it is) it would be far more constructive to come up with a viable, cheaper alternative. For example, software modelling. If an effective and accurate software model could be made, testing on animals would probably greatly decrease, if not vanish altogether. There may well be other possibilities.
jb78000
@jb78000 (15139)
•
2 Jun 09
Good point. i think there are some alternatives, like as you said use of computers and cell cultures. it's argued though that these are not always adequate.
egdcltd
@egdcltd (12059)
•
2 Jun 09
I don't know for certain, but yes, I think the alternatives do still need further development. Which I think animal rights organisations should look into doing/funding. If they do come up with a viable alternative, they'd be able to generate more cash from selling the alternative that could be spent improving the conditions of other animals.