Welcome to Gaia! ::

A nation-wide database would be a great idea, and you're right, it really would reduce the number of animals required for testing.

There would have to be more government involvement in the industry, and that could face opposition- it would interfere with competition or some such to let everyone see the results of testing in a database. I'm sure someone would argue that it's not fair, and it would take some serious legislation to get it passed. But it's an option, I suppose.

Animal testing never gives 100% accurate results we already know how things effect them, we should start testing on humans.
one question, Why is it wrong to test on humans but its alright to test on animals?

Although I do not agree that it is "right" to test on animals, or "wrong" to test on humans, I stated a few pages back why animal testing isnecessary in many medical cases. Because of the human life cycle, it would take centuries to complete a series of test on humans, and progress would never be made because you have to go through several gerenations of testing to insure that there are no major genetic side affects. In rats, this takes a year or two to get mutliple generations. In humans, medical progress would never be made. Personally, I am a big fan of medical progress. I've had the mumps, a disease that we are vaccinated against, so supposedly, we shouldn't be able to contract it because our system should already have the antibodies for it. I can tell you, having your lymph nodes swell up to the size of softballs is not a fun experience. The mumps is, however, one of the milder diseases that we are vaccinated against, so it could have been worse. I could have gotten Polio, or Rhubella. Thankfully, because of medical advancements made possible by testing, most people will not have to endure and die from those conditions anymore.
And it is true, that side affects will differ between humans and animals, but we can get an idea of how a human will react to a drug through animal testing, then we can modify the drug to try to change and minimize the side affects. And we DO test on humans, it's actually kind of an old fall back "I can't get a job but I need money so I'll go sign up for medical tests" joke. A drug cannot be released for mainstream use unless it has been extensively tested and documented on humans in the subgroup that it is aimed at.

I only agree with animal testing on medicinal terms. For things like shampoo, cosmetics, or anything of that category, I completely disagree with.

I noticed on the poll that 7 people said animal testing should be completely illegal. I would have to disagree. My friend Olivia is diabetic, and if it weren't for medicinal animal testing, she would not be alive today. Measles, Mumps, Rubella, TB, Polio, and Rabies have had vaccines developed thanks to animal testing. Ever know anyone who had Open-Heart surgery? Operations on animals helped develope Open-Heart surgery techniques. Antibiotics, HIV drugs, insulin, and cancer treatments all rely on animal testing.

So before you go "ALL ANIMAL TESTING IS BAD", think for a second and realize that it is not all bad. Animals have helped us in the medical field and I am thankful for that. Try to see if you know or knew anyone who has/had any of those diseases, or had/had Open-Heart surgery, or has diabetes, HIV, or cancer.

*waves hand* I had the mumps! It sucked. Seriously. I'm glad that they have a vaccine so that most people won't get it. My vaccine was defective or something, so the virus got through, but it was apparently still milder than it would have been if I hadn't had the vaccine, because my body did have a few antibodies for it, just not enough to prevent the disease.

But, as I've said before, Animal Testing for medicinal reasons is an necessary evil. One of my close friends has Ulcerative Collitis. The medication that keeps her Colon from turning into one giant ulcer and eating itself was developed through animal testing. Another friend of mine has Chrones disease.

Agreed that's.... gah, words cannot describe how idiotic I think that is.