Do you think scientist have the right to mistreat animals in order for to provide datas?

Question

Laika was a Russian space dog that became the first living creature from Earth to enter orbit.Laika died a few hours after launch from stress and overheating. The true cause of her death was not made public until decades after the flight. Previously, officials had stated that she was euthanized by poisoned food, or that she had died when her oxygen ran out. Sputnik 2 was not designed to be retrievable, so it was intended all along that Laika would die during the mission.In 1998, Oleg Gazenko, one of the leading scientists responsible for sending Laika into space, did express regret for allowing her to die: "The more time passes, the more I am sorry about it. We did not learn enough from the mission to justify the death of the dog."

I wonder what would you tell them if you had chance to meet the scientists who send Laika to space and allowed her to die

Answer 1

yes it is necessary to do research on animals and then on humans. the information gleaned from studies is immeasurable. even the Tylenol you take for a headache was tested on animals and then humans. get over it. we raise them for food and clothing why not to help our sick or further our knowledge about space.

Answer 2

You raise some very difficult ethical questions.

There is a lot of emotion involved in human's treatment and mistreatment of animals, especially for scientific research.

The classical justification is that it would provide data that could lead to a measurable and significant decrease in the suffering of humans. Obviously that is not always what happens. Sometime it is just not possible to determine in advance if that relief of suffering would ever happen.

In the case of Laika, or in the case where some American pharmaceuticals, or where cosmetic companies used animals in testing,it is clear that not all uses of animals are justifiable.

That said, uses of animals for human research can be considered only another way that animals are consumed by humans. We are a carnivorous animal species. To not admit or recognize that is to be in denial about our own nature. Whether we should be that way is a different question.

Asking these ethical questions is healthy and the right thing to do.

Answer 3

I'm of the impression that it the product or whatever is intended for human use, test it on humans. there are millions of people willing to be guinea pigs and in cases like aids or cancer, these people are already going to die, even they know it. why not take a risk and try something out that may save your life.

Answer 4

Without animal testing, pace makers would not exist and thoudsands of people who are alive today would likely be dead. And there are more examples hundreds more. It is sad yes, and I hate that we haven't found another way, but in this case the ends DO justify the means.

Answer 5

I still say it's better than losing a human life.

Answer 6

No, never mistreat animals...
That does not mean we should not use them for experimentation
under humane conditions when necessary...

Answer 7

no...humans are equal to animals...we shouldn't hurt one to help another

Answer 8

NO I do not think it is right.